• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Militia group calls for Obama's assassination

Well, that belief and two bucks will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks. :mrgreen:

Man, Starbucks got cheap.

I understand the current laws, I disagree with them though. Since part of the very foundation of our Republic is that the government can and sometimes must be done away with when it no longer serves the rights and liberties of the people, our ability to preach insurrection and revolt must remain unabridged. It's not the law, I get it, but as this is a debate board where we put forth our opinions; that is mine. It should be legal and it should be protected by the 1st. Government doesn't want it to be legal because it doesn't want anyone preaching against their power.
 
That's why they wore the masks. Besides, ain't nothing wrong with some protest and civil disobedience. **** the establishment, **** the authority.

In the process you destroy and hurt innocent people and their property that have absolutely noting to do with your grievance...

You have a problem with a president so you smash a deli window???

If you want to get anarchistic and have a problem with the government - attack the government not small business owners that just happen to be in your wake.

Anarchists and radical progressives claim they're for the "little man" but yet turn around and destroy their places of business.

You can protest - that is your First Amendment right but destroying an innocent individuals property is WRONG!
 
It doesn't shock me that the usual suspects here absolutely refuse to condemn this, and instead are bringing up completely irrelevant red herrings, "free speech" arguments, or turning this into an excuse to rant and rave against "progressives."
 
In the process you destroy and hurt innocent people and their property that have absolutely noting to do with your grievance...

What happened when we revolted against England?

You have a problem with a president so you smash a deli window???

Nope, I do not promote random rioting as proper avenue of aggression and anger against the government. Want to stop using guesses and hyperbole and engage in an intellectually honest manner?

If you want to get anarchistic and have a problem with the government - attack the government not small business owners that just happen to be in your wake.

Anarchists and radical progressives claim they're for the "little man" but yet turn around and destroy their places of business.

You can protest - that is your First Amendment right but destroying an innocent individuals property is WRONG!

I agree, riots against local business is not the proper way to demonstrate and are not legitimate target for anti-government aggression. Never said it was. Doesn't mean some protest and civil disobedience isn't a good thing. It sometimes is and is sometimes necessary.
 
Yeah but you're missing something. Changing government through revolution has never been a protected activity. Not in our government or any really. We recognise that it is sometimes a necessity historically, but to do it you must by design fly without government support and face a whole lot of possible negative consequences if you fail (heck, even if you succeed). It's just part of it.
 
Yeah but you're missing something. Changing government through revolution has never been a protected activity. Not in our government or any really. We recognise that it is sometimes a necessity historically, but to do it you must by design fly without government support and face a whole lot of possible negative consequences if you fail (heck, even if you succeed). It's just part of it.

It is protected in some regard. Through speech, assembly, protest, and arms the ability to revolt is upheld to the People.
 
What happened when we revolted against England?



Nope, I do not promote random rioting as proper avenue of aggression and anger against the government. Want to stop using guesses and hyperbole and engage in an intellectually honest manner?



I agree, riots against local business is not the proper way to demonstrate and are not legitimate target for anti-government aggression. Never said it was. Doesn't mean some protest and civil disobedience isn't a good thing. It sometimes is and is sometimes necessary.

I'm all for "civil disobedience" - just as long as it is directed where it belongs - against the perpetrators and tyrants...

IMO, I don't give a rats ass what happens to the tyrants.. They abuse (take away and degrade) our civil liberties, judicial system, legislative branch and executive branch...... They believe they know what's best for free individuals in a free country - a country where individuals are free to make their own decisions and live life how they see fit for themselves...

Few understand that concept and the rest are aristocrats.
 
It is protected in some regard. Through speech, assembly, protest, and arms the ability to revolt is upheld to the People.

No, not even remotely. Those are protected activities only to speak to representative power. When used to revolt they have always been illegal here. From the very beginning onward.
 
lol, how are you confused. I won't stop people from running their mouths. Do I need to go slower for ya?

Who said I was confused? I was laughing at you, dude.
 
Who said I was confused? I was laughing at you, dude.

Yeah, it's funny allowing people the exercise of their rights.

You have anything of any importance to argue, or is this just useless fluff and stupid posting?
 
No, not even remotely. Those are protected activities only to speak to representative power. When used to revolt they have always been illegal here. From the very beginning onward.

The government will resist, of course, but it doesn't mean that it isn't the right and duty of the people. For it is. And things such as speech, assembly, redress, protest, firearms, etc. were made specifically to allow the People limiters on government action and the ability to reassert control should it be necessary. Of course the government itself wouldn't like it. The English government took none too lightly when we revolted against them. But it remains a necessary and protected power of the People.
 
I'm all for "civil disobedience" - just as long as it is directed where it belongs - against the perpetrators and tyrants...

IMO, I don't give a rats ass what happens to the tyrants.. They abuse (take away and degrade) our civil liberties, judicial system, legislative branch and executive branch...... They believe they know what's best for free individuals in a free country - a country where individuals are free to make their own decisions and live life how they see fit for themselves...

Few understand that concept and the rest are aristocrats.

I can understand this. And it is frustrating to see protest turn violent against non-legitimate sources. But the ability to protest and to engage in civil disobedience and even in a bit of the ol' anarchy is necessary.
 
No, not even remotely. Those are protected activities only to speak to representative power. When used to revolt they have always been illegal here. From the very beginning onward.

Our Second Amendment exists - not to hunt for food - but to predominately protect ourselves from tyrants.
 
The government will resist, of course, but it doesn't mean that it isn't the right and duty of the people. For it is. And things such as speech, assembly, redress, protest, firearms, etc. were made specifically to allow the People limiters on government action and the ability to reassert control should it be necessary. Of course the government itself wouldn't like it. The English government took none too lightly when we revolted against them. But it remains a necessary and protected power of the People.

Again, nope. You were almost there until you got to the "ability to reassert control", that is done exclusively through impeachment processes and election. We're not talking about some utopian universal right here but what the government and Constitution actually grant. You do not have a constitutional right to threaten the lives of others, even if they are politicians and you hate them. Revolution is not protected by the Constitution, in fact, to revolt you have to sideline the Constitution in the first place.
 
Again, nope. You were almost there until you got to the "ability to reassert control", that is done exclusively through impeachment processes and election. We're not talking about some utopian universal right here but what the government and Constitution actually grant. You do not have a constitutional right to threaten the lives of others, even if they are politicians and you hate them. Revolution is not protected by the Constitution, in fact, to revolt you have to sideline the Constitution in the first place.

No, it's not. We did not impeach King George, we overthrew him through violent rebellion. The very birth of our Republic betrays your opinion.
 
Our Second Amendment exists - not to hunt for food - but to predominately protect ourselves from tyrants.

No and yes. It maintains the ability of the People to revolt, but once they begin said revolt the Constitution that guarantees that right is gone.
 
So go ahead. You first.

Those who end up going forward will end up being the ones who write the rules. So you may not want to bow out completely.
 
No, it's not. We did not impeach King George, we overthrew him through violent rebellion. The very birth of our Republic betrays your opinion.

That's nice, but when we revolted against King George there was no Constitution granting you those rights.
 
No and yes. It maintains the ability of the People to revolt, but once they begin said revolt the Constitution that guarantees that right is gone.

Indeed, that is true. But the Constitution didn't create the right, it merely states it.
 
That's nice, but when we revolted against King George there was no Constitution granting your those rights.

The Constitution grants no rights.
 
Death of a President (2006) - IMDb
Years after the assassination of President George W. Bush in Chicago, an investigative documentary examines that as-yet-unsolved crime.

John "Jack" Quincy Adams grew up in Midland, Texas with a crush on Laura Welch. But Jack went into the Secret Service and Laura married a wealthy Texas playboy. Jack soared in the Service, becoming "One", the agent assigned to protect the president. First George H. W. Bush, then Bill Clinton, and now his former sweetheart's husband, George W. Bush. Jack has twins: a single-parent daughter and a gay son with a family. Soon Jack is tortured by what he observes in The White House: Laura trapped in a life she hates; gay people like his son Quincy and his family scapegoated to distract from the war in Iraq; the country on an economic downward spiral. As a true conservative patriot, a man in love and sworn to protect the Constitution and the people of the United States, Jack realizes the fate of everyone he loves is in his hands. There is only one course possible-assassinate the president.



The Assassination of George W. Bush: A Love Story: Kendall Kraus: 9781430321354: Amazon.com: Books
31aH3viykeL._BO1,204,203,200_.jpg
Christian militia calls for Obama

The Christian American Patriots Militia is openly calling for the assassination of President Barack Obama on their Facebook page. The Christian militia calls Obama a “dictator,” and claims the “authority to kill Obama comes from the 2nd Amendment of our Constitution.”

Arrest them all
 
Indeed, that is true. But the Constitution didn't create the right, it merely states it.

You didn't have it before the Constitution but you did after. Yes, it did indeed create those rights. At least in reality.
 
Back
Top Bottom