NY sheriff encourages carrying firearms
2 hours north of NYC, this county sheriff advises that
the good guys carry their guns. . Is This Wise? -- j
.
the good guys carry their guns. . Is This Wise? -- j
.
While we're very happy to have you in the Gulch and appreciate your wanting to fully engage, some things in the Gulch (e.g. voting, links in comments) are a privilege, not a right. To get you up to speed as quickly as possible, we've provided two options for earning these privileges.
.
connection is right on! -- j
.
.
back in '67 when a friend was graduating from high school --
just a year after I did. . wonderful people, wonderful country,
and I felt totally at home there. . it was a great week!!! -- j
.
.
http://www.plusaf.com/falklaws.htm#33rd
It brings money to the folks who legislate those rules into existence. Nothing more.
Like a kid whose mommy and daddy provide everything for them so they never have to think... or work... for themselves.
Does THAT make sense to you? Does to me!
I never even considered the "victims's mentality" in this.
Well, may the Force be with you.
The States Rights granted went only as far as the citizens of each state granted rights to the Sates or states and that did not include necessary an automatic extension to the Federal government. The rest was and is tnone of the governments business.
The Federal and the State Governments too as far As I know never the power to giver rights to the people. It's the other way around. Rights Not Specifically Granted do not exist. No matter how much fascist swine like Obama and his immediate predecessors and would be successors wish differently. That includes the military swearing allegiance to the President or the country as a whole instead of to and limited to the Constitution.
It didn't lean that way at all simply because they had no right to grant rights. The whole line of thinking is false on it's face and useful only to the left wing fascists we're not stuck with for a while.
For sure the military knows it...whether they follow their oath of office or not is another question. But if not they are personally liable for the consequences.
The whole discussion is moot while the Constitution itself is in question and not being held as the center of national politics by the leftists, Rinos to Progressives inclusive. It's just a discussion of history....until that question and it is a question at this point is underway.
So. Cut the extraneous BS and get to the real question. What law of the land is currently and legally in force? Patriot Act or Constitution? Executive Orders or Constitution? Which will law enforcement and even more important the military support? No question which one DOHS is supporting and it isn't the Constitution.
I would argue that without the plural it refers to the entire political body rather than the 13 ratifying states.
I draw your attention to Article 10: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." This clearly shows a reference to "the states" and clearly means the individual states.
So, I think historical reality may lean in the direction of giving the right to bear arms to the people and not to the states.
Load more comments...