US Constitution, Article III Section 3: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court. The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

So, how does that square with all you 'The government did something I don't like, wah-wah vote from the rooftops' zealots?

It seems pretty clear that the founders felt that an armed revolt against the government they formed under the Constitution was treason, not a justified revolution. They also went out of their way to explicitly charge Congress with setting a punishment for this crime, one of THREE crimes Congress has direct authority over (the other 2 are Counterfeiting and Piracy)

We are still under that government today - with the exception of abortion and the right to privacy, the vast majority of changes to the Constitution have been by amendment, and we are all well-represented by duly elected officials...

Somehow I think those of you who cry 'tyranny' or 'revolution' need to go live under real tyranny for a while - you have NO IDEA what tyranny is, and have come to equate it with 'not getting your way'....

Notice the part about 'two witnesses' or an open admission in court. . . .

So don't be seen and keep your mouth shut. . . .

I've spent several years in the former Soviet Union working for our gov't.  I feel I can trully appreciate our freedoms better after seeing what else is out there.

That said, there are some things that our own government has done which I feel are tyrannical (ie. 1994 AWB).  IMO we are still the best country in the world, but we can't sit on our hands if a bunch of commies get voted into office and decide to restrict our freedoms either.  That doesn't necessarily mean armed rebellion, either.  Voting works pretty well.

I consider myself to be of reasonable intelligence, but what the hell does " but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted" mean?

Quoted: It seems pretty clear that the founders felt that an armed revolt against the government they formed under the Constitution was treason, not a justified revolution.

It's only treason if you lose....

The winner defines all things.

Quoted: Notice the part about 'two witnesses' or an open admission in court. . . . So don't be seen and keep your mouth shut. . . .

Or don't commit treason, and don't worry about it...

Quoted: Quoted: It seems pretty clear that the founders felt that an armed revolt against the government they formed under the Constitution was treason, not a justified revolution. It's only treason if you lose.... The winner defines all things.

The point is that the concept of taking one's ball & going home, then shooting the team is not one that is consistant with the Constitution...

The last acceptable American revolution was 1776 - the Constitution is clear. The only way there will be another one is if we find ourselves dealing with a civil coup (the military, of course, would never sieze power here - but we would act to put down any 'revolution' that any group may seem interested in starting)...

Quoted: Somehow I think those of you who cry 'tyranny' or 'revolution' need to go live under real tyranny for a while - you have NO IDEA what tyranny is, and have come to equate it with 'not getting your way'....

I think you're a fool and don't realize that just because we aren't as bad as other countries are or were doesn't mean we shouldn't bitch and work to keep that from happening.  

Quoted: Quoted: Notice the part about 'two witnesses' or an open admission in court. . . . So don't be seen and keep your mouth shut. . . . Or don't commit treason, and don't worry about it...

But if only 1 or less people see you and you don't admit to it in court it isn't treason...

Quoted: Somehow I think those of you who cry 'tyranny' or 'revolution' need to go live under real tyranny for a while - you have NO IDEA what tyranny is, and have come to equate it with 'not getting your way'....

The only problem is the government should not be able to trample over our constitutional rights.  What sets America apart from the rest of the world(almost all of it anyway) is that the government is so small(was) and the people hold(held) most of the power.

A Revolution should come FAR before America comes anything close to 'tyranny' in the sense you are using it.

edit: and argueing that the Founding Fathers never would support a revolution is nonsense.  They gave us the 2A for that very reason.  If a government gets too out of hand and steps over our constitutional rights then it is no longer our government.  Its just a big group of idiots that are illegaly stripping away our freedoms and need to be taken out and replaced.

Quoted: ....just because we aren't as bad as other countries are or were doesn't mean we shouldn't bitch and work to keep that from happening.

As long as you don't give aid and comfort to the enemy, I'm fine with that.

But if you do.... ...you better run.

Quoted: But if only 1 or less people see you and you don't admit to it in court it isn't treason...

It's still treason, you just will not be convicted of it.

A traitor is as a traitor does.

Quoted: Quoted: ....just because we aren't as bad as other countries are or were doesn't mean we shouldn't bitch and work to keep that from happening.   As long as you don't give aid and comfort to the enemy, I'm fine with that. But if you do.... ...you better run.

i'm not sure i understand what you mean.  i was only referring to DaveA's statement about the US not being as bad as other countries.  I completely agree with what you wrote.

I believe it has to do with the legitimacy of the government, according to the Social Contract theory you have the right and moral duty to revolt if the Government oversteps the boundaries of the social contract effectively voiding the contract and eliminating any legitimacy of the government. So is treason by revolt actually treason if the government is illegitimate?

Quoted: It's still treason, you just will not be convicted of it. A traitor is as a traitor does.

I was following the 'rule of "Its only illegal if you get caught."

Quoted: So is treason by revolt actually treason if the government is illegitimate?

No, if you refuse to take up arms against an illigitimate GOVERNMENT, that is treason against you COUNTRY.

There is a huge difference between ones government and ones country.  Im afraid most Americans have forgotten that fact...

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: ....just because we aren't as bad as other countries are or were doesn't mean we shouldn't bitch and work to keep that from happening.   As long as you don't give aid and comfort to the enemy, I'm fine with that. But if you do.... ...you better run. i'm not sure i understand what you mean.  i was only referring to DaveA's statement about the US not being as bad as other countries.  I completely agree with what you wrote.

Not you, but some people in this country take "bitching" to a new level.

They carry signs supporting our enemies. They advocate the death of our soldiers in Iraq. They cleary and unambiguously side with the enemy.

They SHOULD be tried and convicted of treason. Better yet, they should be run down in the street by an angry mob of patriots.

Quoted: US Constitution, Article III Section 3: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court. The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted. So, how does that square with all you 'The government did something I don't like, wah-wah vote from the rooftops' zealots? It seems pretty clear that the founders felt that an armed revolt against the government they formed under the Constitution was treason, not a justified revolution. They also went out of their way to explicitly charge Congress with setting a punishment for this crime, one of THREE crimes Congress has direct authority over (the other 2 are Counterfeiting and Piracy) We are still under that government today - with the exception of abortion and the right to privacy, the vast majority of changes to the Constitution have been by amendment, and we are all well-represented by duly elected officials... Somehow I think those of you who cry 'tyranny' or 'revolution' need to go live under real tyranny for a while - you have NO IDEA what tyranny is, and have come to equate it with 'not getting your way'....

I concur, and I know that Samuel Adams made at least one statement to that effect; however, the government that they framed through the Constitution is long gun.  Van Buren* was the last President to subscribe to those ideals, IMO.


*yes, historically he's rather obscure but nevertheless I believe my statement to be factual.

Quoted: I've spent several years in the former Soviet Union working for our gov't.  I feel I can trully appreciate our freedoms better after seeing what else is out there. That said, there are some things that our own government has done which I feel are tyrannical (ie. 1994 AWB).  IMO we are still the best country in the world, but we can't sit on our hands if a bunch of commies get voted into office and decide to restrict our freedoms either.  That doesn't necessarily mean armed rebellion, either.  Voting works pretty well.

Were you there during the coup attempt where the parliament was under siege?

Quoted: ...but we would act to put down any 'revolution' that any group may seem interested in starting...

By "we" I assume you mean the Army and military in general? So, hypothetically, you would shoot a fellow American who wouldn't give up their Second Amendment Right, if you were ordered to do so? The last time I checked, you took an oath to defend the Constitution "from all enemies foreign and domestic".......I also believe the 2nd Amendment is part of what you're supposed to defend, so if our Gov't bans firearms, are they not the "domestic enemy" assaulting the Constution you swore to defend? So logically, you'd have to fight beside your countrymen to preserve our rights....No?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: ....just because we aren't as bad as other countries are or were doesn't mean we shouldn't bitch and work to keep that from happening.   As long as you don't give aid and comfort to the enemy, I'm fine with that. But if you do.... ...you better run. i'm not sure i understand what you mean.  i was only referring to DaveA's statement about the US not being as bad as other countries.  I completely agree with what you wrote. Not you, but some people in this country take "bitching" to a new level. They carry signs supporting our enemies. They advocate the death of our soldiers in Iraq. They cleary and unambiguously side with the enemy. They SHOULD be tried and convicted of treason. Better yet, they should be run down in the street by an angry mob of patriots.

In that case I would have to agree.  Especially since they are argueing against something that is not unconstitutional in any way.  Its not like they are trying to 'take the government back.'  They are simply hurting us in a war effort.

Quoted: Quoted: ...but we would act to put down any 'revolution' that any group may seem interested in starting... By "we" I assume you mean the Army and military in general? So, hypothetically, you would shoot a fellow American who wouldn't give up their Second Amendment Right, if you were ordered to do so? The last time I checked, you took an oath to defend the Constitution "from all enemies foreign and domestic".......I also believe the 2nd Amendment is part of what you're supposed to defend, so if our Gov't bans firearms, are they not the "domestic enemy" assaulting the Constution you swore to defend? So logically, you'd have to fight beside your countrymen to preserve our rights....No?

+1


 I think if the government ever went too far the military would be in full support of the people.  That said, it really worries me what 'too far' is going to end up being.

Quoted: Quoted: So is treason by revolt actually treason if the government is illegitimate? No, if you refuse to take up arms against an illigitimate GOVERNMENT, that is treason against you COUNTRY. There is a huge difference between ones government and ones country.  Im afraid most Americans have forgotten that fact...

And it must be remembered that the founders commited treason against their country (England) before forming their own country.  Treason is in the eye of the beholder and is defined by the victors.  

Quoted: Quoted: Somehow I think those of you who cry 'tyranny' or 'revolution' need to go live under real tyranny for a while - you have NO IDEA what tyranny is, and have come to equate it with 'not getting your way'.... The only problem is the government should not be able to trample over our constitutional rights.  What sets America apart from the rest of the world(almost all of it anyway) is that the government is so small(was) and the people hold(held) most of the power. A Revolution should come FAR before America comes anything close to 'tyranny' in the sense you are using it. edit: and argueing that the Founding Fathers never would support a revolution is nonsense.  They gave us the 2A for that very reason.  If a government gets too out of hand and steps over our constitutional rights then it is no longer our government.  Its just a big group of idiots that are illegaly stripping away our freedoms and need to be taken out and replaced.

+1

We the people must protect our nation from ALL enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC.

And what REAL tyranny must we live under in order for us to become pissed enough to do something?  IIRC the Founding Fathers called "taxation without representation" tyranny.  Is this a trivial concept to you?  

What do you think they would say about 20,000,000 felons all of a sudden receiving a blanket amnesty as a reward for their disregard of the law?  Or the confiscation of guns from the hands of law-abiding citizens?  Or the institution of a minimum wage?  

Quoted: Quoted: ....just because we aren't as bad as other countries are or were doesn't mean we shouldn't bitch and work to keep that from happening.   As long as you don't give aid and comfort to the enemy, I'm fine with that. But if you do.... ...you better run. Quoted: But if only 1 or less people see you and you don't admit to it in court it isn't treason... It's still treason, you just will not be convicted of it. A traitor is as a traitor does.

Okay, what about selling arms to Iran?  Might that be treasonous?  (And if it was, think his apple fell far?)

Read the Federalist Papers and get back to us  

Quoted: Quoted: ...but we would act to put down any 'revolution' that any group may seem interested in starting... By "we" I assume you mean the Army and military in general? So, hypothetically, you would shoot a fellow American who wouldn't give up their Second Amendment Right, if you were ordered to do so? The last time I checked, you took an oath to defend the Constitution "from all enemies foreign and domestic".......I also believe the 2nd Amendment is part of what you're supposed to defend, so if our Gov't bans firearms, are they not the "domestic enemy" assaulting the Constution you swore to defend? So logically, you'd have to fight beside your countrymen to preserve our rights....No?

Can we say Combat Ineffective?



even if only 25% support the 2nd  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: ....just because we aren't as bad as other countries are or were doesn't mean we shouldn't bitch and work to keep that from happening.   As long as you don't give aid and comfort to the enemy, I'm fine with that. But if you do.... ...you better run. Quoted: But if only 1 or less people see you and you don't admit to it in court it isn't treason... It's still treason, you just will not be convicted of it. A traitor is as a traitor does. Okay, what about selling arms to Iran?  Might that be treasonous?

If we were at war with them, yes.
OR... if the arms you sold to them were destined for the hands of our terrorist enemies.

(And if it was, think his apple fell far?)

Whose "apple" are you referring to?

Veteran readers of THE NEW AMERICAN are vibrantly aware of the May 10, 1994 "Combat Arms Survey" administered to 300 active-duty Marines at the USMC's Air-Ground Combat Center, Twenty-Nine Palms, California. Among its 46 questions, the Marines were asked if they would be willing to swear to a United Nations code of conduct and if they would fire on Americans who refused to turn over their privately owned weapons to the government. Other questions sought their approval or disapproval about their involvement in an assortment of operations far removed from proper military assignments, some of which would even place them under formal UN command.

One of the Marines who participated in this exercise became so disturbed by the questions that he obtained an extra copy and sent it to THE NEW AMERICAN. No sooner had our published report about this survey reached readers than several congressmen fired off inquiries to the Marine Corps and Navy. Spokesmen for both branches of the service issued statements claiming there was really nothing to be concerned about, that the survey was merely part of its author's research for a master's degree thesis.

But that explanation neatly sidesteps a far more important consideration: The aura of official acceptance of these subversive attitudes would certainly lead some of the Marines toward believing that they should hold them as well. It is our contention that no one wearing a uniform of the U.S. Armed Forces should ever allow troops under his command to be subjected to such totally unconstitutional thinking.

Author's Defense

We have talked at length with the author of this survey, Navy Lieutenant Commander Ernest Guy Cunningham, and about his motivation in creating it. He provided us with a copy of the 197-page thesis he wrote after analyzing the responses given by the Marines. His thesis helped him to earn a master of science degree in the area of manpower, personnel, and training analysis from the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California.

Anxious to defend himself from charges he is pro-UN, Cunningham repeatedly contended in his interview with THE NEW AMERICAN that he is no enemy of America and no participant in any plan to demoralize U.S. troops. He maintained emphatically that he wanted only to confirm and then pass on to higher authorities his fears about "the lack of knowledge among the soldiers about the U.S. Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and their heritage as Americans." He added: "I'm a life member of the National Rifle Association, an ardent constitutionalist, and I'm even disappointed with the NRA spokesmen who don't do a very good job defending their position."

To each of the questions or scenarios presented in the Cunningham survey, the Marines were asked if they strongly disagree, disagree, agree, strongly agree, or have no opinion. The first part of the survey dealt with non-traditional missions (termed "operations other than war" by Cunningham) under the command and control of U.S. military personnel, first inside the United States, and then outside the United States. Additional questions dealt with those same type missions conducted outside the U.S. under United Nations command and control.

The Marines indicated overwhelming acquiescence to being assigned under U.S. control within the U.S. for such non-traditional missions as drug enforcement, disaster relief, environmental clean-up, substitute teaching in public schools, guarding prisons, national emergency policing, or assisting federal law enforcement officials. For example, one of the questions asked the Marines if they would be willing to be assigned to a "national emergency police force" within the U.S. under U.S. command. The survey showed that 6.0 percent strongly disagreed, 6.3 percent disagreed, 42.3 percent agreed, 43.0 percent strongly agreed, and 2.3 percent had no opinion.

"Do you realize," Cunningham stated during our telephone interview, "that 85.3 percent agreed with assigning troops to a mission that violates the Posse Comitatus Act?" This Act states that "it shall not be lawful to employ any part of the Army of the United States, as a posse comitatus [power of the county], or otherwise, for the purpose of executing the laws, except [when] authorized by the Constitution or by act of Congress."

Additional results published in Cunningham's thesis demonstrate a high degree of willingness on the part of these U.S. troops to carry out non-traditional missions under U.S. command: 48 percent agreement for drug enforcement; 39 percent for disaster relief; 67 percent for peacekeeping; and 52 percent for humanitarian relief. However, when questions were asked about similar missions involving U.S. troops under UN command, the approval rate dropped off markedly: 17 percent for drug enforcement; 13 percent for disaster relief; 25 percent for peacekeeping; 21 percent for humanitarian relief; and only 11 percent for Korean or Vietnam police action.

Firing on U.S. Citizens?

While all of the questions in this survey should have stimulated concern, the survey's final question has generated an enormous amount of attention:

   The U.S. government declares a ban on the possession, sale, transportation, and transfer of all non-sporting firearms. A thirty (30) day amnesty period is permitted for these firearms to be turned over to the local authorities. At the end of this period, a number of citizen groups refuse to turn over their firearms. Consider the following statement: I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the U.S. government.

The survey results: 42.3 percent strongly disagreed with this statement; 19.3 percent disagreed; 18.6 percent agreed; 7.6 percent strongly agreed; and 12.0 percent had no opinion. In one of the footnotes appearing in his thesis, Cunningham quotes comments placed by some of the Marines next to their answers to this question: "What about the damn Second Amendment? .... I feel this is a first in communism! .... Read the book None Dare Call It Conspiracy by Gary Allen." "I would not even consider it. The reason we have guns is so that the people can overthrow the gov't when or if the people think the gov't is too powerful." "Freedom to bear arms is our Second Amendment. If you take our Amendments away then you can take this job and stick it where the sun don't shine! .... It is a right to own firearms for defense (2nd Amendment); I would fight for that right!"

Based on the disagreement expressed by 61 percent of the Marines, Cunningham concluded that "a complete unit breakdown would occur in a unit tasked to execute this mission."

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: ....just because we aren't as bad as other countries are or were doesn't mean we shouldn't bitch and work to keep that from happening.   As long as you don't give aid and comfort to the enemy, I'm fine with that. But if you do.... ...you better run. i'm not sure i understand what you mean.  i was only referring to DaveA's statement about the US not being as bad as other countries.  I completely agree with what you wrote. Not you, but some people in this country take "bitching" to a new level. They carry signs supporting our enemies. They advocate the death of our soldiers in Iraq. They cleary and unambiguously side with the enemy. They SHOULD be tried and convicted of treason. Better yet, they should be run down in the street by an angry mob of patriots.

+1!

There ain't no justice like angry mob justice!

Exhibit A

Quoted: US Constitution, Article III Section 3: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court. The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

So, how does that square with all you 'The government did something I don't like, wah-wah vote from the rooftops' zealots?

If this is how you've distilled the various gov-realted criticisms posted around the forum, then either you lack an eye for detail, or you're not much for reading comprehension.  Plenty of well-placed concerns/issues have been posted.

...we are all well-represented by duly elected officials...

That's a matter of asshole/opinion.

...Somehow I think those of you who cry 'tyranny' or 'revolution' need to go live under real tyranny for a while - you have NO IDEA what tyranny is, and have come to equate it with 'not getting your way'...

Your bias is overwhelming - in an unimpressive sort of way.

Why don't you stick to crashing any/all threads concerning firearms employing piston-op?  Ever since you started receiving checks signed by the gov., you've taken on this gov-can-do-no-wrong theme.  Stop kissing your keepers ass on a public forum &/or annointing yourself as some sort of expert on the US Constitution & lecturing on the requisits of tyranical machination.

Your well-representing gov't at work: www.truthinjustice.org/corrupt-FBI.htm & www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/11/16/boston_men_cleared_in_slayings_sue_govt/

Yeah, it's all good.

Well, for the sake of being provocative....


Right now in this country, and here on this board, there are Americans who consider the government of the United States to be so far from the Founder's intent, that they feel armed revolution would be a perfectly reasonable option.
Right now.

If those individuals chose to initiate an armed revolt against the government, as it stands RIGHT NOW, I would enthusiastically use deadly force put down their little revolt.

No problem.

Sure, THEY would be saying that "good Americans and patriots" should side with them.
But WE would be saying the opposite. WE would win the argument.

Quoted: Read the Federalist Papers and get back to us

The Constitution, not letters, essays, and other historical but non-legal documents, is the matter at hand here...

If the Founders thought it was OK to have a revolution every time you had a political grievance that could not be resolved at the ballot box, then WHY punish treason?

This logically indicates that they did not believe in such a broad view of revolutionary legitimacy....

Dave_A, I think you have an entirely wrong concept of what it means to be American and your obligation to protect the Constitution of the United States. First and foremost you must uphold the Constitution of the United States against all enemies both foriegn and domestic. Should the government no longer serve the people then the 2nd Amendment being part of the system of checks and balances- allows for the people to institute a new government if need be. The founding father's made it very clear that if the government oversteps their bounds and no longer serves the will of the people- then they are to be abolished. Treason is anyone who violates the rights set forth in the Constitution of the United States.    

The Founding Fathers knew what they meant and meant what they wrote.

George Washington: "A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."


Thomas Jefferson: "I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."


Alexander Hamilton: "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government." (Federalist #28)


George Mason: "I ask sir, what is the militia?  It is the whole body of the people except for a few public officials." (Elliott, Debates, 425-426)


Patrick Henry: "The people have a right to keep and bear arms." (Elliott, Debates at 185)


Benjamin Franklin: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." ( Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759)


James Monroe: "Liberty of conscience in matters of religious faith, of speech and of the press; of the trial by jury of the vicinage in civil and criminal cases; of the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus; of the right to keep and bear arms.... If these rights are well defined, and secured against encroachment, it is impossible that government should ever degenerate into tyranny."


James Madison : “Oppressors can tyrannize only when they achieve a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace.”


Thomas Jefferson: "On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invent against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." ( June 12, 1823)


Samual Adams: "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." (Convention of the Commonwealth of Mass., 86-87, date still being sought)


Thomas Jefferson:  "I hope, therefore, a bill of rights will be formed to guard the people against the Federal government as they are already guarded against their State governments, in most instances." (Letter to James Madison, 1788. ME 7:98)


Samuel Adams:  "...It is always dangerous to the liberties of the people to have an army stationed among them, over which they have no control...The Militia is composed of free Citizens.  There is therefore no danger of their making use of their power to the destruction of their own Rights, or suffering others to invade them."  


Samuel Adams :  "It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." (The Father of the American Revolution)


Samuel Adams of Massachusetts: "The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms." (U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788)


Thomas Jefferson:  "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1776)


Thomas Jefferson: "God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." (letter to William S. Smith, 1787)


Thomas Jefferson: "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."


Thomas Jefferson : "The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." (Letter to John Cartwright, 1824)


George Washington: "The hour is fast approaching, on which the Honor and Success of this army, and the safety of our bleeding Country depend.  Remember officers and Soldiers, that you are Freemen, fighting for the blessings of Liberty that slavery will be your portion, and that of your posterity, if you do not acquit yourselves like men."


Alexander Hamilton: “The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”  (The Federalist Papers at 184-8)


George Washington: “A free people ought...to be armed.” (speech of Jan. 7, 1790 in the Boston Independent Chronicle, Jan. 14, 1790.)


Patrick Henry :  “The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.” (3 Elliot, Debates at 386.)


Thomas Jefferson:  “One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them.”  (to George Washington, 1796. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Memorial Edition; Lipscomb and Bergh, editors)


Thomas Jefferson: "The Constitution of most of our states and of the United States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."


John Adams: "Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense." (A defense of the Constitution of the US)


George Washington: "A free people ought to be armed." (Jan 14 1790, Boston Independent Chronicle.)


Thomas Jefferson: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (T. Jefferson papers, 334, C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)


James Madison: "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose leaders are afraid to trust them with arms." (Federalist Paper #46)


Richard Henry Lee: "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." (Additional letters from the Federal Farmer, at 169, 1788)


James Madison: "A well regulated militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." (1st Annals of Congress, at 434, June 8th 1789, emphasis added.)

Quoted: Dave_A, I think you have an entirely wrong concept of what it means to be American and your concepts of governmental control borderline on treason.......

Stop!


No need to go on.
Anytime someone presumes to lecture people on the meaning of "what it means to be American" and the Constitution, and they begin by claiming that someone's MERE WORDS "borderline on treason"....

They lose the debate.

Period.

Quoted: Quoted: Dave_A, I think you have an entirely wrong concept of what it means to be American and your concepts of governmental control borderline on treason....... Stop! No need to go on. Anytime someone presumes to lecture people on the meaning of "what it means to be American" and the Constitution, and they begin by claiming that someone's MERE WORDS "borderline on treason".... They lose the debate. Period.

I removed that line before you even returned a reply to this post because I agree and realized my mistake on that matter. My point however is that we, as the people, serve first the Constitution of the United States, without which we no longer have a country.

Quoted: The Constitution, not letters, essays, and other historical but non-legal documents, is the matter at hand here....

Fine.

The Constitution is a document that details an agreement between the governed, and the government.


Last time I looked, the government was violating virtually every part of that agreement, thereby you could argue they are in breech of contract, thereby making said contract null and void

Quoted: Fine. The Constitution is a document that details an agreement between the governed, and the government. Last time I looked, the government was violating virtually every part of that agreement, thereby you could argue they are in breech of contract, thereby making said contract null and void

+1 Beat me to it.

It's a contract, they're in violation.  It would be treasonous to rise against a government fully in compliance with our Constitution. Ours is not.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Dave_A, I think you have an entirely wrong concept of what it means to be American and your concepts of governmental control borderline on treason....... Stop! No need to go on. Anytime someone presumes to lecture people on the meaning of "what it means to be American" and the Constitution, and they begin by claiming that someone's MERE WORDS "borderline on treason".... They lose the debate. Period. I removed that line before you even returned a reply to this post because I agree and realized my mistake on that matter. My point however is that we, as the people, serve first the Constitution of the United States, without which we no longer have a country.

A "mistake"?

Or a revelation of your true feelings?

Either way, your moral authority on these matters is now suspect.

Quoted: Quoted: Fine. The Constitution is a document that details an agreement between the governed, and the government. Last time I looked, the government was violating virtually every part of that agreement, thereby you could argue they are in breech of contract, thereby making said contract null and void +1 Beat me to it. It's a contract, they're in violation.  It would be treasonous to rise against a government fully in compliance with our Constitution. Ours is not.

So you're saying you would support armed revolution against this country because YOU consider the government's level of compliance with the Constitution to not be of your liking?

If you did so, RIGHT NOW, I'd gladly put you and your fellow traitors down.

Quoted: Quoted: The Constitution, not letters, essays, and other historical but non-legal documents, is the matter at hand here.... Fine. The Constitution is a document that details an agreement between the governed, and the government. Last time I looked, the government was violating virtually every part of that agreement, thereby you could argue they are in breech of contract, thereby making said contract null and void

I think most here would agree with that statement fully. Many of us also serve/served our country either as an LEO or military- each having sworn the oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States against all enemies. We as the body of the "people" are obligated to uphold the Constitution as well. However Democracy shall always be the first attempt in peaceful means.  

Quoted: So you're saying you would support armed revolution against this country because YOU consider the government's level of compliance with the Constitution to not be of your liking? If you did so, RIGHT NOW, I'd gladly put you and your fellow traitors down.

There is no level of compliance.  You comply, or you do not.  They do not.  The Constitution is an absolute.  SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, among others.  Everyone knows it's being infringed, it's not just me and my crazy opinion.

I'm not saying a revolution is right or wrong, but Treason it is not.

This thread is a trainwreck in the making

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Fine. The Constitution is a document that details an agreement between the governed, and the government. Last time I looked, the government was violating virtually every part of that agreement, thereby you could argue they are in breech of contract, thereby making said contract null and void +1 Beat me to it. It's a contract, they're in violation.  It would be treasonous to rise against a government fully in compliance with our Constitution. Ours is not. So you're saying you would support armed revolution against this country because YOU consider the government's level of compliance with the Constitution to not be of your liking? If you did so, RIGHT NOW, I'd gladly put you and your fellow traitors down.

We have a Democracy first to elect those whom govern and serve. Be that, we also have the 1st Amendment right to disagree and a 2nd Amendment right should we no longer be allowed a voice.

Quoted: US Constitution, Article III Section 3: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court. The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted. So, how does that square with all you 'The government did something I don't like, wah-wah vote from the rooftops' zealots? It seems pretty clear that the founders felt that an armed revolt against the government they formed under the Constitution was treason, not a justified revolution. They also went out of their way to explicitly charge Congress with setting a punishment for this crime, one of THREE crimes Congress has direct authority over (the other 2 are Counterfeiting and Piracy) We are still under that government today - with the exception of abortion and the right to privacy, the vast majority of changes to the Constitution have been by amendment, and we are all well-represented by duly elected officials... Somehow I think those of you who cry 'tyranny' or 'revolution' need to go live under real tyranny for a while - you have NO IDEA what tyranny is, and have come to equate it with 'not getting your way'....

Your ignorance of history is almost without limit.

George Washington: "A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."


Alexander Hamilton: "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government." (Federalist #28)

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Fine. The Constitution is a document that details an agreement between the governed, and the government. Last time I looked, the government was violating virtually every part of that agreement, thereby you could argue they are in breech of contract, thereby making said contract null and void +1 Beat me to it. It's a contract, they're in violation.  It would be treasonous to rise against a government fully in compliance with our Constitution. Ours is not. So you're saying you would support armed revolution against this country because YOU consider the government's level of compliance with the Constitution to not be of your liking? If you did so, RIGHT NOW, I'd gladly put you and your fellow traitors down.

You've repeated that last line and paid special attention to that phrase.

Not a flame, but I am curious as to what you think the government must do in order for you to rise up against it in the future, since you have been emphatic that their violations of the Constitution are not worthy of an armed revolt right now.

Quoted: Quoted: So you're saying you would support armed revolution against this country because YOU consider the government's level of compliance with the Constitution to not be of your liking? If you did so, RIGHT NOW, I'd gladly put you and your fellow traitors down. There is no level of compliance.  You comply, or you do not.  They do not.  The Constitution is an absolute.  SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, among others.  Everyone knows it's being infringed, it's not just me and my crazy opinion. I'm not saying a revolution is right or wrong, but Treason it is not.

So someone who RIGHT NOW wages armed revolution against the US, you do not think is treasonous?

And you won't say whether it's right or wrong.

You don't think that armed revolt attempting to overthrow the elected government of the U.S. is "treason"?
Nor do you even think it's wrong.

That's interesting.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Fine. The Constitution is a document that details an agreement between the governed, and the government. Last time I looked, the government was violating virtually every part of that agreement, thereby you could argue they are in breech of contract, thereby making said contract null and void +1 Beat me to it. It's a contract, they're in violation.  It would be treasonous to rise against a government fully in compliance with our Constitution. Ours is not. So you're saying you would support armed revolution against this country because YOU consider the government's level of compliance with the Constitution to not be of your liking? If you did so, RIGHT NOW, I'd gladly put you and your fellow traitors down. You've repeated that last line and paid special attention to that phrase. Not a flame, but I am curious as to what you think the government must do in order for you to rise up against it in the future, since you have been emphatic that their violations of the Constitution are not worthy of an armed revolt right now.

I don't think we're anywhere near that point. Nor is it a tangible point or a specific line in the sand.

But I find the ambiguous nature of some of these statements to be nothing more than cowardice.
To suggest that the way things are RIGHT NOW merits armed revolution is a bold thing to say.
Yet no one seems to have the balls to actually come out and say it. Nor do they seems to be doing anything about it.

So I say in no uncertain terms, that I do NOT think such a validation exists RIGHT NOW, and I would gladly put down any who tried it.

The line in the sand is drawn to close for most as that line will never be crossed in a sense to cause such an uprsing. Instead incremental deterioration of said rights will be accomplished until no one is left with the means to secure them.

I'm just a simple man , Is giving aid and comfort to a foreign invader
considered treason ?