Any Thoughts on This and Implications? Other States Could Follow?

[k0ua]

Oh man, why don't we all join the opposing political party, go to a different church, and cross-dress for a while, while we're at it?

Hey, IT is all for Multiculturalism, I thought I would let him practice what he preaches.

 

[MossRoad]

No one wants the Fed to step in and tell the state what to do. We want the Judicial branch of the state to try and then hang this rouge AG for overstepping her bounds.

You really want her hung?

 

[k0ua]

You really want her hung?

figuratively. and politically.

 

[jerrybob]

How long did it take for you to think that one up?:scratchchin:

It just exploded from my arsenal......thanks for asking.

 

[CalG]

consider how helpless you would be, whether armed or not. If you were on the suspect list of Turkey's failed coup.

The very thing that the 2nd amendment right is supposed to empower, i.e. opposition to central governments unlawful intrusion on your personal liberties.

This is not an issue for those truly active in the take over attempt, but the academics, and institutional heads? That is just illness. And an egoist government head that feels he has the power of life and death over all his "subjects".

Would a constitutional right keep such events from occurring? My bet is that an armed populace would keep an elected official in his place!

Don't think for a moment that "It can't happen here". Power corrupts!

 

[Pixguy]

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun." -



Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778




So how can anyone claim our founding fathers only meant militias should be armed?

 

[IslandTractor]

Of course it is a powerful lobbying and special interest group - that is doing exactly what I am paying my dues for it to do. It represents me! Yeah, you're thinking of the huge bags of money the firearms manufacturers dump into the NRA. Guess where the money comes from? The millions of civilian gun owners that believe in and exercise their rights. This will help: <img src="http://www.tractorbynet.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=475644"/>

I have no problem with an organization that represents hunters and sportsmen and gun owners. What I have difficulty with is an organization that manipulates congress to shut down epidemiologic research. Guns, like cars, can be dangerous and the public has a right to know what scientists and engineers, not just car companies and gun companies want us to know. We are twenty years behind in science of firearm epidemiology because of the NRA. If we had a National Car Association back in the 1960's we'd still be wearing lap belts and losing three times as many citizens per year to MVAs.

In 1977 a very conservative right wing cabal took control of an organization that previously worked to represent sportsmen and gun owners. What was previously an organization devoted to safety and sports became a very extreme political organization that managed even to turn off many long term NRA members. George HW Bush is hardly a liberal but he was disgusted and quit the NRA. The NRA is a politically radical one topic organization. Good for profits of gun manufacturers, dangerous to democracy.

 

[IslandTractor]

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun." - Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778 So how can anyone claim our founding fathers only meant militias should be armed?

Patrick Henry spoke as a radical fighting against the British after living under their yoke for decades. Very reasonable concern for founding fathers to be concerned about usurpation of civil power by military and repressive government. However after more than two hundred years without a single government that tried to tear up the constitution or bill of rights it seems that those temporal concerns were a tad over wrought. There has NEVER been an incident where civilians with guns out down a wayward US government and it is silly to continue to raise the specter of British troops or their equivalent depriving us of civil rights. We VOTE not shoot to maintain our freedoms.

 

[Oldpath05]

It sounds like state rights supersedes and over rides the US constitution, and I thought it way the other way around. So this must mean the 50 states are really 50 little independent country's. it's not the United States of America, it should be called the United Country's of America,<<< but only if we have to. Let's here it for the good ole UCA UCA UCA UCA UCA............

 

[CalG]

Patrick Henry spoke as a radical fighting against the British after living under their yoke for decades. Very reasonable concern for founding fathers to be concerned about usurpation of civil power by military and repressive government. However after more than two hundred years without a single government that tried to tear up the constitution or bill of rights it seems that those temporal concerns were a tad over wrought. There has NEVER been an incident where civilians with guns out down a wayward US government and it is silly to continue to raise the specter of British troops or their equivalent depriving us of civil rights. We VOTE not shoot to maintain our freedoms.

200 years is nothing! Consider the recent history of Cambodia , or more recently Syria, South Sudan and now Turkey

Governments against their people in order to stay in power!

Pull your head from the sands of innocence.