Bio not provided
@Reid S. @Mark Maki the coppers have another two problems:
One: they all swear a solemn oath to uphold the constution. few do. ANY officer who has arrested anyone for simple drug possession, having in their possession a firearm that is (vaiously, depending on jurisdiction) not permited, registered, the wrong type, fitted with too large a magaxine, has too short a barrel, not state approved, carries the wrong ammunition, has certain features, is carried without the permiossion of the state, or in a place not approved by the state..... such a coop has violated his sworn oath, and made of himself a perjurer. How about a bnust for possessing, in one's home, a drug prescribed by his personal physician but the expiry date has passed.... operating a motor vehicle with the catalytic converter punched out after it became obstructed, and owner did not have the six hunderd bucks to have a new one installed.. or the guy who sold him a used one from a wreck that was running perfectly.... i could write a long book... and coops arrest on such things daily, ALL these "offenses" are contra out "supreme law of the land".....
and Two: how many cops become aware by one means or another, of blatant deliberate wrongdoing by their fellow cops.... ans say nothing, nor take any action?
4 days, 14 hours ago on Police departments boast about civil forfeiture abuse
@TedRWeiland @Tionico Sorry, ted, yu'll have to enlighten me here. Except for blatant dishonesty (the place is not mine to sell, encumbered in a way not disclosed, bearing some hidden defect not disclosed, perhaps a stretch, but drawn up and executed on a Sabbath...... I connot think of any component that would be "biblically errant" that would not be well covered, and actionable at law, outside the contract itself. can you provide three examples of "biblically errant" cokponents I might include in such a contract? Bear n mine I have in view a simple contract to sell o Party B, not to finance it myself as part of the contract.
4 days, 15 hours ago on We have returned to ground zero for liberty; fix this or else
@TedRWeiland @Tionico your fantastical conclusion proves the fallacy of your reasoning, as your conclusion is very wide of the mark. No, I ain't no follower of the goon with the golden spectacles.So, if I decide to sell my house to someone, is the contract between us, with all its caveats, recitals, requirements, provisions, consequences for failure, etc, morally neutral? If not, does it follow all the c, o, s, j of God? Or is it, by definition, hostile to His sovereignty and morality? You again build a house with only one wall, and demand I be on one side or the other. Yor contraints are a lgoiccal fallacy, and have no basis in reality.
4 days, 20 hours ago on We have returned to ground zero for liberty; fix this or else
@TedRWeiland @Tionico Ted you continue to draw a false dichotomy. As has been noted previously, the COnstitutionof the US was never intended a sa MORAL document. It names and codifies ONE crime, and one only. The balance is more like a cit charter than eny encoded law or moral standard: we'll establish this city, here are the boundaries. We'll have a city council comprising five members, elected for five year terms elected in alternate years, one term only. From those five we'll choose a mayor, we'll have a police department organised as follows....... this is NOT the sort of arrangement you continually try and force it to be. It never was intended to reflect God's "statues ordinances, cammands and judgements". It very carefully named only ONE crime (which crime is consistent with biblical standards) and leaves ALL other issues to the states respectively as sovereign entities.I have not studied the constitutons of the several colonies of that era, but no matter. You cannot fault the Constittuon, which abandons such areas of concern to those sovereign states, for what individual states have made of their sovereignty. There are some states in which I will absolutely not live, and scrupulously avoid even visiting, three of them to the point I refuse to even book a flight that lands in them. there are other states to which I am seriously considering moving. Much of this difference arises from a refusal of those state governments to uphold the federal Constitution.
You are also mistaken when you provide me with two alternatives: denounce the Constitution as a corrupt and satanic document, or hold it up as an idol. Again you raise a false dichotomy. I recognise many flaws in it particularly the later Articles of Ammendmen. It is not perfect. Yet my position remains that if we as a nation were to return to the terms, limits, mandates of that original document (including some modifications coming later but not all), we would not be IN the mess we're in today. If that is idolatry, then perhaps you and I have a different understanding of that term. Each state I will leave aside as separate matters. What is under discussion here is the Federal government. If Nebraska declares for islam and shariah law, that is Nebraska's doing, but they will need to secede from the other fifty six states to break from the constraints of the federal constitution.
Bear in mind, some ninety five percent of what today comprises FEDERAL government is outside the constraints of the Constituion, and should be dismantled. What would be left could be tried for some season then modified as needed to improve. I rather expect, though, that once we are down to a funcitonal five percent of the present burden we'd be so shriven of our government burden individuals would be sufficiently self-governed as to not require anything more. Wil that happen any time soon? I do not expect it in my lifetime, nor that of my children. And you want to make of me an idolater for this thinking? I do not favour civil government. I favour each man being accountable to the God who made us all and put us here with the charge to glorify and serve HIM. Since that, by definition, involves serving each other as well, there is little remaining but for each man to sort out the details before that same God. So whence cometh the idolatry you accuse?
4 days, 22 hours ago on We have returned to ground zero for liberty; fix this or else
I wonder, will the end of this perverted practice come only after a significant number of patriots decide it is time to end it? Military all took an oath to protect and defend the Constitutin from ALL threats, foreign OR DOMESTIC. And that oath has no expiry date. How long will it be before these gluttonous coppers take their little selfish game too far on the wrong folks, and it all comes back on them painfully? Or for masses (thousands) of citizens invade the corrupt courts and police stations demanding goods be returned and the practice ended? More stories are spreading about... more victims are having their say. More are becoming aware of this travesty of justice. A day WILL come when this ends. Will it be voluntarily curtailed by those perpetrating it upon their Masters (we the people)? Or will it be FORCED to end, either by some court or by citizen anullment and interposition?
5 days, 11 hours ago on We have returned to ground zero for liberty; fix this or else
@TedRWeiland Ted, you are VERY mistaken... the Founders did not REPLACE the God-based governments of the several colonies with the Federal government. No, they worked very carefully to leave all those matters in the hands of the various states, assigning very few and specifically named powers to FedGov. EACH STATE REMAINED SOVEREIGN, and you know this, or should. Those sovereign states had, and yet have, the option of continuing such God-based governments or straying. FedGov have NAUGHT to do with that. IF those soveriegn states were to be FORCED to work under the restrictions of that Fourth Article of Ammendment (just to mention one of that Bill of Rights) then civil forfeiture never would have begun. The issue is not one of a failure of the Constitution, but of FedGov refusing to restrain itself, and the out of control states in thiscivil forfeiture realm, for only one example/ READ that Fourth..... it clearly declares that this sort of injustice NOT HAPPEN. No property shall be seized by government without due process. Civil forfeiture, as I'm certain you know (or SHOULD....) is the simple taking, even if there is no crime or articulable suspicion there has been. And that property is immediatlh forfeit, not held in trust until after the legal criminal proceedings whcih never come in these cases). It is theft under colour of law, The Framers denied the pwoer to do this to all. Again the Constitutin is not the problem, it is corrupt men who refuse to be constrained by it. THEY have become the new Mafia...... bebadged, armed, and searing govenment issued costumes.
@Mark Maki I sort if did answer your question when I mentioned due process. Laws for a long time haveprovided that goods/money/assets derived from and traceable back to proceeds of crime can be forfeit as part of the punishment. Bad guy gains from crime, gets stuff, cash, bad guy gets caught, trried, convicted, stuff can be taken, particularly when things like embezzlement profit bad guy and converted to stuff....courts can liquidate and use proceeds for restoration to victims. Victimless crimes, (mostly controlled sobstance" "crimes") also povide that assets connected with the activity can be seized and liquidated as part of the proceedings. Note the difference between the above scenaria (closely connected with criminal activity that has been established in a court of law) and the sorts of situatioins described in the original post, where cops stop folks for whatever, snoop illegally until they find something they want, take it, no criminal charges even filed, no suspicion of a specific crime, no trial, no nothing but someone's stuff is stolen by the cops under colour of law. the burden of proof the money/car/stuff were gotten not related to any crime falls on the victim, the law abiding citizen. All the thieving cop needs to do is take the stuff/monmey/etc and claim "it MIGHT have been used in, related to, derived from, SOME crime SOMETIME SOMEwhere. This is NOT appropriate under our COnstitution...... inocent until proven guilty, right to examine witnesses used against you, right to present witnesses on your own behalf, right to legal representation, right to freedom from unlawful/unwarranted searches,
In your bad guy scenario, all of those rights were preserved, he was arrested, tried, convicted under due process. In the civil forfeiture scams going on across the nation, none are. This is NOT Communist China, Iraq, Cuba, North Korea.
1 week ago on Police departments boast about civil forfeiture abuse
@Mark Maki the laws already in place regarding handling of evidence and non-evidence personal property coming into control of law enforcement give clear rules for disposal. Evidence must be retained until no longer needed in legal proceedings, then must be returned to rightful owner. Collateral goods, such as items in a stolen car recovered, must also be returned to their rightful owner. Personal items found ina a car seized in the commission of a crime and not related to the crime itself also must be restored to the rightful owner. LE cannot simply retain any property they take.
and that is why "civil forfeiture" is such a racket, because goods are taken without due process (such as the rules regarding aabove situatins) and most often not in conexion with any crime, real or imagined. It is merely a quasi legal way for Law Enforcement to take wht thay want simply because they want to, and they can. ALL "civil forfeiture" laws need to be repealed. No one is safe from their greed, and there are no controls or due process involved.
Civil Forfeiture is a relatevly new thing, and all worked just fine before it was enaacted into law. It has only been seriously and systematically abused in the past decade or so, though it certainly had been abused somewhat before that. But these days, coppers lay in wait for late model out of state vehicles and "contact" then on some fimsy excuse, pressur the people into an ilegal and baseless search, and/or bring in dogs that will "alert" on cue from their handlers then take what they want. Threatening arrest will often place the innocent victim travellers in a no-win position. They are jailed if they don't go along they have their goods, money, car stolen if they don't. At times, coppers threaten to turn the children over to CPS and foster care. Not much wil gain the coerced assent of a Mother than the threat to steal her children away from her at the side of the road in rural Timbuktu. This entire system is a travesty of justice, and must end, NOW.
@Begneli you can always decline to respond at all. Worst case: he'll put the clams on you for not cooperating. BUT when prosecutor comes to file charges, he's got no evidence, and off you go. Open your mouth, a dirty copper will put something in it. Then hang you with it. Happens a thousand times a day.
1 week, 2 days ago on Police departments boast about civil forfeiture abuse
@MelADavis @Tionico @JamesPatrickRiley correct she is not hands on herself. BUT... the record shows she pushed her council hard to foist this on the people against their clearly expressed will (sort of like a certain kinyun pushed congress for some illegal healthcare insurance scam) SHE is the one decided to refuse the petitions and certified signatures, and SHE is the one directing her crony underlings like the city's attorneys. SHE has the authority to tel them to not respond, and a lot of imput on HOW to respond. She will toss some folks under the bus, put on an innocent look, shrug her shulders, and say "who, MEEEE??!!??!!?? Not at ALL, sweetie pie".
1 month, 1 week ago on Is Houston demanding oversight of pastors’ sermons? No.
@Guest001112 @Tionico @KurtW no one want a religious oligarchy. Your argument hinges on ONE SMALL WORD: you begin your final paragpaph with the wird IF. Pastors cannot violate any valid federal law by their pulpit speech, blog communications, soapbox or neighbourly speech. REread that pesky FIRST ARtciel of Ammendment. It says there shall be no law abriding..... free speech, peaceably to assemble, or redress of grievance. WHERE in that complex and arcane language do you find the source for your argument? If you are referring to the 501c3 designation and its restrictions. you will first have to PROVE the muzzle so put on the muoths of preachers and other churchmen is constitutionally valid.. I say it is not, See above mention of that First. You will further have t PROVE these churches under the subpoenae are in fact 501c3 organisations. My guess, from what these few pastors hav asid, is they are not. Thus those illegal restrictions are not applicable. Finally, the "prosecution" you demand is limited to the IRS terminating their 501c3 status. Nothing more. Now, please note: the issue, the basis, of this lawsuit, to which none of these pastors under subpoenae are party has nothing to do with anything they may or may not have said anywhere. It has ONLY to do with whether this renegae mayoress has the authority to deny a duly presented and certified petition from the voting people of this city to place a measure on the city ballot. She does NOT have this authority. And she KNOWS it. which is WHY she is attempting to bury these men under the "discovery" demands. She opes that their refusal or failure to cmply will be cause for summary dismissal of the lawsuit. SO, sir, you have some homework to do: first, WHO are these pastors, the targets of this subpoena? Second, with what churches are they affiliated? Third, are those churches 501c# organisations, Fourth, WHAT speech, if any, is contrary to the alledged restrictioins placed on "official speech" of whch officeholders or functioinaries of 5-01c3 organiatioins? and fifth, I already said so, but YOU need to learn what the maximum possible sanctions against "violating" the restrictioins placed upon 501c3 organisations might be, and who or which agency can im[ose them.Now, assuming these pastors are all official spokesmen of their 501c3 organisations, and assuming they did in fact proclaim things contraty to the restrictiins imposed on such organisations, you will now have to explain WHY the Fifth Article of Ammendment is somehow effectively waived in this instance? They are under no obligation to reveal anything that might incriminate themselves or support any charges for "violation" of any law or statute.
You mght also consider the FACT that the petitions to place the repeal of this city ordinance returned some five times as many signatures as required to place the referendum on the ballot. The Electins Commission stopped examining the signatures after they certified the required minimum number plus about 25% more. And the mayoress STILL usurped authority not hers to demand it not be on the ballot. One more detail: you are on a whinge against a "religious oligarchy", yet you seem to support the religiousoligarchy this mayoress is clearly attempting to establish. Yes, she IS. Her god is herself, and her sacrament is the act of lesbian sex. Her doctrins is whatever I want is what will happen. She has ignored the clearly expressed objection of the Peole of Houston to her Pervert Protection Zone Ordinance. If that is not an oligarchy there never has existed one.
@KurtW the speech is protected as SPEECH, not as "religious" speech.. the Constitution recognises no such category. ALL speech is protected. Further, these men have a right to not incriminate themselves. SHE obviously wants to abuse what little power she has, and will likely turn anytning damning over to our "friends" at the Infernal Robing You Service...... thus, by surrendering this "speech" these pastors who happen to be allied with 501 c3 organisations might face sanctions..... thus, by surrendering their "speech" may well be incriminating themse;lves, thus the speech is protected under the Fifth. HOWEVER< none of the matters, as the basis of the lawsuit in question is the maypr's usurpation of authority she does not have in refusing to allow the duly conducted and officialy certified *by the Electioins Board) petition to put her Pervert Protection Zone Ordinance to a vote of the PEOPLE who oppose it. Thus, nothing these pastors said/did not say is germane to THAT lawsuit, the one from which this ridiculous "discovery" arises. NOTHING coming from these churches relates to the legal question of whether she has the authority to deny this lawfully conducted and duly certified petition being put on the ballot for the PEOPLE of Houston to decide. The lawsuit is not about the content or affect of her PPZ ordinance, but about her denying due process to the people she is charged to serve as mayor. THIS should be grounds for a recall petition, and I think it would be great fun to see the churches of Houston bind together to launch just that petition... and even better if both of these ballot measures were to land on the same ballot page this spring. Unless some sharp lawyer can come up with some criminal charge, malfeasance in iffice, misuse of public funds (city money paying lawyers to persecute pastors who oppose her?) and get rid of her s she gets no pension after her "service". Her inflated pride WILL go before her fall.
@JamesPatrickRiley You've got m ost of the waypoints for this journey wring. Your start point is accurate.. the lesbo mayor IS on a power trip as seem to be most of her ilk. But then you jump too far... the pastors DID object...... and did all they could to try and keep it from happening. Once it did happen, they worked, some of them, to bring about a repeal by supporting the petition drive. Remembe that right to redress we all have against government? Petitions were drafted, signatures gathered..... to repeal this by a citizen's referendum. Well above the required number were gathered, submitted to the elections folks to certify, they did so, declaring there are far more than the minimum required, the petition is certified and must be put on the ballot. Creepy mayoress )her royal highness Herself) with no authority to do so declares this is unacceptible and "stops" the progress of the now-legally initiated referendum. THIS is the grounds of the lawsuit, not the pervert protection zone city ordinaince she pushed through. It was not these targeted pastors who brought the suit. Thus, whether the pastors said anything for or against or nothing at all regarding the ORDINANCE is irrelevant. The PEOPLE have spoken and acted to secure their right to vote on the matter (after mayor and city concil refused to hear their opposition.. (sort of a lot like King George Three way back when, eh?) On this ground, this "discovery" now becomes quite clearly a persecution of any who see things differently than does this excuse of a mayor. This "body of evidence" she demands is not related at all to the grounds for the lawsuit.... which challenges her refusal to accept the duly collected and officially certified signatures on the petition to put this on the ballot. She is using discovery wrongly to overburden and cow her opposition. Why? Because she KNOWS once the people vote, her prize pervert protectiin act is gone.
Further, this "speech" of these targetted men (pastors) is, prima facie, protected under the First Article of Ammendment.. not as "religions" speech (as there really is no such "category" in the Constitution...) but simply as SPEECH. ALL speech is protected) Further, this body of "evidence" is protected as private by the Fifth Article of Ammendment. If this dingy female has specific evidence to support a claim that this speech somehow is germane to the question of her refusal to accept the petition to put the repeal to a vote of the peole, she has the burden of proof or "reasonable cause" to request specific "speech" to support her claim. SHE is the burdened one, she must substantiate her claim. Having her city paid lawyers build and launch a fishing expedition against some who are known to oppose her is not legal, nor right.
Based on all this, I have to conclude that Joel Mc Durmon is off base here. The people of Houston should be demonstrating in the streets for their being stripped of due process and their right to redress against their city government. Leave aside the issue of her Pervert Protection Zone for the moment... the quires can fling all manner of poo in the rhetorical battle that would commence. The first issue is denial of the rights of the citizens to redress and vote. Once the vote happens, THEN the moral arguments can begin.... unless the PEOPLE also launch a drive to recall this piece of work. I think it would be hilarious to launch a petition drive to recall this miscreant, and that both measures (repeal of the PPZ, and her recall) were to be on the same ballot. I can see the bumper stickers now: RECALL THE PERV and her PERV ORDINANCE.
MY understanding from what I've read is that the basis of this lawsuit
is to prevent the mayor, acting illegally on this matter, from
disqualifying the certified signatures to put the repeal of this bill on
the ballot. She has NO AUTHORITY to do so, the county official charged
with certifying the number and verity of the signatures has sworn under
oath the number and authenticity of the signatures are well beyond what
is required. Yet this jezebel huffs and puffs and refuses to allow it on
the ballot, as if its HER call. This is an abrogation of her authority
as the chief executive officer of the city. What these pastors may or
mayn't have said from their pulpits, blogs, etc, has NAUGHT to do with
whether the mayor can "uncertify" a legally compliant petition to put a
measure on the ballot. And THIS is why the subpoena is invalid and
capricious. These subpoenae are a hit piece to drag certain select pastors who are not party to that political action lawsuit to force the mayor to comply with THE LAWS relating to referendae initiated by the people. This move is pure harassment against her chosen target, unrelated to the lawsuit. SHE thinks its about her sexual perversion. She is mistaken. It is about her unlawful usurpation of power, a power never given to the executive, and for good reason. She is charged with applying the laws, not deciding which ideas get made into laws. NOr does she have any authority to siilence the will of the people. If she continues, she may well find herself out of a job, possibly facing charges for malfeasance, corruption, etc.
These subpoenae are illegal on their face. Misuse of the courts for personal or political gain is also illegal. She certainly seems to be doing that. But WHERE are the thousands of christians that should be surrounding her office, home, etc, leaving her no peace, popping up everywhere to remind her SHE is not a god and cannot usurp poewr not conveyed to her.
perhaps that could be one of two relevant questions, the other being "is there enough substance in my sermons to convict or enrage a lesbian politician to bring her face to face with Christ and His demands?". Many have been dragged, kicking and screaming, right to the trough... but refuse to drink. Consider Pharoah..... given many opportunities yet steadfastly refusing to acknowledge God...... it cost him everything.
@Guest777777 That is typical dirty but legal lawyer games. I hope they DO this. Cause the legal expenses of the opposition to inflate exponentially. I had a defendant in a lawsuit pull this thinking I'd have to pay my lawyer for a hundred hours or more AFTER I dug up the requested, redundant, and irrelevant information. I fooled them and wrote the "Rogs" myself.
@LiftHimUp As to the NBC issue, not as you claim. One American parent, and born here, makes one a CITIZEN, but the additional qualifier "natural born" is more limited. MUST be born here, and of TWO American citizen parents. Read Federalist Papers for background and context, and the discussiions on this issue. Further, a Supreme COurt case, about 1835 I think, the title being Minor vs Happersett, or something very close.... it was about another matter but dealt with the Natural Born Citizen issue as a key to the matter at hand. Find and read the decision yourself. It is blunt, plain, leaves no wriggle room.WHY bring this up? Cruz is quite obviously on the campaign trail, and needs to be headed off at the pass as ineligible. his is NOT sour grapes.. I like some of what the guy is saying, though during his recent stumping he's caused me to wonder a lot. He's certainly better than either of the last two we had in the final runoff. And Romney is being put forward again.... sheesh!!!
As to the whole "two kingdom" business... I'm not much up to seed on that whole schtick... but I do know two things that I think relate. First, there is not one cubic nanometer of creatio over which Jesus does not say "MINE". Second, anyone who is sitting about waiting for Jesus to come back and "fix it all" is most likely NOT one of His disciples, and will hear the "Depart from Me you workers of iniquity, I never knew you" speech.
2 months ago on Cruzifiction
I've long considered Jesus' word to "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God what is God's" to mean only give to either/both what is RIGHTFULLY theirs. What 'IS" the due to each. He emphatically did NOT say to give them what they want. How often does Caesar/Uncle Sam make demands that are utterly without warrant? Or directly opposed to what we know is God's command (paying to support abortion, for example, clearly counter to God's laws and the Constitution.. right to life, as guaranteed therein, and none of FedGov's business to demand).
It seems, upon reading this article, that the hooh hahs in charge of the temple and other related things had been scamming the people for some time, and that Jesus was brought up against this. Did He say to pay the tax? No. He said to give to God what IS God's.... and left it to the hearer to determine whether this two-drachma tax was legitmately God's. If it IS legitimately His, they you'd better pay up. If not, you can either pay it (to reduce chances of ensuing "unpleasantness") or not and risk those ensuing consequences.
Somewhat akin to our current administrations insistence we all buy into the OhBummerTax scam under risk of some financial penalties. The law is not legitimate, despite what a number of bought andpaid for courts have "decided", nor is it anything approaching a n acceptible "deal". Pay anyway, lose for certain, don't pay and risk..... well, whatever it might be and however further on doan the road those "chips" may fall and how big the pile will be when they do.
Render to him asking for the tax what is RIGHTLY his to demand.
2 months, 1 week ago on Taxing like a harlot
Cruz' stance on Israel, the middle east, the christians under persecution there, and other such things are merely trappings the man is manipulating on his hopeless quest to occupy the White House as our next president.
However those issues dice down, he has one insurmountable problem, which he conveniently fails to mention (and much of the media is in lockstep on this issue). That issue comprises two indisputable facts, and those facts are of his own testimony: he was born in Canada, and his Father was a Cuban citizen at the time of his birth. The requirement for president is he be a "natural born citizen", which means born in this country, of TWO parents who are also both citizens. Not residents, not visitors, not Britich Subjects (Obama Sr), not Cubans....... thus he cannot be president. I wish he'd end his grandstanding and get about pushing for what this country needs to climb out of our present deep rabbit hole economically, politically, and morally. The sort of blathering he's been up to of late helps none of the above.
2 months, 1 week ago on Cruzifiction
@D2U on what basis do you assert that anyone who does not support the popular meme that Israel MUST be "supported" blindly and unquestioningly necessarily "hates" Israel and wills her arm? Who appointed YOU Factfinder, Judge, Jury, in determining that those who disagreed with Cruz' comments "are against Israel"? Pot, don't call kettle black until you have a good, honest look at kettle.
@TedRWeiland @MichaelPaulTuuri All traffic laws arise from the principle outlined in the Dacalogue regarding murder. The root command.. do not harm another. (death being the ultimate harm in this life). If my speed is such that I cannot control my vehicle, and I do in fact lose control of it and harm another, I have violated that command. Thus, God's law mandates that I drive in such a way as to not harm another. BUT.. the state, usurping God's authority over my conduct in this regard, so often declares I must drive at less than some certain rate of speed.... in theory, at any rate, to assure I don't harm another. However, some of the cars I drive are far safer at some certain speed than others. If it is safe (I do no harm) at the lower speed in vehicle A, an inherently less stable one than B, the state interferes with MY responsibility before God and my fellow man to decide at what speed vehicle B is still plenty safe. Then, as I doscivered to my amazement on a trip to Texas a few years back, THAT state government deems 85 mph plenty safe on their motorways, while California posts most of theirs at 65, and Oregon most at 60. Nevada, until FedGov threatened to withhold monies rightly theirs until they complied, posted NO limits. So, if driving 85 in Texas is legal, and safe, is driving the same vehicle at 85 in Oregon, on similar roads and concidtions, NOT save, and against God's law? Certainly not.
Then we have the town, recently put inder investigation in Florida, which has collected some forty thousand speeding ticket fines in the past few years, whillst the town only has about 12K residents.....and some 25 cops who were required to write no less than 12 tickets per 12 hour shift... counter to state laws. The limits posted as one approaches the town, then leaves, change quite a few times... down, then up, then down again, and the dirty coppers sit where their radar guns can train on the first few feet of roadway after the newer lower limit..... millions of dollars scooped from the unsuspecting travelling public for..... what? Playing a numbers game. This is NOT what law is for.... nor anything close to what God intended civil magistrates to do. and "we must obey"? Sorry.... I don't buy that.
Speed laws are interesting anyway. Its sort of a bargain struck.. IF you are convicted of driving over the posted limit, AND you are convicted, you will have committed a certain level of INFRACTION, and the fine will be $XXX. No actual offense isoutlined or defined. IF you do this, AND we catch you, AND we can prove in front of the judge, whom we own, THEN you have to haul out your checkbook and cough up. On the other hand, when someone is driving so fast he cannot control his car, craahes, and HURTS someone, of COURSE he has committed a crime.... and needs to make restitution per God's laws. (most of us carry insurance, essentially betting the insuror that we won't blow it, and giving him the monthly premium to he can pay the restitution on our behalf IF we need it. But, most often, that is the end of it. All to often, there are no criminal charges except in cases of gross negligence, disregard for the security of others, etc.
2 months, 1 week ago on Is there such thing as “legitimate taxation”?
@MichaelPaulTuuri @Alex Alexander @TedRWeiland this sounds a whole lot like the principle of God writing His laws on our hearts.... and is His intent. How many laws did Adam have imposed upon him in the garden? One. And ONLY one. Oh, he had some tasks assigned, but only one law. Since that was broken, we suffer under the insult and burden of myriad laws. Yet the original plan was that God's laws be written upon our hearts...... so what we want is what God wants. Jesus came to live and die here amongst us to restore that which was lost. And He's not putting everything on hold until He returns, no He has given us work to do between now and then..... OCCUPY till I come, He said. Consider the implications of that word OCCUPY.
our Constitution gives virtually unlimited power to Congress to tax
us—and it has used it liberally. The “Antifederalist” critics of the
Constitution pinpointed this problem early—and they were right. I would
venture to argue that, constitutionally, every tax we have today is perfectly legitimate.
No, not quite. The Constitution ascribes somewhere near 18 or 20 areas of concern to FedGov, and, per the Tenth Article of Ammendment, explicitly denies it any power to mess with anything else. Thus healthcare, standing army, space exploration, regulating the eivirnoment, agriculture, education, transportation, regulating what we do/don't put into our bodies, firearms, beverages, agricultural products, policing/law enforcement/criminal prosecutions, interstate commerce (they ARE told to "make regular", that is, to make sure it works properly, that is NOT regulating it to death as now seen), establishing and maintaining and mismanaging national forests, parks, preserves, reserves, monuments, scenic areas, managing retirement savings/pensions, automobile equipment or performance or appearance or function, and a host of other nonsense never intended them. And THOSE things are what consume the vast majority of our tax dollars stolen from us on a regular basis.
Further, the Constitutioin places the ultimate responsibility to limit and direct the Congress to we the people. Thus the root of the problem is NOT the congress, but the people who continue to return the scoundrels for multiple terms thus they coninue perpetuating their illegal activities unchecked. Thus I fully disagree with your argument that "every tax we have today is perfectly legitimate". No, tax monies confiscated then applied to some purpose not expressly assigned FedGov is NOT legitimate. I'd venture an estimate that if ALL such taxes were ended immediately the taxes applied to the remaining legitimate purposes would reduce our current federal tax load to well under ten percent of gross, or even net, income.
In the beginning, we as a new nation agreed to having naval ports, post offices andpost roads, the ten mile square seat of national government, two houses of congress, establishing weights and measures and coining money, and not much more. Remove ALL taxes not directly involved with those few functions and see how much remains..... the small remainder will shock you.
2 months, 2 weeks ago on Is there such thing as “legitimate taxation”?
@TedRWeiland Excellent point regarding the corruptio of the term "church". As far as I can tell, (not exhaustive study on my part, to be sure), the "church that meets at so and so's house' never had to maintain a building, nor did they have things like Children's Church, Youth Grope, Deacon's Breakfasts, gospel busses, etc. It was simply the people coming together in some common place that was already under their control or right of access. It seems possible/likely that when Paul met with others or came from out of town to minister for a season, some facility was obtained... like the one from which window the young man fell when Paul's teaching put him to sleep. My guess is "the church" acquired that venue in much the same way as Jesus' tomb was aquired... someone had it, and mede it available for the instant need. But the "church" as a ten million dollar monument to someone was unknown. However, even a congregation that rents a public school cafeteria for their Lord's Day meeting incurs some expenses.... and they have to come from somewhere. The groups with which I am familiar simply leave a box lying about somewhere, and folks drop in wat they feel led to give. And it all works out somehow. Everything else comes from, is used by, supplied by, and benefits the folks that meet together.... just like the believers who met at Charlie's house way back when...... "whenever you come together......". Of course, along with the huge facility come attendant burdens.. property taxes, utility bills, maintenance, insurance (because the bank owns it), interest on the note, and this all requires some form of hierarchy to deal with it. Hierarchy costs money to build/maintain. Thus most "pastors" are not really shepherds as much as CEO's managing the "stuff" and distracted from the real duties ascribed them by God. And butts on benches seem to be the desired "product" (must pay that note off, you know.....)
@vRico @TedRWeiland Perhaps a good idea from God's Word would be to look again at the time when the judaisers were harrassing the "greek" new believers, attempting to put them under the Law of Moses. The leaders met to consider this in light of some of the same things under discussion here. Their conclusion was simple: we are no longer UNDER the law, as Christ came to perfect that. But we ARE under God's moral law... they said that circumcision, observing feasts, etc, were not required, but to abstain from meat sacrificed to idols (as a consideration to their weaker bretheren that might be stumbled by this practice), and from sexual immorality. While they did not spell this out, I suspect they were counting on the Holy Spirit to make good on Jesus' promise that He (the Spirit) would lead each one into all truth.
As to the Mosaic law in re crimes against others, one look at today's sick and corrupt system of criminal "justice" belies any hint that we have it right. We have some 23 millions of our own people in prison (at a cost of about $40K/year/prisoner, out of OUR tax money) for such inane things as possession of microscopic quantities of a natural plant, and a few million more for having stolen some item belonging to another) as "punishment", all "paying their debt to society". (somehow the logic of MY paying $40K/year/prisoner and declaring that THEY are "repaying their debt to society" is "good" escapes me) does not set well with my understanding of the principles of liberty, justice (for all?) Meanwhile we spend a few $Mn to shove a murderer through the justice "system", only to impose a sentence of a few years because of "extenuating circumstances... such as "he was poor" instead of aplying the biblical recompense for his wilfully taking the life of another. And that command (whoever deliberately sheds the blood of an innocent, by man's hand shall HIS blood be shed) well predates the law of Moses.
So, while we, strictly speaking, are not under the law of Moses, we remain under God's principles of justice, judgement, recompense. And these are spelt out fairly clearly throughout the OT. Any nation that models their criminal law system on those does well. The ONLY crimes that should be crimes are those that violate the Decalogua... particularly the second tablet. Crimes against each other need to have consequences in keeping with the harm done. In fact civil government is established by God to "bear the sword against those who do harm to others".
2 months, 2 weeks ago on Calvin’s great error on biblical law
@Angelus Domini Wither you missed it entirely or for whatever reason failed to refer to Mr. McDurmon's clear refutation of Calvin's "perilois, seditions, false, and foolish" interpretation (mangling?) of the quoted OT source. Instead you throw rocks.
@woodcal16 @Tionico it still makes no sense. You fail to explain how "calvinism" affects their positions and articles. Your original comment still has no context, no meaning, no significance. Seems like empty ranting with no purpose.
2 months, 2 weeks ago on Phil Robertson preaches Islamic doctrine? Convert or die?
@Richard Frank HUGE detail you conveinently eliminate: Lot had been kidnapped, taken against his will and trundled off by these foreigners on a raid. Abraham merely mustered his forces, went and reclaimed Lot. When that job was done they returned home.
This guy was kidnapped, alright.. or was he detained by those who live there for his suspicious presence? What WAS he really doing? Why? We don't know.... but we DO know that the guy went there of his own accord. His troubles did not begin until he had put himself in harms' way. And now you expect our entire nation's forces to be deployed to get him back before he's killed? He likely violated some law, rule, protocol, thus raising his profile to the point they dealt with him. Not to OUR liking, but we don't live there. Maybe they grabbed this guy in retaliation for our kinyun resident's drone raid that killed Anwar al Aliki (do I have his name right?) and then later his son, as that son was visiting with friends. A teen aged US citizen lawfully present where he was, and apparently up to nothing of note.... yet HE was killed along with a handful of his friends and relatives with no due process by a drone-fired missile. Maybe it was THEM avenging the assassination of one of them? WHERE does it stop? It never should have begun. We need to quickly and completely butt out, let them settle their own disputes. If they wanted our "help" they'd ask for it. Its that old "we have to meddle in every corner fo the world to make things "right"".
@Tired nope. NO more than I'd see the concerted attacks on Kurdish christians as an attack on America. The man chose to put himself in that position in his line of work. If a pilot or passenger on an airliner that crashes is an American, did America die when the plane crashed? If YOU desire to go and avenge his death, have at it. We as a nation cannot lawfully or morally do so. Not an act of war. Perhaps they viewed his presence there, meddling and/or observing in their private business as an act of war, and took appropriate action? Like WE should do if a bunch of them came here to stir things up? Like we SHOULD be doing along our southern border as tens of thousands of people freely walk or are driven across with no consequences.. beyond our own government taking them up, coddling, protecting, feeding, housing, clothing, managing, them as honoured guests...... sorry, they come here against our laws, they need to be dealt the appropriate consequences. Perhaps those who kidnapped and killed these journalists or whatever they were see things that way. We being Americans are not always in the right.
@sartrewasamoron so, Church of Christ are not folks who name the name of Jesus? News to me. What about the hundreds (thousands?) of true christians (not to suggest the one Church of Christ member you allude to) being persecuted for their faith?
we will only be fighting them here when they COME here. So far, the few that have come here have not been acting like their cohorts over there. We have NO BUSINESS gathering up our kit and marching off to war OVER THERE as a nation. As he said. let individuals so convicted to do so head on over and sign up, jine up, arm up with whatever suits you and have at it. When our government are fomenting trouble everywhere we go (openly or covertly, and if you think we don't do both you are asleep) is WHY they are at war, and what will provoke them to come here again. Does the term "blowback" mean anything? Learn of it. Our actions as a nation have set up the furnace of conflict and afflict over there, and kindled their anger against us. It should come as no surprise if they do decide to pay us another ugly visit.
@woodcal16 can you please explain how Mc Durmon's position is "radical calvinism" or based on his teachings? Seems to me Joel is advocating a high level of individual liberty to act as one sees fit, but NOT for the corporate state to act when the trouble is "over there". Sure, when/if they are rampaging in OUR streets, we the people as a colllective will do what is necessary to repel them, per our founding documents and moral right. Defend your families, houses, goods, lands, neighbours is biblical.
But I completely fail to comprehend what Calvin and his teachings have to do with any of this, and particularly what Joel has to say.
@Don C can you be more specific in regards the details of the surgery you prescribe, and why? this is naught else than a cheap shot at Joel with no real argument or criticism. You may as well have simply said "Joel yo're an idiot". Makes as much sense, and helps as much.. How about becoming part of the discuccion?
@amiacalva he clearly covered that in his article, which it seems you failed to read and/or comprehehd. That is YOUR decision to pack up your tools of the trade and head on over to jump into the fray on whatever side you think you should. What you espouse is no different than what our government is doing with welfare... FORCING everyone to cough up and pay up so they can "redistribute" because we are all CORPORATELY responsible. No, we are not. It is never the state to take on such responsibility, it remains always to the individual. YES< feed the hungry, care for the widow and orphan, bind up the broken, etc. But those words are for YOU, and ME, as individuals. Did Paul advocate the churches fleece their flocks by force to collect for the struggling church in Jerusalem? No. They took up VOLUNTARY collections as a matter of service and convenience.. NO ONE was pressured to give, yet many gave till it hurt. They put the funds in Paul's hands to bring it to where they were needed. Individuals taking the action they felt God required of them. I know some who are physically and immediately helping in some of those places.. some by feeding, some by arming and training. But for "America" to do that is wrong. It is counter to our Constitution, counter to our principles. We as a NATION should NOT be meddling everywhere. It is largely the messes we as a natioin have created over there that is putting these Christians at risk.. going back to the time when OUR government was complicit in the illegal activity of forming those artificial "nations" in the aftermath of previous wars... deliberately forming them so as to never have any possibility of ever become a stable people or nation. Read how Iraq was formed.. it is one of dozens so "created" with our "help". THIS is what needs to end.. our government stealing OUR tax dollars and spending it by the trillions in arming, fmoenting, directing, subverting, bribing, these various factions to enable them to set at one another persecuting, perpetrating genocide, and all the rest. Read George Washington's Farewell Address as he turned over the reins of this new nation after his service as president. HE nailed it just right. WHY can't we heed his clear advice?
@MarkPA@TionicoMark, I did get yuour root point, both halves of it. Actually, in further pondering, I think the concept of USING training requirements as you suggest is pure genius. Same thing has happened in many states about driver training. I learned from my Dad, who was talking and demonstrating good driving habits since I was about twelve. HE was driving the schoolbus at fourteen, and tractors, wagon and team, long before that. Now, a Dad can't teach his own kid how to drive, that has become the purview of the state, with madatory training for all new drivers under 18. (Washington). They demanded training for drivers, now its mandated for all. Same concept.
I agree, its a hopeless battle at this stage to try and get FedGov to do and fund it. Its out of their bailiwick anyway, except pssibly as part of militia protocol. But I think that comes too late in life. Junior ROTC starts at about 16, and by then kids whould arleady be marksmen. I suppose that could be promoted at state level, maybe a few stats would go for it. But the real way to win that one is at the local level, one district at a time. It does seem, though, that such demands are bieng made at state levels, requiring so many hours of (typicaly worthless) training prior to getting your CCL, or in some wretched places, before getting your Mother May Own a Gun permit. Go ahead, we'll let you pass that as long as you start that training in midle school, make it an opt-out part of normal education. Indoor ranges with air rifles works well... the "graduation" to outdoors and powder is easy. A few hoplophobic legislators will be going apopleptic at the thought of CHILDREN actually being allowed to TOUCH those nasty things... which could only be a good thing. We'd be bereft of a few nasty congresscretins. Always a plus!!!
I know Appleseed are completely dedicated to training up as many as possible, starting as young as possible. We;ve held private shooting events at some private schools, and for Boy Scouts, FFA groups, etc.
11 months, 1 week ago on A Navy SEAL Sniper’s Perspective on Firearms Ownership & The NRA in America
@MarkPA@TionicoExcellent points about training..... but I think starting at high school is over-late. I volunteer as an instructor with the Appleseed Project, a nationwide organisation teaching rifle marksmanship and Revolutionary War history. We get dozens of kids ten, eleven, twelve, on our firing lines.... they behave, learn and observe safety, and quicky become better marksmen than their Dads''' I've watched several ten and eleven year olds shoot a qualifying score on the Army Qualification Test, 210+ out of 250 possible. Watching them up front with face busting grins as they are handed their Rifleman patches, then theirn Young Patriot patches, makes the hard work easy. I know one young lad at ten to quaifly. Now he is 12, and can regulary hit what he wants to hit at 200 yards with his own Ruger 10/.22, and often scores out to four hudnred yards. Early on, when he was nine, he was on the line next to his Dad, a very experienced shooter, though not accurate enough yet. A hot brass casing flew out of Dad's eject port and landed in the crook of the young chap's elbow (all were in prone position), he wearing a short sleeved tee shirt. He screamed, jumped up, I was working the line about three shooters to his left, turned and started moving toward the noise, obviosly SOMETHING going on that could be a safety issue. The kid jumped up to standing, used his trigger hand to brush the shell casing from his other arm.... all the while maintaining PERFECT downrange muzzle control. Up to that point his Dad has insisted he use a single shot bolt action, not quite certain he'd be safe enough with a semiauto. After that happened, I offered to the Dad that I could get my Ruger 10/.22 carbine lonaer from my van and let him use that. No question that kid understood safety. If a NINE YEAR OLD can be that safe in trouble, he's not too young to properly learn how to shoot.
My Dad, when he was 12, regulary carried his .22 bolt gun with him on his horse when he went to school. Lots of the boys did. Sometimes at lunch or after school they'd have unsupervised shoot-offs and contests right out back. When he was 14, the district bought a bus... and since he liveed furthest from the school, HE drove it, dropping theother kdis off at their houses on the way out, picking them up in the morning again. He carried his trusty /22 bolt gun right up front with him. Why not? The bolt open what could happen? He'd been shooting since about six or seven along with most of his brothers and sisters. Yes, his isters were all great shots, too. One brother was a sniper in WW 11, Pacific Theater. Kids should start learnign ALL about guns as early as is safely possible. Appleseed does an incredible job of doing that. I do have to admit, though, that since Appleseed is a sing-up-and-come sort of program, and costs a littie (we're all volunteer, so the ONLY costs are administrative, for targets, sometimes range fees and target backers, that sort o fthing.. none of the instructors get a dime, but we love it) the young kids who DO come are already vetted in some good ways.. parents or uncles or lder brothers care enough to bring them along, and the kdis are eager learners. I can tell dozens of encouraging stories from my few years instructing. It gives me comfort to know thousands of people a year are getting excellent basic training in safety, gun handling, and marksmanship. AND learning our history and WHY the need to restore America to its former status as a nation of riflemen is so critical.Learning what was happening in the latter half of the eighteenth century leaves little question as to WHY each right named in our Bill of Rights is there, and written the way it is. Particularly that Second Article of Ammendment. Having endured that :long train of abuses" as they did, they would have been stupid and foolish to not do all possible to assure that train would never get put together again, in part by guaranteeding the tools necessary to stop it. And yes, training was and remains key. Training i marksmanship and the history that marksmanship made possible,
@MarkPA@flybobMark, I believe you search in vain for actual records of the Founders referencing the limitation of arms from convicted felons, insane, and on the issue fo concealed carry. On the first two categories... since other rights can, and were, removed from convicted criminals, at least for a time, it seems evident that the right to arms would also be in that same category. Now one caveat: today, many "crimes" are labelled "felony" that certainly are not. Failure to pay court orderd child support, possession of st times miniscule quaintites of certain controlled substances (the laws "controlling" them being completely unconstitutional), driving a vehicle innexcess of twenty miles anhour above the posted arbitrary speed limit, and, in my own county, anyone shooting a feral nuisance cat is guilty of a felony as well. Any of these can get one incarcerated for a long time. Or, how about this: in states that refuse to acknowledge the individual right to arms, if someone is found in possession of a firearm wihtout first having procured the state's Mother May I paperwork to BUY or POSSESS a gun, that poor sap is charged with a felony, and gun felony to boot. SO... many are "convicted felons" when that label does not suit.
Aside from that, society DO have an obligation to protect itself from predators, and disarming the two-legged variey of predator is within the purview of that intent. At least until such time as the individual no longer seems to be a threat to others in the community.
As to concealed, I don't believe the founders even considered that as a category. They said "bear", meaning to carry along with one's self as one goes about doing what one doesh. Further "arms" certainly wes not, as a term,limited to firearms. Swords, dirks, daggers, all manner of edged weapons, and anything heavy enough to be lethal as well. The dread bayonet of the Britich REgular was detachable, and often kept in a scabbard at the belt. Was this "concealed"? No, it was simply ready to hand when needed. The entire thrust of that ammendment was to assure access to any sort of weapon was not to be restricted in any way. Requiring a Mother May I bit of paper from the government "giving permission" to possess, carry, lawfully use, "arms" was unthinkable, whether said weapon was large or small, carried in the hand, on the belt, or well hidden under one's clothing, Same with any requirement for informing the government (local, state, national) that one is possessed of arms, describing which ones one owns, or, as in California's case, "registering" certain ones specifically to be used with one's state-issued Mother May P papers was ludicrous. ANY person (note well, they did not even restrict this right to "citizens" or "residents" or "men" or of any certain age. The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear.....
I do agree with a continuing campaign to incrementally improve our lot vis-a-vis restrictive laws, and our end goal must always have in view the total repeal of all of them. However, to start out stumping for that would be unwise, given we've allowed the present pass to come about. Roll those restrictions back one by one, wherever and however we can. I belive the State of Ohio is one of the best examples of this. First, possession in one's home, then the ability, permitted I must sadly say, but still.... to carry concealed on a Shall Issue basis, at first carry in a car must be unloaded, then that got changed to allow permittees to carry loaded. Inform LE whenever contacted that one is in possession, and allow LE to decide how to proceed, that got removed, no duty to inform now. Statewide preemption was enacted, making all gun laws uniform throughout the state. Cleveland fought for years, was finally shut down and forced to repeal their own city anti-gun codes I think it was about a year ago. Last session carry in places that serve alcohol was added to the list for lawful carry, though one may not drink whlist carrying in the local. Somewhere along the line, the duty to retreat was repealed. Storage requirements were done away with... over the past decade or so Ohio have come a long ways, and is one of the freest states... oh, the requirement that only certain states that bothered to negotiate reciprocity could carry in Ohio on their home permit was just signed into law, meaing anyone lawfully able to carry in their home state can now do so inOhio. LE are being trained to ask the proper questions to axcertain whether one has the legal right to carry concealed in their home state. This has been effected largely through the ocncerted and consistent work of their state firearms organisation, Buckeye Firearmns. Its been impressive to watch, and could be a great model for other states to emulate.
@Awesomeness1Thats one of the things we're trying to accomplish with the Appleseed Project... rifle marksmanship AND Revolutionary War History, all rolled up into one awesome two day event. As an instructor I've worked with kids as young as six years old... why paattention, are safe, have a ball diong it, and learn quickly. The rapidly learn how their rifle works, can clear misfeeds and misfires quickly when they happen.. AFTER waiting long enough to make sure its a misfire and not a hangfire or squib (yes, we teach what they are and how to deal with them. These young kids get it. ). If that level of marksmanship could be taucht as standard curriculum in the schools, what a difference that would make. Firearms would then be fun, safe, accurate, and we'd again have a nation of riflemen.
@SEAL76@Tionico@flybobits a pretty rare beast, but one of them can often be found at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington DC, except when he's off vacatinoing elsewhere on other people's money.
@SEAL76@flyboband Christie wants to replace the kinyun?His anti-gun and liberty record stinks, but HE doesn't get it. Proof he's part of the machine that needs to get decommissioned.
@MarkPA@flybob Suppose we got 10 more Constitutional-Carry States - converts from Shall-Issue. Suppose we got 9 more Shall-Issue States - converts from Won't Issue. Which would be the greater victory? BOTH. Why not? Shall Issue should be a given. It should be easy to get it so... but I admit it is not so. If the SCOTUS found, as it did in the late 19th Century, that a poll tax of a few bucks, payable before an individual could exercise their right to vote, to be an "infringement" (their word not mine) on the Constitutionally guaranteed right to vote, how much MORE the rogmarloe we now endure to acquire our mandated Mother May I papers? Licensing for other activities covers things that are NOT considered rights. What COMPELLING FedGov interest underlies those Mother May I permits? NONE. The Constitutioin carefully and explicitly says to ALL government HANDS OFF, that right is sacred, and cannot be taken away.
Now, as to violent criminals, the mentally insane.... when one perpetrates violent crime, olenty of other "rights" and "liberties" are removed from that one.. the right to freely associate, to vote, to hold public office.... to freely move about as he pleases, and, often, the right to continue to possess all his money. The right to arms is also removed, and upon the same moral basis. It is considered that government have the obligation to remove these rights, as forfeit by the criminal, as part of the exercise of the DUTY of civil government to "bear the sword" against those who do harm to others.
As to requiuring the NRA to certify or set standards for training... bad idea. They do provide a great service, but their training is far from the best. To elevate that organisation to a point of being supported by laws mandating the use of their services is to do them a disservice.. because now they will be beholden to that government mandating their services. Further, you remove the equation from the free market. It bothers me greatl that the NRA have injected themselves into the position of mandated membership in the organisation as a continuing condition of membership in most all private ranges. They already are far short of the performance I expect of them. HOW is it they rated the Harry Reid from Nevada so highly, and failed to support good csndidates in other races that were important? Their rating of late is deplorable. Don't favour mediocre performance by subsidising it, requiring their services as a condition of our exercising our right to arms Let NRA EARN their preeminance again by serving not only their members but the nation as a whole far more powerfully than they do not.
@MarkPAANY move of Congress to fund anything like you suggest is NOT acceptible. First, FedGov have NO authority for such things. I'd strongly support a move by the military to "dispose" of arms no longer needed because the illegal standing army we have is being dismantled. Those weapons can go to states, or, through the CMP, to schools at little or no cost, along with MilSurp ammo, to be used for training purposes for the students. Of course, when the militia really MEANT something, all males from about 16 or so were part of it... training, marksmanship, drill, survival, all that stuff is what the militia tranied for. ALL laws at FedGov level relating to "education" in any way are illegal. FedGov have NO authority there, either.
If we're going to go get all COnstitutioinal,. lets GET Constitutional. Until we actually put that document to work for about fifry years, any claims its no good or doesn't work are naught but hot air.
Now, nothing says serious traning in tactics, military history, weapons and the handling of them (IINCLUDING lots of live fire) can't be part of any state or local area's curriculum. But leave FedGov OUT of it. Wouldjya put the foxes in charge of training and equippng the chickens in the chickenhouse? Of course not. They've a vested interest in keeping them critters well subdued. And trained THEIR way.
I'd oppose an exclusive status for NRA in the training department. Many other systems are in place, and are at least as effecitve. Appleseed is unequalled in rifle marksmanship training, and is by far the cheapest out there.. $40 for a weekend of the best live fire training anywhere. Front Sight, OFA, and many others are equall valid. To exclude all the other valid and accessible means of training from even shooting on a gun range is wrong. NRA are great, but far from the best, or only. Let each range det their own standards... and I know of many who wholeheartedly support and recognise Appleseed. If NRA want to maintain "density" in the training business, fine.. let them earn it by supplying better and more affordable training. SO far, their prodiucts have not convinced me to vote with MY wallet. Relinquish their exclusive hold on "mandatory training" and go back to EARNING it with superior products at better prices. Let the Free Market validate their training.
issues here arethe result of New Jersey's corrupt government and a
population who have gone to sleep and ALLOWED their state government to
violate their FEDERAL rights under the Constitution. Don't try and
reduce the rest of us to the low level of NJ. I will not even visit that
state, nor New York. I refuse to subject myself to their laws, nor will
I spend a dime to support such tyrannical regimes as your two state
Back to parsing the words of the Second
Article of Ammendment: the SUBJECT of the entire sentence is the word
"right". The VERB is "infringe", with two critical modifiers: the
negative, and the future imperative "shall be". The root of the entire
Article is "right (shall not be" infringed". All other words are
descriptive, set the stage, explain why..
As to the
term "arms", research into the language wod word meanings of that time
indicate "arms" refers to any weapon, of militray grade, capable of
being transported and deployed by one person. THus, nuclear subs are not
"arms", nor is the modern tank., warship, etc. However, BMG 50,
Bazookas, grenade lanuchers, shoulder fired AA missles, all are arms.
@Zenphamy ON "abortiin rights", your point fails at the termination of the right of that not yet born child. HIS life is protected, prior to and independly of any of our documents. It is certainly NOT a "natural right" to terminate the life of anoher without just cause AND due process, neither of which are in place when a woman or anyone else kills her unborn child.
Modern gun contrl began in the SOUth, during Recontstruction post-bellum, and was instituted to disarm freed negro slaves. Many of those laws were town, some county, some even at state level. NONE failed to infringe upon the right to arms guaranteed ALL men as pre-existing our Founding Documents. If a right is given by God, and preexists the document recognising and guaranteeing it, it is a safe thing to say it cannot be restricted (infringed) by government at ANY level, except for cause, and by due process, on an individual basis.
Later modern gun control came in New York City through a corrupt mayor (SUllivan?) who got laws passed to give HIS gang boys the advantage under the law. Since the cops were in HIS back pocket, any of HIS guys could do anything and not be charged. Any NOT his would go to jail for the same things. Convenient, no? And rotten.
Your point on nuclear and naval weapons is a valid one, and needs greater recognition.
I do have to agree with you, as well, that the false logic of "reasonable" arguments and restrictions is just that.. false. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED means just that. Not for ANY reason. (there ARE valid reasons to restrict individuals who have proven themselves untrustworthy, a danger to society, and/or themselves, by actual conduct, observed and provable in a court of law. This insanity of government constumed armed thugs coming round and stealing a man's guns because his ten year old kid said something goofy at school is flat wrong, and MUST be stopped. Same with a man being forced to surrender his right to arms because his wife decides to divorce him and files a complaint for a restraining order as a matter of course (the lawyers encourage this sort of slime) when he's made no threat whatever, has moved two states away, and has no intention of coming round and messing with her.... but he still loses his right to arms, no chance to protest. Done deal. THAT is as wrong as the guy who wilfully stalks her to "get even" and assaults her. One is a physical assault, the other a civil assault. The latter should be prohibited.
1 year, 7 months ago on The Founders and the 2nd Amendment
I, too, disagree wiht the narrow interpretation of "arms", and the word "bear". Arms would have lincuded anything individuals and/or militia could practically make use of in defending against tyranny or invasion. Certainly this would include cannon, even larger pieces than the four pounders destroyed at Concord. Later in the day, the reinforcements fromBoston deployed a pair of field pieces against the Colonials.... had they been able to "bear" them, I've no doubt they would have brought similar fieldpieces into play in their driving off the tyrants. Further, it is also well documented that a number of privately owned and oerated ships were employed against the British, particularly along the New England coast, sinking a few British naval vessels, and destroying others. IF (and I believe it is) part of the purpose of the Second is to preserve the right of individuals and state militia to stand against tyrants, foreign and/or domestic, I would have to believe the right to own and use appropriate ships would be preserved as well. If things go crazy today, can you imagine a small, fast inshore seaboat, crewed by skilled seamen, armed with perhaps AR 10,s, FN AR, M 14, M1 Garand, maybe even a BMG 50, harrying patrol boats of a government gone mad with power, perhaps sinking or commandeering a few of them? I can..... and believe it would be wel within the meaning of the Second Article of Ammendment. If I owned such a vessel, and were in an area where it could stand against runaway government vessels, I'd not hesistate, Second or not. Once tyranny explodes into the mainstream, as it could, anything goes. The single goal at that point will be to remove them from power, and assure they cannot operate again, ever. Hmmm.. that is precisely what the Patriots had as their goal in 1775, isn't it? Nothing spared to drive the tyrannical Brits off these shores, and then wrote the Constitution wiht Ammendments to assure such tyranny cannot return. But oh my, in spite of their care against such an eventuality, it certainly appears unacceptible tyranny is coming upon us. WHY ELSE would "they" be so solid about removing the most common, and effective, means of repelling such a usurpation of power? ANd what would we NOT use, if available, to end such tyranny? Who cares what France, Britain, Cyprus, Egypt, Iran, or the "sacrosanct" United Nations might think? I certailnly don't. Nor will a few millions of other patriots.
@BrianHeise point wel made.. one minor correction, the tax on the tea was far less than five percent.. it amounted to about a penny the pound, a fraction of one percent. Worse, the tea in question was ancient stuff, foisted upon the colonies by the government-chartered British East INdia Tea Company, essentiialy an arm of the Crown, fiurther, the tax was ONLY on tea destined for yankee tea sellers. Tory tea merchants had their own stocks, fresher, higher quality, and untaxed, at very favourable prices. No wonder that tea was had overside and into the bay... though by that time the main motive was to free the patriot owned three ships holding the tea, and which would not unload until the tax was paid.. thus, the livelihood of the shipowners and crew (bound for shares, not a salary) was in view. The colonies each were founded under direct charter from the Crown, and had self-rule as one of their conditions of existence. Soon enough, the crown usurped full control, against the terms of those charters. SO, the colonies threw off their overlord, formed a new central government with VERY limited powers, retaining self-rule in all others. We see how that works today in that the overarching central government now reigns over every aspect of our individual lives... contrary to our "charter", the COnstitution. Montanans are merely attempting to retain self-rule in one small area in a matter already clearly under the self-determination of each individual. Let us hope the PEOPLE of Montana speak loudly and often to their legislators, who then over-ride the governor's veto, telling him no, even HELL NO, we will NOT allow ourselves to be subject to unconstitutioinal federal control. Perhaps Montana will be the Boston of the 1770's?
1 year, 7 months ago on Montana Governor Lies About the Constitution, Vetoes 2nd Amendment Protection Bill – Tenth Amendment Center
How about a new version of this, requiring Montana LEA to refuse to help the FedGov enforce ANY federal level laws conflicting with Montana state law.. such as medical marijuana, their own Firearms Freedom Act, speed laws, EPA regulations conflicting with Montana state law, state stock and wildlife laws, etc. This guy forgets it is the STATES that ceded very limited power to FedGov, retaining all other powers for itself and its people. NOWHERE is the power to limit in any way our right to arms, or to put into our bodies any substance, given to FedGov. Thus, any such laws are non-binding at state level anyway. Seems this is what SCOTUS have decided in the cases cited in this article.
Let us hope the two houses of legislature in Montana over-ride this veto. THAT will send a strong message to their governor. Perhaps he will become a tad wiser in this event.
@Brusckey and all these are right out of Karl Marx' playbook on how to turn a country socialist/communist. One main item is to destroy the family by easy divorce, contraception, abortion, abandonment of marriage (co-habiting being the current euphemism), getting Moms out of the house and into the factory/office, daycare to replace Mum, making sex a casual thing rather then sacred and reserved for marriage, homosexuality, and related ills.
1 year, 8 months ago on Obama Seeking to Criminalize Biblical Concept of Marriage
@BushMaster63 the things of which you accuse our political leadaers are misdirected. The ones who have shown "slience, cowardice, and inaction" are US. This is a government OF the people, and BY the people. It is NOT a government by political leaders. If they don't pass the laws WE want, it is OUR responsibility to dump them next election (and no, don't go whining aobut term limies.. WE are the term limiters, not some law) The Supreme COurt pased Roe vs Wade... and we've done nothing to overturn or undo that. WHY? Refer to your three reasons above. That's why. How many "decent christians" voted for Romney, a man who supports abortin in some circumstances. One is either pro life in ALL situatioins, or anti life. Romney was a waffler, a vote-getter. Glad he lost. It would have just been kicking the can down the road eight more years. Now, things are coming to a ehad, and we lazy, silent Yanks are being stirred, at long last, to action.
One seemingly minor, but very significant quibble: you refer to our rights as given us by the COnstitution. This is wrong. The Constitutiion does two things, in the main: puts restrictions and responsibilities on the national government, and identifies certain of our rights, guaranteeing them to us as preexisting and from our Creator. If they are "given by" the Constitution, then they can be taken away. NEVER allow this misconception to stand. It thus puts the Constitution as the source and controller of our rights, the ones God gave us. That document is subordinate to our God. Never forget that. Seems small.. but really that's HUGE.