| |
  
|
||||||||||
Why my state stinks:
Submitted by Alowhangingbranch on Mon, 03/15/2010 - 07:47
http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20... And I wonder why my more and more of my friends keep moving away... |
|
|||||||||
The Daily Paul is a community website with no official affiliation with Ron Paul or his Presidential Committee. The content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original poster, and are not endorsed, approved, or otherwise representative of the opinions of the Daily Paul, its owner, site moderators or Ron Paul. This site may contain adult language and adult concepts. If you are offended by such content, or feel you may be offended by such content, point your browser to a different site IMMEDIATELY. For more, read the Full Disclaimer
© 2007 - 2011 by The Daily Paul. Not paid for by, nor officially affiliated in any way with Ron Paul. | General Site Disclaimer | DMCA Disclaimer | Advertise here
It's a shame that so many of
It's a shame that so many of your friends are moving away, but this is how things are supposed to be. When a State stinks the people are supposed to vote with their feet and their wallets by moving to a different State that does not stink (or one that does not stink as badly).
Think of this as being a sort of free market style competition between the States.
By the way, you're not alone. I'm in NJ and can completely relate to more and more people not wanting to be here any longer.
...
corruption corruption corruption
all judges are corrupt.we should protest at the front door of all judges.
I was born in Cambridge, Massachusetts......
and left in 1969 as a 15 year old. I have lived in Southern California, Central California, Lake Tahoe are of Nevada, and finally resided in the high altitude of Central Colorado. My politics changed extremely (within the last two years) with the knowledge of the truth of what is goIng on in this world. Massachusetts is tooooooo liberal for a person like me. It is hard to think that it all began at Plymouth Rock. Our founding fathers would not be pleased. But I still BELIEVE THAT WE ARE MAKING A DIFFERENCE. Without us then the AMERICAN DREAM would disappear. Audit the Fed, End the Fed, End the IRS, and most importantly reduce the MILITARY OCCUPATION OF THE WORLD (OVER 130 MILITARY INSTALLATIONS IN WORLD).
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you, then you win!"
GANDHI
Massachusetts Constitution
Massachusetts Constitution 1780
Art. I.--All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.
XVII.--The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence...
"A government of reason is better than one of force." --Thomas Jefferson to Richard Rush, 1820
I watched a Mel Gibson movie
I watched a Mel Gibson movie the other day entitled The Edge of Darkness...
there was a scene about how a certain gun was illegal...and Mel's Comment was "everything is illegal in Massachusettes"
lol...that line was made a few times...I had to laugh
"and the truth shall make you free"
John 8:32
This is odd...
The phrasing in the article is odd. It says that the 2nd doesnt apply to states therefore Mass. can regulate who owns arms.
The traditional position/phrasings have been that either the 2nd applies to states or applies to individuals.
If the 2nd applies to the states then that means guns are only for state run militias and the state can regulate individuals possession of arms.
And if the 2nd applies to individuals then the state has no say.
The article seems to have it backwards...
.
"Wobbles but doesn't fall down" - weebles
I think that they are trying
I think that they are trying to say that the 2nd amendment restricts the congress from passing laws about bearing arms, and that is what they meant by who it "applies to".
Massachusetts believes that since the restrictions "apply to" the federal government and not states, Massachusetts can restrict firearms to its hearts content.
I don't think it is a very solid argument.
and NPR and Boston Globe also
published it like that. I posted about this very topic a few days ago, because I heard that the 2nd doesn't apply to states.
Left me wondering, well, who or what does the Constitution apply to?
And if the 2nd doesn't apply to the states, then does ANY of the Constitution apply?
WTF is going on here?
I need answers!
The Constitution applies to
The Constitution applies to the federal government. It is not a grant of rights; it's a charter for the entity we call the federal government. So in that view saying it "applies to individuals" makes no sense.
Freelance copywriter/editor who gets the "freedom message"!
Visit: http://www.DavidBardallis.com