petition to try Diane Feinstein for treason

[okshooter26]

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/try-senator-diane-feinstein-federal-court-treason-constitution/TVq4dXPg

To those of you that might be interested. here is the link.

 

[Adam Striegel]

Tried to look at it to just see what it was and it's saying the page can't be found. Did they pull it?

 

[okshooter26]

shouldn't be I just signed it

 

[okshooter26]

there is also a petition to make gun free zones around the president and vice president because if it is good enough for us then it should be for them as well.

 

[Adam Striegel]

Found it. Dunno why it would work via your link but I can pull it up from the list. There are a bunch of them asking to impeach her. Lol

 

[WideLoadTimmy]

I'll sign it when I find it. I'm thinking Obama should be impeached, as well.

 

[benjamin-benjamin]

don't really think this is the type of thing that is effective, it hurts pro gun more than helps, it makes the pro gun seem more extreme, emotional and unreasonable than the bill that they are trying to pass in Illinois

 

[okshooter26]

anti gun advocates are being extreme. If you don't meet them with their level of aggression they will keep pushing until by and b there will be nothing left.

 

[Chambers]

If you want to fire her move to San Fran and campaign against her.

I don't get it.

 

[poopgiggle]

look I know the prospect of new restrictions on guns is scary and I don't want any either but calling for people to be indicted for treason because they don't like what you like is crazy.

Instead, go to a protest or something. That will be a pointless empty gesture too but at least you'll get some fresh air and exercise.

 

[The Antichrome]

This petition is over the top and a bit silly. However, its not about what 'they like'.
The basis of it is that she took an oath to defend and uphold the Constitution...not change it, attack it, or destroy it.
It is a fact that she has not held her oath.
The concept is great, the reality...not so much.

...but calling for people to be indicted for treason because they don't like what you like is crazy.

 

[okshooter26]

that's exactly what I felt as well. She has betrayed her oath and tried to sabotage the constitution. which should at least force her out of office but really it probably is treason.

 

[poopgiggle]

A nuanced explanation of originalist vs "living document" philosophies of Constitutional interpretation will fall on deaf ears so I'm just going to tell you that this 100% WILL NOT result in anyone being tried for treason and 100% WILL make gun owners look bonkers.

 

[benjamin-benjamin]

A nuanced explanation of originalist vs "living document" philosophies of Constitutional interpretation will fall on deaf ears so I'm just going to tell you that this 100% WILL NOT result in anyone being tried for treason and 100% WILL make gun owners look bonkers.

this is no place for reason and calm discussion, get your pitchforks and storm the white house...

 

[okshooter26]

well as long as I have the freedom of speech I will use it. crazy sounding or not. I think that they are crazy and they don't seem to care. So I really don't care how they see me either. no offense to guys but I think pushing back just as hard is better than just sitting by and trying to hold their hands and act like I respect their opinions when they don't offer that same respect to me or my opinions.​

 

[KurtM]

I must disagree James, at no time when they are holding up their right hand and swearing to uphold the cconstitution does anyone say " or the way you personally THINK it ought to be". If they disagree that is fine, but don't swear to it! I do agree that no one will ever be tried for, for if that happens many more would follow and they don't want that.. but then i am a simple man and think that if you swear to it you ought to accountable to it. If you cant swear to it and abide by it you ought not to take the job!

 

[Scott Hearn]

A nuanced explanation of originalist vs "living document" philosophies of Constitutional interpretation will fall on deaf ears so I'm just going to tell you that this 100% WILL NOT result in anyone being tried for treason and 100% WILL make gun owners look bonkers.

The living document thing would be hilarious except for the damage this idea has already done. It really is a "living document", the framers put in place a method to change it any way we wish. Legislating around it or in outright defiance of it is NOT the correct method.

 

[threegungeezer]

The living document thing would be hilarious except for the damage this idea has already done. It really is a "living document", the framers put in place a method to change it any way we wish. Legislating around it or in outright defiance of it is NOT the correct method.

I gave PG a pass on that because he was already saying that we were too stupid to understand, hence there was no reason to discuss it, which is how he and his ilk always put forth their intellectually vacuous arguments.

 

[Peichor]

She is a nut job, and so are many gun grabbers in my opinion. But until we put them on the defensive and demand justice. We remain in a defensive stance. No battle is won except from the offense. I agree that this may not be the best way to get our point across, but something must be done to shift the balance from us being forced to justify gun ownership, to them defending their opinions. Make them prove that what they want is legal rather than us always begging they read the laws that already exist. The constitution is clear to us, why don't they think it applies to them?

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk 2

 

[poopgiggle]

The real problem I have here is the attitude that we are SO OBVIOUSLY RIGHT that there's no way anyone could disagree unless they're trying to destroy America.

Calling Diane Feinstein a traitor implies that she is actively trying to disarm the American people in order to undermine the country in some way. Even if that were true, and I don't think it is, you would have a hell of a time proving it in court.

I think she's wrong. I think the legislation she's proposing won't stop crimes. I think the American people have a right to defend themselves from felons and oppressive governments, and that her proposed legislation would restrict availability of the best tools to do that, and so is unconstitutional. HOWEVER, I recognize that there's no such thing as absolute right or wrong (outside of math) and that people can disagree with me without actively trying to destroy the country.

I gave PG a pass on that because he was already saying that we were too stupid to understand, hence there was no reason to discuss it, which is how he and his ilk always put forth their intellectually vacuous arguments.

I said "deaf ears," not "dumb ears."

I would like to take this opportunity to apologize for any bad feels I may have caused. I'm used to rougher parts of the Internet.