View Single Post
Old 10-31-2007, 09:26 PM   #13
joepole
SBLive! Veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,606
Rep Power: 177 joepole has much to be proud of joepole has much to be proud of joepole has much to be proud of joepole has much to be proud of joepole has much to be proud of joepole has much to be proud of joepole has much to be proud of joepole has much to be proud of joepole has much to be proud of
Quote:
trea·son (trzn)
n.
1. Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
2. A betrayal of trust or confidence

Any violation of the Bill Of Rights is treason, but most especially a violation of the Second Amendment, since it is this very right that safeguards all of our other inalienable rights against a tyranical government. Ergo, their actions constitute treason. End of story.
1. That is from (I assume) some dictionary, since the Constitution clearly defines treason in article III:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

So "any violation of the Bill Of Rights is treason" is ludicrous. If that were true every single President of the United States (including the current one) would have been executed because every single Presidential administration since at least Lincoln has had at least one Executive action ruled Unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

I ask again, why do you consider it acceptable to personally selectively ignore portions of the Constitution (such as the very specific definition of treason) but when someone else does it (such as the not-court-verified right for an individual to bear arms) you consider it an offense worthy of execution?
joepole is offline   Reply With Quote