ExpressLane
Verified User
I like Beto he has wasted hundreds of millions of Democrat dollars on two failed campaigns.
Another insane person with aa assault weapon.
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
Geeko Sportivo
Verified User
Let me get this straight, You say our forefathers that represented our government arranged for themselves to be overthrown and killed?
How do you know what our forefathers knew? Did you know any of them personally and asked them about this?
No sir, you have it backasswards. Our forefathers were more concerned about the people rebelling against the government!
TITLE 18—CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE- This title was enacted by act June 25, 1948
§2381. Treason
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
§2383. Rebellion or insurrection
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
§2384. Seditious conspiracy
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
§2385. Advocating overthrow of Government
Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or
Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or
Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named in this section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
As used in this section, the terms "organizes" and "organize", with respect to any society, group, or assembly of persons, include the recruiting of new members, the forming of new units, and the regrouping or expansion of existing clubs, classes, and other units of such society, group, or assembly of persons.
§2389. Recruiting for service against United States
Whoever recruits soldiers or sailors within the United States, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof, to engage in armed hostility against the same; or
Whoever opens within the United States, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof, a recruiting station for the enlistment of such soldiers or sailors to serve in any manner in armed hostility against the United States— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
Please let us know when you feel like the government has turned against you, before you start committing treason and shooting at our government and killing our governmental leaders and those who vote for them- because you feel like our forefathers wanted for you to have this insane right to do so!
Please, and Thank You in Advance!
Last edited:
Sure. For budgetary reasons, which one has the priority? The politicians love lists. If you don't make one, they'll do it for you.
Effectively, yes. They were fighting the idea of monarchism, where one power rules, in the name of democracy, where individual citizens make their own choices.
It was a really radical idea at the time; not just booting out a crazy monarch and the most powerful army in the world, but also the idea of giving power to the people. That power still allows the public to crown themselves a king, high priest, dictator, politburo or other governmental authority in trade for a blanket of security. To an extent, this makes sense, but as JPP proves, the extremists on both ends seek to empower the Federal government to remove or restrict more rights be it gay marriage, abortion, guns, drugs, whatever.
IMO, the only rule should be consenting adults....federally. Locally, they can give up their rights within Constitutional limits.
Like the Founders, I support the idea that our governments should be improving and expanding freedoms, not restricting them. It's easy to take away rights, but harder to preserve rights and still protect the public.
As the man said, we should pick goals "not because they are easy, but because they are hard". We, the People should be doing the harder thing.
Last edited:
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
in a state which has every possible restriction on guns.......
I like Beto he has wasted hundreds of millions of Democrat dollars on two failed campaigns.
Says one of the chumps who gave $ to twump. You found those "fraudulent votes" yet?
NiftyNiblick
1960s Chick Magnet
I'm guessing no based on what I've seen do far.
Here's the problem. One can make a rock solid argument against private ownership of such weaponry, and while that's not hard to do, it simply wouldn't matter.
People WANT them. Our laws exist to give people the kind of society that they want, and lots of people WANT assault weapons.
Some of us don't, but we can't stop the ones who do under our system of government.
Exactly. He should have waited until he was elected before saying stupid shit. Only Republicans can win by saying ridiculous things. Santos and twump are prime examples.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
extreme hyperbolism. you're unequipped to deal with or debate the Constitution
This post deserves a “Thanks.” I read long ago why STY disabled that feature but I’m using a work around to “Thank” it anyway because this is the question that needs to be asked and to which there is only one honest answer.
Do you believe insane people should be allowed assault rifles? We could make what would be an imperfect system that would make it much harder for insane people to get such a gun.
First, what do you believe about the right to bear arms, where are the edges? Is it absolute? Do we include all "arms"? What are the limits and why?
I know these are hard questions, but they deserve to be addressed and would make a good starting point for what is possible.
(All of this said with the belief that addressing mental illness and public access to health care is the easier piece of this equation.)
So where is the line on what is hyperbolism and what is not? I am taking it to an extreme to see if you agree that there is a limit to these rights.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
does this mean that you believe insane people are ok with handguns and shotguns?
in other words, you want everyone to deal with prior restraint of a basic and fundamental right because you believe it would make you safer.
The founders were very clear about how absolute the right to bear arms is. They distrusted government and after having to fight for independence from their previous government that tried to confiscate their arms in order to subjugate them, they decided that the new federal government was to be given absolutely zero power or authority over the arms of the people.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
much appreciated, good sir
SmarterthanYou
rebel
until you can understand how 'absolute' works in conjunction with the 5th Amendment, any debate with you on it is an exercise in futility
Trump and Santos may be facing severe legal problems...which saying stupid shit often does. Beto keeps running for different offices in Texas and keeps losing because of his stupid shit.
So what does absolute mean to you and how does due process come into play?
Do you believe the States have a right to limit firearms?
My experience with shotguns is that they are difficult to fire in a rapid succession after the first two shots. I personally do not believe an insane person should have any firearms.
I keep asking you to explain it to me, but because you refuse I am wondering if you are just saying that.
Let me try it this way....
Do you believe you have an absolute to life, liberty or private property?