| User Info
| To All Those Sheriffs: Are You For Real? in forum [Market-Ticker]
|
Mortgageguymn
Posts: 1566
Incept: 2009-03-09
North Coast
|
Karl, You raise valid issues, but I'd be inclined to go a little easier on the sheriffs in this regard. Asking them to be constitutional scholars about where the federal government gets authority to do such & such is at least arguably more complicated than expecting them to understand an inherent civil right that is explicitly laid out in the Bill of Rights. I'm sure some Commerce Clause or "Promote the General Welfare" argument for, say, federal drug laws could made (however insincere or unpersuading), but the 2nd amendment is explicit. So the right to bear arms seems to me to be qualitatively different in that it is so explicitly referenced in the Bill of Rights.
Reason: correct word in phrase
|
Flappingeagle
Posts: 1229
Incept: 2011-04-14
|
Quote:That is, if you produce and consume (or even sell) a drug within a given state where is the US Government's Constitutional argument for regulating (prosecuting, interdicting, etc) same? The Supreme Court made it up in Wickard v. Filburn when they were scared of FDR after the court packing scheme and other ****. This may be when the Supreme Court sold us out the worst. Quote:Karl, You raise valid issues, but I'd be inclined to go a little easier on the sheriffs in this regard. Asking them to be constitutional scholars about where the federal government gets authority to do such & such is at least arguably more complicated than expecting them to understand an inherent civil right that is explicitly laid out in the Bill of Rights. Mort I disagree. Karl is right on the money in calling them out because we need to know where eveeryone stands and maybe use this as a teaching moment for freedom. +1 to Karl. I personally have been trying to use this as a teaching moment directed toward my "conservative gun owning friends." I keep pointing out every time they mention guns and follow the constitution that the drug war is unconstitutional and many other things as well. I try to get them to understand that you can't just champion the parts/rights that you agree with, otherwise we all lose all our rights over time. Flap
----------
Here are my predictions for everyone to see:
S&P 500 at 320, DOW at 2200, Gold $300/oz, and Corn $2/bu.
"You can't build a house of cards on a shaking table." - Tony Johns
The January 2015 AMZN put at $130 (cost $4.25) will be a winner.
Reason: adding to my post
|
Vitchilo
Posts: 4635
Incept: 2011-04-27
|
Of course not! Quote: Stop all the rape-scans and gropes in our Airports? But but but the terroriztz might get us! Quote: Stop DHS "VIPR" teams from operating in your County? But but but it stops criminalz! Quote: Stop enforcing federal drug laws? But but but only low life scumbags criminals take illegal drugz!! Most cops, even if they claim to support the second amendment, are statists... otherwise most of them wouldn't be cops to begin with.
----------
"Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." -- H.L. Mencken
|
Mecookcpa
Posts: 1
Incept: 2011-08-24
Jacksonville, FL
|
Karl - Mark Levin, in his book "Liberty and Tyranny" highlights a 1942 Supreme Court ruling in "Wickard v. Filburn that "a farmer growing wheat on his own land and for his own use was still subject to federal production limits, even though none of his wheat ever left the state. The court "reasoned" that by withholding his wheat from commerce, the farmer was affecting interstate commerce, even though there was no commerce..." Based on that ruling, wouldn't the courts "reason" the same logic related to drugs?
|
Genesis
Posts: 130799
Incept: 2007-06-26
|
I'm well aware of Wickard.v.Filburn.
I didn't ask what the courts have held. The courts could hold that banning assault weapons is legal (despite precedent saying otherwise in Miller.)
I asked if THE CONSTITUTION was the Supreme Law of the land or not in its entirety -- or if these Sheriffs were picking and choosing, much as you might with the Bible while not bothering with the Commandments you don't like (you know, like "Thou shalt not diddle little altar boys"?)
----------
I don't care if it makes sense -- only if it makes money. -- Me
Bank (n): See scam, fraud and theft. Eat a bankster -- they're low-carb.
What part of "shall not be infringed" was unclear?
|
Noodleman
Posts: 2393
Incept: 2008-11-01
|
Well, I guess beggars can't be choosers, Karl. If even a minority of those who are sworn under oath to enforce our laws and defend the sacred US Constitution offer to protect even one provision of the Bill of Rights that we, as peasants, should be overjoyed.
For they are the "King's men" and could exclusively throw the entire US Constitution under the bus and, thereby, betray their sworn oaths of service and we, little people, would have no recourse without grave consequences.
So a meatless bone is better than nothing/sarc.
----------
"Ammunition beats persuasion when you are looking for freedom." Will Rogers, 4 Nov 1879 - 15 Aug 1935
|
Truthseeker
Posts: 8479
Incept: 2007-10-07
NorCal
|
I'll settle for 3-5% of the population. That should do it.
----------
"...But people better realize that the worst-case scenario could actually happen.9/11 happened. This can happen. An economic 9/11, the likes of which we've never seen." Gerald Celente
|
Pauperbear
Posts: 1676
Incept: 2008-01-22
norwalk, ct
|
In the end they will likely wuss out like the rest of us as they will be afraid to lose job/pension. If someone pays taxes to a gov. that we know is acting contrary to the Constitution are we no better? Something about stones & glass houses.
----------
The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is.
Winston Churchill
|
Jack_crabb
Posts: 2496
Incept: 2010-06-25
Peoples' Republik of Maryland
|
OK, then stop paying your taxes Pauperbear and let us know how that works out for ya.
And I would be careful about saying this, too: " they will likely wuss out like the rest of us"
----------
Molon Labe
Where is Henry Bowman when you need him?
|
Pauperbear
Posts: 1676
Incept: 2008-01-22
norwalk, ct
|
Jack do you pay? If so are you not actively contributing to the .govs interpretation to the constitution?
----------
The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is.
Winston Churchill
|
Rickysa
Posts: 1638
Incept: 2007-08-22
Southern Pines, NC
|
A quote from a NC sheriff's attorney: "The government can interfere with fundamental rights if it is necessary for a compelling governmental interest and they use the least restrictive means possible"
from a vid posted elsewhere on TF....
that makes me a bit queasy, as I interpret that too mean what the aforementioned sheriffs have stated is merely lip service. The only manner of standing with their constituents would be to pursue legal action against .gov.
pffffttttt.
|
Bagbalm
Posts: 4264
Incept: 2009-03-19
Just North of Detroit
|
This apparently was their line. I'd accept it as a good thing they have any line at all, rather than argue with them at this point. You can try to convince them to expand their boundaries later. But without this battle you may lose the war.
|
Genesis
Posts: 130799
Incept: 2007-06-26
|
Ah, but I'm asking if they really mean it, or if they're just SAYING this.
----------
I don't care if it makes sense -- only if it makes money. -- Me
Bank (n): See scam, fraud and theft. Eat a bankster -- they're low-carb.
What part of "shall not be infringed" was unclear?
|
Alsace
Posts: 1849
Incept: 2008-10-27
Bear says: Come Get Some!
|
You raise valid point KD, along with other articles out there proclaiming the same.
When I was younger my parents taught me if someone tried to rob you, give them whatever they want, it's not worth your life. However, if they want you to go WITH them, fight to the death right there because you will NOT like where you will end up and you're gonna die anyway.
This is why I think the 2nd amendment gets a stronger reaction. It's like they've put with with everything before now because it wasn't worth it, but they know what comes after disarmament is ...well...you won't like it.
Whether they stick to their convictions in light of past offenses to the Constitution remains to be seen.
|
Genesis
Posts: 130799
Incept: 2007-06-26
|
It's far worse to think someone will stand with you, shoulder to shoulder, and then have them and point the gun AT YOU when you're unable to flee!
It's not like anyone in government has ever lied to you before, right?
----------
I don't care if it makes sense -- only if it makes money. -- Me
Bank (n): See scam, fraud and theft. Eat a bankster -- they're low-carb.
What part of "shall not be infringed" was unclear?
|
Antone
Posts: 7691
Incept: 2008-02-03
Seditionia, USSA
|
I'd be curious how many of those sheriffs were (and still may be) supportive of the Patriot Act when it was passed.
----------
As if anything has changed:
Wir sind gefickt.
|
Jack_crabb
Posts: 2496
Incept: 2010-06-25
Peoples' Republik of Maryland
|
Of course I pay (although I do everything possible to minimize my tax footprint). To do anything other is akin to*****ing up a rope, Pauperbear.
At this point in time, taxes are not where I have chosen to make my line in the sand.
----------
Molon Labe
Where is Henry Bowman when you need him?
|
Mpilar
Posts: 5613
Incept: 2009-01-05
Nashville, TN
|
Quote:Or is your newfound love of the Constitution limited to the Second Amendment and guns? Every time I hear about a "cop" somewhere that is "defending the rights of the citizens", etc...I always wonder how that "cop" would react to somebody carrying a firearm without the state-provided permission slip...or safely firing off an unlicensed machine gun on their property, or at a range...unlicensed suppressed firearm? Yeah, that's what I thought...the 2nd Amendment is only important to a few cops, as long as it's the "interpretation" they support or you're family of the "cop".
----------
Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats. H. L. Mencken
|
Mrbill
Posts: 7857
Incept: 2008-10-19
North Carolina
|
Quote:Jack do you pay? If so are you not actively contributing to the .govs interpretation to the constitution? This logic is as retarded as "not voting for Romney is voting for Obama". So we're all supposed to go out guns blazing at the first tax we don't personally approve of? No, I think I'll wait until I have a little more support when trying to actually change things. |
Nevertoolate
Posts: 1222
Incept: 2007-08-26
San Antonio de Bexar de runover with illegals, Texas
|
The Sheriff's understand how bad it will get if the honest people no longer have guns. Serving their own self interest.
----------
"Socialist never mind stealing, as long as they are the ones doing the stealing. They never mind lying, as long as they are doing the lying."-Mannfm11
Before you attempt to beat the odds, be sure that you can survive the odds beating you.
|
Ktrosper
Posts: 1500
Incept: 2010-04-06
ft collins co
|
Alsace wrote..Whether they stick to their convictions in light of past offenses to the Constitution remains to be seen. Some will, some won't. They are human, after all. Sabre-rattling is one thing... Staring death in the eye is another. What principles and beliefs are you REALLY willing to die for, proudly, with a clear conscience? I'd bet we've all been giving this a lot of thought lately... Gen wrote..I asked if THE CONSTITUTION was the Supreme Law of the land or not in its entirety -- or if these Sheriffs were picking and choosing.. These inconsistencies will have to be resolved... We've come so far down this "unconstitutional path", is it even possible for these LEO's to wake up and admit that they've been on the wrong side of many of these issues??? Can you imagine that come-to-jesus moment???? "OMG! My entire carrier has been spent assisting the Feds as they trample and spit on the Constitution..."
----------
The unexamined life is not worth living.-Socrates
The only stable state is the one in which all men are equal before the law.-Aristotle
Liberty exists now in the spaces government has not yet chosen to occupy.-Doc Zero
I anticipate that 10 Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders will blow me this evening.-K.D
|
Pauperbear
Posts: 1676
Incept: 2008-01-22
norwalk, ct
|
Bill, that's your prerogative and probably a smart choice. Just don't forget that you are knowingly paying the civil servant that is abridging your rights. The fact is that unless there is a coordinated tax revolt in huge numbers (1mm+) the state will continue to do as it pleases with the constitutional rights of those who fund them.
----------
The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is.
Winston Churchill
|
Mrbill
Posts: 7857
Incept: 2008-10-19
North Carolina
|
That's right. And there will be a moment for that change.
It's about talking to people who will listen to you and getting others ready to seize that moment too.
|
Sean
Posts: 1766
Incept: 2009-04-21
|
Quote:Karl, You raise valid issues, but I'd be inclined to go a little easier on the sheriffs in this regard. Asking them to be constitutional scholars about where the federal government gets authority to do such & such is at least arguably more complicated than expecting them to understand an inherent civil right that is explicitly laid out in the Bill of Rights BULL****! If I can understand that as Karl states, Quote:•Stop all the rape-scans and gropes in our Airports?
•Stop DHS "VIPR" teams from operating in your County?
•Stop enforcing federal drug laws?
for examples and how unconstitutional those examples are then a county Sheriff can and ought to be able to.
----------
* I think Ann Barnhardt is more and more right. God help us!
* Progressives / Marxists / Communists are many things, STUPID and IMPATIENT are not two of them.
* A hot civil war is coming.
* And people wonder why I prep!
Reason: Spelling
|
