Posted on 07/22/2022 7:06:04 AM PDT by RandFan
@RepThomasMassie
Democrats want to take guns away from law-abiding citizens, and arm the USDA and Dept. of Education with what they call “weapons of war.”
Who are they preparing to go to war with?
Clip ...
(Excerpt) Read more at twitter.com ...
They are trying to make it unavailable without legislation.
The EPA also has armed enforcement.
I met one once through an aquaintance in a social setting while I was in California. Next thing you know he was showing off his concealed pistol to everybody.
Actually it should say "to be used WHEN they try to take yours away."
Concealed? He seems to be unclear on the concept ...
1- They're cowards.
2-They're untrained and incapable of using the weapons effectively.
My original statement stands.
Almost every Feral agency is armed to the teeth, with actual 'weapons of war'.
A security guard at a Social Security Office doesn’t surprise me. People with mental disabilities apply for Social Security Disability and they can be difficult to deal with sometimes. Also, some people who are denied disability, mentally ill or not, can explode if things don’t go their way.
If the Dep't of Ed doesn't need those weapons...why do you?
Insufferable!
With all due respect to Rep. Massie, he needs to go “upstream” of the unconstitutionally big federal government and point out that the states have never expressly constitutionally give the feds the specific powers to establish Departments of Education (ED) and Agriculture (USDA) imo.
"10th Amendment [10A]: 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."
"From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added]." —United States v. Butler, 1936.
More specifically regarding ED, both President Thomas Jefferson, in a State of the Union address, also Justice Joseph Story, had both indicated that the states would first need to appropriately amend the Constitution in order for Congress to have the specific power to dictate, regulate, tax and spend in the name of INTRAstate schooling — something that the states have never done!
“The great mass of the articles on which impost is paid is foreign luxuries, purchased by those only who are rich enough to afford themselves the use of them. Their patriotism would certainly prefer its continuance and application to the great purposes of the public education, roads, rivers, canals, and such other objects of public improvement as it may be thought proper to add to the constitutional enumeration of federal powers [emphasis added].” —Thomas Jefferson: 6th Annual Message, 1806." (Jefferson is indicating that Congress cannot tax and spend in the name of intrastate infrastructure imo.)
"The power to regulate manufactures is no more confided to congress, than the power to interfere with the systems of education, the poor laws, or the road laws of the states [emphases added]." —Justice Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 2, 1833.
Regarding USDA, Justice Joseph story later included agriculture near the top of his list of example government powers that are NOT included in Congress's Commerce Clause powers.
"Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"
"The question comes to this, whether a power, exclusively for the regulation of commerce, is a power for the regulation of manufactures? The statement of such a question would seem to involve its own answer. Can a power, granted for one purpose, be transferred to another? If it can, where is the limitation in the constitution? Are not commerce and manufactures as distinct, as commerce and agriculture? If they are, how can a power to regulate one arise from a power to regulate the other? It is true, that commerce and manufactures are, or may be, intimately connected with each other. A regulation of one may injuriously or beneficially affect the other. But that is not the point in controversy. It is, whether congress has a right to regulate that, which is not committed to it, under a power, which is committed to it, simply because there is, or may be an intimate connexion between the powers. If this were admitted, the enumeration of the powers of congress would be wholly unnecessary and nugatory. Agriculture, colonies, capital, machinery, the wages of labour, the profits of stock, the rents of land, the punctual performance of contracts, and the diffusion of knowledge would all be within the scope of the power; for all of them bear an intimate relation to commerce. The result would be, that the powers of congress would embrace the widest extent of legislative functions, to the utter demolition of all constitutional boundaries between the state and national governments [emphases added]." —Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 2:§§ 1073--91
In fact, United States v. Butler was an agriculture-related case where state sovereignty-respecting justices seemingly reflected on Story's words when they emphasized the already reasonably clear meaning of 10A, appropriately deciding that case against FDR-era Congress imo.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited. None to regulate agricultural production is given, and therefore legislation by Congress for that purpose is forbidden [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
Corrections, insights welcome.
Our next major step in stopping the unconstitutionally big federal government from oppressing the people under its boots...
Patriots are reminded that they must vote twice this election year. Your first vote is to primary career RINO incumbents. Your second vote is to replace outgoing Democrats and RINOs with Trump-endorsed patriot candidates.
Again, insights welcome.
Putting government employees in bunkers with armed guards keeps them separate from we the people.
It makes them unaccountable to us.
It makes them our masters.
I worked a patrol beat in South-Central Los Angeles for 16 years.
I never needed an up-armored vehicle of any kind, (unless a Crown Vic counts) and we drove our patrol cars to wherever we needed to serve a warrant.
So, one might wonder just what the various Federal agencies think they need armor for.
Let me play madlibs with this for a moment.
A HEAVILY ARMED security guard at a Social Security Office PARK doesn't surprise me. People with mental disabilities apply for Social Security Disability COME TO THE PARK and they can be difficult to deal with sometimes. Also, some people who are denied disability, CHILDREN TO SNIFF, mentally ill or not, can explode if things don't go their way.
You see you are defending the low level bureaucrats having better security at taxpayer expense then small children who are in far more danger and far more helpless.
You may not think of what you are saying in that way but it is what you are saying.
Sorry but the over paid paper pushers in the SS can just suck it up and do their jobs without any extra special security.
They are not that special.
Yep. And y’all got the job done.
Nowadays they ride an extremely expensive armor vehicle and look cool and badass on the way to the scene.
Then, they have to get out of said vehicle. No more cool.
Taxpayers paying for a cool ride.
I will vote as long as I can, and I will resist, using any means available to me. As an example: I’ve heard from a dozen people I know that they’ve signed on to be poll watchers. That’s a dozen more than I ever heard speak of it before.
Maybe the keyboard tough guys here could prove how tough they are and sign up for poll watcher in Detroit, or Philadelphia.
I would if I lived there. It would be stupid, though, for me to go there from AZ just to prove to a resident cynic that I'm more than keyboard tough.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.