Political Ramblings

[bakerjw]

It is important to point out that executive orders are not laws but can only clarify or strengthen existing laws. We do not yet know what EOs be issued but based on the administrations disdain for the balance of power between the branches there is a high probability that some will be border on being unconstitutional if not outright crossing the line.

Luckily some states are in the process of passing firearm protection acts which will trump executive orders according to the 10th amendment. It will boil down to whether states want to stand for their own sovereignty or not.

 

[thaiturkey]

Maybe you just forgot that it was this same type of sheriff that stood in the school doorways in the South and swore it was their constitutional duty to keep little black children out. Or maybe you really did not forget and this may be your second most proudest moment

It is just remarkable to me how some of your arguments are exactly the same as Bull Conners and others. These same people thought it was their God given right to enforce the laws how their small minds saw it then and, unfortunately, it is the same thing now. No Virginia, your local sheriff does not have the authority to decide what the National laws will be. If they did we would still think that Seperate But Equal should be the law of the land. They also do not get to pick and choose which laws they would like to enforce.

Really? Strewth, the disregard of children's rights has some history to it. I thought that all citizens were equal.

 

[rebelcowboysnb]

Wow.. Some people.
http://www.alligator.org/opinion/columns/article_d5d4f286-5dfe-11e2-b3c1-0019bb2963f4.html

Now if you dont agree you are "illiterate,"among other things, really???
http://www.alligator.org/opinion/editorials/article_30504866-5f97-11e2-bbf1-001a4bcf887a.html

 

[duckinnut]

I am really sorry, but if you do not know the difference between a local sheriff and the President of the United States, then no amount of explaining will make it any clearer.

Thing is I do know the difference much like I know the difference when someone is stating a point and being condescending. Don't we all live under the same Constitution and laws of this great land. When an oath of office is taken to uphold the laws and said Constitution upon a bible I fully expect them to honor that oath not abuse it. Whether it be a sheriff in a county all the way to the president. So I guess you feel it is OK for the president to circumnavigate all of it. I am truly sorry for your blindness.

 

[thaiturkey]

Thing is I do know the difference much like I know the difference when someone is stating a point and being condescending. Don't we all live under the same Constitution and laws of this great land. When an oath of office is taken to uphold the laws and said Constitution upon a bible I fully expect them to honor that oath not abuse it. Whether it be a sheriff in a county all the way to the president. So I guess you feel it is OK for the president to circumnavigate all of it. I am truly sorry for your blindness.

Excuse me asking for clarification but:

1. Don't some laws in the US vary from State to State?

2. In what way has President Obama 'circumnavigated' the Constitution and laws of the US? It seems to be a rather strong accusation. If you are referring to his possible future decision to use his executive powers should his proposals for new gun laws be blocked, doesn't he have a right to do that? 'Executive power' presumably means just that. If my understanding is correct, his decision must be ratified by the Courts and they would block them if he exceeded those powers. Ergo, it would be impossible for him to circumvent anything at all.

Please let me know if I have misunderstood anything.

 

[Q9]

Ed...your brave Sheriff was elected, but try to remember that he was elected with probably about 10,000 votes, while Obama and Biden were elected with over 60,000,000 votes. Your boy only gets to independently decide what color socks to wear. He does not get to decide what the law is or which ones to enforce. His letter was just dumb.

You missed the part where unconstitutional laws aren't laws. Go study history. Getting angry at sheriffs refusing to enforce non-laws is getting angry at one of the most basic principles of freedom. Trying to associate refusal to enforce unconstitutional laws with enforcing segregation because they used similar words is dishonest and foolish.

I am sick of the belief that Congress can vote away my rights, and I am sick of the condescending, outrageous elitism inherent in your entire political philosophy. The "important" people get to have armed guards with automatic weapons, the lowly peasants only get pistols and pump shotguns. The "important" people get to violate my rights purely on emotion. The "important" people who have no clue how the real world works can make up stupid, unconstitutional laws that the rest of us have to follow at the point of a government gun (or else), and when a common-sense "lowly" sheriff calls them out on this, you mock them for not being a self-righteous, self-important, I-know-better-than-you-do national figure.

I don't trust my own governor and have little respect for him, even less so the distant Emperor-on-the-Potomac. I trust local sheriffs. You know why? They're stuck in the real world, dealing with real people, not sitting in a mansion behind dozens of MP5-wielding scary guys telling us that weapons are bad.

I won't comply with this stuff. Millions of Americans who don't worship the Almighty State won't comply with this stuff. You have no authority over my weapons. Obama does not have any authority over my weapons. You have no authority over my speech. Obama has no authority over my speech. Read the Constitution and tell me where it gives the Federal government ANY SAY AT ALL in what I can and cannot own, can and cannot say, can and cannot believe. If they attempt to make a law regarding these at all, it is not a law. It is null and void, it has no meaning. In that instance, it is the responsibility of governors, legislatures, sheriffs, and the people to refuse to comply.

We've been choking under illegal legislation for far too long, and this is just the straw that's going to break the camel's back.

edited by staff

 

[MamaRoo]

I won't comply with this stuff. Millions of Americans who don't worship the Almighty State won't comply with this stuff. You have no authority over my weapons. Obama does not have any authority over my weapons.

This is the kind of blind adherence to a single viewpoint that is what unnerves me about so many gun advocates. There is no interest in working on something that suits the majority, no interest in understanding anyone else's viewpoint, even if you disagree, just the angry "I will never give up my weapons!" response.

 

[duckinnut]

This is the kind of blind adherence to a single viewpoint that is what unnerves me about so many gun advocates. There is no interest in working on something that suits the majority, no interest in understanding anyone else's viewpoint, even if you disagree, just the angry "I will never give up my weapons!" response.

But it is OK for democrats to have no interest in helping the majority who are against their pet programs that keep them elected.. Such as illegal immigration, entitlement programs et al..... That is what unnerves me they want to limit my ownership of what guns I want but have no problem ignoring the majority about reforming a whole host of things that are ruining this country.

 

[rebelcowboysnb]

There is no interest in working on something that suits the majority, no interest in understanding anyone else's viewpoint, even if you disagree, just the angry "I will never give up my weapons!" response.

We gave an gave an gave.. The anti take an take an take... We are done giving. That is not an never has been compromise...


Quote:

 

[MamaRoo]

Who's against illegal immigration? What's the answer for people receiving "entitlements"? Why not have a discussion instead of a dogmatic response to things you disagree with?