A petition to try feinstein for treason

[Forever_frost]

It's debatable Yale. She is advocating and putting forth a bill that violates the Constitution and her oath of office. Sounds like treason

[racrguy]

It's debatable Yale. She is advocating and putting forth a bill that violates the Constitution and her oath of office. Sounds like treason

The constitution disagrees with you

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.

[ceyko]

I saw that earlier on FB. I'm not impressed with anything where United States does not have a capital U and S...this one just has an S.

[ScottJ]

So, you have to register to participate.

People freely giving up their names, email, and who knows what else to .gov, plus identifying position on a social issue.

Smart.

[inline 6]

So, you have to register to participate.

People freely giving up their names, email, and who knows what else to .gov, plus identifying position on a social issue.

Smart.

I love a good tinfoil hat but you are taking it a bit too far.....

[ScottJ]

I love a good tinfoil hat but you are taking it a bit too far.....

Fair enough I respect anyone's way, mine is minimal exposure and disclosure

Besides, on a simple web-based petition like this, plenty of methods to build a macro to sign it w/ fake data. I would imagine whomever is responsible with 'doing something' at .gov with the petition info, may know that, but again maybe I'm just overly suspicious and cynical.

[YALE]

It's debatable Yale. She is advocating and putting forth a bill that violates the Constitution and her oath of office. Sounds like treason

It's her job to amend the constitution. That isn't treason.

[Forever_frost]

The constitution disagrees with you

To enforce this law, she would have to declare war on gun owners. IF you do not obey, guns are drawn on you and you are forced into compliance.

[Forever_frost]

It's her job to amend the constitution. That isn't treason.

Is this an amendment to the Constitution? No, it's a gun grab that violates the federal government's authority

[racrguy]

To enforce this law, she would have to declare war on gun owners. IF you do not obey, guns are drawn on you and you are forced into compliance.

War on drugs, war on Christmas, war on guns!

Personally, I'd like to start a war against stupidity, but there are far too many stupid people...........

The constitution still disagrees with you.

[YALE]

Is this an amendment to the Constitution? No, it's a gun grab that violates the federal government's authority

She hasn't grabbed anything, and if her bill did pass, it would be legal, until challenged in court. In point of fact, it would give the federal beauracracy much more authority. It wouldn't be the first time a new amendment superseded an old one. That's a legitimate function of the Congress.

[YALE]

More to the point of the thread, her introduction of the bill, again, is not an act of treason, as defined by the constitution. Her introduction of the bill also doesn't make it law.

[Forever_frost]

War on drugs, war on Christmas, war on guns!

Personally, I'd like to start a war against stupidity, but there are far too many stupid people...........

The constitution still disagrees with you.

Show me where she draws the authority to write this bill

[Forever_frost]

She hasn't grabbed anything, and if her bill did pass, it would be legal, until challenged in court. In point of fact, it would give the federal beauracracy much more authority. It wouldn't be the first time a new amendment superseded an old one. That's a legitimate function of the Congress.

If she was offering it up as a constitutional amendment, I'd agree. As the 2nd amendment states that it shall not be infringed, the federal government holds no authority to create ANY gun laws. As the Supreme Court has decided to use the incorporation doctrine and force the bindings of the Constitution on states and cities, those are also forbidden from creating weapons laws.

Constitution. Have to love it. I really don't care what the supreme court, the Constitution is simple.

[YALE]

If she was offering it up as a constitutional amendment, I'd agree. As the 2nd amendment states that it shall not be infringed, the federal government holds no authority to create ANY gun laws. As the Supreme Court has decided to use the incorporation doctrine and force the bindings of the Constitution on states and cities, those are also forbidden from creating weapons laws.

Constitution. Have to love it. I really don't care what the supreme court, the Constitution is simple.

Except they have. Are you saying we should ignore the NFA? Your argument doesn't jive with where the rubber meets the road, dude. You may be correct if we're to assume that the original bill of rights are the only laws that apply to us, but they aren't. That being said, I really enjoy debating you, because you are always technically correct, and you make me think about what I have to say in response. Unfortunately, regardless of what you or I think of gun laws (I personally believe them to be fundamentally unfair), in the real world, SWAT teams are standing by.