Free speech and sedition?

[Core Imposter]

Being extremely angry right this minute over a proposed despicable amendment, it occurs to me that I really don't know how far I can go in terms of calling for action against the government in general or one party in particular without actually committing a crime.

If I had mortar set up in range of the Capitol in the moment I read that I might have dropped a round or two. Can I say that? What is the law?

What is sedition? What is treason?

It really makes me understand how it was that Hitler came to power. The outrage in my soul is such that I can see how I might be persuaded to risk a lot to counter the rampant tyranny afoot.

 

[JollyRoger]

You know, providing a link is free.

 

[Core Imposter]

You know, providing a link is free.

You are right. Sorry.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/may/8/house-vote-trayvon-amendment/

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

How about posting the amendment in question as a point of reference as to what has outraged you . Then we will know what you consider worthy of committing treason / sedition for . That should at least provide some direction for a page or so until someone mentions the "A" word.

 

[JollyRoger]

So weening states from the Federal dole is bad enough for you want to take violent action? States can still stay on the dole if they go back to the standard self defense laws that have worked for centuries.

 

[Core Imposter]

Someone should be man enough to beat their ass just for daring to offer this amendment. The time for talk has passed.

Okay, maybe not. Boy, this steams me.

 

[JollyRoger]

It has been standard practice for decades. That's how we got 55 mph speed limits and drinking ages of 21.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Someone should be man enough to beat their ass just for daring to offer this amendment. The time for talk has passed.

Okay, maybe not. Boy, this steams me.

This isn't the type of thing to start a Revolution over.....

 

[Core Imposter]

It has been standard practice for decades. That's how we got 55 mph speed limits and drinking ages of 21.

JR, this is not news to me.

Are you simply suggesting that we must FOREVER take it up the arse just because we ALWAYS have?

 

[GhostWriter16]

Jr's logic tends to be "They've always done it, therefore its good" anyways...

For the record, I'm strongly pro-castle doctrine, but I'm not sure how that differs from "Stand your ground."

 

[Core Imposter]

This isn't the type of thing to start a Revolution over.....

Incremental infringements upon our liberty dull the senses. Our failure to address this process can only lead to a bloody end. It will eventually be some small trigger that will loose the Devil.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Well, yeah, I get what your saying, but you can't go to war every time the elected government does something you don't like.

Granted, if your state decides to secede, fine (They won't though) but that'a whole different bag of tricks.

 

[kramerfan86]

lol not an overreaction to an amendment that is clearly going to fail at all.

Also, I dont support forced dumping of the laws, but I do support cutting off states like Florida who did such an unacceptably poor job of writing the law in question until they fix it.

 

[Cutlass]

Someone should be man enough to beat their ass just for daring to offer this amendment. The time for talk has passed.

Okay, maybe not. Boy, this steams me.

So let me get this straight... You think treason is justified because the government wants to pass a law against hunting down and murdering innocent people?

 

[Core Imposter]

So let me get this straight... You think treason is justified because the government wants to pass a law against hunting down and murdering innocent people?

Considering you, Cutlass, is strangely motivating me to vote for Romney after all.

 

[Antilogic]

Jr's logic tends to be "They've always done it, therefore its good" anyways...

For the record, I'm strongly pro-castle doctrine, but I'm not sure how that differs from "Stand your ground."

No, the logic is usually "it's been done before, so it's not an unprecedented unconstitutional power grab".

"Stand your ground" does not require you to consider retreating from a confrontation in a public space before killing someone. The castle doctrine applies to your house only.

Incremental infringements upon our liberty dull the senses. Our failure to address this process can only lead to a bloody end. It will eventually be some small trigger that will loose the Devil.

Lolwut? Trying to overturn shoot first, ask questions later laws via tax money counts as a terrible infringement on our liberties? Really?

 

[JollyRoger]

It's not an infringment of liberty. It is part of the Federal-State balance of power as first endorsed by conservative Supreme Court Justices. If anything, Stand Your Ground laws rob people of liberty because they typically take cases out of the hands of the jury and prevent a victim's family from exercising their right to a civl trial against the killer.

 

[Cutlass]

Considering you, Cutlass, is strangely motivating me to vote for Romney after all.

You were going to despite your complaining. You'd never vote for someone who was good for America.

 

[Core Imposter]

Lolwut? Trying to overturn shoot first, ask questions later laws via tax money counts as a terrible infringement on our liberties? Really?

Yes, without accepting your mischaracterization, it is a horrific infringement upon the liberty of the people.

 

[Cutlass]

Yes, without accepting your mischaracterization, it is a horrific infringement upon the liberty of the people.

Only on the murderers.