A petition to try feinstein for treason

[Forever_frost]

Except they have. Are you saying we should ignore the NFA? Your argument doesn't jive with where the rubber meets the road, dude. You may be correct if we're to assume that the original bill of rights are the only laws that apply to us, but they aren't. That being said, I really enjoy debating you, because you are always technically correct, and you make me think about what I have to say in response. Unfortunately, regardless of what you or I think of gun laws (I personally believe them to be fundamentally unfair), in the real world, SWAT teams are standing by.

Yet they have no authority to do so. They are only capable of it due to the fact that the population buys into their extra-constitutional actions. Yes, we should ignore the NFA and every gun law on the books. It is only through disobedience that change happens. Our Founders were willing to die to cause change. I offer no less. Otherwise, may our chains be light upon us and may history forget our names.

I enjoy these debates. I don't change my arguments as the constitution is black and white. It's like Matt trying to bait me to defend POS Army people because he sucks blue cock and has to come up with scenarios how the police are right. There is only one right answer.

[Jimbo]

Anything is better than nothing.

Interesting site he mentioned.

https://Www.modernmusket.com

[YALE]

Yet they have no authority to do so. They are only capable of it due to the fact that the population buys into their extra-constitutional actions. Yes, we should ignore the NFA and every gun law on the books. It is only through disobedience that change happens. Our Founders were willing to die to cause change. I offer no less. Otherwise, may our chains be light upon us and may history forget our names.

I enjoy these debates. I don't change my arguments as the constitution is black and white. It's like Matt trying to bait me to defend POS Army people because he sucks blue cock and has to come up with scenarios how the police are right. There is only one right answer.

That would be like saying that the Fourteenth Amendment was unconstitutional. That does beg the question: are you saying that newer laws that expand the government's reach unconstitutional because the older laws are merely older?

[Forever_frost]

That would be like saying that the Fourteenth Amendment was unconstitutional. That does beg the question: are you saying that newer laws that expand the government's reach unconstitutional because the older laws are merely older?

Not at all. I'm saying if you cannot find the constitutional authority for a federal law, they do not have the power and thus the law is unconstitutional. There is no power for the federal government to create gun laws. It's not about the age of the law, but where the authority to make the law comes from.

It's not like saying the 14th is unconstitutional. It's an amendment, thus constitutional. If liberals think the fed should have the power to pass gun laws, amend the constitution to grant it.

[YALE]

Not at all. I'm saying if you cannot find the constitutional authority for a federal law, they do not have the power and thus the law is unconstitutional. There is no power for the federal government to create gun laws. It's not about the age of the law, but where the authority to make the law comes from.

It's not like saying the 14th is unconstitutional. It's an amendment, thus constitutional. If liberals think the fed should have the power to pass gun laws, amend the constitution to grant it.

So if they add an amendment doing away with the 2nd amendment, is that unconstitutional?

[Nash B.]

Oh, I know where this is going!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

[Forever_frost]

So if they add an amendment doing away with the 2nd amendment, is that unconstitutional?

Not at all. If they amend the constitution it is by default, constitutional. That's why prohibition was constitutional. They amended it to say so. If they feel they have the votes and the states backing, then call an amendment. Otherwise they have no authority

[YALE]

Not at all. If they amend the constitution it is by default, constitutional. That's why prohibition was constitutional. They amended it to say so. If they feel they have the votes and the states backing, then call an amendment. Otherwise they have no authority

I still fail to see how a Senator calling for a change in a law is grounds for a treason charge.

[Forever_frost]

I still fail to see how a Senator calling for a change in a law is grounds for a treason charge.

Simple. She is violating her oath to the Constitution to uphold it by trying to pass a law that is unconstitutional and exerts unconstitutional authority over citizens who have an enumerated right to keep their arms. Our Founders (and I can pull quotes if you like) saw any sort of gun grab as so anti-freedom and anti Republic that they wrote it into the Constitution in the plainest terms and even added the only tag in the entire document that states that the right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. The 2nd amendment is there to repel and replace a tyrannous government. They are not meant to prevent gun owners from owning anything. It's kind of like trusting a burglar to install a safe and program the code in it for you.

The amendment is there to remove them. Any bill or law granting government the ability to infringe on that right is unconstitutional. Any senator pushing such a bill is in violation of their oath and the constitutional authority. As such, they are declaring war on legal gun owners and will (as she has said) use the full force of the federal government to confiscate said weapons. That is using a military based force (LEOS are now paramilitary organizations) to forcefully remove and take property from citizens without their consent.

That is treason

[YALE]

Simple. She is violating her oath to the Constitution to uphold it by trying to pass a law that is unconstitutional and exerts unconstitutional authority over citizens who have an enumerated right to keep their arms. Our Founders (and I can pull quotes if you like) saw any sort of gun grab as so anti-freedom and anti Republic that they wrote it into the Constitution in the plainest terms and even added the only tag in the entire document that states that the right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. The 2nd amendment is there to repel and replace a tyrannous government. They are not meant to prevent gun owners from owning anything. It's kind of like trusting a burglar to install a safe and program the code in it for you.

The amendment is there to remove them. Any bill or law granting government the ability to infringe on that right is unconstitutional. Any senator pushing such a bill is in violation of their oath and the constitutional authority. As such, they are declaring war on legal gun owners and will (as she has said) use the full force of the federal government to confiscate said weapons. That is using a military based force (LEOS are now paramilitary organizations) to forcefully remove and take property from citizens without their consent.

That is treason

So it's treason until it passes?

[Forever_frost]

So it's treason until it passes?

You mean until an amendment passes that grants that power to the federal government? Yes. It is. Same way one day it was legal to drink and the next it wasn't. Or one day it wasn't legal to drink and the next it was. If they really believe the government should have this power, there is only one way for it to get that power. Amendment. However, I'm all for states calling an Article 5 and bypassing the federal government all together and reigning the fed in.

[YALE]

You mean until an amendment passes that grants that power to the federal government? Yes. It is. Same way one day it was legal to drink and the next it wasn't. Or one day it wasn't legal to drink and the next it was. If they really believe the government should have this power, there is only one way for it to get that power. Amendment. However, I'm all for states calling an Article 5 and bypassing the federal government all together and reigning the fed in.

Sorry dude. Proposing that guns be banned, or proposing that they be seized, prior to the amendment demanding their seizure is not the same as seizing them prior to the amendment passing. Also, if people, regardless of their rank or station in government, went around seizing firearms prior to an amendment passing mandating their seizure by the government, that would not be treason. That would be theft.

[Forever_frost]

It is. If the Constitution does not grant the federal government the authority and they exercise it anyway, that is treason. That is a violation of their mandate and actually enforcing the unconstitutional law is an act of war. How many citizens do you think received their weapons back after the NO weapons confiscation? They sat in piles and rusted and some were sold. Gun owners are still waiting to get their property back after the law was proven unconstitutional.

It's theft when it's a company or individual. It's treason and an act of war when government does it.

Summary, absent a constitutional amendment, any gun confiscation is an act of treason and will be treated as such.

[YALE]

It is not, if we're going strictly by the constitution's definition of treason. You're reading in a governmental violation of the constitution as treason, when it is not always so, and definitely is not in this case. Also, there is no law in place yet, and those people in New Orleans had every right to sue after getting guns illegally confiscated, just like you or I would. There is no law in New Orleans banning private ownership of firearms, so there was no law proven unconstitutional there. What New Orleans has is a police force similar to that of Philidelphia, in that they both have an unwritten, but none the less unconstitutional POLICY of making things hard for gun owners, and especially those that carry legally. Those people (in both cities) have every right to seek redress through the courts (and many of them often do). You still have not made your case.

[mikec]

Nice little video of her discussing her own training and permitting to carry guns.

Yet we should lose ours.