Gun Control & 2nd Amendment

LOL, you always give me a chuckle CS.

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

But it's only bullying if you disagree with the legislation, right?

No one is forcing you to live here. Also there are certain legal ways to cop out of the SS tax. I believe there are some religious ways of doing this i.e. religious conciecious objectors. Again, if you detest our socialist, welfare country, why do you live here? No one is forcing you to live here.Of course there are very few countries, if any, that do not tax there people. All tax is a form of redistribution of wealth.You complain about the system and yet you take full advantage of ths "wealth distributing" system you complain about. That is epitome of hypocracy.BTW, we have been "redistributing wealth" in one form or another since the birth of this country i.e. embargo tax, sales tax, etc. Our economic system is a tenuous balance of capitolistic and socialistic economic systems. Either one taken to the extreme is bad i.e. extreme capitolism can result in monopolies and unfair lobbying by huge corporations which can drive costs up exponentially, extreme socialism is communism which strips rights away from the individual and saps away personal inovation and the drive to succeeed. And how are you going to go about doing this? True, but all ammendments to date have been started in the US legislature. That was my point. More power to you.The United States has the second highest median household income levels in the world only second to Switzerland. We REALLY should have nothing to complain about. Seriously stop being such a wank. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

BTW, why do you think state government is so much better than federal government, as you so repititiously keep point out.It is all about the balance of power. The federal government actually IS in a nutshell, the voice of the majority or consensus of the 50 states speaking as one. The people in the STATES elect representatives to both houses of the US Congress. Power is therefore shared by the states in the form of the federal government. In other words the US Congress expresses the will of the STATES, or more accurately the People of the States. Every 4 years the people choose who they want to represent them. If they don't like what their representatives are doing than it is there own damn fault for electing them. Our governement is the most democratic, balanced and has the most checks and balances than nearly any country in the world.I think the framers of the US Consitution had in mind to keep the state governmental system as a set of checks and balances and to ensure that as the country grew our government could grow to be able to handle a larger number of people.They also were progressives (what you call liberal) for the time and proposed new, radical agendas advocating human rights never before put into action.They knew that the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights was not the end of the legistlation and enforecement of inalienable and equal human rights but just the beginning or else the abolition of slavery and human rights would never have come to fruition.

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

Hi CSGlad you liked that. Just thought I would post that law.I could comment on some of the other things you mentioned, but understand I am pretty sure that it is against the law here in Wyoming ( and all other states)to give a legal opinion unless you are a member of the BAR.I understand that giving legal opinions without being an attorney is something that doesn't bother someone like Rahvin, but for me it's something that maybe illegal and I don't want to do it.I posted the law, and you can read it for yourself.You don't need some liberal moron to explain it to you.Just a word, I really wouldn't want to show up in court someday telling a judge I did/or did not do something I thought was OK because some fool like Rahvin on the internet gave me legal advice. In court you would probably look like an idiot.So concerning Wyoming law and it's relation to Federal law, contact an attorney who practices law here.

Rahvin,Send me a copy of your BAR card, and let us all know when you you were allowed to practice law in Wyoming.

By your standard, it's illegal for a Social Studies teacher to go over the separation of powers in the US government unless they have a law degree. Or teach anything else regarding the basic laws and structure of the US government.This is, obviously, wrong. You're using the wrong orifice to make words again, petro. Try using your mouth, rather than your rectum.

Hi DA, Then why do they pass laws that the majority of the people don't want? Actually they set it up the way they did so a king or a dictator could not take over. But now we have got a Congress bought and paid for by special interests. Time to change that back to the way it was set up. Our founding fathers were men who believed in God and they set our government up according to Scriptural principals. I know you don't want to believe that but that is OK. This is what Thomas Jefferson had to say about our rights and where they come from. He also commented on what to do when the government becomes destructive of the peoples rights.

quote:

---

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." --Declaration of Independence as originally written by Thomas Jefferson, 1776. ME 1:29, Papers 1:315

---

I heard several Congressmen say they gave us our rights this past week.If our founding fathers thought that the Bill of Rights and the Constitution needed improvement why did they make it so hard to amend the Constitution?Why didn't they just set it up where 50% +1 could change it? Or better yet set it up where the President, Congress, or the Supreme Court could change . But they did not do that because absolute power corrupts absolutely. Just for starters my State has no income tax. We do have property tax and sales tax.My State does not run a deficit. The budget has to be balanced.
If the State income is predicted to be short of the budget cuts have to be made until the outgo equals the income.But if you read my messages you will notice that I am talking about States rights. The Federal government has usurped powers that were not given to them by the States. It is time the States fixed the problem. They do have the authority to do so.Will they? I have no idea if there is enough people who believe in our Constitution that will stand up and be counted. I do believe we will find out in the months ahead.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Wrong You ever here something called "freedom of speach". It is not illegal to give your interpretation or opinion of a legislation. So why is it ok for you to give your opinion and advise about the Health Care Bill but it is illegal for Rhavin to express concern about the Wyoming Gun laws?? Pot calling kettle black much?It is only illegal to give legal 'advise' if you are doing it pretending to be a lawyer which Rhavin clearly has not done. Also it is illegal if someone is paying you for it unless you are lawyer which again Rhavin has not done. Here is a link that explains this well: What distinguishes 'legal advice' from 'legal information'?I have to agree with Rhavin, you are one fry short of a happy meal.Again, the problem with the Wyoming law is that is clearly in violation of federal law. Federal law is the law of the land and the state law's cannot ursurp it (though they do have ways of changing/updating/repealing federal laws i.e. Constitutional Amendments). Again read Article 6 of the Constitution: This of course has to be balanced with the 10th Amendment, in giving the states the freedom to create there own laws which are not in direct violation with federal law. There is a balance between the two. A set of checks and balances which allow both to keep each other in check so the federal government cannot overrule the consensus of the MAJORITY of State governments and at the same time one STATE government (cough, Wyoming) cannot make laws which are in clear violation of the consensus of the majority of the United States.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

Why do a majority of voters elect them to office? Can you please show how the right to bear arms is a scriptural principle? He didn't say that they came from your god, nor your Bible. Try again. Jefferson was a Deist, not a christian.

That is true in most cases, except that Constitutional law prevents federal law from superseding individual or state rights. It all depends upon the circumstances involved and by what capacity the Feds are operating under. When living in California my wife had a medical marijuana card and the Feds didn't infringe her rights. It really depends on what the shops are doing. They were able to because of a Constitutional amendment, which guarantees individual rights. What is the purpose of states then, and state rights?

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

You lifted that out of context. Here's the context:

quote:

---

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

​

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

---

Which god was Jefferson referring to? He made that explict reference in the first paragraph which you had conveniently left out. That god was "nature's God" Know where else we see that exact same formulation? In the writings of that great American patriot, Thomas Paine, whom the Religious Right condemns as an atheist.Since they believe that someone who believes in "nature's God" is an atheist, how can the Religious Right then honestly claim that that "nature's God" is the exact same thing as their biblical god? Quite simply, they cannot do so honestly.Please also note what else Thomas Jefferson wrote there. That government derives its authority from the consent of the governed. That the people have the right to disestablish one government and establish a new one for their own safety and happiness. And then we have the Preamble of the US Constitution:

quote:

---

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

---

The people taking it upon themselves to form their own government for their own benefit and for the benefit of their progeny.I'm sure that you also lived through the 1980's and heard the rhetorics of the Religious Right at that time. They had a name for these ideas and ideals put forth in the Declaration of Independence and in the Preamble. That name was secular humanism.So how can they now honestly claim that these secular humanist ideas and ideals are actually biblical? They cannot, not honestly.

I'm not asking about law. I'm asking about history. Specifically about the agreement between the state of wyoming and the federal government in joining the union. More specifically on any clauses about firearm restriction that might be in that agreement.Do you know anything about it or not?

This is a case of selective enforcement. The Feds have limited manpower and they do not want to alienate the public at large which is why they have decided to focus on the big growers.

If you are stupid enough to go into court armed only with advice from an Internet contact then jail is not the place for you. A sanitarium maybe. You can check in voluntarily, you know.Modern psychoactive pharmaceuticals can work wonders for you. While they cannot cure your stupid they can at least hide it to the point you may be able to function in a limited capacity in society without hurting yourself or others.