Armed March on Washington Abandoned. . . . In Favor of Treason!

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**JWhex**

daedalus wrote:
Well, one things for sure: There exist pockets of the population who are unhappy enough with the way things are unfolding that they are making a public nuisance of themselves.

That's not happened on a wide scale that I can think of off the top of my head since 'Nam.

People making a nuisance of themselves is fine, the guy that wants to have some kind of armed march is a dangerous nutjob.

**Frazzled**

JWhex wrote:
daedalus wrote:
Well, one things for sure: There exist pockets of the population who are unhappy enough with the way things are unfolding that they are making a public nuisance of themselves.

That's not happened on a wide scale that I can think of off the top of my head since 'Nam.

People making a nuisance of themselves is fine, the guy that wants to have some kind of armed march is a dangerous nutjob.

Hence the treason charge. So what if it won't stick. He gets to sit in jail for a year or two. Sounds like a win win to me.

**Easy E**

Has this guy ever heard of the Whickey Rebellion, Shay's Rebellion, or Fries Rebellion?

If not, he should look into them.

**Frazzled**

Easy E wrote:
Has this guy ever heard of the Whickey Rebellion, Shay's Rebellion, or Fries Rebellion?

If not, he should look into them.

He might also check one of the many fine memorials to the fallen against the evil Yankees in the War fo Northern Aggression. That one didn't turn out so well for the rebels either.
Moral of the story: we're great at rebelling against other powers (Britain, Mexico), not so much against the US Army.

**Khornholio**

It seems there are quite a few people out there who can't tell the difference between "being free" and "being comfortable".

**Ahtman**

Frazzled wrote:
Easy E wrote:
Has this guy ever heard of the Whickey Rebellion, Shay's Rebellion, or Fries Rebellion?

If not, he should look into them.

He might also check one of the many fine memorials to the fallen against the evil rednecks in the War of Coercing the Southern Poor to Fight for Horrific, Immoral Rich White Institutions

We can also go with the War for Southern Revisionism, the War of Everyone Else in the World Knows the Actual Name of It, or The War for Biscuits and Gravy.

**Frazzled**

Ahtman wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Easy E wrote:
Has this guy ever heard of the Whickey Rebellion, Shay's Rebellion, or Fries Rebellion?

If not, he should look into them.

He might also check one of the many fine memorials to the fallen against the evil rednecks in the War of Coercing the Southern Poor to Fight for Horrific, Immoral Rich White Institutions

We can also go with the War for Southern Revisionism, the War of Everyone Else in the World Knows the Actual Name of It, or The War for Biscuits and Gravy.

Ew I think you stumbled on a winner there.
"I have a Colt 1858 revolver from my great great grandpappy who fought in The War for Biscuits and Gravy."*

*The best biscuits and gravy I ever had was a little dinner on the road into the mountain chain above Fontana in California.

**kronk**

Jihadin wrote:

Spoiler:

I do what I do now for 36DD, g-strings and beers

Hell yeah!

**Breotan**

Frazzled wrote:
JWhex wrote:
daedalus wrote:
Well, one things for sure: There exist pockets of the population who are unhappy enough with the way things are unfolding that they are making a public nuisance of themselves.

That's not happened on a wide scale that I can think of off the top of my head since 'Nam.
People making a nuisance of themselves is fine, the guy that wants to have some kind of armed march is a dangerous nutjob.
Hence the treason charge. So what if it won't stick. He gets to sit in jail for a year or two. Sounds like a win win to me.

Treason is an overused and misapplied term in the United States due to how narrowly defined it is. Also, I believe there are already laws on the books regarding armed insurrection.

**chaos0xomega**

In before domestic terrorists start making life worse for the rest of us.

**Frazzled**

Breotan wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
JWhex wrote:
daedalus wrote:
Well, one things for sure: There exist pockets of the population who are unhappy enough with the way things are unfolding that they are making a public nuisance of themselves.

That's not happened on a wide scale that I can think of off the top of my head since 'Nam.
People making a nuisance of themselves is fine, the guy that wants to have some kind of armed march is a dangerous nutjob.
Hence the treason charge. So what if it won't stick. He gets to sit in jail for a year or two. Sounds like a win win to me.
Treason is an overused and misapplied term in the United States due to how narrowly defined it is. Also, I believe there are already laws on the books regarding armed insurrection.

No. Charge him with treason, the only crime noted in the Constitution.

**streamdragon**

Frazzled wrote:
daedalus wrote:
Oh my. This will end well.

While I agree that there need to be massive changes done to overhaul the government, dissolution of the Fed. is, uh, extreme.

I'm not sure that's a demand you can make with 5000 people.

Lets play his game. Try him for treason. Hold him without bail as a flight risk.

Time to end this crap. Now.

I'd say that's giving him far too much of what he really wants: attention. Better to just nod and walk away from him, maybe point and laugh a few times.

**Frazzled**

I'm more of the "if you mean to start a war then let it begin here" crowd.

**MrMoustaffa**

kronk wrote:
Jihadin wrote:

Spoiler:

I do what I do now for 36DD, g-strings and beers

Hell yeah!

'MURICA!

On topic, what ticks me off the most about this is he was *so* close to actually coming up with a good protest.

Peacefully marching while open carrying on the state capitols instead of DC to protest rights = smart.

Marching on the state capitols to demand we dismantle the ENTIRE GOVERNMENT in a threatening manner = fethtarded.

I swear he couldn't screw this up harder if he tried. If he wasn't such an idiot, you'd almost think he was hired by somebody to sabotage the whole thing.

**Dreadclaw69**

MrMoustaffa wrote:
'MURICA!

On topic, what ticks me off the most about this is he was *so* close to actually coming up with a good protest.

Peacefully marching while open carrying on the state capitols instead of DC to protest rights = smart.

Marching on the state capitols to demand we dismantle the ENTIRE GOVERNMENT in a threatening manner = fethtarded.

I swear he couldn't screw this up harder if he tried. If he wasn't such an idiot, you'd almost think he was hired by somebody to sabotage the whole thing.

I'm sure Alex Jones will address that last point soon

**Breotan**

Frazzled wrote:
Breotan wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
JWhex wrote:
daedalus wrote:
Well, one things for sure: There exist pockets of the population who are unhappy enough with the way things are unfolding that they are making a public nuisance of themselves.

That's not happened on a wide scale that I can think of off the top of my head since 'Nam.
People making a nuisance of themselves is fine, the guy that wants to have some kind of armed march is a dangerous nutjob.
Hence the treason charge. So what if it won't stick. He gets to sit in jail for a year or two. Sounds like a win win to me.
Treason is an overused and misapplied term in the United States due to how narrowly defined it is. Also, I believe there are already laws on the books regarding armed insurrection.
No. Charge him with treason, the only crime noted in the Constitution.

Treason in the USA is not defined the same as it is everywhere else. Treason requires "aid and comfort" be provided to an enemy of the United States and also that two witnesses observe the treasonous act. Since I have an avatar based on Guy Fawkes, let's use him as an example. Some time back, Guy Fawkes attempted to murder the members of Parliament with explosives. He was charged and convicted of treason in England. Had he been American and tried to do this same thing to the Congress, he could not be tried for treason as defined in the Constitution. Various other charges are certainly available to the prosecution, but not treason.

**Frazzled**

He could have been charged, just not convicted.

**KalashnikovMarine**

azazel the cat wrote:
Man with crazy idea turns out to be crazy; proposes new crazy idea that is slightly more obviously so.

Not really news here.

The Canadian got it in one, even if he must be weak and tired from the poor quality rationed health care he receives.

**Dreadclaw69**

Breotan wrote:
Since I have an avatar based on Guy Fawkes, let's use him as an example. Some time back, Guy Fawkes attempted to murder the members of Parliament with explosives. He was charged and convicted of treason in England.

I believe he was also the last person to enter Parliament with honest intentions

**azazel the cat**

Ahtman wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Easy E wrote:
Has this guy ever heard of the Whickey Rebellion, Shay's Rebellion, or Fries Rebellion?

If not, he should look into them.

He might also check one of the many fine memorials to the fallen against the evil rednecks in the War of Coercing the Southern Poor to Fight for Horrific, Immoral Rich White Institutions

We can also go with the War for Southern Revisionism, the War of Everyone Else in the World Knows the Actual Name of It, or The War for Biscuits and Gravy.

You beat me to it; therefore: exalted.

**KalashnikovMarine**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Breotan wrote:
Since I have an avatar based on Guy Fawkes, let's use him as an example. Some time back, Guy Fawkes attempted to murder the members of Parliament with explosives. He was charged and convicted of treason in England.

I believe he was also the last person to enter Parliament with honest intentions

Exalted, I almost just fell out of my chair laughing in the lobby of a rather nice hotel.

**Dreadclaw69**

KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Breotan wrote:
Since I have an avatar based on Guy Fawkes, let's use him as an example. Some time back, Guy Fawkes attempted to murder the members of Parliament with explosives. He was charged and convicted of treason in England.

I believe he was also the last person to enter Parliament with honest intentions

Exalted, I almost just fell out of my chair laughing in the lobby of a rather nice hotel.

If doing something foolish, make sure you have an audience

**Jihadin**

D-USA...you okay?...tornado just hit west of OK City

**d-usa**

Made it through another one without damage.

**Jihadin**

Outstanding D. Keep your head down will you. Was on Fox page reading up and saw the news flash.

**Jimsolo**

Interesting question: I'm not a legal expert, mind you, but at no point in either version of the letter I've read does he threaten anyone explicitly, nor does he explicitly name any targets or call for any specific violent action of any kind. Is he actually committing any crimes? Has anyone tried to take legal action against him for this letter, or has everyone just brushed it off as crazy talk?

**Dreadclaw69**

Jimsolo wrote:
Interesting question: I'm not a legal expert, mind you, but at no point in either version of the letter I've read does he threaten anyone explicitly, nor does he explicitly name any targets or call for any specific violent action of any kind. Is he actually committing any crimes? Has anyone tried to take legal action against him for this letter, or has everyone just brushed it off as crazy talk?

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2385

18 USC § 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.
If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named in this section, each 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.
As used in this section, the terms “organizes” and “organize”, with respect to any society, group, or assembly of persons, include the recruiting of new members, the forming of new units, and the regrouping or expansion of existing clubs, classes, and other units of such society, group, or assembly of persons.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2383

18 USC § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

**Ratbarf**

I'm not sure he's actually incited violence as of yet, he's so far said that violence may be necessary in the future if things do not change, but he hasn't called for violence right now.

Hence the treason charge. So what if it won't stick. He gets to sit in jail for a year or two. Sounds like a win win to me.

I'm really disappointed in you Frazzled, you're advocating the intentional unlawful arrest and detention an American citizen simply to stifle their right to expression and free speech? I'm starting to regret ever believing in you and the Daschund army of Freedom and doggie biscuits.

**Dreadclaw69**

Ratbarf wrote:
I'm not sure he's actually incited violence as of yet, he's so far said that violence may be necessary in the future if things do not change, but he hasn't called for violence right now.

From the opening post, and quoting his words;
"we may have passed the point at which non-violent revolution becomes impossible"
He is certainly raising the possibility of violence, and calling on an "army" to march on Washington does not exactly do him many favours either.

**Ratbarf**

Stating the potential for violence and inciting it are two different things.