Originally Posted by Hopyard
Good suggestion. Let's pay attention to the crucial little "or" in Article 3, Section 3, Clause 1 of the Constitution. A3/S3 reads as follows, in its entirety:
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."
Never claimed such hirelings are engaging in outright war. They're not, of course. No battlefield, here, other than for the minds of the citizens who've hired them and for the threat of long-run enslavement to such attempts (were they to succeed). I was referring to the other half of the problem, the aiding/comforting problem.
Seems clear, though, that such active striving to harm the guaranteed constitutional liberties of the citizens and voting on record against such liberties is the equivalent of providing "aid/comfort" to enemies who are seeking power over such liberties.
To my way of thinking, it's the insidious aiding/comforting aspect of attacks on our Constitution that are the most vile, precisely because they can be hard to see for what they are. Particularly when the attempts are cloaked in such rosy, sweet tones ... such as, it's for the children, or whatever.
Point being, we've got an entire elected group of people and some appointed hirelings who are actively seeking the demise of one of the cornerstones of the Constitution, in direct violation of their sworn oaths. We've got a list of 46, right here in this one vote, who've actively sought to do just that (in writing and by their actions).
It's hard to believe the "enemies" of the 2A, including foreign powers such as the U.N., wouldn't become more powerful in their abilities to reign over the sovereign right of the citizens to be armed (or any of the other guaranteed rights of the people). After all, that is clearly the whole point of such attacks.
Aided/comforted, by any other name. Let alone damaging our continuing ability to effectively defend our liberties and form of governance that includes these guaranteed rights. What is such a guarantee if we can allow such proactive attempts to abrogate our rights as citizens? (Foreign and domestic, I believe that was the warning to the People.)
After all, WE are the power in our several states, not the hirelings who are seeking to destroy these liberties. At least, we'll remain so only so long as we're capable of withstanding the assault on our form of governance, in which the temporarily hired few are subservient to the People.
Actively seeking the destruction or circumvention of the 2A (for example) in such direct ways is, it seems to me, a clear violation of this Clause.
And as for the claim this is a hijack: incorrect. The single sentence in the OP was news of (a) the "win" via the common sense of the "ayes," as well as (b) the implied continuing threat from the "nays." Some simply choose not to ignore the warning of the threat of those "nays."
Originally Posted by AZJD1968
The word came down more than a day ago, and this fight's been going on this past year and more. Been reflecting awhile. Hopefully, others have as well about the ongoing fight. As you say, that fight will continue whether we like it or not.
You're right, at least so long as we keep treating such attempts for something other than what they are.
Originally Posted by AZJD1968
Time to treat such things directly, and harshly, holding our hired staffers accountable in the most certain of terms. Else, we're going to lose it all in the end.