OK people, I am seriously tired of jackasses on both sides of the Gun Side throwing around the word treason (and immediate request for execution) like it was beads at Mardi Gras in the French Quarter.
This is what the Constitution say about Treason. You will find it in Article Three:
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.
So, it is quite a different take from having to deal with politicians doing what we know to be constitutional. But if they don’t behave, we apply that pesky part of the Constitution that says something about “petition the government for a redress of grievances.” And if that fails, we vote bums out.
But just because you have the urge to buttress your macho after 10 hours of playing Minecraft and start spouting that any deviation of the Constitution is enough grounds for execution, you better let the hangman know your neck size as you are doing the same stupid thing.
13 thoughts on “Treason: I don’t think that word means what you think it means.”
Okay, I am guilty of this “crime” in other postings and stand rebuked.
May I ask though, when politicians specifically target the Second Amendment, which is expressly designed to provide the means for our defense against our enemies, does this not give general aid and comfort to our enemies?
It’s a bit of a stretch I know.
I appreciate the petition the government and vote the bums out approaches. I do worry about the damage that can be done in the interim for unConstitutional laws before the courts or the ballot box can reverse them. There is little to deter the most evil of politicians from ignoring laws and rules they should be subject to, such as the Constitution. It has no teeth.
Say politicians made laws in which the practice of my religion was punishable by immediate execution and the population was okay with this and the courts slow to act and divided? Such laws would clearly be out of bounds, yet, no personal repercussions for the lawmakers, except maybe dismissal. The issue is immunity of politicians.
These issues seem to be the cost of our style of government.
This is why we don’t have a democracy, but a Constitutional Republic, and as we can observe, even that is ineffective at times.
Here’s the thing about fast and loose definitions of treason. Tyrants throughout the ages have used the fast and loose definition of treason to kill off people they don’t like, people who disagree with them, you get the picture.
In this, the seeds of tyranny lay, even among those who claim to support personal freedom.
Yes, we need to use words precisely and I failed on that by using the word treason.
Some descriptors that would be more accurate for those politicians who enact gun control laws might be “oath-breakers” (they swore an oath to uphold the Constitution), and “lawless” (the gun control laws do infringe on the Second Amendment and often other laws), and “tyrants” (because they usually have exemptions for the state and its agents while fully applying gun control laws to citizens).
Regarding the charge of treason, would you not agree that the British viewed our revolution as very treasonous? Anyone who advocates the replacement of a government can be smeared in that way, even if it is fully justifiable. Anyone who tried to overthrow Kim Jun Whatever in North Korea would be shot for their viewpoint. Our current POTUS is quite happy to label political and ideological opponents as potential terrorists. It should not stifle us or be used to load us onto rail cars for re-education camps.
When the government calls us treasonous without cause or when it has failed to secure the blessings of our liberties and threatens us, then it should be game on for some old fashioned treason/revolution.
And the charge would be sedition… but to be enforceable it has to represent an immediate danger to do so. Otherwise it is protected speech according to SCOTUS.
More like his minions doing so. 😀
The name calling may be gauche, but it does not rise to the level of summarily executing political dissenters. We are NOT a banana Republic.
Agreed, we are still very far away from having to resort to replacing the government. Please do remember that the Declaration of Independence outlines the basic parameters for when it may be necessary to do so. let us pray that it never has to come to that. That is why strongly defending our Second Amendment rights are paramount to deter the ambitions of evil men.
There is a post by Joe over at TVFNCI elaborating on this: http://blog.joehuffman.org/2013/03/07/conspiracy-to-infringe/
I will note that neither of those sections cover “treason,” but both do have provisions for the death penalty under the right circumstances.
While Article III, Section 3 Clause 1 defines Treason as “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”, I wouldn’t be too quick to discount it entirely: True, it has not happened yet, but a long train of abuses and usurpations are certainly setting us up for exactly that. Meanwhile, we have a means readily at hand to deal with the subversives attempting to destroy our Constitution for the purpose of setting us up for their Treason: The enemies of our Constitution are most assuredly advocating rendering our 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 10th Amendments irrelevant and moot with their ‘background check’ initiatives, and some State and federal legislators have taken overt steps in that direction by introducing legislation designed to violate our rights secured by those Amendments. That may not be Treason, but it is sure as hell Insurrection, and Title 18 United States Code Section 2383 provides stiff punishment for Insurrection:
“Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States. “
So there is no mandatory execution anywhere…. Back again to my original point: Agent Kory Watkins is an idiot
Watkins is, no question… and I can’t help but think he’s a false flag op…. sigh Having served for 22 years in the military, that is NOT a word I use lightly…
You defined treason, now define those other terms used to define treason. Just what is meant by “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort”? Is the “United States” the Federal Government? Since it goes on and states “…against them…” does that mean the individual states? Just what is meant by “levying war”? or “adhering to their Enemies”, or “Aid and Comfort”? Maybe those people making the claims are the jackasses after all. And the word Treason means what I think it means.
I meant to say: Maybe those people making the claims are *NOT* the jackasses after all
No, Article three of the Constitution defines Treason.
As for the rest, I will not engage in a sophomoric discussion which you have already lost. If you are trying to parse “levying war” into something somebody does that you don’t like, you are as jackass as Agent Kory, Shannon Watts and the rest of the moron cavalcade that need to change the meaning of terms to fit a narrow and most particular and temporary political stance.
Go do a keg stand.
Comments are closed.
Login or register to comment.