SBLive handles Blank-O with kidgloves

[Al Swearengen]

If any of you have NOT viewed the above video, I urge you to do so! I had seen it once, but I viewed it again, and it brings my blood to a boil every time. Those people who had their guns confiscated, illegally confiscated, would've been within their rights to offer armed resistence, and no jury in the country could in good conscience do anything but call their actions justified. If you folks in the membership have any appreciation for the gravity of this crime, I hope you'll join me in formally demandin and insistin that every single law enforcement officer involved as well as their superiors be brought up on charges of high treason against the republic and executed, which is the penalty for that most serious crime. If you consider yourselves Americans and freedom lovers, it is your patriotic duty to ensure that this heinous crime and the criminals who perpetrated it are brought to justice.

[joepole]

>that every single law enforcement officer involved as well as their superiors be brought up on charges of high treason against the republic and executed

Exaggerate much?

[joepole]

>Yes, T-R-E-A-S-O-N-O-U-S! Thats what I call it when someone takes a dump on the Second Amendment and wipes their butt with the Constitution. What do you call it?

I would call it Unconstitutional.

Why is, in your opinion, ignoring one part of the Constitution (the 2nd Amendment) an executable offense, but ignoring another (the definition of treason) not?

[Al Swearengen]

Originally Posted by joepole

>Yes, T-R-E-A-S-O-N-O-U-S! Thats what I call it when someone takes a dump on the Second Amendment and wipes their butt with the Constitution. What do you call it?

I would call it Unconstitutional.

Why is, in your opinion, ignoring one part of the Constitution (the 2nd Amendment) an executable offense, but ignoring another (the definition of treason) not?

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.

[joepole]

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?

[Al Swearengen]

Originally Posted by joepole

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?

The U.S. Constitution is a wonderful document and the men who wrote it were wise and forward-thinking, but it aint perfect, which is why it is from time to time amended. Clearly, an excellent case can be made that it's definition of treason can and should be applied to such heinous crimes against the Republic (defined as the United States, or simply "We The People") as violations of the Bill Of Rights, particularly violations against the Second Amendment. As for the Second Amendment right to bear arms not bein "court verified"...

"during the years of Chief Justice Earl Warren's Court (1953–69), when most of the guarantees of the Bill of Rights were held to apply to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment (1868; "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens").

Gun rights advocates interpret the Second Amendment as a guarantee to individuals of the right to keep and bear arms without any government interference whatsoever. Researcher David B. Kopel of the New York University School of Law concluded that the Supreme Court has generally agreed with this interpretation. In "The Supreme Court's Thirty-Five Other Second Amendment Cases" (St. Louis University Public Law Review, vol. 18, no. 99, 1999) he wrote:

[T]he question whether the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right can be pretty well settled by looking at the thirty-five other Supreme Court cases which quote, cite, or discuss the Second Amendment. These cases suggest that the Justices of the Supreme Court do now and usually have regarded the Second Amendment "right of the people to keep and bear arms" as an individual right, rather than as a right of state governments.

Consider for a moment the spirit or intent of the Second Amendment. The right to bear arms is an "inalienable right", meanin that it is "God given" and as such can be neither given nor taken away by men (the government), provided you've not been convicted of any serious crimes or adjudicated mentally deficient. The Second Amendment holds the distinction of bein our most important inalienable right, as it is the ultimate insurance that our other inalienable rights remain just that...inalienable and inviolate. Violations of this most precious right are a direct threat to our Constitutional Republic, to our way of life, and without a doubt meet the definition of "levying War against the United States" (again defined as "We The People"), and therefore rate the ultimate penalty, lest everything this country stands for be lost.

Simply put, Joe, if you're a legally armed American citizen and your own government disarms ya, they're deprivin ya of your right to "Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit O' Happiness"...in other words, the government becomes the enemy when they wage war on us, and that is treason!

You're poorly served by your penchant for semantics, as it is usually your undoin in these debates. By your logic, the Rosenbergs should never have been executed, since we were not at war with the Soviet Union. You may not have invented "political correctness", but it sure as hell seems to be your guidin philosophy.

[Al Swearengen]

Originally Posted by joepole

>that every single law enforcement officer involved as well as their superiors be brought up on charges of high treason against the republic and executed

Exaggerate much?

Ya think? If so, ya got another think comin. Ya cant see my face, so ya cant see the fury and righteous indignation in my eyes, but you're willfully obtuse if ya took the tone of my words for exaggeration. We cant just sit back and let em get away with a slap on the wrist, or let em get away with it altogether. This is the single most serious crime against the republic in years, perpetrated by the very people we entrusted and empowered to defend it, and the guilty must be made an example of so as to ensure it never happens again.

[rhertz]

New Orleans could have been hit by a hurricane at any time in the last 100+ years. It could have happened under Edwards or Treen or Roemer, but it didn't. Blanco won that lottery by chance, and suffers these days because she is white and also because of liberalism.

I seriously doubt any politician could be prepared for such a disaster, not because the scientists didn't predict the event wouldn't eventually happen, but because of a rise in socialism. What we witnessed was the lack of government being able to save the day. Only liberals think the government should be reponsible for your life and welfare. And if that his true, it is nice not to be responsible for your own well being, just let the government take care of it. The result is having your guns taken away. The result is being stuck in a hell hole. Many people don't get it, because they want to rely on the government instead of themselves. People who put faith in their government over themselves don't deserve to survive in a world where survivial of the fittest still rings true.

Some people are not able to take care of themselves, elderly, children, etc. But I would rather rely on my family, my church, my friends, and my paid help anyday of the week over government, and I don't even give them 30% plus of my paycheck.

[Al Swearengen]

Originally Posted by rhertz

New Orleans could have been hit by a hurricane at any time in the last 100+ years. It could have happened under Edwards or Treen or Roemer, but it didn't. Blanco won that lottery by chance, and suffers these days because she is white and also because of liberalism.

I seriously doubt any politician could be prepared for such a disaster, not because the scientists didn't predict the event wouldn't eventually happen, but because of a rise in socialism. What we witnessed was the lack of government being able to save the day. Only liberals think the government should be reponsible for your life and welfare. And if that his true, it is nice not to be responsible for your own well being, just let the government take care of it. The result is having your guns taken away. The result is being stuck in a hell hole. Many people don't get it, because they want to rely on the government instead of themselves. People who put faith in their government over themselves don't deserve to survive in a world where survivial of the fittest still rings true.

Some people are not able to take care of themselves, elderly, children, etc. But I would rather rely on my family, my church, my friends, and my paid help anyday of the week over government, and I don't even give them 30% plus of my paycheck.

I agree with everythin you've said, Rhertz. I dont blame Blank-O for bein unlucky enough to have Katrina happen on her watch. But I believe she was complicit in and thus culpable for that unconscionable crime against the law-abidin people of that area, and she should be punished for it.

[Isaac-Saxxon]

I just now watched the youtube and I agree that the cops were and are way off base taking the weapons away from citizens and of all times when they most need it. I think the cops got a case of to much power in that situation and should have been held responsible for their actions. I am sure they would not want to have their weapons taken if they where in their own home. OH but they are cops and privilege comes with that. Kathy Blanco is a puppet and her handlers screwed the pooch.

[rhertz]

Originally Posted by Isaac-Saxxon

I just now watched the youtube and I agree that the cops were and are way off base taking the weapons away from citizens and of all times when they most need it. I think the cops got a case of to much power in that situation and should have been held responsible for their actions. I am sure they would not want to have their weapons taken if they where in their own home. OH but they are cops and privilege comes with that. Kathy Blanco is a puppet and her handlers screwed the pooch.

Good post. Blanco may be a puppet but voters hold all the strings. Speaking for myself, I am disappointed in all Louisiana voters since Huey Long and maybe before that. The Levees should have held, if the last 50 years of government was capable and honest. The levies were not built by the Blanco administration. Ticking time bomb went off, and there are more time bombs in Louisiana than I care to think about. (wetland destruction, pollution, good ole boys network, levee board, another hurricane, etc.) I hope one does not go off for Jindal, but it could. Some might give him a pass if he flashes his GOP card. I am a Republican but I've VERY pro-Louisiana above all! God Bless this great state! (despite the state we are in) LOL

[rhertz]

Originally Posted by Al Swearengen

I agree with almost everythin you've said, Rhertz. I dont blame Blank-O for bein unlucky enough to have Katrina happen on her watch. But I believe she was complicit and thus culpable for that unconscionable crime against the law-abidin people of that area, and she should be punished for it.

Al, I agree taking firearms from legal Amercians is unconscionable, and against our constitution. Also the Post-Katrina bridge blockade, preventing citizens from escaping the disaster and simply walking to freedom. Also abandoning elderly in assisted living facilities. And more sins those days than I care to mention.

Also allowing millions of illegal aliens live in our country and get drivers licenses. Were do I stop? I will sum things up by blaming "government" and not one single individual. That rings "scapegoat", "fall guy", "bagholder" to me... Such massive failures could not possibly be any one man's (or woman's) fault. It was a total breakdown of the institution who takes our tax money or else puts us in jail.

Really it is yours, mine, and the other guys fault - every single citizen who votes for larger and larger government to save the day instead of voting for smaller government and greater personal responsibility. Blanco was voted in. Elected by the greatest system on earth (albeit flawed). Why not blame all the voters? Are they not ultimately responsible?

[Al Swearengen]

Originally Posted by rhertz

I will sum things up by blaming "government" and not one single individual. That rings "scapegoat", "fall guy", "bagholder" to me... Such massive failures could not possibly be any one man's (or woman's) fault. It was a total breakdown of the institution who takes our tax money or else puts us in jail.

Really it is yours, mine, and the other guys fault - every single citizen who votes for larger and larger government to save the day instead of voting for smaller government and greater personal responsibility. Blanco was voted in. Elected by the greatest system on earth (albeit flawed). Why not blame all the voters? Are they not ultimately responsible?

If ya blame the government or the voters, ya make it possible for the individuals in government/power who commit such crimes to go undetected, unprosecuted, unsentenced, and unpunished, which sends the message to their fellow government employees (civil servants) that they can violate our rights and freedoms with impunity. Which is why we must hold them accountable. Governments are composed of individuals who are accountable for the decisions and choices they make that affect us all. This is why that "I was just followin orders" horseschit didnt cut it at Nuremburg, and it aint gonna cut it here!

[Morpheus]

Originally Posted by rhertz

I seriously doubt any politician could be prepared for such a disaster

I think Haley Barbour did a credible job.