One more reason the federal government should not own land.

Gato_Solo said:
I answered that question. I think that, maybe, you didn't like the answer. ;)
Click to expand...

I didn't see where that was. Perhaps you could post the link to the answer so I can go there and read it. Simply right click on the post number, select "copy shortcut" and then paste it into your reply.

Gato_Solo said:
$600...;) Seriously, though, the government won't pay you a cent for those trees. That question has no bearing upon her actions, either. Why? Because its a fine imposed for an illegal activity.
Click to expand...

Actually, it would be $0.0003 or about 3/100 of one cent. :p

Gato_Solo said:
And he should be fined as well. Once again it comes down to this...the property was not deeded to her. It really doesn't matter who owned it.
Click to expand...

Yeah. By then the fine should be something on the order of five million dollars per tree and 300 years in jail per count.
 
jimpeel said:
The SCoTUS has stated in rulings that the federal government is an agent for the states. They are not the end-all be-all and are not the arbiter of all things pertaining to the states. This is why the, misnamed, States "Rights" -- should be "powers" -- movement is gaining momentum and has even been reflected in recent SCoTUS rulings.
Click to expand...

Tell that to the Clintons, to the lincoln worshippers, and to the IRS.
 
jimpeel said:
This is why the, misnamed, States "Rights" -- should be "powers" -- movement is gaining momentum and has even been reflected in recent SCoTUS rulings.
Click to expand...

Bad idea, psychologically.

The gov't has rights granted them from the real power-We the People.
 
It only has what we give it (we is subjective...I sure as hell didn't give away mine)
 
Gonz said:
Bad idea, psychologically.

The gov't has rights granted them from the real power-We the People.
Click to expand...

Did you know that the word "right" appears only once in the main body of the Constitution; and that is in reference to persons, not government?
Wherever the Executive, Congress, Judiciary, or States are mentioned the words "power" or "powers" is used.

The Constitution predates the Bill of Rights so regardless of anything anyone says about what the documents mean to them the otriginal intent was that the four above named entities would derive their powers from those who have rights and those entities were never endowed with "rights" of any kind. State's "rights" is a scary thought let alone a reality.
 
yeah they started work on the bill of rights very shortly after the consitution came about so i really don't think they, the same buncha dudes, were of 'a different mind' from one document to the next.
 
2minkey said:
yeah they started work on the bill of rights very shortly after the consitution came about so i really don't think they, the same buncha dudes, were of 'a different mind' from one document to the next.
Click to expand...

No argument with that.

When I said "The Constitution predates the Bill of Rights so regardless of anything anyone says about what the documents mean to them the otriginal intent ..." gun control comes immediately to mind. The so-called "collective 'right'" types and their ilk.

"Regardless of the quotes from the Founders and the historic record we believe that the document means what WE say it does." Hell, the "collective 'right'" didn't even come to being until the latter part of the twentieth century.

Just one example.
 
The Federalist Papers are an excellent source of where the mindset was & how the amendments were intended.
 
jimpeel said:
When I said "The Constitution predates the Bill of Rights so regardless of anything anyone says about what the documents mean to them the otriginal intent ..." gun control comes immediately to mind. The so-called "collective 'right'" types and their ilk.

"Regardless of the quotes from the Founders and the historic record we believe that the document means what WE say it does." Hell, the "collective 'right'" didn't even come to being until the latter part of the twentieth century.

Just one example.
Click to expand...

um, the collective right?

so that's different from you RKBA folks, then?

the issue seems pretty kleer to me. "militia" means citizen soldiers with longarms in their homes.
 
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" is absolutely clear.
 
If the government should not own land, then they should just put up for sale the whole country? What happens if nobody wants to buy a certain area, who would then own it? :confuse3:


How about some group of mexicans decided to buy the whole area of the border and allowed free passage to anybody through their land.
 
SouthernN'Proud said:
And to me, a militia is a group of armed individuals with a purpose driven agenda, whereas a gun owner may or may not be agenda driven.
Click to expand...

yeah i don't know if i'd say that. i mean, these days when you hear about "militia" groups they often have agendas but i think back then it was just everybody of adult age who could go shoot folks if a need arose, but not a group formed with a really specific agenda. sorta the reserve force?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top