Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

I have a question about Gutsy Leadership
vanity ^ | today | demshateGod

Posted on 11/05/2008 2:31:16 PM PST by demshateGod

This is my first vanity

Why isn’t it expected of our so called conservative leaders at state and local level to protect the liberties of its electorate against the federal government? For example, if I live in Alaska and want to sale guns that Obama thinks are evil, why wouldn’t the governor just say, “forget you ATF/FBI/CDF, you can’t come in here and arrest the citizens of Alaska for doing what the constitution gives them right to do.” I’m sure President Government could call up judges, prosecutors, etc to enforce his tyranny but what’s he really going to do?

I can think of examples in every issue that the State could just say, “We’re going to do it the way the constitution says and you, your judges, or you jack-booted thugs can just try to stop us.”

I know he could cut off federal funding, so let's demand our conservatives stop being dependent on federal funding.


TOPICS: Government; Politics
KEYWORDS: 2ndamendment; liberty; statesrights
Your thoughts
1 posted on 11/05/2008 2:31:17 PM PST by demshateGod
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: demshateGod
forget you ATF/FBI/CDF, you can’t come in here and arrest the citizens of Alaska for doing what the constitution gives them right to do.”

The Constitution doesn't *give* the RKBA, it protects it.

"...the right of the people ... shall not be infringed".

Now that said, The One would likely federalize the Alaska Guard, and send in the BAFTErs anyway. Of course the Guard might not choose to *be* federalized for such a purpose, and the BATFers might be sent home with their tails between their legs, like the jackals they are. As you can see, the existence of the right is *assumed*, and the Constitution says that it may not be infringed.

2 posted on 11/05/2008 2:42:19 PM PST by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

Your very right about the protection vs giving of rights. Sorry I worded that wrong. Thanks for correcting me.

But that’s what I’m saying. Why is it that when the Feds seek to take away our neighbor’s rights, everyone falls right in line with the Feds? No matter if we have the power to protect our neighbor’s rights.

Let’s say Obama wants to Federalize the Guard and Palin says No. Is he going to send the military? Couldn’t the generals say, “No, we wont be used to take away the constitutional liberty or our neighbors”?


3 posted on 11/05/2008 3:03:41 PM PST by demshateGod (the GOP is dead to me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: demshateGod

They had a little discussion about that 150 years ago.

The feds won.


4 posted on 11/05/2008 3:06:52 PM PST by autumnraine (Churchill: " we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall never surrender")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: autumnraine

I think we could win this time.


5 posted on 11/05/2008 3:54:02 PM PST by demshateGod (the GOP is dead to me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson