SilverMK2 wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
If only he had a gun. That would have magically stopped all this from happening to him...

Are you telling me that an armed citizenry can't prevent its own government doing whatever it wants to them?

 djones520 wrote:
Obvious troll is obvious.

 Frazzled wrote:

Original ricin suspect was held despite evidence pointing to another man
Video: Paul Kevin Curtis, who was accused of sending ricin-laced letters to the President and others, speaks after being released from custody on April 23.

By Kimberly Kindy, May 01, 2013 10:21 PM EDT

The Washington Post TUPELO, Miss. — After keeping Elvis impersonator Paul Kevin Curtis in jail for a week, interrogating him while he was chained to a chair and turning his house upside down, federal authorities had no confession or physical evidence tying him to the ricin-laced letters sent to President Obama and other public officials.

Investigators already had another man in their sights and, according to an FBI affidavit, were collecting physical evidence against this second suspect. It was beginning to look as if Curtis had been framed.
.But instead of setting Curtis free, court records show, federal officials sought to keep him in custody.
...
“They wanted to keep Mr. Curtis in custody while they built a case,” said Hal Neilson, a former FBI agent who is Curtis’s attorney. “They knew early on he wasn’t the right guy, but they fought to hold on to him anyway.”
...
On Saturday, the second suspect, James Everett Dutschke, was arrested at his home and accused of making ricin and placing it in letters he sent to Obama, Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) and Justice Court Judge Sadie Holland of Mississippi’s Lee County. Dutschke, who faces a life sentence if convicted, pleaded not guilty this week to a charge of attempting to use a biological weapon.
...
Despite the evidence pointing to Dutschke, one day later federal prosecutors asked that Curtis be placed under house arrest.
...
Even if the damage was unavoidable as a result of a thorough search, federal authorities are legally required to fully compensate Curtis, according to Scott, the former Boca Raton police chief.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Obvious troll is obvious.

Given that every time someone says how much they need guns the ol' line about keeping their government in check comes trotting out, one has to wonder...

 daedalus wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Obvious troll is obvious.

Given that every time someone says how much they need guns the ol' line about keeping their government in check comes trotting out, one has to wonder...

Well, it worked the one and only time we actually tried it.

 djones520 wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Obvious troll is obvious.

Given that every time someone says how much they need guns the ol' line about keeping their government in check comes trotting out, one has to wonder...

Well, it worked the one and only time we actually tried it.

Well... not quite. Under the relatively weak argument that 10th Amendment of the States was being overrun by the Fed Government, the Civil War was started. The guns didn't work for the South in that one. But I feel their argument was wrong in the first place, so that's that.

whembly wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Bill Of Rights

You can't trust that, what with its ties to government and all.

What connection? It limits the government... big difference.

 azazel the cat wrote:

whembly wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Bill Of Rights

You can't trust that, what with its ties to government and all.

What connection? It limits the government... big difference.

Yes, but the only reason the constitution is a thing is because the government chooses to recognize it. You do understand that right? That the constitution is not a magically-enchanted parchment that shoots eldritch justice beams at all who violate it?

whembly wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

whembly wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Bill Of Rights

You can't trust that, what with its ties to government and all.

What connection? It limits the government... big difference.

Yes, but the only reason the constitution is a thing is because the government chooses to recognize it. You do understand that right? That the constitution is not a magically-enchanted parchment that shoots eldritch justice beams at all who violate it?

Government don't get to choose... they are compelled. That's the distinction.

That's the way it needs to work. If the voters/government don't like the application of certain laws, there are formal process to address those concerns.

 azazel the cat wrote:

whembly wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

whembly wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Bill Of Rights

You can't trust that, what with its ties to government and all.

What connection? It limits the government... big difference.

Yes, but the only reason the constitution is a thing is because the government chooses to recognize it. You do understand that right? That the constitution is not a magically-enchanted parchment that shoots eldritch justice beams at all who violate it?

Government don't get to choose... they are compelled. That's the distinction.

That's the way it needs to work. If the voters/government don't like the application of certain laws, there are formal process to address those concerns.

I'm afraid not. Being compelled by oneself is synonymous with choosing. While you can make the argument that government is compelled by its various branches, ultimately if the whole of the executive and legislative branches (POTUS, Senate, Congress) decided to one day shout "Form of: Leviathan!", start grunting, powered up for a while and then melded into a great kaiju bureacracy monster; brushing aside the constitution and saying "nope, not today"; there is absolutely NOTHING you could do to stop it.

The constitution isn't the Ark of the Covenant. The constitution limits government because government agrees to allow the constitution to limit it.

 azazel the cat wrote:
there is absolutely NOTHING you could do to stop it.

djones520 wrote:The Constitution is the frame of our government. If they decide, against the will of the people, that it no longer matters, then I have no problem betting you'll see why our Founders ensured the 2nd Amendment was in there.

Grey Templar wrote:And because the government realizes that if we the people decide we've had it we have both the means and will to overthrow them and put in a new government.

 djones520 wrote:
The Constitution is the frame of our government. If they decide, against the will of the people, that it no longer matters, then I have no problem betting you'll see why our Founders ensured the 2nd Amendment was in there.

Hordini wrote:The point isn't necessarily that the people could overthrow a tyrannical government single-handed. The idea is more that the people could put up enough of a fight to make it not worth it for the government to attempt the kind of tyranny that would spark such a conflict.

Plus there's the issue of a potential military split, state-controlled National Guard units, county Sheriff's with the ability to organize or disrupt resistance at the local level, etc.

The whole situation is pretty unlikely, but any form it could possibly take would be much more complicated than the government simply controlling the entire military who will wipe out all American citizens who resist in a pitched battle with tanks and planes.

 azazel the cat wrote:

Hordini wrote:The point isn't necessarily that the people could overthrow a tyrannical government single-handed. The idea is more that the people could put up enough of a fight to make it not worth it for the government to attempt the kind of tyranny that would spark such a conflict.

Plus there's the issue of a potential military split, state-controlled National Guard units, county Sheriff's with the ability to organize or disrupt resistance at the local level, etc.

The whole situation is pretty unlikely, but any form it could possibly take would be much more complicated than the government simply controlling the entire military who will wipe out all American citizens who resist in a pitched battle with tanks and planes.

I agree; I guess my point is simply that American citizens do not have tanks and planes, and anytime there is a conflict between have-tanks and have-nots, the outcome is going to be incredibly obvious. That's why I just don't buy the "could put up enough of a fight" rhetoric. I consider it a romanticized thought, and entirely implausible, even in this hypothetical scenario.

 Frazzled wrote:

Like Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan right?

 Grundz wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Like Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan right?

8 minutes without honey boo boo or a big mac and people will be eating eachother alive, the 3 countries mentioned have populations used to hardship

 daedalus wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Obvious troll is obvious.

Given that every time someone says how much they need guns the ol' line about keeping their government in check comes trotting out, one has to wonder...

Well, it worked the one and only time we actually tried it.

 Frazzled wrote:
Wait you want rednecks armed to the teeth, on honey boo boo withdrawal, and WITH a reason to point all those guns at you?
Talk about a blood bath...

MeanGreenStompa wrote:It is all romanticized, you'd be really surprised at how many people I've met who hold it dear in their hearts though, fantasizing to the point of longing for this to happen.

Frazzled wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
I guess my point is simply that American citizens do not have tanks and planes, and anytime there is a conflict between have-tanks and have-nots, the outcome is going to be incredibly obvious. That's why I just don't buy the "could put up enough of a fight" rhetoric. I consider it a romanticized thought, and entirely implausible, even in this hypothetical scenario.

Like Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan right?

 azazel the cat wrote:
Also, comparing an obese mall ninja with stars-and-bars jogging pants to a hard-as-nails VC fighter living in a cu chi tunnel is laughable. That's like saying "I went to summer camp down by the lake, so I can totally handle supermax prison".

Alfndrate wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
Also, comparing an obese mall ninja with stars-and-bars jogging pants to a hard-as-nails VC fighter living in a cu chi tunnel is laughable. That's like saying "I went to summer camp down by the lake, so I can totally handle supermax prison".

Don't you get molested at both summer camp and supermax prison?

 azazel the cat wrote:

Alfndrate wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
Also, comparing an obese mall ninja with stars-and-bars jogging pants to a hard-as-nails VC fighter living in a cu chi tunnel is laughable. That's like saying "I went to summer camp down by the lake, so I can totally handle supermax prison".

Don't you get molested at both summer camp and supermax prison?

Touche (does that count as a pun?)

On Thursday, Kansas Governor Sam Brownback received a letter from Federal Attorney General Eric Holder threatening action against the state should it enforce SB102 which Brownback signed into law last month.

The new law states, in part:

Any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States which violates the second amendment to the constitution of the United States is null, void and unenforceable in the state of Kansas

The bill also provides for criminal penalties against federal agents who attempt to enforce specific federal laws on guns manufactured in the state of Kansas and sold within the state – as the state takes the position under the new law that the federal government does not “interstate commerce” authority over such items.

In his letter, Holder didn’t take too kindly to such a proposition. He wrote:

“In purporting to override federal law and to criminalize the official acts of federal officers, SB102 directly conflicts with federal law and is therefore unconstitutional.”

He continued, “Under the Supremacy Clause…Kansas may not prevent federal employees and officials from carrying out their official responsibilities. And a state certainly may not criminalize the exercise of federal responsibilities. Because SB102 conflicts with federal firearms laws and regulations, federal law supercedes this new statute; all provisions of federal laws and their implementing regulations therefore continue to apply.”

Let’s take Eric apart here.

1. Kansas is NOT purporting to criminalize the exercise of constitutional federal responsibilities. On the contrary, the bill criminalizes what the state has determined is unconstitutional. It is the position that such federal acts are indeed a violation of the Constitution. No matter how much Eric might believe it to be otherwise, his view is obviously not universal – especially in Kansas.

2. The Supremacy Clause. Holder takes the position that all tyrants do – that everything they do is authorized, anything to the contrary – worthless. But Holder is wrong. The Supremacy Clause doesn’t say that “any law in conflict with federal law” is void. It says that only those laws “in pursuance” of the constitution are supreme. The new Kansas legislation, again, takes the position that such federal acts are not constitutional, and therefore not supreme.

3. Historical Precedent. The 1850 Fugitive Slave Act was a federal law that basically required all states in the north to act as slave catchers for black people claimed as property in the South. It’s one of the most disgusting acts in American history. A number of northern states passed laws similar to the new Kansas law, criminalizing federal agents for attempting to kidnap people in their states. Although the feds still claimed the same kind of authority that Eric Holder has claimed today, they didn’t have the manpower to enforce. Read more about that here. As an aside, if Holder would like to take the position that such resistance to federal slave laws was wrong, he’s welcome to publicly state that.

Eric capped off his letter by assuring the People of Kansas that the federal government will continue to enforce all federal gun laws. He wrote:

“I am writing to inform you that federal law enforcement agencies, including the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and the United States Attorney’s Office…will continue to execute their duties to enforce all federal firearms laws and regulations.”

4. Manpower. That brings us to the most important fact, the federal government simply does not have the manpower to enforce all its laws already. The new Kansas law doesn’t just deal with firearms made within the state. It also bans all state and local agents from enforcing federal gun control measures. (learn about the bill in detail here). As Judge Andrew Napolitano has affirmed recently, such widespread noncompliance makes federal gun control laws “nearly impossible to enforce” (video here). So Eric can promise to enforce these federal acts all he wants. But if Kansas doesn’t help him, he might be able to get a 2% enforcement rate. Or, he’ll have to pull resources from other states.

WHAT SHOULD THE RESPONSE BE?

1. Hold the Line, and Tell Holder to buzz off. Seriously. This guy has been sending threatening letters to states around the country on medical marijuana laws for years (and so did his predecessors). In fact, those letters are often even more aggressive, threatening taking property or even criminal sanctions against state or local politicians. A letter last year threatened just that against the San Diego city council. (read it here) That community knows full well the threats that are constantly made against their liberties by Holder and his DOJ team. But they push on and keep doing what they believe is right. The People of Kansas need to stand strong in support of the 2nd Amendment and reject these threats from the DOJ.

2. Local resistance. Recognizing that manpower is a VERY serious problem for the feds, people in Kansas should be constantly reaching out to county, city and town elected officials to respectfully press them into passing local ordinances to ensure that no assets will be used to enforce federal gun control. Covering the states in ordinances that provide backup to the new state law will ensure that federal gun control will be “nearly impossible to enforce.”
LEARN MORE AND GET ACTION ITEMS HERE

3. Call Sam Brownback. Flood his phone line with messages of encouragement and support. Let him know that the people have his back – that’s how governors show courage. Brownback has a chance to act like a hero to the entire country. In fact, people all over the country should send him letters in support – he’s going to need all the help he can get.

4. Support efforts in other states. Kansas can’t do it alone. A similar bill is up for a signature in Alaska. Bills are moving forward in Missouri, Alabama and elsewhere. Every state and local community that does the same will make federal enforcement even more difficult, and eventually, the feds can pass all the “laws” they want, but they won’t have any effect.

JUST SAY NO!

The bad guys always talk tough, and they want to scare you into compliance . But the fact remains – they don’t have the manpower to carry out all their threats. Even with almost full state and local cooperation, there are now 18 states defying DC on marijuana prohibition. As two states – Washington and Colorado – legalize what the feds say is illegal, we’re watching the beginning of the end of federal dominance over the states.

On the right to keep and bear arms, people should follow the same path. Just say NO to Washington DC, and YES to liberty.
Eric Holder Threatens Kansas Over Gun Control Nullification