Need Bees Removed?
International
Beekeeping Forums
July 28, 2014, 03:30:18 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: Beemaster's official FACEBOOK page
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar bee removal Login Register Chat  

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Tell me one more time, bluebee  (Read 3223 times)
hjon71
Field Bee
***
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 572

Location: SW Tenn


« Reply #20 on: November 30, 2013, 06:38:34 PM »

Quote
except for those things specifically given to the federal government. states can't make treaties with foreign governments, as an example. they can't restrict the movement of good from one state to another.
Exactly, you made the point earlier. I took it as a given perhaps it isn't.
Imigration falls here which is why Arizona has no Authority.


There are several areas where the Federal Government has overstepped their bounds.
Example- Abortion

An issue best left up to each state. Which doesn't fall under the scope of the US constitution.
Logged
kathyp
Universal Bee
*******
Online Online

Gender: Female
Posts: 15029


Location: boring, oregon


« Reply #21 on: November 30, 2013, 06:55:37 PM »

Quote
Imigration falls here which is why Arizona has no Authority.


this is true of the laws governing immigration, but not the fact that AZ has the right to protect it's borders and the right to arrest criminals.  the feds have the duty to protect state borders.

here's some interesting reading on what the founders were thinking.

http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/2010/10/04/greenslade.html
Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville
hjon71
Field Bee
***
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 572

Location: SW Tenn


« Reply #22 on: November 30, 2013, 07:38:09 PM »

I admit my knowledge of immigration is limited at best, Not an area I have studied. If I may though excerpt your link:
 In Article I, Section 10, Clause 3, the States have the power to engage war when “actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit delay.” How could the States have the power to engage in war, independent of the federal government, but not have the civil authority to protect their borders?

Isn't this two separate issues?
War vs. Illegal Immigration

I was sure I had read in the Constitution about Securing the border falling under the main duties of the government.  Now all I find is
Article 4 section 4
  The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.
 
Homework time.
Logged
kathyp
Universal Bee
*******
Online Online

Gender: Female
Posts: 15029


Location: boring, oregon


« Reply #23 on: November 30, 2013, 08:28:27 PM »

i'm not sure i clearly understand your question, but it was recognized that if a state were attacked it would take time to mobilize an army to come to their aide.  they were expected to defend themselves until help arrived.  we went quite a long time without a standing military, and were quite a long time surrounded by foreign powers that were not overly friendly. 

the federal government has the power over immigration laws.  because of this, they developed a federal system and agency for border control.  this should not keep AZ from enforcing laws.  as long as the state is not making laws that go against the federal laws (legalizing pot, for instance) there should be no problem with AZ enforcing even federal laws within their borders.  in other states ICE works with the state in this enforcement.  AZ and TX have angry off this admin and so the admin tries to punish them. 

other states like CA, OR, WA, can ignore federal laws on any number of things and get away with it because they are in favor with this admin.  CA has a number of cities that call themselves sanctuary cities and will not hand over illegals arrested on other charges, to ICE as they are supposed to do. 
Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville
hjon71
Field Bee
***
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 572

Location: SW Tenn


« Reply #24 on: November 30, 2013, 10:26:48 PM »

So explain to me why Arizona can't make, change, modify, or enforce immigration laws, because they are federal, but New York can make, change, modify and enforce arms laws. Do federal laws trump state laws, or do they not?


I think this article sums up your question pretty well.
 http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2011/04/myth-2-federal-law-supersedes-state-law.html?m=1
Logged
T Beek
Super Bee
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 2776


Location: USA, N/W Wisconsin


« Reply #25 on: December 01, 2013, 07:05:47 AM »

Gun sales and profits are exploding.  Haven;t heard of too many folks having their guns taken away, unless and until a crime was committed.  

I never have understood this debate, unless we're talking about the 'real motives' behind it all.  RECORD SALES AND PROFITS!  Fear sells, its as simple as that.

I find it disturbing that after all these posts no one bothered to quote the 2nd.  After all, is pretty short, sweet and (purposely?) vague.  Shame, shame  grin

                                                                                 AMENDMENT II (ratified December 15, 1791)

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Question:  How many gun owner posters currently belong to a "well regulated Militia?"  

As kathyp sorta pointed out above, when this country selected to install a "standing army" instead of its past reliance on Militias it kinda took the wind out of the sails, or took the real power out of the Amendment from the people and returned that power to the STATE.…the 'peoples' power to keep and bear arms was eliminated then IMO.
Logged

"Trust those who seek the truth, doubt those who say they've found it."
buzzbee
Ken
Administrator
Galactic Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 5424


Location: North Central PA


WWW
« Reply #26 on: December 01, 2013, 07:58:57 AM »

The fact we have a standing Army does not relieve the duties and rights of the citizen(individual).
The very notion of the "Bill of Rights" was specifically to protect the individual  from an overreaching federal government. read up on George Mason a little and you will see the intentions of the Bill of Rights. It was explicitly to limit the powers of government over the people.
http://www.constitution.org/gmason/amd_gmas.htm

A lot of the second amendments purpose was to help enforce the the other restrictions and for the people to be able to do their civic duty in removing a tyrranical government.
Logged
T Beek
Super Bee
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 2776


Location: USA, N/W Wisconsin


« Reply #27 on: December 01, 2013, 08:29:55 AM »

  huh  I didn't say anything about relieving our duties and/or rights as citizens.  In that arena we so-called 'freedom lovers" have failed miserably….selling out long ago…….please answer the question I did pose instead of skating it  grin 

I'm familiar with George Mason and many other writers, my interest in these and many other issues is never ending, although I do have a fond preference for Henry George, arguably Americas greatest (and most ignored) economist.  I try to entertain 'all' thoughts and ideas, even those I may disagree with or find misplaced or even crazy  Smiley

Some around here attack or condemn me (and others) for doing so, our refusal to join sides, point fingers, pass blame….choosing to go another 'deeper' direction instead.  What is up with that???

How did we go to the Bill of Rights, which technically offers us what, per this discussion?

So…how many of you belong to a "well regulated Militia?"  Should we not begin at the beginning if this is to be taken seriously?
Logged

"Trust those who seek the truth, doubt those who say they've found it."
iddee
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 5906

Location: Randleman, NC


« Reply #28 on: December 01, 2013, 09:36:53 AM »

I'm not going to go searching for the details, but it is my understanding that ALL citizens belong to a well regulated militia, and can be called up at any time.It just hasn't happened for so many years that most have forgotten it.
Logged

"Listen to the mustn'ts, child. Listen to the don'ts. Listen to the shouldn'ts, the impossibles, the won'ts. Listen to the never haves, then listen close to me . . . Anything can happen, child. Anything can be"

*Shel Silverstein*
Moots
Queen Bee
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1462


Location: Gonzales LA (Southeastern Louisiana)


« Reply #29 on: December 01, 2013, 09:51:46 AM »


                                AMENDMENT II (ratified December 15, 1791)

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."



** emphasis added

I think the word "people" was used for a reason.  If they wanted it to mean what T Beek and others try to say it means, I think they would have used "militia members" or "members of the militia".

Logged

"We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions."
                                                                                                                   - Ronald Reagan
kathyp
Universal Bee
*******
Online Online

Gender: Female
Posts: 15029


Location: boring, oregon


« Reply #30 on: December 01, 2013, 10:40:06 AM »

Quote
or took the real power out of the Amendment from the people and returned that power to the STATE.…the 'peoples' power to keep and bear arms was eliminated then IMO.


this has been my point about a lot of things.  if the majority feels that a part of the constitution is not relevant or needs changing, they need to do that.  until they do, the constitution is the law.  it can't just be ignored or played with. 

the right to bear arms, according to the founders who did debate this, was two fold.  it was for protection of home and community (the militia part) and it was so that they had the power to keep their own freedom from a repressive government. 

there were external pressures from the Spanish and Brits with no guarantee that the republic would survive.  there were internal pressures from those who still thought that a stronger central govenrment would be less...messy. 

you can look up the debates had over the years.  this book compiles a lot of there and there are a couple of others like it.  this is the only one i have looked at (not read cover to cover).

http://www.amazon.com/The-Founders-Second-Amendment-Independent/dp/1566639719#reader_1566639719

when you read what they debated and how they came to their conclusions, there's not much doubt about why they wrote what they wrote.  it was perfectly clear to them and to those of their time.  it is perfectly clear to us if we read their words.
Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville
BlueBee
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 4133

Location: Mid Michigan


« Reply #31 on: December 02, 2013, 03:18:27 AM »

So…how many of you belong to a "well regulated Militia?"  Should we not begin at the beginning if this is to be taken seriously?
I’m not in any militia. The only “militias” I hear about are the paranoid anti government types who think Armageddon is going to happen next Thursday at 8:05.  Paranoia is a mental illness and yet THESE are the guys who think they DESERVE to own a ton of guns.

I used to shoot the big guns as a kid (yeah those adults sure were wise to let a kid play with guns!) and I don’t recall any of them being in any “militia” to protect the USA.  They were just out to get their kicks from firing a gun.  The argument that everybody needs a gun to protect against a tyrannical government is a joke.  It would be like the Poles fighting the Germans on horses.  Does the NRA seriously think the majority of Americans are gullible enough to think a bunch of pea shooters is a match against government nuclear weapons and drones?  Of coarse these same people always want to dump more and more taxpayer money into the department of defense.  Seems kinda crazy to me if you really think the government is going to take over everything.  Dooooh.   

T beek is absolutely correct; most of the obsession with guns is driven by fear and has NOTHING to do with what the liberals wrote so many years ago.
Logged
T Beek
Super Bee
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 2776


Location: USA, N/W Wisconsin


« Reply #32 on: December 02, 2013, 05:56:40 AM »

So…how many of you belong to a "well regulated Militia?"  Should we not begin at the beginning if this is to be taken seriously?
I’m not in any militia. The only “militias” I hear about are the paranoid anti government types who think Armageddon is going to happen next Thursday at 8:05.  Paranoia is a mental illness and yet THESE are the guys who think they DESERVE to own a ton of guns.

I used to shoot the big guns as a kid (yeah those adults sure were wise to let a kid play with guns!) and I don’t recall any of them being in any “militia” to protect the USA.  They were just out to get their kicks from firing a gun.  The argument that everybody needs a gun to protect against a tyrannical government is a joke.  It would be like the Poles fighting the Germans on horses.  Does the NRA seriously think the majority of Americans are gullible enough to think a bunch of pea shooters is a match against government nuclear weapons and drones?  Of coarse these same people always want to dump more and more taxpayer money into the department of defense.  Seems kinda crazy to me if you really think the government is going to take over everything.  Dooooh.   

T beek is absolutely correct; most of the obsession with guns is driven by fear and has NOTHING to do with what the liberals wrote so many years ago.


Well….thanks BlueBee!  You're the 'only' one to provide any kind of answer so far.  Glad I don't hold my breath waiting for answers to direct questions around this place……I'b be a BlueBee then laugh.

Isn't it Odd and interesting how an 'ingrained absolute denial of reality' can exist along side an 'embracement of illogical certainty'. shocked

 You also answered my next question which was going to be;  "What happens to 'militias' in America?  "if" they are protected by the 2nd, someone will have to 'prove' it.

Our focus BELONGS on the FIRST Amendment which is fast becoming meaningless.  This battle over the 2nd is a DISTRACTION and was lost long ago.
Logged

"Trust those who seek the truth, doubt those who say they've found it."
T Beek
Super Bee
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 2776


Location: USA, N/W Wisconsin


« Reply #33 on: December 02, 2013, 06:40:44 AM »

I'm not going to go searching for the details, but it is my understanding that ALL citizens belong to a well regulated militia, and can be called up at any time.It just hasn't happened for so many years that most have forgotten it.

Details?  Who needs details?  This loose definition of a 'well regulated Militia' is more than scary.
Logged

"Trust those who seek the truth, doubt those who say they've found it."
iddee
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 5906

Location: Randleman, NC


« Reply #34 on: December 02, 2013, 09:26:51 AM »

Does the truth hurt, Tbeek? From what I have seen, I thought it might. You are susceptible to a call up at anytime, whether you like it or not.
Logged

"Listen to the mustn'ts, child. Listen to the don'ts. Listen to the shouldn'ts, the impossibles, the won'ts. Listen to the never haves, then listen close to me . . . Anything can happen, child. Anything can be"

*Shel Silverstein*
Moots
Queen Bee
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1462


Location: Gonzales LA (Southeastern Louisiana)


« Reply #35 on: December 02, 2013, 10:08:20 AM »



Our focus BELONGS on the FIRST Amendment which is fast becoming meaningless.  This battle over the 2nd is a DISTRACTION and was lost long ago.


Without the 2nd, How do you think you protect the 1st?
Logged

"We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions."
                                                                                                                   - Ronald Reagan
kathyp
Universal Bee
*******
Online Online

Gender: Female
Posts: 15029


Location: boring, oregon


« Reply #36 on: December 02, 2013, 10:42:09 AM »

Quote
The argument that everybody needs a gun to protect against a tyrannical government is a joke.

that is not the argument.  the law gives us the right to own weapons.  one of the reasons for the law is for the people to be able to protect themselves from the government. 
Quote
Does the NRA seriously think the majority of Americans are gullible enough to think a bunch of pea shooters is a match against government nuclear weapons and drones?

not sure what the NRA has to do with it except as a lobby group to protect our rights.  as for people against big powers, let me point to Afghanistan, Syria, Egypt, etc....

Quote
Seems kinda crazy to me if you really think the government is going to take over everything

really?

Quote
Our focus BELONGS on the FIRST Amendment which is fast becoming meaningless.  This battle over the 2nd is a DISTRACTION and was lost long ago.

not only can you not protect the 1st, but as any right is degraded, it becomes easier to degrade all others.  if courts can restrict gun ownership, they can use the same logic to restrict any other right...and they already have. the reason they can go after other rights is that we have allowed them to attack even one.

Quote
This loose definition of a 'well regulated Militia' is more than scary.

the definition is not loose.  read what the founders said about it.  all the people are the militia and all the people have the right to have the ability to overthrow an oppressive government and replace it. 

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville
T Beek
Super Bee
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 2776


Location: USA, N/W Wisconsin


« Reply #37 on: December 02, 2013, 11:28:21 AM »

Having a lot guns hasn't protected any of our Constitutional rights as of yet, at least not recently.  This whole debate is goofy and minimally (and purposely) misplaced IMHO.  The purpose of it is to divide us, keep us distracted while our pockets are picked.  Oh…and to make lots of $$$$$$.

The fact that it isn't more recognized is truly disheartening  Cry.   YES iddee!  The TRUTH hurts very much  Wink  Don't you know?  Don't you have anything to weep for?  Besides, I'm all about "building" things not destroying.

I maintain that the 2nd Amendement is mostly irrelevant, has been for a while now (happened when 'we' were all asleep, shhhhh).  

Don;t believe it, then prove it.  Go ahead and try to use it as you think it was/is 'still' intended, and see if you're protected.  We already have plenty of guns and there appears to be plenty of folks with guns demanding an end to our current government or at least the current Administration.  

So, what could possibly be stopping all you folks from organizing into a Militia, start backing up all the rhetoric by taking some action?  See you in the papers  cool

Maybe Rush would lead the charge  grin
Logged

"Trust those who seek the truth, doubt those who say they've found it."
iddee
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 5906

Location: Randleman, NC


« Reply #38 on: December 02, 2013, 11:43:04 AM »

 "Don't you have anything to weep for?"

Yes, the last two elections. Hoping we can correct that in 2016, without guns.

"I maintain that the 2nd Amendement is mostly irrelevant, has been for a while now"

A quick look at England and Australia says differently. We still have ours, and plan to keep them. In fact, I will keep them the rest of my life.

Logged

"Listen to the mustn'ts, child. Listen to the don'ts. Listen to the shouldn'ts, the impossibles, the won'ts. Listen to the never haves, then listen close to me . . . Anything can happen, child. Anything can be"

*Shel Silverstein*
T Beek
Super Bee
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 2776


Location: USA, N/W Wisconsin


« Reply #39 on: December 02, 2013, 11:54:45 AM »

Does the truth hurt, Tbeek? From what I have seen, I thought it might. You are susceptible to a call up at anytime, whether you like it or not.

Much will depend on "who" is calling  laugh laugh  But I'm ready for the call, was the first time too, just dumber  shocked but an even better shot.

I have a bumper sticker on my truck that says "Stop b.tch..g and start a revolution" and I've been an "activist government agitator" for forty plus years (even when employed by the government).  My Elected Reps know me, and I know them.  

How about you all?  I'm not waiting for answers this time grin
Logged

"Trust those who seek the truth, doubt those who say they've found it."
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Beemaster's Beekeeping Ring
Previous | Home | Join | Random | Next
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines | Sitemap Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 1.174 seconds with 21 queries.

Google visited last this page July 10, 2014, 03:28:34 AM