Posted on 01/19/2013 5:32:14 PM PST by Bratch
They really are scared of Sarah, aren’t they?
And they really are scared that the people will be alerted to Obama’s tyranny before it’s cemented.
Correct. To libs, having a right to something means lib constituents must be provided one of whatever it is from the public purse.
Well, I guess that's a correct statement. Course the fact the the moon could be "seen" to be made of green cheese doesn't mean that it IS made of green cheese.
She was their commander in chief. If she want’s to disarm them, as members of the units, when they are “on duty”, she can. She can’t disarm them of their private arms, even if the ones they were using for militia duty were privately owned. Seems like not the thing to do, but the story doesn’t seem to give the details of the reason for doing so.
Yup, yup, yup, remember all that stuff, but none of it's relevant to the actual question I posed (and which I tried to phrase in the most non-confrontational way possible) unless you think they're suddenly going to see the light and treat her decently the next time. Step off a bit, and if you'd like to try again to frame an actual answer to my actual question, please do so.
Thanks onyx for the clarification!
The founders assumed people in power would abuse that power without structured legal limitations on their power.
Both Republicans and Democrats have exceeded the power of the constitution and both parties have abused Americans because they were disloyal to the constitution.
The left/right stuff is nonsense when it comes to using and abusing power these days. I don’t know what has happened to the courts who were supposed to enforce the limits of the constitution upon Washington, but we may as well stop pretending, lay them off and save the money.
A decision to disband a state militia is not a violation of the constitution. A federal government disarming it’s citizens is a violation of the constitution.
It doesn’t matter who does it. The article is comparing a constitutional act with one that is not constitutional.
It's a diversion wrapped in a partial truth. She didn't "disarm" anyone. She stopped supplying state-owned weapons to them and changed the duty to one of not being armed. Like a judge deciding that the bailliff didn't need to be armed for his duties and then taking back the city-supplied weapons. The bailliff, as a private citizen can still own/bear arms...
What you essentially had was a semi-autonomous, almost rouge entity that was issued state- owned weapons. That situation would concern me, too.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
In a lawsuit-lawyer’s lexicon, it’s called a “lottery of a lifetime.”
This is the author of the second story....if this is their sources then it’s truly a full-fledge frontal attack on many levels.
I’m picking up these type of anti-Palin stories all over now.
Award-winning writer and filmmaker Geoffrey Dunn’s best-selling The Lies of Sarah Palin: The Untold Story Behind Her Relentless Quest for Power was published by Macmllan/St. Martin’s in May of 2011.
I had a serious case of Schadenfreude last year when the Romney people were all in a bind when the full force of the Obama/MSM/Pop culture machines were upon them. One of their lackeys wanted me to become a Facebook and “Twitter Warrior” for the cause. No effing way! They can go train and “Orca” to do their bidding.
Payback’s a bitch eh Willard? ;)
Well, that settles it then. As long as it was a decision made while she was CIC, then that makes everything AOK. The current administration is proud to follow this line of thinking, and thanks you for it.
The piece linked was written by a flaming lefty, that is without dispute. However, the ASDF had a purpose and in a region like Alaska, that purpose could have a huge impact. What was done was kneel the state before the feds and stated that "we will be reliant upon federal response during times of emergency". So much for that independent spirit and rugged individualism. The problems that existed within the ASDF could have been addressed and corrected without such drastic actions.
Ping
Who knows?
A democrat governor armed them after 9/11, Governor Palin disarmed them for liability reasons and a change of mission, and Governor Parnell wants to disband them entirely.
That is an awful lot going on during a 9 or 10 year period.
The founders feared a militia that might degenerate into an armed gang or that would take orders from a tyrant. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. means that citizens needed to be armed to ensure that any militia was regulated and would not be used by the government against the people.
That is the first time I've seen it explained that way, and it makes so much sense. Militia themselves must be well-regulated by "the people," who have equal right to bear arms as those in the militia. "The people" are always on equal footing. Disarmed people are subjects to official government "militia" designees. People with as much right to bear arms as the militia in what ever form it takes, are guaranteed the ability to, perhaps, keep the militia honest.
Have I interpreted it correctly, do you think?
If so, it makes good sense in a way I'd not thought of before.
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.