quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
And, since there is not a conflict with federal law, the states can pass gun control laws?
So, I am still waiting to see your argument on the unconstitutionality.

The argument would be that state gun control laws violate the individual's federal right via the 14th amendment. One cannot be denied what the Federal allows. The state whispers in one ear NO while the Federal whispers YES.

quote:

The 14th amendment was a wet blanket thrown over the states, in essence federalizing them.
It's Animal House, in a way.
Larry's evil conscience: Fuck her. Fuck her brains out. Suck her tits, squeeze her buns. You know she wants it.
Larry's good conscience: For shame! Lawrence, I'm surprised at you!
Larry's evil conscience: Aw, don't listen to that jack-off. Look at those gazongas. You'll never get a better chance.
Larry's good conscience: If you lay one finger on that poor sweet helpless girl, you'll despise yourself forever... I'm proud of you, Lawrence.
Larry's evil conscience: You homo.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
That's not exactly true. Enumerated powers not given to the Federal Government are reserved for the People or the State. Perhaps, in this case, it holds, but not for every case. The States have powers the Federal doesn't. Well, that was the way it was set up anyway...

quote:

Patrick Henry, June 4, 1788
Henry's statesmanship did not end with the Revolution and the achievement of independence.

I have the highest veneration for those gentlemen; but, sir, give me leave to demand, What right had they to say, We, the people? My political curiosity, exclusive of my anxious solicitude for the public welfare, leads me to ask, Who authorized them to speak the language of, We, the people, instead of, We, the states? States are the characteristics and the soul of a confederation. If the states be not the agents of this compact, it must be one great, consolidated, national government, of the people of all the states. I have the highest respect for those gentlemen who formed the Convention, and, were some of them not here, I would express some testimonial of esteem for them. America had, on a former occasion, put the utmost confidence in them--a confidence which was well placed; and I am sure, sir, I would give up any thing to them; I would cheerfully confide in them as my representatives. But, sir, on this great occasion, I would demand the cause of their conduct. Even from that illustrious man who saved us by his valor [George Washington], I would have a reason for his conduct: that liberty which he has given us by his valor, tells me to ask this reason; and sure I am, were he here, he would give us that reason. But there are other gentlemen here, who can give us this information.
The people gave them no power to use their name. That they exceeded their power is perfectly clear. It is not mere curiosity that actuates me: I wish to hear the real, actual, existing danger, which should lead us to take those steps, so dangerous in my conception. Disorders have arisen in other parts of America; but here, sir, no dangers, no insurrection or tumult have happened; every thing has been calm and tranquil. But, notwithstanding this, we are wandering on the great ocean of human affairs. I see no landmark to guide us. We are running we know not whither. Difference of opinion has gone to a degree of inflammatory resentment in different parts of the country, which has been occasioned by this perilous innovation. The federal Convention ought to have amended the old system; for this purpose they were solely delegated; the object of their mission extended to no other consideration.

quote:

LIBERTY OR EMPIRE?
DELIVERED IN THE VIRGINIA CONVENTION, JUNE 5, 1788
HAT, sir, is the genius of democracy? Let me read that clause of the Bill of Rights of Virginia which relates to this:
"CLAUSE III.—That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community. Of all the various modes and forms of government, that is best which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety, and is most effectually secured against the danger of maladministration; and that whenever any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to those purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal."

This, sir, is the language of democracy—that a majority of the community have a right to alter government when found to be oppressive. But how different is the genius of your new Constitution[<- the one we have today] from this! How different from the sentiments of freemen, that a contemptible minority can prevent the good of the majority! If, then, gentlemen standing on this ground are come to that point, that they are willing to bind themselves and their posterity to be oppressed, I am amazed and inexpressibly astonished. If this be the opinion of the majority, I must submit; but to me, sir, it appears perilous and destructive. I cannot help thinking so. Perhaps it may be the result of my age. These may be feelings natural to a man of my years, when the American spirit has left him, and his mental powers, like the members of the body, are decayed. If, sir, amendments are left to the twentieth, or tenth part of the people of America, your liberty is gone forever. We have heard that there is a great deal of bribery practiced in the House of Commons in England, and that many of the members raise themselves to preferments by selling the rights of the whole of the people. But, sir, the tenth part of that body cannot continue oppressions on the rest of the people. English liberty is, in this case, on a firmer foundation than American liberty. It will be easily contrived to procure the opposition of one-tenth of the people to any alteration, however judicious. The honorable gentleman who presides told us that, to prevent abuses in our government, we will assemble in convention, recall our delegated powers, and punish our servants for abusing the trust reposed in them. Oh, sirl we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone; and you have no longer an aristocratical, no longer a democratical spirit. Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation, brought about by the punishment of those in power, inflicted by those who had no power at all? You read of a riot act in a country which is called one of the freest in the world, where a few neighbors cannot assemble without the risk of being shot by a hired soldiery, the engines of despotism. We may see such an act in America.
A standing army we shall have, also, to execute the execrable commands of tyranny; and how are you to punish them? Will you order them to be punished? Who shall obey these orders? Will your mace-bearer be a match for a disciplined regiment? In what situation are we to be? The clause before you gives a power of direct taxation, unbounded and unlimited—an exclusive power of legislation, in all cases whatsoever, for ten miles square, and over all places purchased for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, etc. What resistance could be made? The attempt would be madness. You will find all the strength of this country in the hands of your enemies; their garrisons will naturally be the strongest places in the country. Your militia is given up to Congress, also, in another part of this plan; they will therefore act as they think proper: all power will be in their own possession. You cannot force them to receive their punishment: of what service would militia be to you, when, most probably, you will not have a single musket in the State? For, as arms are to be provided by Congress, they may or may not furnish them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

Henry clearly notes the distinction. So which "People" are they talking about?

quote:



(123 u. s. 131) THE ANARCHISTS' CASE.1
Ex parte SPIES and others.
(October 2 J, 1887.)
ERROR, WRIT OF—FROM UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT—MOTION IN OPEN COURT.

That the first 10 articles of amendment were not intended to limit the powers of the state governments in respect to their own people, but to operate on the national government alone, was decided more than a half century ago, and that decision has been steadily adhered to since.
Barron v. Baltimore., 7 Pet. 243, 247;
Livingston v. Moore, Id. 469, 552;
Fox v. Ohio, 5 How 410, 434;
Smith v. Maryland, 18 How. 71, 76;
Withers v. Buckley, 20 How. 84, 91;
Percear v. Com., 5 Wall. 475, 479;
Twitchell v. Com., 7 Wall. 321. 325;
Justices v. Murray, 9 Wall. 274, 278;
Edwards v. Elliott, 21 Wall. 532, 557;
Walker v. Sauvinet, 92 U. S. 90;
U. 8. v. Cruiksiiank, Id. 542, 552;
Pearson v. Tewdall, 95 U. S. 294, 296;
Davidson v. New Orleans, 96 U. S. 97, 101;
Kelly v. Pittsburgh, 104 U. S. 79;
Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 265, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 580.
It was contended, however, in argument, that, "though originally the first ten amendments were adopted as limitations on federal power, yet, in so far as they secure and recognize fundamental rights—common-law rights—of the man, they make them privileges and immunities of the man as a citizen of the United States, and cannot now be abridged by a state under the fourteenth amendment. In other words, while the ten amendments as limitations on power only apply to the federal government, and not to the states, yet in so far as they declare or recognize rights of persons, these rights are theirs, as citizens of the United States, and the fourteenth amendment as to such 'rights limits state power, as the ten amendments had limited federal power." It is also contended that the provision of the fourteenth amendment, which declares that no state shall deprive "any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law," implies that every person charged with crime in a state shall be entitled to a trial by an impartial jury, and shall not be compelled to testify against himself.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

My son was well socialized... between karate, boy scouts, music lessons, soccer, basketball.... I needed less socialization.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
That's not exactly true. Enumerated powers not given to the Federal Government are reserved for the People or the State. Perhaps, in this case, it holds, but not for every case. The States have powers the Federal doesn't. Well, that was the way it was set up anyway...

but there is that nagging perpetually unanswered question just who are the "People"?
If I were sitting on the bench right now and the government said you were not the people contemplated in the constitution and you showed no proof that you were I would be FORCED to rule in favor of the government.
Thanks to PH he made it perfectly clear there is a distinction.
I posted that in another thread and here it is again:

quote:

Patrick Henry, June 4, 1788
Henry's statesmanship did not end with the Revolution and the achievement of independence.
I have the highest veneration for those gentlemen; but, sir, give me leave to demand, What right had they to say, We, the people? My political curiosity, exclusive of my anxious solicitude for the public welfare, leads me to ask, Who authorized them to speak the language of, We, the people, instead of, We, the states? States are the characteristics and the soul of a confederation. If the states be not the agents of this compact, it must be one great, consolidated, national government, of the people of all the states. I have the highest respect for those gentlemen who formed the Convention, and, were some of them not here, I would express some testimonial of esteem for them. America had, on a former occasion, put the utmost confidence in them--a confidence which was well placed; and I am sure, sir, I would give up any thing to them; I would cheerfully confide in them as my representatives. But, sir, on this great occasion, I would demand the cause of their conduct. Even from that illustrious man who saved us by his valor [George Washington], I would have a reason for his conduct: that liberty which he has given us by his valor, tells me to ask this reason; and sure I am, were he here, he would give us that reason. But there are other gentlemen here, who can give us this information.
The people gave them no power to use their name. That they exceeded their power is perfectly clear. It is not mere curiosity that actuates me: I wish to hear the real, actual, existing danger, which should lead us to take those steps, so dangerous in my conception. Disorders have arisen in other parts of America; but here, sir, no dangers, no insurrection or tumult have happened; every thing has been calm and tranquil. But, notwithstanding this, we are wandering on the great ocean of human affairs. I see no landmark to guide us. We are running we know not whither. Difference of opinion has gone to a degree of inflammatory resentment in different parts of the country, which has been occasioned by this perilous innovation. The federal Convention ought to have amended the old system; for this purpose they were solely delegated; the object of their mission extended to no other consideration.

maybe you did not see this but it seems peoples minds shut down when they see something like this that completely torpedoes their traditional idea of "how things are or should be".
Henry clearly notes the distinction. So which "People" are they talking about?
more henry

quote:

LIBERTY OR EMPIRE?
DELIVERED IN THE VIRGINIA CONVENTION, JUNE 5, 1788
HAT, sir, is the genius of democracy? Let me read that clause of the Bill of Rights of Virginia which relates to this:
"CLAUSE III.—That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community. Of all the various modes and forms of government, that is best which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety, and is most effectually secured against the danger of maladministration; and that whenever any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to those purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal."
This, sir, is the language of democracy—that a majority of the community have a right to alter government when found to be oppressive. But how different is the genius of your new Constitution[<- the one we have today] from this! How different from the sentiments of freemen, that a contemptible minority can prevent the good of the majority! If, then, gentlemen standing on this ground are come to that point, that they are willing to bind themselves and their posterity to be oppressed, I am amazed and inexpressibly astonished. If this be the opinion of the majority, I must submit; but to me, sir, it appears perilous and destructive. I cannot help thinking so. Perhaps it may be the result of my age. These may be feelings natural to a man of my years, when the American spirit has left him, and his mental powers, like the members of the body, are decayed. If, sir, amendments are left to the twentieth, or tenth part of the people of America, your liberty is gone forever. We have heard that there is a great deal of bribery practiced in the House of Commons in England, and that many of the members raise themselves to preferments by selling the rights of the whole of the people. But, sir, the tenth part of that body cannot continue oppressions on the rest of the people. English liberty is, in this case, on a firmer foundation than American liberty. It will be easily contrived to procure the opposition of one-tenth of the people to any alteration, however judicious. The honorable gentleman who presides told us that, to prevent abuses in our government, we will assemble in convention, recall our delegated powers, and punish our servants for abusing the trust reposed in them. Oh, sirl we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone; and you have no longer an aristocratical, no longer a democratical spirit. Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation, brought about by the punishment of those in power, inflicted by those who had no power at all? You read of a riot act in a country which is called one of the freest in the world, where a few neighbors cannot assemble without the risk of being shot by a hired soldiery, the engines of despotism. We may see such an act in America.
A standing army we shall have, also, to execute the execrable commands of tyranny; and how are you to punish them? Will you order them to be punished? Who shall obey these orders? Will your mace-bearer be a match for a disciplined regiment? In what situation are we to be? The clause before you gives a power of direct taxation, unbounded and unlimited—an exclusive power of legislation, in all cases whatsoever, for ten miles square, and over all places purchased for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, etc. What resistance could be made? The attempt would be madness. You will find all the strength of this country in the hands of your enemies; their garrisons will naturally be the strongest places in the country. Your militia is given up to Congress, also, in another part of this plan; they will therefore act as they think proper: all power will be in their own possession. You cannot force them to receive their punishment: of what service would militia be to you, when, most probably, you will not have a single musket in the State? For, as arms are to be provided by Congress, they may or may not furnish them.

oh we got the muskets dont we? Just try and use them for their intended purpose and see what happens to you!

quote:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union ... do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterG2kTR

We have schools to educate our children, not just to make them book smart but also socially adept. The schools are definitely failing in that respect. Perhaps it's time to educate the schools in the arena of COMMON SENSE!!!

The schools are only there to deal with the "book smart" bit. Making the kids "socially adept" is the parents' lookout. If they aren't up to teaching their kids that, then they aren't competent to be raising children in the first place.

Really? Then why do we hear so much about homeschooled kids not get the needed "socialization"?

Because the parents aren't competent to raise kids. Obviously.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


Pennsylvania girl, 5, suspended for threatening to shoot girl with pink toy gun that blows soapy bubbles

A 5-year-old Pennsylvania girl who told another girl she was going to shoot her with a pink Hello Kitty toy gun that blows soapy bubbles has been suspended from kindergarten....

Ficker [the family's lawyer] says Mount Carmel Area School District officials said the girl made the threat on Jan. 10 as she waited for a school bus with friends. A school official overheard the remark and searched the girl's backpack and did not find the Hello Kitty gun, he said.

The next day, the girls involved were 'interrogated' by school officials, Ficker said. By the time the girl was done speaking to administrators about the incident, she was crying, he said. A teacher called out the girl in front of her class and told her police may get involved, he said.

And they say gun owners are nuts.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

This has nothing to do with how secure a gun is in the home and everything to do with the rampant paranoia of and over reaction of people in the educations system.

Last year, before an ill advised move to North Carolina, my grandson was asked about his family and what he enjoys doing with them.

At the time, my son would come out to the house and the two of us, with my grandson would go to the range. Not once did I allow my grandson to handle a weapon, ammo or anything remotely connected to a fire arm. He would sit in the lane observation chair in with ear protection and watch his father and I shoot.

That's what he enjoyed doing with pop-pop and his dad.

the school teacher called child services.

They talked to us, the range owner, the range safety person, and after a month, found the report groundless.

He and his mom has moved back to texas, and he is constantly asking me to take him to the range, but after the bullshit with the school and cs, his mom does not want me to take him, cant say that I blame her.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

As I said, the United States of Paranoid America.

I do believe that with the exception of a few people on these boards, the United States population is in dire need of a FUCKING LOT OF PSYCHIATRIC HELP.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

Because the parents aren't competent to raise kids. Obviously.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

As I said, the United States of Paranoid America.

I do believe that with the exception of a few people on these boards, the United States population is in dire need of a FUCKING LOT OF PSYCHIATRIC HELP.

What?

No offence, JLF, but this is being said by you, someone who owns - is it 14 guns (?) - and keeps a big dog that you've said is your home's 'first line of defence' . . . . Isn't that just a teensy bit paranoid?

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

Because the parents aren't competent to raise kids. Obviously.

I have seen more kids behaving in a socially acceptable manner that were home schooled than 90% of the kids coming out of public schools today. In fact the public schools system is so screwed up that most of the big city kids graduate with reading and math skills that are inadequate to get into college, or even a trade school.

I have no clue as to what you think gives you the right to judge how a parent chooses to raise their children, but I would suggest you refrain from general statements that are too broad to be even remotely accurate.

I usually agree or at least understand why you post the things you do, but this makes no sense at all.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

Because the parents aren't competent to raise kids. Obviously.

I have seen more kids behaving in a socially acceptable manner that were home schooled than 90% of the kids coming out of public schools today. In fact the public schools system is so screwed up that most of the big city kids graduate with reading and math skills that are inadequate to get into college, or even a trade school.

I have no clue as to what you think gives you the right to judge how a parent chooses to raise their children, but I would suggest you refrain from general statements that are too broad to be even remotely accurate.

I usually agree or at least understand why you post the things you do, but this makes no sense at all.

Because, in Moon's defense, I think I know what he is referring too. When people say homeschooling, they think of the religious families who are teaching their version of history, among other things. These are typically kids who dont fit in with the rest.

However, homeschooling has come a long way since those days, especially after Columbine. In SC, someone had to have a college degree in order to teach at home. My mother and I both have degrees, so that part was quite simple. Teaching material was the school systems with computer and additional aids from the local teacher's store, along with supplements we picked up at the homeschooling fairs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Im not one to tell any parent not to teach their kids. But it IS time consuming... and there may be legal hoops you have to jump through, however, taking a look at the information on Texas, it seems extremely lax in regulations. Something else you need to keep in mind is what happens if they want to go to school out of state. Texas colleges may accept the credentials of graduation, that doesnt mean all colleges will.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Homeschooling is not that difficult. Plus, you can always re-enroll for the senior year.. or even junior. Take time to think about it and contact the association there. They may have ideas you havent thought about.. and resources.