Ditchbanker how much fun do you think this would be?

Duck hunting in California topics include: California duck hunting trips, the past hunting seasons, and share information about California duck hunting guides.

Moderators: #1wingnut, duckman2000, PinTeal, finsnfeathershunter

Re: Ditchbanker how much fun do you think this would be?

Postby ducks~n~bucks » Thu Feb 13, 2014 1:29 am

slowshooter wrote:
ditchbanker wrote:
slowshooter wrote:No offense but what the heck are you talking about...


Marsh M is talking about a stand I've taken on the other site
...and that stand is that I believe Military weapons belong in the hands of the Military


All weapons are military weapons.


...and no matter who you are and how responsible you are



Responsibility is transient no matter who you are.


...the 2nd Amendment is not written so that you can play games with any weapon you so choose



Certainly the average guy or gal doesn't need to be playing with weapons of mass destruction. Firearms by their nature are not designed for that activity.

...which has been Constitutionally defined by the National Firearms Act of 1934


So you don't believe that the citizen should have access to same firearms that law enforcement uses? You realize that in the past 10 years the number of people killed by the police (5000+) outnumbers the soldiers killed in the Iraq war?

Worldwide, how many times were US citizens killed last year by a terrorist? 17 total...

You are at least 29 times more likely to be killed by a cop than a terrorist. Is that the America you want?

I think that if the public has access to the same weapons that that law enforcement has - and is allowed to carry - that the continual deployment of SWAT teams to round up deadbeat dads and incomprehensible no knock warrants are practices that would go to the wayside. Also, the kill rate of our fellow citizens would fall.

Call it what you want but when we're being killed at a greater rate than our soldiers in a war zone - it sure isn't freedom.

And no. They aren't keeping us safe - they are killing us.

You may have just made yourself a medium sized dickbag.
ScaupHunter wrote:Oompa Loompa Loofah de do. Who wants to share a Loofa with you?
ducks~n~bucks
McLovin
 
Posts: 3626
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 12:50 pm


Re: Ditchbanker how much fun do you think this would be?

Postby ditchbanker » Thu Feb 13, 2014 1:31 am

ducks~n~bucks wrote:Are you asking the definition of treason? Betraying ones country. Or who sets punishment for treason, which would be congress. But if congress has become corrupt and starts stripping rights in an unconstitutional manner, wouldn't it be up to the people to determine treason?


Try again...the act of committing Treason is much more specific than that
"Good judgment comes from experience, and a lot of that comes from bad judgment." - Will Rogers
User avatar
ditchbanker
hunter
 
Posts: 858
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 11:54 am
Location: berkeley ca

Re: Ditchbanker how much fun do you think this would be?

Postby slowshooter » Thu Feb 13, 2014 1:32 am

ditchbanker wrote:
ducks~n~bucks wrote:
ditchbanker wrote:
slowshooter wrote:No offense but what the heck are you talking about...


Marsh M is talking about a stand I've taken on the other site
...and that stand is that I believe Military weapons belong in the hands of the Military
...and no matter who you are and how responsible you are
...the 2nd Amendment is not written so that you can play games with any weapon you so choose
...which has been Constitutionally defined by the National Firearms Act of 1934

No, but the 2nd amendment IS written so you can protect yourself against a tyrannical government, and in order to do so you need firepower that at least comes close to theirs.


Kind of...but if you read the ENTIRE constitution...you might notice the part where Treason is a no-no


But overthrowing a tyrannical government isn't treason - it's an American's duty.
It's how we started. It will be how we survive the soldiers of a corporate hegemony.
All this for a bowl of borscht.
User avatar
slowshooter
hunter
 
Posts: 9011
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:44 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: Ditchbanker how much fun do you think this would be?

Postby slowshooter » Thu Feb 13, 2014 1:33 am

ducks~n~bucks wrote:
slowshooter wrote:
ditchbanker wrote:
slowshooter wrote:No offense but what the heck are you talking about...


Marsh M is talking about a stand I've taken on the other site
...and that stand is that I believe Military weapons belong in the hands of the Military


All weapons are military weapons.


...and no matter who you are and how responsible you are



Responsibility is transient no matter who you are.


...the 2nd Amendment is not written so that you can play games with any weapon you so choose



Certainly the average guy or gal doesn't need to be playing with weapons of mass destruction. Firearms by their nature are not designed for that activity.

...which has been Constitutionally defined by the National Firearms Act of 1934


So you don't believe that the citizen should have access to same firearms that law enforcement uses? You realize that in the past 10 years the number of people killed by the police (5000+) outnumbers the soldiers killed in the Iraq war?

Worldwide, how many times were US citizens killed last year by a terrorist? 17 total...

You are at least 29 times more likely to be killed by a cop than a terrorist. Is that the America you want?

I think that if the public has access to the same weapons that that law enforcement has - and is allowed to carry - that the continual deployment of SWAT teams to round up deadbeat dads and incomprehensible no knock warrants are practices that would go to the wayside. Also, the kill rate of our fellow citizens would fall.

Call it what you want but when we're being killed at a greater rate than our soldiers in a war zone - it sure isn't freedom.

And no. They aren't keeping us safe - they are killing us.

You may have just made yourself a medium sized dickbag.


:grooving: :grooving:
All this for a bowl of borscht.
User avatar
slowshooter
hunter
 
Posts: 9011
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:44 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: Ditchbanker how much fun do you think this would be?

Postby ducks~n~bucks » Thu Feb 13, 2014 1:38 am

ditchbanker wrote:
ducks~n~bucks wrote:Are you asking the definition of treason? Betraying ones country. Or who sets punishment for treason, which would be congress. But if congress has become corrupt and starts stripping rights in an unconstitutional manner, wouldn't it be up to the people to determine treason?


Try again...the act of committing Treason is much more specific than that

I left out part, especially by trying to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government. But if the government officials turn tyrannical they have already attempted to overthrow the government and eliminate the presidency or "Kill the sovereign" Maybe not the president himself, but he only represents the position.
ScaupHunter wrote:Oompa Loompa Loofah de do. Who wants to share a Loofa with you?
ducks~n~bucks
McLovin
 
Posts: 3626
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 12:50 pm

Re: Ditchbanker how much fun do you think this would be?

Postby ditchbanker » Thu Feb 13, 2014 1:48 am

slowshooter wrote:
ditchbanker wrote:
slowshooter wrote:No offense but what the heck are you talking about...


Marsh M is talking about a stand I've taken on the other site
...and that stand is that I believe Military weapons belong in the hands of the Military


All weapons are military weapons. Not true...although if I were in the Military, I would certainly use ANYTHING handy to dispatch my target


...and no matter who you are and how responsible you are



Responsibility is transient no matter who you are. Okay...so we should stop using personal responsibility as a rationale for owning/operating deadly tools???...I think the NRA would choke on that idea


...the 2nd Amendment is not written so that you can play games with any weapon you so choose



Certainly the average guy or gal doesn't need to be playing with weapons of mass destruction. Firearms by their nature are not designed for that activity. True enough, most are not...but let us say you knew some wackadoodle hell bent on killing as many schoolkids as he could in the shortest amount of time possible before killing himself...and this particular wackadoodle decided a .223 was the best caliber to use for the task...then he has at his disposal a Ruger No 1 (designed for hnting) or a Bushmaster (designed for the efficiency of cycling as many rounds as possible in the shortest amount of time...even as a semi-auto...which weapon do you think the wackadoodle chooses to accomplish his task???...

...which has been Constitutionally defined by the National Firearms Act of 1934


So you don't believe that the citizen should have access to same firearms that law enforcement uses? You realize that in the past 10 years the number of people killed by the police (5000+) outnumbers the soldiers killed in the Iraq war? Yeah...police are paid to protect those of us against those who dont follow the rules...sort of a fundamental concept of safety and protection...not of destruction

Worldwide, how many times were US citizens killed last year by a terrorist? 17 total...Domestically, how may US Citizens were killed last by terrorists (or anybody else)

You are at least 29 times more likely to be killed by a cop than a terrorist. Is that the America you want? YES

I think that if the public has access to the same weapons that that law enforcement has - and is allowed to carry - that the continual deployment of SWAT teams to round up deadbeat dads and incomprehensible no knock warrants are practices that would go to the wayside. Also, the kill rate of our fellow citizens would fall. Some of our fellow citizens need to die...and we;ve empowered LEO to do that for us so that we do not have anarchy and need to do it ourselves

Call it what you want but when we're being killed at a greater rate than our soldiers in a war zone - it sure isn't freedom.Sure it is...because we have Democratically empowered them to do so...on our behalf...

And no. They aren't keeping us safe - they are killing us.Some of us...and sometimes the wrong ones


The Wild West rule of the individual is a romantic notion...although it was never as prevalent as our movies would have us believe...

The Taliban would like not only the Middle East but all the rest of the world to either die or comply with Gods Order (their definition of God...not Yours or Mine)...Anarchy is a slippery slope my friend.
"Good judgment comes from experience, and a lot of that comes from bad judgment." - Will Rogers
User avatar
ditchbanker
hunter
 
Posts: 858
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 11:54 am
Location: berkeley ca

Re: Ditchbanker how much fun do you think this would be?

Postby slowshooter » Thu Feb 13, 2014 1:49 am

Ditch this is where I thing your logic fails.

Should the USA end up in the hands of a tyrant? That means that our government has ALREADY been compromised by a soft coup. Americans at that point would not be revolting against the principles of our founders but of a government gone bad.

Governments can be replaced. But the country, should people remain true to the union, would be better for a revolt at that point.

I think that day is a long way off... Maybe it's not... But it's inevitable as corporations and the monied will quash any effort to stop the cash flowing in their direction. Eventually the middle class will cease to exist and only then will the average joe get angry enough to fight - probably right about the time each one of us with a gun is monitored day and night.

How about this. The cops can't have any firearms that the general public can have. And the average joe can carry as well. Sounds good to me.
All this for a bowl of borscht.
User avatar
slowshooter
hunter
 
Posts: 9011
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:44 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: Ditchbanker how much fun do you think this would be?

Postby ditchbanker » Thu Feb 13, 2014 2:01 am

ducks~n~bucks wrote:...I left out part, especially by trying to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government. But if the government officials turn tyrannical they have already attempted to overthrow the government and eliminate the presidency or "Kill the sovereign" Maybe not the president himself, but he only represents the position.


Ponder this about Treason...

...Building on the tradition begun by Edward III, the Founding Fathers carefully delineated the crime of treason in Article III of the U.S. Constitution, narrowly defining its elements and setting forth stringent evidentiary requirements.

Under Article III, Section 3, of the Constitution, any person who levies war against the United States or adheres to its enemies by giving them Aid and Comfort has committed treason within the meaning of the Constitution. The term aid and comfort refers to any act that manifests a betrayal of allegiance to the United States, such as furnishing enemies with arms, troops, transportation, shelter, or classified information. If a subversive act has any tendency to weaken the power of the United States to attack or resist its enemies, aid and comfort has been given.

...Under Article III a person can levy war against the United States without the use of arms, weapons, or military equipment. Persons who play only a peripheral role in a conspiracy to levy war are still considered traitors under the Constitution if an armed rebellion against the United States results. After the U.S. Civil War, for example, all Confederate soldiers were vulnerable to charges of treason, regardless of their role in the secession or insurrection of the Southern states. No treason charges were filed against these soldiers, however, because President Andrew Johnson issued a universal Amnesty.

The crime of treason requires a traitorous intent...Unexpressed seditious thoughts do not constitute treason, even if those thoughts contemplate a bloody revolution or coup. Nor does the public expression of subversive opinions, including vehement criticism of the government and its policies, constitute treason. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right of all Americans to advocate the violent overthrow of their government unless such advocacy is directed toward inciting imminent lawless action and is likely to produce it ...

Point is...DEBATING rebellion is NOT Treason...but Treason...punishable by death...occurs when an individual takes ACTION with the specific INTENT of rebellion...I then ask...if Arms are purchased or stockpiled (an ACTION) for the specific INTENT of violent revolution...has a person then committed Treason?
"Good judgment comes from experience, and a lot of that comes from bad judgment." - Will Rogers
User avatar
ditchbanker
hunter
 
Posts: 858
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 11:54 am
Location: berkeley ca

Re: Ditchbanker how much fun do you think this would be?

Postby ducks~n~bucks » Thu Feb 13, 2014 2:08 am

ditchbanker wrote:
ducks~n~bucks wrote:...I left out part, especially by trying to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government. But if the government officials turn tyrannical they have already attempted to overthrow the government and eliminate the presidency or "Kill the sovereign" Maybe not the president himself, but he only represents the position.


Ponder this about Treason...

...Building on the tradition begun by Edward III, the Founding Fathers carefully delineated the crime of treason in Article III of the U.S. Constitution, narrowly defining its elements and setting forth stringent evidentiary requirements.

Under Article III, Section 3, of the Constitution, any person who levies war against the United States or adheres to its enemies by giving them Aid and Comfort has committed treason within the meaning of the Constitution. The term aid and comfort refers to any act that manifests a betrayal of allegiance to the United States, such as furnishing enemies with arms, troops, transportation, shelter, or classified information. If a subversive act has any tendency to weaken the power of the United States to attack or resist its enemies, aid and comfort has been given.

...Under Article III a person can levy war against the United States without the use of arms, weapons, or military equipment. Persons who play only a peripheral role in a conspiracy to levy war are still considered traitors under the Constitution if an armed rebellion against the United States results. After the U.S. Civil War, for example, all Confederate soldiers were vulnerable to charges of treason, regardless of their role in the secession or insurrection of the Southern states. No treason charges were filed against these soldiers, however, because President Andrew Johnson issued a universal Amnesty.

The crime of treason requires a traitorous intent...Unexpressed seditious thoughts do not constitute treason, even if those thoughts contemplate a bloody revolution or coup. Nor does the public expression of subversive opinions, including vehement criticism of the government and its policies, constitute treason. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right of all Americans to advocate the violent overthrow of their government unless such advocacy is directed toward inciting imminent lawless action and is likely to produce it ...

Point is...DEBATING rebellion is NOT Treason...but Treason...punishable by death...occurs when an individual takes ACTION with the specific INTENT of rebellion...I then ask...if Arms are purchased or stockpiled (an ACTION) for the specific INTENT of violent revolution...has a person then committed Treason?

No, because they are stockpiling weapons in order to protect the country from treason. The constitution states "to the security of a free state" They are stockpiling weapons in order to keep the security of a free state.
ScaupHunter wrote:Oompa Loompa Loofah de do. Who wants to share a Loofa with you?
ducks~n~bucks
McLovin
 
Posts: 3626
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 12:50 pm

Re: Ditchbanker how much fun do you think this would be?

Postby ditchbanker » Thu Feb 13, 2014 2:24 am

slowshooter wrote:Ditch this is where I thing your logic fails.

Should the USA end up in the hands of a tyrant? That means that our government has ALREADY been compromised by a soft coup. Americans at that point would not be revolting against the principles of our founders but of a government gone bad. Invasion by a Foreign entity...yes...Unelected Military Betrayal/Coup...yes...Majority rule changing our Laws...even our Constitution...no...our Laws and Constitution are living Contracts with Ourselves...changing them is called Democracy...even if/when we disagree with the changes

Governments can be replaced. But the country, should people remain true to the union, would be better for a revolt at that point. Sure...but thats a big 'what if' to risk so many other problems on

I think that day is a long way off... Maybe it's not... agreedBut it's inevitable as corporations and the monied will quash any effort to stop the cash flowing in their direction. A dark outlook...but possible Eventually the middle class will cease to exist and only then will the average joe get angry enough to fight - probably right about the time each one of us with a gun is monitored day and night.

How about this. The cops can't have any firearms that the general public can have. And the average joe can carry as well. Sounds good to me. How about this...the cops can only have the weapons we Democratically decide they get to have...the rest of us get to have the weapons we Democratically decide we get to have...My vote is that we get weapons appropriate for Hunting and Shooting Sports...those same weapons can be used for protection...but we dont get to have weapons that to put us on an equal playing field with our own Military and LEO


WE know best the difference between Sporting Arms and Arms used for Military purposes...and I stand by my original premise...military weapons belong in the hands of the Military...not you & me.
"Good judgment comes from experience, and a lot of that comes from bad judgment." - Will Rogers
User avatar
ditchbanker
hunter
 
Posts: 858
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 11:54 am
Location: berkeley ca

Re: Ditchbanker how much fun do you think this would be?

Postby Bootlipkiller » Thu Feb 13, 2014 2:42 am

marsh-mello wrote:
slowshooter wrote:
ducks~n~bucks wrote:
slowshooter wrote:No offense but what the heck are you talking about...

He doesn't think we should be allowed to own machine guns. He wants us to be defenseless sheep when the government turns tyrannical. I think the world would be a better place if we could have machine guns. Would you be so quick to cut someone off or steal their parking spot if they had a fifty cal mounted to their vehicle?


Sure. I drive a tank.


No you don't you drive a toaster... :lol3: :lol3: :lol3:


This does not surprise me. :lol:


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
join the Coot Crusaders!!!
User avatar
Bootlipkiller
hunter
 
Posts: 783
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 5:52 am
Location: you stay classy Sutter County. Im Ron Burgandy???

Re: Ditchbanker how much fun do you think this would be?

Postby slowshooter » Thu Feb 13, 2014 3:08 am

ditchbanker wrote:All weapons are military weapons. Not true...although if I were in the Military, I would certainly use ANYTHING handy to dispatch my target


Name a weapon that has been used to kill something that hasn't been used as a weapon of war at some point. Flintlocks, bbguns, knives, autos, O/Us, pumps, rifles and pistols. Swords and even wrist rockets have been used in uprisings and outright war. Those that revolt are doing EXACTLY what you said you would certainly do.

Responsibility is transient no matter who you are. Okay...so we should stop using personal responsibility as a rationale for owning/operating deadly tools???...I think the NRA would choke on that idea


What I'm saying is that no matter how responsible someone might feel they are 24/7. Folks get old, go mad, are forgetful and sometimes become enraged because they walk into a rape scenario featuring their daughter... When it comes to changes in everyone's life we can't control everything -- when it comes to relying on our better angels when we see someone hurting the ones we love? All bets are off - because the better angels take a back seat.

That is life. Not acknowledging issues as those listed above doesn't make them go away.


Certainly the average guy or gal doesn't need to be playing with weapons of mass destruction. Firearms by their nature are not designed for that activity. True enough, most are not...but let us say you knew some wackadoodle hell bent on killing as many schoolkids as he could in the shortest amount of time possible before killing himself...and this particular wackadoodle decided a .223 was the best caliber to use for the task...then he has at his disposal a Ruger No 1 (designed for hnting) or a Bushmaster (designed for the efficiency of cycling as many rounds as possible in the shortest amount of time...even as a semi-auto...which weapon do you think the wackadoodle chooses to accomplish his task???...


It doesn't matter what he uses. He's a whackadoodle as you pointed out. He could just as easily run a bunch of school kids down at recess or just do what works for segregationists and use a bomb. The sad net of that is that you can't stop crazy people from being crazy any more than you can stop them from making crazy decisions....

You might as well demand that acids and bases be made illegal as well since they can be used to hurt people. How bout furniture and fatty food? They kill a lot of folks as well, many more than crazies do and regularly as well.

Heart disease: 597,689
Cancer: 574,743
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 138,080
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 129,476
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 120,859
Alzheimer's disease: 83,494
Diabetes: 69,071
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 50,476
Influenza and Pneumonia: 50,097
Intentional self-harm (suicide): 38,364

There's the top 10 ways to die in the USA. I don't see massacres on there.

So you don't believe that the citizen should have access to same firearms that law enforcement uses? You realize that in the past 10 years the number of people killed by the police (5000+) outnumbers the soldiers killed in the Iraq war? Yeah...police are paid to protect those of us against those who dont follow the rules...sort of a fundamental concept of safety and protection...not of destruction


When you pay for a meal is it always great? The exchange of money for services doesn't mean anything in terms of what you are going to get. If you believe that every shooting is legitimate then you are confusing a shooting that has been justified by the current rules of engagement - with actual justice. There is a lot of grass between the two.


Worldwide, how many times were US citizens killed last year by a terrorist? 17 total...Domestically, how may US Citizens were killed last by terrorists (or anybody else)


Again, it doesn't matter. The response to kill by the police has nothing to do with what crazy or enraged people might do.
You are at least 29 times more likely to be killed by a cop than a terrorist. Is that the America you want? YES


Then you see your safety as more important than your essential liberty (or for that matter - anyone else's). Go read up on some Benjamin Franklin.

I think that if the public has access to the same weapons that that law enforcement has - and is allowed to carry - that the continual deployment of SWAT teams to round up deadbeat dads and incomprehensible no knock warrants are practices that would go to the wayside. Also, the kill rate of our fellow citizens would fall. Some of our fellow citizens need to die...and we;ve empowered LEO to do that for us so that we do not have anarchy and need to do it ourselves


The current background search already determines if the person purchasing a gun is a threat. If they are they can't buy.
So having folks that can obtain a firearm legitimately carrying wouldn't be anarchy at all.

I would rather have the folks that police would kill behind bars - and the criminals behinds bars that don't need to be there released. Pot growers and smokers really don't need to be doing a quarter or dime in prison.

Call it what you want but when we're being killed at a greater rate than our soldiers in a war zone - it sure isn't freedom.Sure it is...because we have Democratically empowered them to do so...on our behalf...


No, we haven't agreed to our protectors killing fellow citizens at a rate faster than armed Islamic holy warriors. Nor have we agreed that the militarization of our local police forces is needed or necessary. The US government is pushing that by provided price breaks or outright giving police departments access to military gear.

And no. They aren't keeping us safe - they are killing us.Some of us...and sometimes the wrong ones


That should weigh heavily on all of us. If our own state is a murderous, and we turn a blind eye, we really don't have much in the way of credibility when we tell other countries that we expect them to behave better.

The Wild West rule of the individual is a romantic notion...although it was never as prevalent as our movies would have us believe...


No one is asking for the Wild West. In fact, the idea that a beat cop who is hired because they are average intelligence or below (so they don't quit their jobs once they get bored) can be charged with the responsibility to be judge, jury and executioner is a laughable proposition. But that's what we have and it's closer to the Wild West than you might want to accept.

The Taliban would like not only the Middle East but all the rest of the world to either die or comply with Gods Order (their definition of God...not Yours or Mine)...Anarchy is a slippery slope my friend.


I don't fear anarchy. I fear subjugation. And with every step the state takes to gain more power and visibility into our lives, it gets closer to publicly being the Big Brother it already is privately.
All this for a bowl of borscht.
User avatar
slowshooter
hunter
 
Posts: 9011
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:44 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: Ditchbanker how much fun do you think this would be?

Postby slowshooter » Thu Feb 13, 2014 3:45 am

ditchbanker wrote:
slowshooter wrote:Ditch this is where I thing your logic fails.

Should the USA end up in the hands of a tyrant? That means that our government has ALREADY been compromised by a soft coup. Americans at that point would not be revolting against the principles of our founders but of a government gone bad. Invasion by a Foreign entity...yes...Unelected Military Betrayal/Coup...yes...Majority rule changing our Laws...even our Constitution...no...our Laws and Constitution are living Contracts with Ourselves...changing them is called Democracy...even if/when we disagree with the changes


Majority of who? The voters? Some are getting locked out. Also, gerrymandering guarantees reelection in most cases. Do you think that a politician that gets his district so gerrymandered that he can run unopposed is democracy?

How about the effect and affect of money? Most representatives no longer represent their districts at all. In order they represent their own self interests, their corporate masters, their party and if you are lucky they might get some pork back for the district to ensure reelection. See what's missing there? The average citizen's representation.

Money has already taken the country out of the hands of the citizens. Now it's just a matter of time before the clock ticks down to zero and people start hunting bankers and the rich. Don't believe me? Wait. When it happens you can come back here when the internet is turned back on by the People Revolutionary Army of Yosemite (PRAY) and say "Hey Slow, you were right! All the males in my entire family are living in Manzanar and while my sisters, female cousins and nieces are now comfort girls for the local militia, we get Dinty Moore once a month! It's so good and we're way better off than those guys in Salinas."

Governments can be replaced. But the country, should people remain true to the union, would be better for a revolt at that point. Sure...but thats a big 'what if' to risk so many other problems on


If you have doubt then stay home. The revolution would come to you eventually.

I think that day is a long way off... Maybe it's not... agreedBut it's inevitable as corporations and the monied will quash any effort to stop the cash flowing in their direction. A dark outlook...but possible Eventually the middle class will cease to exist and only then will the average joe get angry enough to fight - probably right about the time each one of us with a gun is monitored day and night.

How about this. The cops can't have any firearms that the general public can have. And the average joe can carry as well. Sounds good to me. How about this...the cops can only have the weapons we Democratically decide they get to have...the rest of us get to have the weapons we Democratically decide we get to have...My vote is that we get weapons appropriate for Hunting and Shooting Sports...those same weapons can be used for protection...but we dont get to have weapons that to put us on an equal playing field with our own Military and LEO


That's the point. Local LEO shouldn't be playing with war toys. It's that simple. If they do then we should get them as well. If they don't then we don't either. The rules that apply to us should apply to them. No compromise on my part there. If they get large capacity mags - then legit buyers should have access to them as well.

WE know best the difference between Sporting Arms and Arms used for Military purposes...and I stand by my original premise...military weapons belong in the hands of the Military...not you & me.


And that's a problem. Those that hold power get to decide how to define a military weapon, correct? But the people no longer have that power. Looks like it. Smells like it. But it's just not so.

Look at the evidence provided by the scary black rifle bans efforts. The President or Congress could ban guns tomorrow the only reason they haven't is that we still have guns and ammo... The Supreme Court is made up of a bunch corporatists and they would agree with a ban because it would protect their clients and the client state. But ammo? It's running low now isn't it?

We've surrendered the decision making in this country for 99.9% of what goes on... And you, out of the desire for comfort, would surrender that last 1% - and would find acceptable that any definition of banned items cobbled together by those in power... As long as it was prefaced with the word "military".

That's unacceptable to me.
Last edited by slowshooter on Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
All this for a bowl of borscht.
User avatar
slowshooter
hunter
 
Posts: 9011
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:44 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: Ditchbanker how much fun do you think this would be?

Postby slowshooter » Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:22 am

ditchbanker wrote:
ducks~n~bucks wrote:...I left out part, especially by trying to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government. But if the government officials turn tyrannical they have already attempted to overthrow the government and eliminate the presidency or "Kill the sovereign" Maybe not the president himself, but he only represents the position.


Ponder this about Treason...

...Building on the tradition begun by Edward III, the Founding Fathers carefully delineated the crime of treason in Article III of the U.S. Constitution, narrowly defining its elements and setting forth stringent evidentiary requirements.

Under Article III, Section 3, of the Constitution, any person who levies war against the United States or adheres to its enemies by giving them Aid and Comfort has committed treason within the meaning of the Constitution. The term aid and comfort refers to any act that manifests a betrayal of allegiance to the United States, such as furnishing enemies with arms, troops, transportation, shelter, or classified information. If a subversive act has any tendency to weaken the power of the United States to attack or resist its enemies, aid and comfort has been given.

...Under Article III a person can levy war against the United States without the use of arms, weapons, or military equipment. Persons who play only a peripheral role in a conspiracy to levy war are still considered traitors under the Constitution if an armed rebellion against the United States results. After the U.S. Civil War, for example, all Confederate soldiers were vulnerable to charges of treason, regardless of their role in the secession or insurrection of the Southern states. No treason charges were filed against these soldiers, however, because President Andrew Johnson issued a universal Amnesty.

The crime of treason requires a traitorous intent...Unexpressed seditious thoughts do not constitute treason, even if those thoughts contemplate a bloody revolution or coup. Nor does the public expression of subversive opinions, including vehement criticism of the government and its policies, constitute treason. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right of all Americans to advocate the violent overthrow of their government unless such advocacy is directed toward inciting imminent lawless action and is likely to produce it ...

Point is...DEBATING rebellion is NOT Treason...but Treason...punishable by death...occurs when an individual takes ACTION with the specific INTENT of rebellion...I then ask...if Arms are purchased or stockpiled (an ACTION) for the specific INTENT of violent revolution...has a person then committed Treason?



You have surrendered everything to whoever sits in Washington.

It's up to everyone on their own to decided if their government no longer exists in a form that is acceptable. The south tried to leave and lost. They WERE treasonous. But had they won? They would have just been successful revolutionaries and just another trading partner today.

You seem to be confusing treason with reason - they aren't interchangeable. Despite the fact that one can lead to the other - on paper and in action.

You've been circular about this for awhile and it's sort of a failed argument. If someone decides that their government is tyrannical and decides to fight - sure the government could say it's treason - but as a citizen... It's free will and not so much treasonous as duty...

If you decided to pick up that pitchfork or torch and fail? If the story gets out about what you have done, and it's debatable if that's even possible anymore, you would be considered a martyr. Or, if the government managed to tune the tale first, it's likely your tale of patriotism would just be about a dope that didn't like whoever was in office and tried to drive his ice cream truck through the Department of Paper Clips and Ham.

I remember having this discussion with you once before and you were seeking refuge by quoting the definition of treason - without considering what would drive people to dismantle their government. The reality is that people don't revolt against governments that are doing the right things. The 2nd still means something and that something is defined by how the government serves it's people or terrorizes them. If the 2nd is there so we can defend ourselves then it stands to reason we can't give up the tools with which we would overthrow a bad government - and that has nothing to do with how good our government is today....

I never understood folks that believe that because things are rosy that things will remain that way... Countries and their political systems die, mutate, change and sometimes go bad. How many have lasted as paragons of goodness since civilization began? None. So look up from the computer and stop digging up definitions to intellectualize something that is really quite simple.

You can prepare to fight for change when it's needed - or be carried along by change because you are powerless. Your choice. The definition of treason has nothing to do with that at all.

Personally? I really do think we are headed for a fall. And an epic one at that. The economy is unsustainable if the middle class has no money to spend. IMO we are in the last stages of a great reaping run by those that fleece us every 70 years.

So hang on to your hat.
All this for a bowl of borscht.
User avatar
slowshooter
hunter
 
Posts: 9011
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:44 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: Ditchbanker how much fun do you think this would be?

Postby slowshooter » Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:26 am

Bootlipkiller wrote:
marsh-mello wrote:
slowshooter wrote:
ducks~n~bucks wrote:
slowshooter wrote:No offense but what the heck are you talking about...

He doesn't think we should be allowed to own machine guns. He wants us to be defenseless sheep when the government turns tyrannical. I think the world would be a better place if we could have machine guns. Would you be so quick to cut someone off or steal their parking spot if they had a fifty cal mounted to their vehicle?


Sure. I drive a tank.


No you don't you drive a toaster... :lol3: :lol3: :lol3:


This does not surprise me. :lol:



Chick dig it.

(not really but I keep hoping)
All this for a bowl of borscht.
User avatar
slowshooter
hunter
 
Posts: 9011
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:44 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: Ditchbanker how much fun do you think this would be?

Postby LeakyW8ers » Thu Feb 13, 2014 8:15 am

marsh-mello wrote:
slowshooter wrote:
Sure. I drive a tank.


No you don't you drive a toaster... :lol3: :lol3: :lol3:


BWAAAAAHAHAHA! Literally lol'd.
If at first you don't succeed, maybe skydiving isn't for you.

California Waterfowl Association Life Member
Ducks Unlimited Member
National Rifle Association Member
User avatar
LeakyW8ers
hunter
 
Posts: 1048
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 11:49 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: Ditchbanker how much fun do you think this would be?

Postby ditchbanker » Thu Feb 13, 2014 10:41 am

slowshooter wrote:
You have surrendered everything to whoever sits in Washington. Nope...I've empowered who sits there by virtue of our Democratic process...and in so doing I've surrendered nothing

It's up to everyone on their own to decided if their government no longer exists in a form that is acceptable. Fair pointThe south tried to leave and lost. They didn't really try to leave...they tried to Revolt They WERE treasonous. But had they won? They would have just been successful revolutionaries and just another trading partner today. They didnt win...supposing otherwise is in the realm of Hollywood

You seem to be confusing treason with reason - they aren't interchangeable. hmmmm...I'm not confused about it at allDespite the fact that one can lead to the other - on paper and in action.

You've been circular about this for awhile and it's sort of a failed argument. hmmm...If you think I've missed the Constitutional definition of Treason...show me how the Constitution defines it otherwise If someone decides that their government is tyrannical and decides to fight - sure the government could say it's treason - but as a citizen... It's free will and not so much treasonous as duty...hmmmm...it's my duty as a US Citizen to commit Treason?...now who is circular and confused?

If you decided to pick up that pitchfor r torch and fail? If the story gets out about what you have done, and it's debatable if that's even possible anymore, you would be considered a martyr. Or, if the government managed to tune the tale first, it's likely your tale of patriotism would just be about a dope that didn't like whoever was in office and tried to drive his ice cream truck through the Department of Paper Clips and Ham. plenty of dopes out there try crazy stuff like that...and we kill them

I remember having this discussion with you once before and you were seeking refuge by quoting the definition of treasonseeking refuge?...really?...I like our Constitution...the entire thing...not merely the 1/2 of one sentence out of context with the whole...you know...that portion of the Amendment that a powerful gun lobby has helped the gun manufacturing industry with? - without considering what would drive people to dismantle their government. dismantle? another word for Treason? If the 2nd is there so we can defend ourselves then it stands to reason we can't give up the tools with which we would overthrow a bad government - and that has nothing to do with how good our government is today....

I never understood folks that believe that because things are rosy that things will remain that way... Countries and their political systems die, mutate, change and sometimes go bad. How many have lasted as paragons of goodness since civilization began? None. So look up from the computer and stop digging up definitions to intellectualize something that is really quite simple. Okay...I will stop looking for definitions...if you will stop trying to sell the idea that our Freedoms and Liberties hinge on the 1 Constitutional sentence you have decided is relevant...our Constitution is so much more than that

You can prepare to fight for change when it's needed - or be carried along by change because you are powerless. Your choice. The definition of treason has nothing to do with that at all. wrong

Personally? I really do think we are headed for a fall. And an epic one at that. ...the NRA has invested decades of propaganda so that you might fear that...and just who is it again that the NRA represents?...they would have you believe they represent Patriotism...you know...that idea that it is your Patriotic duty to arm yourself for the violent overthrow of your government...they've done a really good job convincing many people about that The economy is unsustainable if the middle class has no money to spend. IMO we are in the last stages of a great reaping run by those that fleece us every 70 years.

So hang on to your hat.


...hmmm...plenty to ponder here
"Good judgment comes from experience, and a lot of that comes from bad judgment." - Will Rogers
User avatar
ditchbanker
hunter
 
Posts: 858
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 11:54 am
Location: berkeley ca

Re: Ditchbanker how much fun do you think this would be?

Postby LeakyW8ers » Thu Feb 13, 2014 10:42 am

slowshooter wrote:You have surrendered everything to whoever sits in Washington.

It's up to everyone on their own to decided if their government no longer exists in a form that is acceptable. The south tried to leave and lost. They WERE treasonous. But had they won? They would have just been successful revolutionaries and just another trading partner today.

You seem to be confusing treason with reason - they aren't interchangeable. Despite the fact that one can lead to the other - on paper and in action.

You've been circular about this for awhile and it's sort of a failed argument. If someone decides that their government is tyrannical and decides to fight - sure the government could say it's treason - but as a citizen... It's free will and not so much treasonous as duty...

If you decided to pick up that pitchfork or torch and fail? If the story gets out about what you have done, and it's debatable if that's even possible anymore, you would be considered a martyr. Or, if the government managed to tune the tale first, it's likely your tale of patriotism would just be about a dope that didn't like whoever was in office and tried to drive his ice cream truck through the Department of Paper Clips and Ham.

I remember having this discussion with you once before and you were seeking refuge by quoting the definition of treason - without considering what would drive people to dismantle their government. The reality is that people don't revolt against governments that are doing the right things. The 2nd still means something and that something is defined by how the government serves it's people or terrorizes them. If the 2nd is there so we can defend ourselves then it stands to reason we can't give up the tools with which we would overthrow a bad government - and that has nothing to do with how good our government is today....

I never understood folks that believe that because things are rosy that things will remain that way... Countries and their political systems die, mutate, change and sometimes go bad. How many have lasted as paragons of goodness since civilization began? None. So look up from the computer and stop digging up definitions to intellectualize something that is really quite simple.

You can prepare to fight for change when it's needed - or be carried along by change because you are powerless. Your choice. The definition of treason has nothing to do with that at all.

Personally? I really do think we are headed for a fall. And an epic one at that. The economy is unsustainable if the middle class has no money to spend. IMO we are in the last stages of a great reaping run by those that fleece us every 70 years.

So hang on to your hat.


:clapping:

Very well put.
If at first you don't succeed, maybe skydiving isn't for you.

California Waterfowl Association Life Member
Ducks Unlimited Member
National Rifle Association Member
User avatar
LeakyW8ers
hunter
 
Posts: 1048
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 11:49 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: Ditchbanker how much fun do you think this would be?

Postby slowshooter » Thu Feb 13, 2014 1:50 pm

ditchbanker wrote:
slowshooter wrote:
You have surrendered everything to whoever sits in Washington. Nope...I've empowered who sits there by virtue of our Democratic process...and in so doing I've surrendered nothing



You haven't empowered anyone. You are simply choosing from a menu that has two items. A menu written by political parties that toady to business for funding.

Do you honestly believe you are being presented the best candidates or that there is a significant difference to the parties, once you push aside the wedge issues used to fleece the politically or emotionally retarded? Recognize that because an election happens, doesn't mean that you have input to the results - especially if the results are framed by candidate selection long before you walk into the booth.

It's up to everyone on their own to decided if their government no longer exists in a form that is acceptable. Fair pointThe south tried to leave and lost. They didn't really try to leave...they tried to Revolt They WERE treasonous. But had they won? They would have just been successful revolutionaries and just another trading partner today. They didnt win...supposing otherwise is in the realm of Hollywood


History is written by the winners not the losers. If a citizen sees injustice and tyranny they can either bow their heads and live as subjects, work to make changes within the system and failing that - revolt. There aren't any other options. In short, the civil war provided us a lesson that is still trenchant, that citizens as well as the government should heed. Even people that live in comfort have a breaking point.

You seem to be confusing treason with reason - they aren't interchangeable. hmmmm...I'm not confused about it at allDespite the fact that one can lead to the other - on paper and in action.

You've been circular about this for awhile and it's sort of a failed argument. hmmm...If you think I've missed the Constitutional definition of Treason...show me how the Constitution defines it otherwise If someone decides that their government is tyrannical and decides to fight - sure the government could say it's treason - but as a citizen... It's free will and not so much treasonous as duty...hmmmm...it's my duty as a US Citizen to commit Treason?...now who is circular and confused?


No, it's your duty to protect the STATE from a tyrannical GOVERNMENT. They are not one and the same. An unethical government that holds forth on what is treason - because they have captured the state - has nothing to do with what people believe is right and wrong. That tyrannical government should and would be replaced.

Do you believe that a tyrannical government in control of the state, should never have to face rebellion because to rebel, no matter what, is treasonous? It's an easy yes or no answer... Pick one.


If you decided to pick up that pitchfork or torch and fail? If the story gets out about what you have done, and it's debatable if that's even possible anymore, you would be considered a martyr. Or, if the government managed to tune the tale first, it's likely your tale of patriotism would just be about a dope that didn't like whoever was in office and tried to drive his ice cream truck through the Department of Paper Clips and Ham. plenty of dopes out there try crazy stuff like that...and we kill them


You miss the point. Revolution isn't crazy - it's inevitable unless disaster, ennui or war wipes out the state first. Revolutions succeed and fail around the world almost daily. That our government would define one in the USA as crazy and treasonous has absolutely nothing to do with whether the revolution was legitimate in the eyes of the general population. The Government will ALWAYS make an effort to protect itself - including waving around the definition of treason to squelch dissent.

I remember having this discussion with you once before and you were seeking refuge by quoting the definition of treasonseeking refuge?...really?...I like our Constitution...the entire thing...not merely the 1/2 of one sentence out of context with the whole...you know...that portion of the Amendment that a powerful gun lobby has helped the gun manufacturing industry with? - without considering what would drive people to dismantle their government. dismantle? another word for Treason? If the 2nd is there so we can defend ourselves then it stands to reason we can't give up the tools with which we would overthrow a bad government - and that has nothing to do with how good our government is today....


You are conflating folks that are unhappy with the government de jour with the general population being under the thumb of tyranny. That some dopes want to overthrow the government because there is a black guy in the big chair is clear. They aren't representative of the greater population. However, if the next president decided that martial law might be a good idea because someone ran over a lawn gnome at a public park - that president could easily remove the constitution from play. At that point, everyone's rights evaporate. Do you still believe it would be treason to revolt if the very document that provide you your rights and defines treason is suspended? What if the government simply started nibbling away at your rights and one day you woke up and realized you were no longer free? What would you do then? You can ignore the questions or try to redefine them but these are the questions for which everyone should have an answer.


I never understood folks that believe that because things are rosy that things will remain that way... Countries and their political systems die, mutate, change and sometimes go bad. How many have lasted as paragons of goodness since civilization began? None. So look up from the computer and stop digging up definitions to intellectualize something that is really quite simple. Okay...I will stop looking for definitions...if you will stop trying to sell the idea that our Freedoms and Liberties hinge on the 1 Constitutional sentence you have decided is relevant...our Constitution is so much more than that


You are limiting your own argument by making sure that the constitution is always present to rely on for advice because it suits your result. Our constitution is fragile and can be removed from play in an instant. What then?

If you won't revolt against tyranny because you believe that would be treason. What would cause you to pick up arms and defend the state from the government?

You can prepare to fight for change when it's needed - or be carried along by change because you are powerless. Your choice. The definition of treason has nothing to do with that at all. wrong


Only if you never leave the confines of your limited argument and ignore the fluidity of a situation where the predicates for your argument no longer are available to wave around. And even then, understanding that revolt is inevitable and preparing for it has nothing to do with overthrowing today's government. Primarily because people would be preparing for the inevitable for their own reasons, not the ones that you or the government might ascribe to them.

Personally? I really do think we are headed for a fall. And an epic one at that. ...the NRA has invested decades of propaganda so that you might fear that...and just who is it again that the NRA represents?...they would have you believe they represent Patriotism...you know...that idea that it is your Patriotic duty to arm yourself for the violent overthrow of your government...they've done a really good job convincing many people about that


Honestly I'm a little offended that you would think that what the NRA does has any effect on my thinking... What they do is their business. My thoughts are my own. Secondly, don't put words in my mouth. I am not advocating overthrowing my government at all. It may be broken and it's certainly being overrun by corporate money and small dull men. But it's still mine.

That said, I also recognize as should you, that the government won't remain in it's current state forever.


The economy is unsustainable if the middle class has no money to spend. IMO we are in the last stages of a great reaping run by those that fleece us every 70 years.

So hang on to your hat.


...hmmm...plenty to ponder here


Not really. The issue is whether or not the police should be able to outgun a general population bent on removing tyranny. I think the police should be armed at the exact same level as the general population. Why?

Because I don't want to be like this guy who is currently fighting in Venezuela (if he isn't already dead) and whose weapon of choice leaves a great deal to be desired.

Image
All this for a bowl of borscht.
User avatar
slowshooter
hunter
 
Posts: 9011
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:44 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: Ditchbanker how much fun do you think this would be?

Postby ditchbanker » Thu Feb 13, 2014 3:56 pm

slowshooter wrote:
sorry in advance for the editing...you've written a thoughtful reply...in the interest of brevity I've only given you a partial reply

No, it's your duty to protect the STATE from a tyrannical GOVERNMENT. They are not one and the same. An unethical government that holds forth on what is treason - because they have captured the state - has nothing to do with what people believe is right and wrong. That tyrannical government should and would be replaced. a State is generally defined as having Population (inhabitants), Territory (land), Sovereignty (power over policies), and Government (organization)

Do you believe that a tyrannical government in control of the state, should never have to face rebellion because to rebel, no matter what, is treasonous? It's an easy yes or no answer... No

... and treasonous has absolutely nothing to do with whether the revolution was legitimate in the eyes of the general population. I disagree...treason is defined by our Lawful Constitution, Democratically enacted...if some mysterious tyrannical government were to claim Sovereignty...claim that is, not enacted in a Constitutionally Lawful manner...then fighting that government would be defending the State...the Key point here is whether the mysterious government followed Constitutional process or not...an if not...then is not a Lawful government and fighting it could not be considered treason...what is treasonous is taking specific action to fight our Lawful Governement


...What if the government simply started nibbling away at your rights and one day you woke up and realized you were no longer free? What would you do then? You can ignore the questions or try to redefine them but these are the questions for which everyone should have an answer. Nibbling? if laws are changed in a process that complies with our Constitution...then such changes cannot be considered Nibbling our freedom...it would be instead the evolution of our set of agreed upon Laws...as for the minority who may disagree with the changes?...too bad for them...they can leave...or maybe die by the sword as our Constitutions allows

You are limiting your own argument by making sure that the constitution is always present to rely on for advice because it suits your result. Yes, as a former NRA Life member...I became accustomed to arguing this way

If you won't revolt against tyranny because you believe that would be treason. never said that What would cause you to pick up arms and defend the state from the government? see above

Honestly I'm a little offended that you would think that what the NRA does has any effect on my thinking... [color=#0000FF]I apologize...I'm accustomed to arguing with the NRA mantra I participated in for so many years[/color]What they do is their business. My thoughts are my own. Secondly, don't put words in my mouth. no deliberate intent to do that I am not advocating overthrowing my government at all. It may be broken and it's certainly being overrun by corporate money and small dull men. But it's still mine. ...and worth arguing over :thumbsup:

That said, I also recognize as should you, that the government won't remain in it's current state forever. I embrace change, as long as it follows our accepted Constitutional doctrines

Not really. The issue is whether or not the police should be able to outgun a general population bent on removing tyranny. I disagree...the issue with arming our police is whether they can be effective at the job we hire them to do...protect us against bad guys


...Sorry again for the edits...how I didnt leave out the key points...just trying to make the debate more manageable :wink:
"Good judgment comes from experience, and a lot of that comes from bad judgment." - Will Rogers
User avatar
ditchbanker
hunter
 
Posts: 858
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 11:54 am
Location: berkeley ca

Re: Ditchbanker how much fun do you think this would be?

Postby JonD » Thu Feb 13, 2014 5:17 pm

ditchbanker wrote:
slowshooter wrote:...What if the government simply started nibbling away at your rights and one day you woke up and realized you were no longer free? What would you do then? You can ignore the questions or try to redefine them but these are the questions for which everyone should have an answer. Nibbling? if laws are changed in a process that complies with our Constitution...then such changes cannot be considered Nibbling our freedom...it would be instead the evolution of our set of agreed upon Laws...as for the minority who may disagree with the changes?...too bad for them...they can leave...or maybe die by the sword as our Constitutions allows


So having a pen and a phone is a process of changing laws that complies with our Constitution? What if one day Politicians start passing laws they don't even read first..........Oh wait thats right :help:
JonD
hunter
 
Posts: 58
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2013 4:43 pm
Location: Half Moon Bay/Butte City

Re: Ditchbanker how much fun do you think this would be?

Postby slowshooter » Thu Feb 13, 2014 5:44 pm

ditchbanker wrote:
slowshooter wrote:
sorry in advance for the editing...you've written a thoughtful reply...in the interest of brevity I've only given you a partial reply

No, it's your duty to protect the STATE from a tyrannical GOVERNMENT. They are not one and the same. An unethical government that holds forth on what is treason - because they have captured the state - has nothing to do with what people believe is right and wrong. That tyrannical government should and would be replaced. a State is generally defined as having Population (inhabitants), Territory (land), Sovereignty (power over policies), and Government (organization)




Again, they are not one and the same and your definition says just that. When the population decides that their government is no longer operating in their interests they will remove that government. Sometimes with votes sometimes with bloodshed.
Meaning that we the people decide what kind of administrators that we want. The goverment does not = the state and is only part of the state until the population decides that it wants the government replaced.

Beyond that I don't see digging up a dictionary definition helping your argument or mine.


Do you believe that a tyrannical government in control of the state, should never have to face rebellion because to rebel, no matter what, is treasonous? It's an easy yes or no answer... No


So you do support revolution? Correct?
... and treasonous has absolutely nothing to do with whether the revolution was legitimate in the eyes of the general population. I disagree...treason is defined by our Lawful Constitution, Democratically enacted...if some mysterious tyrannical government were to claim Sovereignty...claim that is, not enacted in a Constitutionally Lawful manner...then fighting that government would be defending the State...the Key point here is whether the mysterious government followed Constitutional process or not...an if not...then is not a Lawful government and fighting it could not be considered treason...what is treasonous is taking specific action to fight our Lawful Governement


Your splitting hairs again. If you extend you reasoning you're are saying that if your rights as outlined in the constitution were removed by the courts, by the congress or by the votes of the people you would be fine with that. Because lawful.

I think that soft argument is what frustrated other people. Because you keep clinging to definitions are only consistently usable in a very antiseptic world. Out here things are dirty and stinky and don't operate with everyone running around with a handbook of shared definitions.

...What if the government simply started nibbling away at your rights and one day you woke up and realized you were no longer free? What would you do then? You can ignore the questions or try to redefine them but these are the questions for which everyone should have an answer. Nibbling? if laws are changed in a process that complies with our Constitution...then such changes cannot be considered Nibbling our freedom...it would be instead the evolution of our set of agreed upon Laws...as for the minority who may disagree with the changes?...too bad for them...they can leave...or maybe die by the sword as our Constitutions allows


It's interesting because I don't believe I've ever had a conservation with a genuine statist. What you are giving into because you fear anarchy is totalitarianism. I'm a libertarian for the most part (not one of those GOP refugees that are trying to score chicks by being different) and find where your ideas would lead us absolutely abhorrent.

You are limiting your own argument by making sure that the constitution is always present to rely on for advice because it suits your result. Yes, as a former NRA Life member...I became accustomed to arguing this way


That explains a bit. Thanks.
If you won't revolt against tyranny because you believe that would be treason. never said that What would cause you to pick up arms and defend the state from the government? see above

Honestly I'm a little offended that you would think that what the NRA does has any effect on my thinking... [color=#0000FF]I apologize...I'm accustomed to arguing with the NRA mantra I participated in for so many years[/color]What they do is their business. My thoughts are my own. Secondly, don't put words in my mouth. no deliberate intent to do that I am not advocating overthrowing my government at all. It may be broken and it's certainly being overrun by corporate money and small dull men. But it's still mine. ...and worth arguing over :thumbsup:


Sorry to get a bit fussy about that. I'm not a fan of the executives of the NRA but definitely support the mission of the membership.
That said, I also recognize as should you, that the government won't remain in it's current state forever. I embrace change, as long as it follows our accepted Constitutional doctrines


... Even if the government and law is used to take over the government legally without firing a shot. Right? My point is that a soft coup doesn't have to fall outside the law.


Not really. The issue is whether or not the police should be able to outgun a general population bent on removing tyranny. I disagree...the issue with arming our police is whether they can be effective at the job we hire them to do...protect us against bad guys


...Sorry again for the edits...how I didnt leave out the key points...just trying to make the debate more manageable :wink:


When we have the highest incarceration rate in the world and are killing our own citizens without the benefit of a trial? I can see why you, being what I assume is a statist, might think that means safety. Totalitarianism would keep you protected correct? We'll have to ask the people of Russia how they felt about Stalin. After all he got into a position of power using the rules they have. Then proceeded to starve folks until they literally began to eat their own children.

Certainly no one revolted because he followed the rules getting into office... Oh, and because he had all his opponents killed. My mistake. :smile:
All this for a bowl of borscht.
User avatar
slowshooter
hunter
 
Posts: 9011
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:44 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: Ditchbanker how much fun do you think this would be?

Postby ditchbanker » Thu Feb 13, 2014 9:11 pm

slowshooter wrote:
When we have the highest incarceration rate in the world and are killing our own citizens without the benefit of a trial? I can see why you, being what I assume is a statist, might think that means safety. Totalitarianism would keep you protected correct? We'll have to ask the people of Russia how they felt about Stalin. After all he got into a position of power using the rules they have. Then proceeded to starve folks until they literally began to eat their own children.

Certainly no one revolted because he followed the rules getting into office... Oh, and because he had all his opponents killed. My mistake. :smile:


Stepping away from this for a bit...I realize you are arguing a much bigger picture than I set out to argue.
Your concern about the logic but 'soft' teeth in the Constitutional Treason logic is correct.
That argument...I'll call it the Article III Constitutional argument
...is meant as a counterpoint to the equally 'soft' Second Amendment Constitutional argument
...the 2nd amendment argument...1/2 of one sentence out of contexts of the whole let alone context of our newly formed State (and newly formed government) is equally soft....yet is the cornerstone of the NRA that guides the actions of hundreds of thousands of members and their influence on legislation.

So, as long as folks argue...based on the 2nd Amendment.,..that they have the Constitutional right to arm themselves to overthrow our government...I will counter with the equally 'soft' Article III argument that taking action (like arming themselves) with the intention of overthrow their government could be interpreted as an act of Treason...punishable by death.
"Good judgment comes from experience, and a lot of that comes from bad judgment." - Will Rogers
User avatar
ditchbanker
hunter
 
Posts: 858
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 11:54 am
Location: berkeley ca

Re: Ditchbanker how much fun do you think this would be?

Postby slowshooter » Fri Feb 14, 2014 2:19 am

ditchbanker wrote:
slowshooter wrote:
When we have the highest incarceration rate in the world and are killing our own citizens without the benefit of a trial? I can see why you, being what I assume is a statist, might think that means safety. Totalitarianism would keep you protected correct? We'll have to ask the people of Russia how they felt about Stalin. After all he got into a position of power using the rules they have. Then proceeded to starve folks until they literally began to eat their own children.

Certainly no one revolted because he followed the rules getting into office... Oh, and because he had all his opponents killed. My mistake. :smile:


Stepping away from this for a bit...I realize you are arguing a much bigger picture than I set out to argue.
Your concern about the logic but 'soft' teeth in the Constitutional Treason logic is correct.
That argument...I'll call it the Article III Constitutional argument
...is meant as a counterpoint to the equally 'soft' Second Amendment Constitutional argument
...the 2nd amendment argument...1/2 of one sentence out of contexts of the whole let alone context of our newly formed State (and newly formed government) is equally soft....yet is the cornerstone of the NRA that guides the actions of hundreds of thousands of members and their influence on legislation.

So, as long as folks argue...based on the 2nd Amendment.,..that they have the Constitutional right to arm themselves to overthrow our government...I will counter with the equally 'soft' Article III argument that taking action (like arming themselves) with the intention of overthrow their government could be interpreted as an act of Treason...punishable by death.



Oooh... I understand now. You must have gotten the 2nd Amendment argument over on the TOS... I don't think that tyranny always means the government, and a militia just means dudes that can be conscripted.

This all goes to language though. Everyone should be entirely prepared to fight tyranny - but no one should be picking who they are going to be fighting well in advance. The reason is that planning to overthrow the government IS a crime (and should be).

Fighting tyranny would be reactive to things such as hard or soft coup or invasion. You can't know when that is going to happen or if it even will. So live by the first rule of scouts and Be Prepared. When the BATF comes to the door and asks why you have a bunch of guns. Tell them the truth. You like guns and are preparing to fight for the country if needed.

If you think that telling them that you are going to ace out Congress because they are d-bags? Enjoy your stay in federal prison. Because you deserve to be there.

(edit: One last thing. Just because you may arm yourself for an eventual revolt doesn't mean you are doing planning to anything more than protect your home during a calamitous time. So buy more guns. But quit hoarding ammo! That crap is too expensive as it is. :lol3: )
All this for a bowl of borscht.
User avatar
slowshooter
hunter
 
Posts: 9011
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:44 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Previous

Return to California Duck Hunting

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests