• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Threats that target America itself

oneeyeross

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2010
Messages
500
Location
Winlock, , USA
imported post

Orphan wrote:
When are these so called journalists going to look up the defination of brandishing and then use it correctly?
You used journalist and definition in the same sentence. That's an oxymoron. It'll never happen.
 

amzbrady

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2009
Messages
3,521
Location
Marysville, Washington, USA
imported post

oneeyeross wrote:
Orphan wrote:
When are these so called journalists going to look up the defination of brandishing and then use it correctly?
You used journalist and definition in the same sentence. That's an oxymoron. It'll never happen.
I think you've got a better chance of changing the wording in the RCW's, than you do getting a non-biased honest report from a journalist. They should just be called Literate Opinionaters.
 

oneeyeross

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2010
Messages
500
Location
Winlock, , USA
imported post

Journalist's guide to firearms.
oneeyeross
oneeyeross
 

Jeff Hayes

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
2,569
Location
Long gone
imported post

amzbrady wrote:
oneeyeross wrote:
Orphan wrote:
When are these so called journalists going to look up the defination of brandishing and then use it correctly?
You used journalist and definition in the same sentence. That's an oxymoron. It'll never happen.
I think you've got a better chance of changing the wording in the RCW's, than you do getting a non-biased honest report from a journalist. They should just be called Literate Opinionaters.
Your both right, I dont know what I was thinking. LOL
 

antispam540

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2008
Messages
546
Location
Poulsbo, Washington, USA
imported post

Dave_pro2a wrote:
Breaking the law is not treason. Subverting the Constitution is not treason(3). Passing laws against the wishes of the people is not treason. Read Article 3 Section 3 of the Constitution - "Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort(4)." You can come up with some complicated compromised chain of beliefs to stretch this definition to cover anything you don't like, but the facts are this is what the law says.
Good post, and I agree with quite a bit of it.Just afew off the cuff thoughts:

1) That is a simplistic definition of a political term.<snip>

2) Case in point, the IRA. They engaged in activities designed to cause terror, and were labeled terrorists by the British government... but it is hard to argue that they were not soldiers, that they were not rebels or revolutionaries, and that they were engaged in a legitimate fight for independence with the goal of regaining their traditional sovereignty. That's not to say I agree with all their tactics.

3) I disagree. Subverting the Constitution is treason. If you mean to overthrow, or to completely destroy, then I'd say that would be treason. If you mean to undermine, then probably not. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/subverting

Since I am not sure how you're using the term 'subverting,' let me clarify: politicians that intentionally act counter to their Constitutionally mandated powers, that act counter to their solemn oath to obey and defend the Constitution, are acting in a traitorous fashion.
1) It's not a simplistic definition - it doesn't matter how governments use the word (they've used it to describe peaceful protestors, even), the definition of "terrorism" is "the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious". That's according to Princeton, but all the other definitions I've seen are similar in scope and meaning. If someone tries to use the word in other ways, it is invalid.

2) I would agree that the IRA falls under the heading of "terrorists". It is a valid word to describe them - more valid, I think, than "revolutionaries" or rebels, so it should take precedence over the others. Revolutionaries lose whatever nobility of purpose or popular support they had when they resort to such tactics.

3) How can you disagree? I quoted the definition of treason straight from the Constitution! It's not open to disagreement - it states quite clearly what treason consists of. Congress is not at war with the states because it has not issued a declaration of war against the states. The Constitution covers exactly what is and isn't war pretty clearly. Congress members are not adhering to the enemies of the states in any direct form. Passing a law the people don't like isn't becoming an enemy of the states. Passing a law that is unconstitutional isn't even a criminal offense, much less becoming an enemy of the states. As far as the war in Iraq goes, I haven't heard of anyone in the government giving aid or support in an official capacity to any group of people we have declared war against at the time. Like it or not, right or wrong, these people have not met the legal requirements of treason!

If you have a citation that says subverting the Constitution is treason, please post it. It may be wrong, it may go against everything the founding fathers stood for, but I can't find anything that actually makes it illegal - it's just treated as something the courts should take care of. The founding fathers obviously assumed that politicians who voted so clearly against the values of our union would be removed from office or never elected in the first place. They knew some bad apples would get through, and they expected the courts to rule those laws unconstitutional. Beyond that, we have no real recourse unless the vast majority of citizenry votes together - something that will never happen as long as people just don't care.

Article 3 continues to state that Congress gets to decide the punishment for treason anyway, and you can bet they'd never punish anyone in the government for it even if, by some miracle, you could find a way to seriously charge any of them with it.
 

Dave_pro2a

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
2,132
Location
, ,
imported post

antispam540 wrote:
1) It's not a simplistic definition - it doesn't matter how governments use the word (they've used it to describe peaceful protestors, even), the definition of "terrorism" is "the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious". That's according to Princeton, but all the other definitions I've seen are similar in scope and meaning. If someone tries to use the word in other ways, it is invalid.

2) I would agree that the IRA falls under the heading of "terrorists". It is a valid word to describe them - more valid, I think, than "revolutionaries" or rebels, so it should take precedence over the others. Revolutionaries lose whatever nobility of purpose or popular support they had when they resort to such tactics.


So the IRA are terrorists for targeting civilians, while fighing to regain their traditional sovereignty... but America wasn't when the dropped nuclear bombs on Japanese civilians, or when we actually tageted civilians when bombing Germany.

The IRA were terrorists, but Lincoln and Sherman weren't? His march to the sea was at it's core an action against civilians.

The problem with something that is solely defined by the winners, is that becomes nothing but hypocrisy, and loses all underlying truth value.
 

antispam540

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2008
Messages
546
Location
Poulsbo, Washington, USA
imported post

Dave_pro2a wrote:
So the IRA are terrorists for targeting civilians, while fighing to regain their traditional sovereignty... but America wasn't when the dropped nuclear bombs on Japanese civilians, or when we actually tageted civilians when bombing Germany.

The IRA were terrorists, but Lincoln and Sherman weren't? His march to the sea was at it's core an action against civilians.

The problem with something that is solely defined by the winners, is that becomes nothing but hypocrisy, and loses all underlying truth value.
America was (and maybe still is). The IRA are. Lincoln and Sherman were. Sometimes it's hard to remember that our country has done despicable things as well, and our historical figures were not necessarily bright shining beacons of purity and perfection.
 

cynicist

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2008
Messages
506
Location
Yakima County, ,
imported post

Jesus Christ guys.
This nut leaves a bunch of messages about killing someone because he doesn't like the way they voted and you defend it as him merely defending America against the treason of voting for something you don't like?
How many of you wouldn't done the same for someone who threatened to kill Ashcroft after the Patriot Act or the Homeland Security Act or Bush's wiretaps? How many of you called for revolution when the government decided that warrantless searches, seizures, and arrests are not actually warrantless searches, seizures, and arrests?
Read the damn messages he left. http://www.justice.gov/usao/waw/press/2010/apr/pdfs/WILSON COMPLAINT.pdf
Yes, it mentioned he had a gun and a CPL in the same article that mentioned he called over and over to threaten to kill someone. You really think that is aimed at you? People are losing their minds by the truckload these days.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
imported post

cynicist wrote:
Jesus Christ guys.
This nut leaves a bunch of messages about killing someone because he doesn't like the way they voted and you defend it as him merely defending America against the treason of voting for something you don't like?
How many of you wouldn't done the same for someone who threatened to kill Ashcroft after the Patriot Act or the Homeland Security Act or Bush's wiretaps? How many of you called for revolution when the government decided that warrantless searches, seizures, and arrests are not actually warrantless searches, seizures, and arrests?
Read the damn messages he left. http://www.justice.gov/usao/waw/press/2010/apr/pdfs/WILSON%20COMPLAINT.pdf
Yes, it mentioned he had a gun and a CPL in the same article that mentioned he called over and over to threaten to kill someone. You really think that is aimed at you? People are losing their minds by the truckload these days.

Good post but I don't think people here are defending this guy. Just discussing where the line would be drawn. This guy deserves to go to jail, like anti spam said if there is to be a movement it would in this day and age have to be a very organized one.

I also feel that the afore mentioned acts are also unconstitutional and criminal and shows that our politicians save but a few have fell out of touch of what the U.S. is supposed to be. The 2A was written to keep them in check, but it has been practically nullified by regulation and cultural demonization. So the question is how do we get this country back to realize that you cannot go against the will of the people or constitution without consequences? My belief personally that one way to do thisis to fight strongly for our rights and to participate in normalizing "Open Carry". An to educate both public and private citizens on the true meaning of the second amendment.
 

cscitney87

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
1,250
Location
Lakewood, Colorado, USA
imported post

Sorry I don't advocate violence in any form. I do Not advocate killing duly elected officials. Nobody here is actually saying that.

We ARE; however, asking just "What are we supposed to do?" legitimately: nobody can answer the question. Or some "Just vote out all the crooks!" or "Just vote for independent candidates and rally for rights!"


... Revolutions come out of necessity. Trust me- I would rather watch a hockey game than get shot at.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
imported post

cscitney87 wrote:
Sorry I don't advocate violence in any form. I do Not advocate killing duly elected officials. Nobody here is actually saying that.

We ARE; however, asking just "What are we supposed to do?" legitimately: nobody can answer the question. Or some "Just vote out all the crooks!" or "Just vote for independent candidates and rally for rights!"


... Revolutions come out of necessity. Trust me- I would rather watch a hockey game than get shot at.

+1
 

Dave_pro2a

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
2,132
Location
, ,
imported post

cynicist wrote:
Jesus Christ guys.
This nut leaves a bunch of messages about killing someone because he doesn't like the way they voted and you defend it as him merely defending America against the treason of voting for something you don't like?
How many of you wouldn't done the same for someone who threatened to kill Ashcroft after the Patriot Act or the Homeland Security Act or Bush's wiretaps? How many of you called for revolution when the government decided that warrantless searches, seizures, and arrests are not actually warrantless searches, seizures, and arrests?
Read the damn messages he left. http://www.justice.gov/usao/waw/press/2010/apr/pdfs/WILSON%20COMPLAINT.pdf
Yes, it mentioned he had a gun and a CPL in the same article that mentioned he called over and over to threaten to kill someone. You really think that is aimed at you? People are losing their minds by the truckload these days.

No one on this thread has advocated violence, or even supported it in other than the conceptual "it is sometimes a legitimate last resort' sort of way.

A very slim minority might be losing their minds, a very large sized minority is just outright pissed, and the majority have their heads up their... imho ;)
 

Tomas

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2010
Messages
702
Location
University Place, Washington, USA
imported post

For 42 years, every time there has been an election that I could take part in, I have done my best, studied the choices, and voted for the lesser of two evils.

That's really all I can do, given the choices usually available.
 

cscitney87

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
1,250
Location
Lakewood, Colorado, USA
imported post

Tomas wrote:
For 42 years, every time there has been an election that I could take part in, I have done my best, studied the choices, and voted for the lesser of two evils.

That's really all I can do, given the choices usually available.
write in? There's always a third party running; even if the name does not appear on the ballot.

"A write-in candidate is a candidate in an election whose name does not appear on the ballot, but for whom voters may vote nonetheless by writing in the person's name. Some states and local jurisdictions allow a voter to affix a sticker with a write-in candidate's name on it to the ballot in lieu of actually writing in the candidate's name."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Write-in_candidate
 

Tomas

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2010
Messages
702
Location
University Place, Washington, USA
imported post

I don't write in. I prefer to have my vote actually mean something instead of wasting it on some critter that on a good day will only get a few percent of the vote.

If neither choice is actually any good (often the case) I still study the choices and determine which is "least bad," and vote for them.

At least that way my vote is not wasted: I've helped keep the worst scumbag out.

Each of us has a different way of fulfilling our responsiblity, and mine is to, if nothing else, at least vote against the worst of the two main contenders by voting for the less bad choice so that they win instead of the worst choice winning.

Voting for a 3% third party candidate is simply abstaining - you haven't done anything to keep the really bad choice out. Might as well vote for Keyser Söze...

YMMV
 

cscitney87

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
1,250
Location
Lakewood, Colorado, USA
imported post

Ah; the illusion of the Two Party system.

In political science, Duverger's law is a principle which asserts that a plurality rule election system tends to favor a two-party system. This is one of two hypotheses proposed by Duverger, the second stating that “The double ballot majority system and proportional representation tend to multipartism”[1]

[/sup]A third party can only enter the arena if it can exploit the mistakes of a pre-existing major party, ultimately at that party's expense. For example, the political chaos in the United States immediately preceding the Civil War allowed the Republican Party to replace the Whig Party as the progressive half of the American political landscape.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law
 

DEROS72

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2008
Messages
2,817
Location
Valhalla
imported post

Well everyone wants to vote get their own will in the election and vote for all these different candidates instead of back one.Thats how they will win ,when all the votes are spread out amoungst candidates that can't win.
 

oneeyeross

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2010
Messages
500
Location
Winlock, , USA
imported post

Tomas wrote:
I don't write in. I prefer to have my vote actually mean something instead of wasting it on some critter that on a good day will only get a few percent of the vote.

If neither choice is actually any good (often the case) I still study the choices and determine which is "least bad," and vote for them.

At least that way my vote is not wasted: I've helped keep the worst scumbag out.

Each of us has a different way of fulfilling our responsiblity, and mine is to, if nothing else, at least vote against the worst of the two main contenders by voting for the less bad choice so that they win instead of the worst choice winning.

Voting for a 3% third party candidate is simply abstaining - you haven't done anything to keep the really bad choice out. Might as well vote for Keyser Söze...

YMMV
I disagree. Voting for a third party candidate is, sometimes, voting for the best candidate, and is voting my conscience. Just because my candidate might not win is not a reason to vote for someone else who is "least bad"... It is truly sad that people would rather vote for someone who isn't the candidate best suited for the job, but the one that makes the voter feel like they "won"....
 

joshcdc

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2008
Messages
85
Location
, Washington, USA
imported post

Article 3 Section 3 of the Constitution - "Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort(4)."

Taking taking away the freedoms, the inalienable rights, of the American people is aiding our enemies, and also, is covered by the Declaration of Independence. Remember, we have foreign and domestic enemies. The act of infringing on life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness is inimical to the American way, so it is not a stretch to say that those who do are our enemies.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
 
Top