Wyoming lawmakers propose bill to nullify new federal gun laws

[We-the-People]

ODS of the highest order. They are stating that they won't follow laws that haven't even been passed yet, sight unseen. Unbelievable!

It's called a shot across the bow.

 

[We-the-People]

Yes, the Constitution WAS the agreement, and they numbered the Powers granted to the Federal Government.

No, the Constitution IS the agreement.

The Founding Fathers seemed to have been lost in the heat of the moment when they put together the structure of our Government, and the Constitution. It's was definitely one of those situations--I have had many in my life--where you put something together, it sounds fantastic, it sounds like it reached down into the pit of some fundamental Thing...then you wake up the next day, you start digging through the details, and you discover, what is typically the case, the first few lines started with a premise that isn't necessarily Truth: DOI: "...We hold these truths to be self-evident."--a taste of what they were actually stating.

The "heat of the moment"? REALLY? And how long did this "moment" last? In fact, the Articles of Confederation preceeeded them for our fledgling country. When those were determined to not be working, the Congress constructed the Constitution It then went through the ratification process. The Constitution was hammered out over a LONG period of time. Hardly "the heat of the moment" you would have us believe. Alternative histories, as entertaining as they can be, should remain on the fiction isle at the library.

They were acknowledging that the only Truth that is self-evident, must be held to be--a notion, a concept of what is, and is not fundamental. Then they go on to state that Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness are merely bestowed upon us, by some Creator. Rights DO NOT EXIST .(emphasis added)

Have you read and studied the Constitution? Do you know how many rights the Constitution and the Bill of Rights bestow upon us?

Let me save you some time.......ONE (speedy trial and only arguably provided by the Bill of Rights due to the wording)

Article I, Section 8: They are to SECURE the exlusive right of Authors and Inventors
Amendment I: Congress shall not abridge the right of the people........the right preexists the document and Congress is prohibited from abridging it.
Amendment II: Congress is prohibited from infringing on the right........the right preexists the document and Congress is prohibited from infringing it.
Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure......shall not be violated........the right preexists the document and Congress is prohibited from violating it.
Amendment VI: The right to a speedy trial....this is the ONLY right that can be argued as being bestowed upon us by the Constitution.
Amendment VII: The right to trial by jury in suits at common law (value to exceed $20) shall be preserved........to be preserved it must already exist.
Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people......to RETAIN rights, they must already be OURS.

The government has no power not bestowed upon it BY THE PEOPLE for the benefit OF THE PEOPLE and does not have the authority to claim more power than it has been granted. This is plainly clear in the tenth amendment which foresaw the almost certain condition of the government overstepping its boundaries as all governments throughout history have done.

Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

[OC for ME]

There are numbers of ways in which the federal government is permitted to secure the assistance of state authorities in achieving federal legislative goals. First and most directly, the federal government may coerce the states and their employees into complying with federal laws of general applicability. Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 U.S. 528 (1985). Second, Congress may condition the grant of federal funds on the States' taking governmental action desired by Congress. South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987).

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/t065.htm

It is evident that the federales are being given a great deal of latitude by many states because those states desire to feed from the federal trough. States with very large urban areas are the culprits. In the case of Wyoming, they may not need to feed from the federal trough and I'll wager a dollar to a doughnut that the federales will hold a dim view of a rogue state exercising their sovereignty.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Yes, the Constitution WAS the agreement, and they numbered the Powers granted to the Federal Government.

Who changed the agreement? And when they go beyond that agreement it is unconstitutional a statist court granting constitutionality to something doesn't change that fact.

The Founding Fathers are the ones who put the Constitution together; and the Constitution they put together gives the Federal Government, as a concept, limited Power, but in application, the Federal Government has unlimited Power.

No they don't have unlimited power, people do, it has taken the last couple of centuries of creeping sometimes and running at other times for the government to usurp its proper place. Stop making excuses for it's bad actions.

Seriously, I'm going to utter his name again, with my finger tips--not saying I agree with him completely, just pointing out a person that individuals ought to read-up on, not him personally, but his ideas: Noam Chomsky.

Utter his name all you want, he has some good points but socialism doesn't work period.

The Founding Fathers seemed to have been lost in the heat of the moment when they put together the structure of our Government, and the Constitution. It's was definitely one of those situations--I have had many in my life--where you put something together, it sounds fantastic, it sounds like it reached down into the pit of some fundamental Thing...then you wake up the next day, you start digging through the details, and you discover, what is typically the case, the first few lines started with a premise that isn't necessarily Truth: DOI: "...We hold these truths to be self-evident."--a taste of what they were actually stating.

Utter nonsense, and lack of any study of what actually happened. The framers would have never left English rule, if England would have recognized it's limits on powers.

They were acknowledging that the only Truth that is self-evident, must be held to be--a notion, a concept of what is, and is not fundamental. Then they go on to state that Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness are merely bestowed upon us, by some Creator. Rights DO NOT EXIST.

You are assuming and putting into the minds of framers, something that just isn't true because the reality of it doesn't fit your world view or "concept". Yes the Federalist were nationalist the anti federalist weren't having it, they forced the bill of rights into the constitution, and they forced the limits on government into it.

The century and a half leading up to the creation of the a simple union between sovereign states, tells us better what was on their mind than modern academic elitist, twisting history to fit their own means.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

*snippers8 a statist court granting constitutionality to something doesn't change that fact.



*snippers*

Oh dear, it seems you have painted yourself into a corner.

Statism is a regular function of the State.

 

[OC for ME]

Oh dear, it seems you have painted yourself into a corner.

Statism is a regular function of the State.

Most states.....not all states.

 

[eye95]

Most states.....not all states.

Seriously. A state can be statist, where it is seen as sovereign over the individuals. Or it can be a Republic, where it operates within a set of restrictions so that it cannot run roughshod over the rights of the individuals. If it is a Republic, it is not statist. Some folks are incapable of grasping that simple concept. She ain't worth the bandwidth to try to educate her.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Oh dear, it seems you have painted yourself into a corner.

Statism is a regular function of the State.

Not at all statism is putting the state over individual rights. If a state functions properly in protecting individual and property rights than it is not being statist.

Just like I can be social but not believe in socialism.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

Not at all statism is putting the state over individual rights. If a state functions properly in protecting individual and property rights than it is not being statist.

Just like I can be social but not believe in socialism.

Thank you for affirming what I stated, that Statism is a normal function of A ( meant A, not THE) State.

Please, offer an example of a State that is not Statist.

 

[WalkingWolf]

Thank you for affirming what I stated, that Statism is a normal function of A ( meant A, not THE) State.

Please, offer an example of a State that is not Statist.

Uhhh the United States is a STATE. Same as Canada, Britain, South Africa, Cuba. Why are you so hung up the word state relating only to the States as to it's intended meaning?

Never mind I know the answer~~you are a liberal/progressive.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

Uhhh the United States is a STATE. Same as Canada, Britain, South Africa, Cuba. Why are you so hung up the word state relating only to the States as to it's intended meaning?

Never mind I know the answer~~you are a liberal/progressive.

I will use whatever words I see fit to use. Why do you care, you know what I'm stating.

 

[WalkingWolf]

I will use whatever words I see fit to use. Why do you care, you know what I'm stating.

Because while you are failing at it miserably, you are trying to mislead and divert the issue. Typical of a progressive.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

Because while you are failing at it miserably, you are trying to mislead and divert the issue. Typical of a progressive.

So, you are stating that the United States is not a STATE?

 

[WalkingWolf]

So, you are stating that the United States is not a STATE?

Actually I did say it was a state, you were the one trying to imply it only referred to individual states within the US. Maybe if you actually tried reading what is written instead of making it up in your head.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

Actually I did say it was a state, you were the one trying to imply it only referred to individual states within the US. Maybe if you actually tried reading what is written instead of making it up in your head.

No, I wasn't implying that it referred only to individual states. Seriously, are you just giving me sh*t?

I see where you may have misunderstood me: I changed "THE State" to "A State." It was in no way meant to imply or reference only the states of the United States. I was meaning to reference States more broadly (plural), not a specific State (singular), which would include States of the United States.

 

[linerider69]

God you guys kiss and make up already not why we are here.Has anyone seen this. China poised to play debt card – for U.S. land. Here is the link keep your bullets close and your gun closer.

http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/china-poised-to-play-debt-card-for-u-s-land/

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Thank you for affirming what I stated, that Statism is a normal function of A ( meant A, not THE) State.

Please, offer an example of a State that is not Statist.

Nope. You either are purposefully ignoring the point I made or ...........

The word "statism" did not come into existence until the late 1800's or early 1900's to describe the progressive ideals that the state is more important than individuals. Statism has nothing to do with the state but with a political viewpoint.

SECTION 1 POLITICAL POWER. All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights.

When our state was founded they worded the constitution in direct opposition to those ideals, but unfortunately statists have long since eroded many of these ideals.

Of course the progressives have taken over academia, so now they define everyone as having some form of statism in their political theories. You can believe your state should function to act like, our Article 1 Section 1 and still not be a statist or believe in statism.

Just like feminism or feminist describe a belief not the "function" of females.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

Nope. You either are purposefully ignoring the point I made or ...........

The word "statism" did not come into existence until the late 1800's or early 1900's to describe the progressive ideals that the state is more important than individuals. Statism has nothing to do with the state but with a political viewpoint.

*snippers*

When our state was founded they worded the constitution in direct opposition to those ideals, but unfortunately statists have long since eroded many of these ideals.

Of course the progressives have taken over academia, so now they define everyone as having some form of statism in their political theories. You can believe your state should function to act like, our Article 1 Section 1 and still not be a statist or believe in statism.

Just like feminism or feminist describe a belief not the "function" of females.

I understand what you're stating. You do realize that Statism, whether it be described as a political function of a State, or an Idea, is a political exercise of the People?

We have to things we are apparently talking about here: 1) Statism as an Idea, 2) Statism as a political function.

Yes, Statism has something to do with the State; Government is where Statism political function emanates.

Describe to me how a State would function without it falling under the definition of Statism.

SECTION 1 POLITICAL POWER. All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights.

A bit of a pickle here, don't you think?

"All political power is inherent in the people." I can dig that.

"governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed." I can dig this too!

"and are established to protect and maintain individual rights." .......check this out:

statism [ˈsteɪtɪzəm]n (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) the theory or practice of concentrating economic and political power in the state, resulting in a weak position for the individual or community with respect to the government

Now, we can argue over whether the People are currently in a weak position with respect to the Government.

I stand that the definition leaves out one pesky, significant detail: The formation of Government is a consolidation of the power of the People; the People become a Part, not a Whole. Quite Utilitarian, wouldn't you say?

Interestingly, the formation of any Government is the act of bringing into Function--not necessarily Idea--Statism. A People can intend for Statism to not exist in the Function of Government, it appears the inherent Function of Government is Statism.

If I'm wrong about this, point it out to me.

 

[OC for ME]

OK.

The several states are sovereign, per the Constitution. Except for those powers not explicitly granted to the federal government by the people of the several states. Now, the reality today has created a divergence between state sovereignty and individual liberty. The several states have granted to the federal government more power than is enumerated in the Constitution. And ultimately it is the people that are responsible for the current state of our several states, and the state of our federal government.

The answer resides squarely with the several states. All a state has to do is "just say no" and see what happens. I am well convinced that the federal government and the power they wield would be greatly diminished in short order.....only if a state would "just say no."

 

[sudden valley gunner]

I understand what you're stating. You do realize that Statism, whether it be described as a political function of a State, or an Idea, is a political exercise of the People?

We have to things we are apparently talking about here: 1) Statism as an Idea, 2) Statism as a political function.

Yes, Statism has something to do with the State; Government is where Statism political function emanates.

Describe to me how a State would function without it falling under the definition of Statism.



A bit of a pickle here, don't you think?

"All political power is inherent in the people." I can dig that.

"governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed." I can dig this too!

"and are established to protect and maintain individual rights." .......check this out:



Now, we can argue over whether the People are currently in a weak position with respect to the Government.

I stand that the definition leaves out one pesky, significant detail: The formation of Government is a consolidation of the power of the People; the People become a Part, not a Whole. Quite Utilitarian, wouldn't you say?

Interestingly, the formation of any Government is the act of bringing into Function--not necessarily Idea--Statism. A People can intend for Statism to not exist in the Function of Government, it appears the inherent Function of Government is Statism.

If I'm wrong about this, point it out to me.

Nope, you are now rationalizing and justifying. A state can exist without being "statist" just like a female can exist without being a feminist. I can't help it if you want your house of cards to still stand even though the bottom cards supporting it have been removed.