So I had A Talk With Some Arrogant Census Bureau Guy..

This is a discussion on So I had A Talk With Some Arrogant Census Bureau Guy.. within the Off Topic & Humor Discussion forums, part of the The Back Porch category; Originally Posted by alfack Wrong once again. Everybody has the right and duty to question the actions of govt. and overthrow an oppressive one.. Sorry ...

Page 8 of 11 FirstFirst ... 4567891011 LastLast
Results 106 to 120 of 159

Thread: So I had A Talk With Some Arrogant Census Bureau Guy..

  1. #106
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,158

    re: alfack Advocating overthrow is criminal

    Quote Originally Posted by alfack View Post
    Wrong once again. Everybody has the right and duty to question the actions of govt. and overthrow an oppressive one..
    Sorry to all if this appears as bickering, but what part of the US Code I quoted do you not understand, Mr. Alfack?

    Here, once again in shortened edited form for clarity is the relevant portion from US Code TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 115 > § 2385. Advocating overthrow of Government

    "Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing... the government... or the government of any political subdivision therein shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, "

    And here is what you had written which induced me to post the US code: Alfack wrote: "It's also our civic duty to overthrow a govt."

    Not willing to back down after seeing the US Code, you then wrote: " Everybody has the right and duty to question the actions of govt. and overthrow an oppressive one"

    Just maybe your neck can slip the noose because you used the term
    "a govt." instead of "The US Government," or you used the euphemism "an oppressive one" instead of actually stating The US Government, but don't try to tell me
    you are holding a principled patriotic lawful position when your writing is the equivalent legally of yelling fire in a crowded theater.

    This has nothing whatsoever to do with 1A and freedom of expression. Advocating overthrow is a criminal act, per the above cited code.

    The founders weren't fools, and they weren't interested in giving the unwashed masses legal authority to rebel. Moreover, the famous proverb about the tree of liberty is just that, a proverb, with no legal basis. At most it was one man's expression of opinion at one point in time. Don't make the mistake of generalizing that that one remark represented the opinion of either the other founders or the general populace, or that you or anyone else could get away with it today.

    In fact we know where the great founder George Washington stood on the issue of rebellion. As President, he personally took his role of commander in-chief to heart and led the troops in quelling The Whiskey rebellion.

    So, we have first hand knowledge of exactly what the founders thought of rebellion against the U.S., and evidence of their willingness to use military force to put down rebellion.

    I'm fairly sure Old George Wahsington knew precisely what the founders intended. And it wasn't a government that would be subjected to rebellion.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #107
    Senior Member Array Super Trucker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    S.E. Michigan
    Posts
    534
    I love how many here are saying it is in the constitution so you must fill it out.
    Isn't the 2nd part of the same constitution? Because the people of chicago really want a hand gun. I would like an H&K MP7 but the gubmint says I don't need one.

    I really enjoy reading how it ok for the gubmint to ignore what parts they need too but we can not.

  4. #108
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,158

    re: Super Trucker

    Quote Originally Posted by Super Trucker View Post
    I love how many here are saying it is in the constitution so you must fill it out.
    Isn't the 2nd part of the same constitution? Because the people of chicago really want a hand gun. I would like an H&K MP7 but the gubmint says I don't need one.

    I really enjoy reading how it ok for the gubmint to ignore what parts they need too but we can not.
    The difficulty presented by 2a is not that our government officials appear to violate it, rather it is that the courts have not decided whether or not it applies to the states, and the courts have generally interpreted it in a way that is rather different from how most of us who post here view it.

    In other words, there are honest and honorable people who disagree on what it means and sadly, after 220 years, our courts have never quite fully dealt with this problem of interpretation.

    It is however worth noting that the courts generally tend to defer to the collective wisdom of Congress and their interpretation of the constitution. Even in Heller, and even with a pro gun justice as Scalia, he has clearly indicated that there are limits to what the courts will allow civilians to do in terms of gun ownership.

    This thread started out about the census, and that portion of the document is somewhat more clear in wording and intent than is 2a.

  5. #109
    Senior Member Array Herknav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Waypoint 0
    Posts
    976
    When they send me one, I'll fill it out. Until then, I'm not getting paid to do their job.
    I would rather wake up in the middle of nowhere than in any city on Earth.--Steve McQueen

  6. #110
    VIP Member
    Array OPFOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Nomad
    Posts
    4,609
    When they repeal the unconstitutional healthcare reform act, I'll send my census in. 'Til then, they can KMA.
    This is also a direct statement of intent to violate federal law, which is not allowed here (for very good reason).

    I understand the desire to maintain your privacy. However, this is CLEARLY and INDISPUTABLY a legal requirement, stated in clear and plain English smack dab in the middle of the Constitution. You CANNOT claim to be a supporter of that document without accepting that you are bound by law (and civic duty) to abide by the terms of the census. It's really just that simple, and has nothing to do with anything else.

    If your elected representative(s) is violating the Constitution, vote him/her out. If YOU are violating the Constitution by failing to answer the census, then you have absolutely no room to criticize what anyone else is doing in that arena - stones and glass houses still being what they are.
    A man fires a rifle for many years, and he goes to war. And afterward he turns the rifle in at the armory, and he believes he's finished with the rifle. But no matter what else he might do with his hands - love a woman, build a house, change his son's diaper - his hands remember the rifle.

  7. #111
    VIP Member
    Array oneshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    +42.893612,-082.710236 , Mi.
    Posts
    7,534
    Quote Originally Posted by Paymeister View Post
    Remember the saying, "Never attribute to malice what can be explained by ignorance or stupidity"? I would also caution against global statements based on this thread's exchange. Step on a guy's toes, he'll get upset and step on yours. Then it's your turn. Could they have been smoother, or clammed up? Sure. The post above could have, too.

    I have had points of agreement with each of the two mentioned above, and have also had points of disagreement. Most of the time they've conducted themselves as gentlemen and I hope to extend to them the grace they've shown me. Please don't dump on them - sure, I think they have screwy ideas on occasion, but they're on our side. Frankly, I would wish to have MORE like them in Federal service.

    ^^^^^^^^I tend to be in This camp on this one^^^^^^

    We must try to conduct ourselves with some decorum and respect, in regards to others point of view.
    If you want to make God laugh, tell him your plans.

    Washington didn't use his freedom of speech to defeat the British, He shot them!

    Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy." -- Ernest Benn

  8. #112
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,158

    OT ? For Alex Hassin

    Quote Originally Posted by AlexHassin View Post
    So as was even said, carry ok it is not used for districts, though I think for gremial reasons .
    Alex,

    Question for you.

    "Gremial" is a real word, but my quick look up of the definition doesn't help me understand what you meant.

    The word seems to mean, "pertaining to the bosom."

    I can see where that might also be used to mean the "bosom" of our nation; as it (the census) is done for foundational reasons based on the constitution.

    I just need a little help with my vocabulary. "Gremial" is a new word to me. HELP!!

  9. #113
    VIP Member
    Array oneshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    +42.893612,-082.710236 , Mi.
    Posts
    7,534
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    False and misleading choice.

    Bad news for you, but the president was installed according to the laws and our constitution, sworn in by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and anyone who works in the Executive Branch best protects our constitution by doing their lawful job per lawful directives of the elected leadership. How dare you call our present constitutional government "a regime?"

    No one has any right to even speak in a serious way of overthrowing our government. Think, "unpatriotic." Think, "criminal act." Think, 20 years in jail.

    Here, for your enjoyment Mr. Alfack is the actual relevant law. Read to the last paragraph so you will understand the gravity of what you just posted.

    US Code TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 115 > § 2385. Advocating overthrow of Government

    Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or
    Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or
    Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof—
    Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
    __________________________________________________ _______
    To the moderators: Again, for about the seventy-ish time. If we are going to forbid discussion of unlawful acts at DC, this overthrow talk should get banned as well, or the purveyors of it should at least be getting some points. It is promotional discussion of unlawful acts. It is promotion of the crime of sedition. My opinion, and you guys can and should do as you wish, but that's how I see it.

    ^^^How do you figure?^^^^^^^^


    when it states right here in the Declaration of Independence we have a "right, a duty"

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.


    Declaration of Independence - Transcript
    I'm just sayin'
    If you want to make God laugh, tell him your plans.

    Washington didn't use his freedom of speech to defeat the British, He shot them!

    Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy." -- Ernest Benn

  10. #114
    VIP Member
    Array OPFOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Nomad
    Posts
    4,609
    Well, we're drifting WAY off topic here, but we have the means to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security every time we have an election. Not getting the guy/gal you wanted in office is not cause for rebellion or for ignoring the laws of the land while they are in office - that guy/gal was still legally elected according to our Constitution.

    I have certainly served under elected officials that I didn't vote for, but I serve and respect the office if not the man/woman. It should be the same for all citizens, even if their service in this case only involves answering a few questions.
    A man fires a rifle for many years, and he goes to war. And afterward he turns the rifle in at the armory, and he believes he's finished with the rifle. But no matter what else he might do with his hands - love a woman, build a house, change his son's diaper - his hands remember the rifle.

  11. #115
    VIP Member
    Array oneshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    +42.893612,-082.710236 , Mi.
    Posts
    7,534
    Bad news for you, but the president was installed according to the laws and our constitution, sworn in by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and anyone who works in the Executive Branch best protects our constitution by doing their lawful job per lawful directives of the elected leadership. How dare you call our present constitutional government "a regime?"
    Quote Hopyard

    ^^^^There areothers who tend to disagree with this statement^^^^

    Sorry to throw the thread off-track

    Here is an opposing ,and well thought out logical explaination , as to why Obama should not be in the White House


    Below is an excerpt from the webpage posted below


    According to factcheck, quote, "When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948.
    Factcheck continues: "That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.'s children.
    Factcheck continues: "Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982." End quote.
    Thus, this is a direct admission that Barack Obama was a British citizen "at birth".
    A lawsuit was filed in New Jersey by Leo Donofrio which states that since Obama had dual citizenship "at birth," and therefore split loyalties "at birth," he is not a "natural born citizen" of the United States of America. A "natural born citizen" would have no other jurisdiction over him "at birth" other than that of the United States of America!
    The Framers of the Unites States Constitution carefully chose the words "natural born" and those words CANNOT BE IGNORED.
    The status referred to in Article 2, Section 1, "natural born citizen", pertains to the status of the person's citizenship "at birth"
    .
    Born in Hawaii? . . . DOES NOT MATTER! Because Obama was, "at birth", a British citizen, it is completely irrelevant whether Obama was born in Hawaii or abroad.
    Either way, he is not eligible to be President.
    Should Obama produce an original birth certificate showing he was born in Hawaii, it will not change the fact that Obama was a British citizen "at birth".
    Senator Obama has admitted to being a British subject "at birth". And as will be made perfectly clear below, his being subject to British jurisdiction "at birth" bars him from being eligible to be President of the United States of America.

    FactCheck.org Clarifies Obama's Citizenship


    If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking" - George S. Patton
    If you want to make God laugh, tell him your plans.

    Washington didn't use his freedom of speech to defeat the British, He shot them!

    Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy." -- Ernest Benn

  12. #116
    Distinguished Member
    Array Pistology's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    South Coastal LA Cty
    Posts
    1,834

    Too Cozy

    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    We can grumble all we like, but as with paying taxes, serving on juries, signing up with Selective Service, and lots lots more, we have an obligation of citizenship to be partners with our government and not obstructionists.
    A citizen has a duty to the law. And a citizen has a duty to redress grievance. Most just grumble until they "right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed". That's human nature.

    The government never asked for my "partnership". And I certainly don't volunteer it. That is a relationship for organizations with more lobby power than I.

    Don't forget - ours is a government of the people, by the people and for the people. And the Constitution didn't make the Declaration of Independence obsolete. Liberty has no bound to time or space.
    Americans understood the right of self-preservation as permitting a citizen to repel force by force
    when the intervention of society... may be too late to prevent an injury.
    -Blackstone’s Commentaries 145–146, n. 42 (1803) in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

  13. #117
    VIP Member
    Array OPFOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Nomad
    Posts
    4,609
    Don't know how we got on the President's citizenship but, even if we assume that he ALSO had British citizenship, he was born on US soil, and therefore automatically and forver (unless he renounces it) holds US citizenship by virtue of being "natural born" on that soil. Even if both his parents were from Jupiter and arrived in Hawaii ten seconds before he was born, the fact that he WAS born there (and let's not start on that question, ok?) means that he automatically and categorically IS a natural born (born - came out of the womb) citizen.

    I didn't vote for the President, but he is the President. I wish he would do some things differently, as I have of every President I've been conscious of. That doesn't give me any right to ignore his - or the Congresses - lawfully executed orders.
    A man fires a rifle for many years, and he goes to war. And afterward he turns the rifle in at the armory, and he believes he's finished with the rifle. But no matter what else he might do with his hands - love a woman, build a house, change his son's diaper - his hands remember the rifle.

  14. #118
    Senior Member Array AlexHassin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    the North East
    Posts
    552
    Lol thanks I missed that mistake. I am a horrible speller, I meant that for grammar reasons not would have been more appropriate. That’s neat that Obama was a duel citizen, if he was, with in the commonwealths of Great Briton. I don’t see how that changes any Natural Born things though.

  15. #119
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,158

    re: Alex Hassin --well thanks are due anyhow

    Quote Originally Posted by AlexHassin View Post
    Lol thanks I missed that mistake. I am a horrible speller, I meant that for grammar reasons not would have been more appropriate. That’s neat that Obama was a duel citizen, if he was, with in the commonwealths of Great Briton. I don’t see how that changes any Natural Born things though.
    Well Alex, thanks are due anyhow, because I looked the word up and it is a nifty "silver dollar word," even if that wasn't what you meant to type.

    See how much we can all learn just by hanging out here? Never in a bazillion years would I have had a reason to learn that new word.

    BTW, please don't think I was critiquing your grammar or spelling. I wasn't. I was intrigued by a word that was new to me, and I thought you had used it correctly, and I just didn't get what you were saying because of MY lack of knowledge. Cool.

    Now back to topic, and not in any way in response to Alex:

    Those of you who feel you don't have to obey the law, who feel that our president or other aspects of our government's actions entitle you to speak of "overthrow," deserve to share a cell with both Mongo and BB from the other thread. Criminal is criminal.

    Once again-

    " § 2385. Advocating overthrow of Government "

    "Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing... the government... or the government of any political subdivision therein shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, "

    We don't get to decide on your own what is lawful or constitutional or to act on your own individual beliefs in these matters. We have an elected Congress to do that. We have an appointed FBI Head to do that. We have an Attorney General confirmed by The Senate to do that. We have innumerable Federal Prosecutors and U.S. Attorney's each appointed by Congress to do that-- and many (if not most are yet appointed by prior administrations too. And of course we have innumerable judges at every conceivable level of government all the way up to the SC, to do that.

  16. #120
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,158

    re: Pistology-- Birthright

    Quote Originally Posted by Pistology View Post
    The government never asked for my "partnership". And I certainly don't volunteer it. That is a relationship for organizations with more lobby power than I.
    That doesn't in any way alter your citizenship obligations to obey the law, serve on juries, register with Selective Service, and so on.

    You were either born here into our society or you were naturalized, and either way, you have had benefits conferred upon you, and obligations as well. Yup, no one asked you for your partnership, but neither did your parents ask you if you wished to be born. Stuff happens. You are here. Make the most of it.

    I can't believe the level of alienation from broad society that gets expressed in these forums. Funny how folks will gladly drive on interstate highways paid for by all of us, conceived of by government, but declare government illegitimate. Its even funnier how some (many really) moan and groan about too much government, but when the dang corporations mess the life out of our Gulf of Mexico, everyone screams, "where's the government." Can't have it both ways folks.

Page 8 of 11 FirstFirst ... 4567891011 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. So I had A Talk With Some Arrogant Census Bureau Guy..
    By guardmt in forum Bob & Terry's Place
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: May 25th, 2010, 08:37 PM
  2. CHL -- Bureau Of Criminal Identification??
    By ccw9mm in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: November 23rd, 2008, 01:01 PM
  3. My run-in with a Bureau of Land Management officer
    By 762 in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: July 17th, 2008, 10:04 AM
  4. Bureau Of Unclaimed Property
    By QKShooter in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: October 2nd, 2005, 10:14 AM

Search tags for this page

alex hassin

,
census arrogant
Click on a term to search for related topics.