Posted on 04/16/2009 6:50:11 AM PDT by rrdog
Who is Maryelissa Tyrona Brown-Bollin?
He's such a friend that not only can't you get his name right to begin with, but you also capitalize the first and last names which is something he doesn't do. Apparently it's some Cherokee thing that we wouldn't understand.
For the record it's stand, with a 'd', and watie, all lower case. Mortimer to his many admirers in the Union camp.
You’re aware, aren’t you, that there were far more Jews in the United States army than in the southern army in the Civil War, including several generals, right?
STATISM is the correct word.
I'm loyal to the Constitution not a Government that doesn't recognize it!Y'all wish to hold people ‘forcefully’ that wish to self Govern ‘self determination’ to a monster that believes they grant rights.. We have UNLEINABLE..God Given Rights..
**And I've grown tired of his hatred for my region, and for his referring to my relatives who answered the call of the United States and fought under its flag as “filth.”**
Same can be said of you! This is the issue...I would support your State in seeking self determination against this overbearing Federal Government..You call us traitors..What is more important? Living Free or Being a ‘citizen’ to a Country that ain't so Free and getting worse?
Maybe we are just different..
I challenge you to find some posts where I express a hatred for the south as a region, or for southerners who fought in the Civil War. I think they were wrong, but I don't hate them. Nor do I call them "filth." You guys are so thin-skinned, though, that you assume a disagreement about the process of a state leaving the union automatically means we hate you, and then you turn vicious, making all kinds of threats.
Watie, on the other hand, expresses nothing but hatred at every turn, endlessly playing the victim card more often than any Democrat. Read enough of his posts, though, and you'll find that he can't keep his stories straight. And when you challenge him on that, he'll turn and accuse you of being a racist and a bigot because to actually respond would show him to be a fool and a liar. There's no one more bigoted, and who gets away with more behavior that would get anyone else banned, than Watie.
They have something that y'all will never have..It's called PRIDE! Not to even mention HONOR
We Southerners have had a taste of your Treaty breaking Government and when we spit out that Lincoln served load of crap..Y'all burned and murdered us as well
We simply point to that uncivil as a major stepping block to centralization of Power..
Listen, We have a out of Control Federal Government as well as many States that are infecting the whole nation...We must now be careful not to even attend a ‘tea party’ or be labeled a terrorist!Do I want to be a party to this?
This Federal Government is now going after States or Sheriffs for INFORCING Federal immigration laws..They even prosecuted two of their very own..
The Second Amendment was to in one regard to protect us from THEM...Now THEY tell us who may own one or not..Kinda funny how that works
How do ‘we’ fix this mess? If you wish to have a ‘civil’ discussion..Then fine
Let's talk about the 10th Amendment in today's world?
free dixie,sw
Then why did you deliberately dis him by misspelling his name and capitalizing it? Or was it a matter of carelessness and ignorance?
We Southerners have had a taste of your Treaty breaking Government and when we spit out that Lincoln served load of crap..Y'all burned and murdered us as well
Yeah, yeah, yeah. It's very telling that the part of the Cherokee leadership that supported the rebel cause was that slave-owning segment that so strongly supported the treaties that uprooted the Cherokee in the first place and sent them down the Southern backed 'Trail of Tears'.
I agree on the first part, but you can't, on the one hand, claim to want a more decentralized, state-dominated federal system, then gripe about what other states do. Or do you subscribe to the theory that states can be expelled from the union?
How do ‘we’ fix this mess? If you wish to have a ‘civil’ discussion..Then fine
Organize. Exploit weaknesses in the Democratic coalition. Hold to a solid set of principles and find spokespeople to articulate them to the public intelligently and without anger and rancor, which turns off a lot of swing voters who would otherwise be sympathetic to the arguments. Be positive. What goes around will come around again. I think this country is worth working to save and I'm not ready to see it broken up.
Who is Professor Maryelissa Tyrona Brown-Bollin? You don’t know, do you?
Being the States formed the ‘Federal Government’ and only delegated certain powers..A more decentralized general government would be more Freedom oriented..
Let's look at the Second Amendment AND New York..
The constitution is a compact and if New York wishes to be a part of such then they must honor that agreement..Not to mention their own..
That's how I view things...Binding on both or not at all
That would depend on the state in which one found one's self, wouldn't it? Or is your vision that all the states have to be the same?
The constitution is a compact and if New York wishes to be a part of such then they must honor that agreement
In what way would you say New York doesn't honor that agreement? Or, to put it another way, what federal laws against the State of New York do you want to impose?
**That would depend on the state in which one found one's self, wouldn't it?**
That it would..
**Or is your vision that all the states have to be the same?**
Heck No...I don't know what State which you reside But I love mine
**In what way would you say New York doesn't honor that agreement? **
‘Shall not be infringed’
http://www.nraila.org/statelawpdfs/NYSL.pdf
** Or, to put it another way, what federal laws against the State of New York do you want to impose?**
None...If New York doesn't want to enjoy the Constitutional Compact which it is a part..Then I wish them God Speed and please take that cow Rosie O'Donnell with them!
If I was to support ‘Federal laws’ then I'd be no better than them wanting to shove abortion,gun laws,hate crimes against pastors,ACLU,EXT,EXT upon States
Nope..They joined the compact with the understanding the Second Amendment said what it says..If they don't like it they are Free to go...And Yes the minority that loves Freedom would be considered equal trade for the Federal money they owe!!
"[l]ike most rights, the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." The Court's opinion, although refraining from an exhaustive analysis of the full scope of the right, "should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."is wrong. Correct?
It seems ironic to me that your idea of federalism is that a state should not be left to create it's own gun laws.
You know, don't you, that the earliest gun control laws aimed at free blacks in the antebellum south, right?
D.C is a Federal issue..D.C is not a State
**Okay, so I take it that you're a Second Amendment absolutist.**
What I find funny is that..You would defend a person who would buy a 100,000 car and has no need for one..Yet question someone who exercises his second Amendment RIGHT.
**is wrong. Correct?**
I'd prefer Justice Thomas
United States v. Lopez (93-1260), 514 U.S. 549 (1995
‘permit Congress to exercise a police power; our cases are quite clear that there are real limits to federal power. See New York v. United States, 505 U. S. ___, ___ (1992) (slip op., at 7) (”[N]o one disputes the proposition that `[t]he Constitution created a Federal Government of limited powers’ “) (quoting Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 457 (1991); Maryland v. Wirtz, 392 U.S. 183, 196 (1968); NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U.S. 1, 37 (1937). Cf. Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 419, 435 (1793) (Iredell, J.) (”Each State in the Union is sovereign as to all the powers reserved. It must necessarily be so, because the United States have no claim to any authority but such as the States have surrendered to them”). Indeed, on this crucial point, the majority and Justice Breyer agree in principle: the Federal Government has nothing approaching a police power.’
‘While the principal dissent concedes that there are limits to federal power, the sweeping nature of our current test enables the dissent to argue that Congress can regulate gun possession. But it seems to me that the power to regulate “commerce” can by no means encompass authority over mere gun possession, any more than it empowers the Federal Government to regulate marriage, littering, or cruelty to animals, throughout the 50 States. Our Constitution quite properly leaves such matters to the individual States, notwithstanding these activities’ effects on interstate commerce. Any interpretation of the Commerce Clause that even suggests that Congress could regulate such matters is in need of reexamination.’
’ Our construction of the scope of congressional authority has the additional problem of coming close to turning the Tenth Amendment on its head. Our case law could be read to reserve to the United States all powers not expressly prohibited by the Constitution. Taken together, these fundamental textual problems should, at the very least, convince us that the “substantial effects” test should be reexamined. ‘
Right, but if you're saying that a state has no authority to regulate guns whatsoever, you can hardly say that the feds do, right?
Yet question someone who exercises his second Amendment RIGHT.
I'd question a legally insane person who wants to guy a handgun. I'd question a convicted felon who wants to buy a machine gun. I'd question a child who shows up at a gun counter and wants to buy a shotgun. And I'd question that weird neighbor when starts building bombs or concocting nerve gas in his garage.
United States v. Lopez
Thomas' concurrence in Lopez is based on the Feds use of the commerce clause to justify a school gun ban. I agree with him, and the expansion of the commerce clause to cover just about every aspect of life is something that should be stopped. There's not word one about the Second Amendment in the opinion. But Thomas does says:
"But it seems to me that the power to regulate "commerce" can by no means encompass authority over mere gun possession, any more than it empowers the Federal Government to regulate marriage, littering, or cruelty to animals, throughout the 50 States. Our Constitution quite properly leaves such matters to the individual States, notwithstanding these activities' effects on interstate commerce."
Regulating gun possession, as he says then, is a matter for the states. Or do you think there should be no legal way to restrict 12th graders bringing loaded revolvers to school, as in Lopez?
**I'd question a legally insane person who wants to guy a handgun. I'd question a convicted felon who wants to buy a machine gun. I'd question a child who shows up at a gun counter and wants to buy a shotgun. And I'd question that weird neighbor when starts building bombs or concocting nerve gas in his garage.**
The reason I posted Mr. Thomas is this above!
If your convicted of a State crime and later your civil rights are restored...It's a State matter! If a States says that people who pass a hunter safety course can purchase a Firearm..It's a State matter!
This Federal Government has forced by coercion it's view of State laws..Under Federal Law if your wife during a divorce gets a ‘keep the peace’ order..Then under Federal Law your prohibited!
Better yet..Spank your kids and under Federal Law it's ‘domestic violence’ misdemeanor that carries a lifetime ban..
That's my whole point..It's a State issue
But I thought your position was that states had no power, since the Second Amendment is absolute.
This Federal Government has forced by coercion it's view of State laws..Under Federal Law if your wife during a divorce gets a ‘keep the peace’ order..Then under Federal Law your prohibited!
Only for the duration of the TRO.
Better yet..Spank your kids and under Federal Law it's ‘domestic violence’ misdemeanor that carries a lifetime ban..
Which speaks more to the criminalization of corporal punishment of kids than federal gun laws. Do you have a similar problem with a man convicted of beating his wife half to death being banned from gun ownership? If not, fine. We disagree. If so, then there's a line somewhere between spanking your kids and beating your wife half to death.
That's my whole point..It's a State issue
But up above you were saying that New York's gun laws were reason enough to expel them from the union.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.