Posted on 07/17/2009 5:55:50 PM PDT by Copernicus
The ATF - as expected - has issued a letter in which it disregards the 10th Amendment restrictions on federal power (as seems to be the trend since the late 1930) and has notified Tennessee’s federal firearms dealers that the Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act is meaningless. Essentially, ATF is saying to the state of Tennessee that the 10th Amendment no longer exists.
We expected such from a tyranny that no longer lives within the bounds of its express authority…
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
Thanks for the help. Open season. Yes.
They also noted that it is for a moral people.
Since we are no longer a moral people, it is now a mere piece of paper and will not protect us from the statists.
The story of an election in Athens, Tennessee in 1946 is also instructive.
a piece of paper won’t protect us from decdades of government schools. No the United States does not exist for the lover of liberty, or the lover of freedom. Tyrants live here in the form of public servants who started going to government schools from the time they were breached. They thrived in these highly controlled, risk adverse incubators of conformity. Everything was predictable. The schedule, the bells, the food. The worksheets were predictable as they followed sequentially, point by point the textbooks. The tests were predictable, as they followed the outlines provided by the worksheets. So they learned in a highly controlled, risk adverse, predictable world to loath individualism and freedom. They grew up, did higher education, more of the same, and got into government, or just became voters. As voters they want a risk adverse, highly predictable environment where outcomes are predetermined and safety is guaranteed. As politicians or as bureaucrats, they want the same thing. So we live in a highly controlled, risk adverse, predictable world. That’s how your neighbors want it, and they will use other people to shoot you, mace you, stun you haul you off to jail in order to preserve their little illusion.
Corporations only have those rights, or more properly immunities, allowed by the law in the state in which they are incorporated, by federal law, or in some cases state law in other states.
Corporations reduce individual risk, and unfortunately responsibility, and thus encourage risk taking. That's mostly a positive.
They predate the formation of the United States. IIRC the first ones were formed in Holland, which allowed them to gain a march on other countries, until the other countries followed suite. So in a way, the existance of corporations are responsible for many place mans in New York City, formerly New Amsterdam, and even up the Hudson River a bit.
It may still be 10-15 years away (though I doubt that),
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Sometimes I think it may only be 15 minutes away.
>>Corporations only have those rights,
>>or more properly immunities, allowed by the law
IOW, the rights of corporate collectives are a legal fiction; whereas the self-evident rights observed by the American founders are presumed to be a product of Natural Law.
Amen and Amen...and regretfully I don’t think there’s a damn thing we can do about it...
Sadly they can’t be tried for treason as the definition of that particular crime is spelled out in the constitution . However that does not mean that the offending federal agents can’t be arrested/prosecuted for other crimes such as conspiracy to violate the rights of a citizen under color of law,false arrest ,false improsonment ,etc.
Es la verdad!
Truth!
Veritus!
People forget State’s Rights effectively ended when Woodrow Wilson rammed through the direct election of Senators.
Best regards to all,
_______________________
Actually, States Rights essentially ended when Washington prosecuted a war against the Southern States under the leadership of a fellow named Lincoln. Ironic, isn’t it, that a war fought on the PRETEXT of ending SLAVERY, actually ended FREEDOM and enslaved us ALL, if not in the immediate sense, it has certainly eventuated this reality in our day...
Our Federal Constitution is a Compact—Being such it must be binding on both or not at all
By the State’s ratification of the Constitution, the powers of the Federal Government were limited to a narrow range of issues. The Federal Government was never intended to be a force for collectivism. The Constitution was intended to promote a set of guidelines by which the several states would be enhanced, not restricted. Union and non-Union states alike were to be treated equally while maintaining their sovereignty. The intended outcome was to be a peaceful and harmonious coexistence.
The State government will have the advantage of the Federal government, whether we compare them in respect to the immediate dependence of the one on the other; to the weight of personal influence which each side will possess; to the powers respectively vested in them. . . . (Federalist Paper Number 45)
My maternal Grandpa was from Tennessee originally and migrated to NE AR not to far from Memphis. and I still have an Aunt (his Daughter) that lives near Franklin last i heard and some other distant kin living all around that great state.
Thanks for the invite and if need be I will look you up.
Yep
They closed down the Southern Plantation and opened the Federal Plantation!
It would be interesting to study all the negatives brought on by the 14th Amendment—Besides Rowe v Wade and anchor baby's?I refuse "political status" as in being a "citizen" because I'm Sovereign!
Wouldn't hold it against you - til football season. ;^)
I guess just about as far back as I can remember it’s been one riot-one ranger. Hard bunch they were. STILL a formidable bunch.
I would say rather that they aren't "rights" but rather "privileges". However, it's quite likely that without corporations, and the limitation on risk they provide, there would be no United States. Instead there would be a sparsely settled land occupied by Cherokees, Iroquois, Apaches, Lakota, Navajo, Crow, Cherokee, etc, etc, all constantly at one another's throats (Although it's possible that something better could have come out of the Iroquois Confederacy).
The founders knew of corporations, since they were in existence by the time of the American Revolution, in fact long before. The Mayflower expedition/colony was financed by a joint stock company, known as the Merchant Adventurers. The West India Company, of the Netherlands, at one time owned all of the New Netherlands, but it was too big a bite for even them to chew. So they sold parts of it off to smaller groups and even individuals.
The problem is the power that the corporations, and wealthy individuals, have in influencing the government. But in that regard they haven't been doing well of late, while other groups, like the AFL-CIO, the NEA, and even Friends of the Earth, have done much better.
Well done. That’s a keeper. From what little I’ve read concerning Patrick Henry’s misgivings, it seems he was thinking along similar lines in the sense that at least some of the other “Founders” seemed inclined toward a more potent general government. He may have been right about that, and we can at least thank him for our Bill of Rights. They had served us well for the better part of two centuries, thwarting many an attempt along the way. However, tyrants will always find a way. Death by a thousand cuts if necessary.
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.