Help STOP firearms regulation through State Sovereignty!

[gboyle2]

Help send a message to the federal government that the constitution still means something to some of us.
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/nebraskasovereignty/

[FarmerRick]

Help send a message to the federal government that the constitution still means something to some of us.
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/nebraskasovereignty/

Thanks for the reminder, Greg.  All NFOA members were emailed that link on June 29, but it sure doesn't hurt to put a reminder here!

State of Nebraska
Sovereignty Resolution

THE STATE OF NEBRASKA to ensure its individual sovereignty and to
protect the constitutional rights as proclaimed in the 9th and 10th
amendments of the federal constitution.
WHEREAS Sec.1 of the Nebraska constitution reads as follows. "All
persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain inherent
and inalienable rights; among these are life, liberty and the pursuit
of happiness. To secure these rights, and the protection of property,
governments are instituted among people, deriving their just powers
from the consent of the governed"; and
WHEREAS Sec. 2 of the Nebraska constitution reads as follows. "There
shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in this state,
otherwise than for punishment of crime, whereof the party shall have
been duly convicted"; and
WHEREAS, The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
reads as follows: "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";
and
WHEREAS, The Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power
as being that specifically granted by the Constitution of the United
States and no more; and
WHEREAS, The scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means that
the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an
agent of the states; and
WHEREAS, Today, in 2009, the states are demonstrably treated as agents
of the federal government; and
WHEREAS, Many federal laws are directly in violation of the Tenth
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and
WHEREAS, The Tenth Amendment assures that we, the people of the United
States of America and each sovereign state in the Union of States, now
have, and have always had, rights the federal
Government may not usurp; and
WHEREAS, Section 4, Article IV, of the Constitution says, "The United
States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form
of Government," and the Ninth Amendment states that "The enumeration
in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny
or disparage others retained by the people"; and
WHEREAS, The United States Supreme Court has ruled in New York v.
United States, 112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992), that congress may not simply
commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states; and
WHEREAS, a number of proposals from previous administrations and some
now pending from the present administration and from congress may
further violate the Constitution of the United States; now, therefore,
be it
RESOLVED, That the Legislature of the State of Nebraska hereby claim
sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the
United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to
the federal government by the Constitution of the United States; and,
be it further
RESOLVED, that this serve as notice and demand to the federal
government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately,
mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated
powers; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That all compulsory federal legislation that directs states
to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties or sanctions or
that requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding be
prohibited or repealed; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That the Nebraska secretary of state forward official copies
of this resolution to the president of the United States, to the
speaker of the house of representatives and the president of the
senate of the United States Congress, and to all the members of the
Nebraska delegation to the congress with the request that this
resolution be officially entered in the Congressional Record as a
memorial to the Congress of the United States of America.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~

[iiranger]

It is reported that 2 of 3 elected officials are attorneys/lawyers... trained "in the law" and in "twisting the law"... Read the daily reports of court actions... "Will Michael Jackson be found to have been manslaughtered..." "Who is Jen's latest squeeze and how is she 'separated' from the last..." etc.

The Constitution is the basis of law, pretty much... and 2 of 3 officials entrusted with it are trained to twist it... They call it "interpreting it..." ..."Does the First Amendment only apply to hand written messages???"

Ironically the original 13th amendment --proposed AND NOT ACCEPTED by the founding fathers-- BARRED/ prohibited any lawyer from holding elective office... Wonder why???

The "romping on states rights" began with the Civil War. [No I am not pro slavery, which was dieing anyway. Machinery was making slaves uneconomical...] And it has "roared" since.

Stopping the feds from regulating "food" or "drugs" or "imports"... if I really wanted to -- you want pajamas that burst into flame? Tainted food? etc.... Well, it is NOT going to happen.

The answer is "political action." Let the elected official, attorney or not, mess with "guns" and get booted out of office-- STINGS the H__ out of their ego, or better--impeached, THEN things work as intended...

This "states rights" stuff is a "red herring" meant to distract and waste the energy that could be supporting the cause of liberty and protecting rights... (and regulating the Feds... did the FBI ever find those guns and laptops they "misplaced???") oh wellllll.

[armed and humorous]

Maybe I'm missing something in this Sovereignty Resolution, but it sounds to me like a lot of hot air made up to make people feel good by thinking they are really accomplishing something by supporting it.  If all we're doing here is restating the provisions of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, what's the point?  Now, if there is some specific case where someone feels the feds are intruding on states' rights, it goes to court to be resolved.  I'm not so sure we want to prohibit or repeal any kind of federal legislation that requires the states to follow suit in order to get federal funds, either.  Let's say, hypothetically, that the feds are willing to dole out money to the states for road building, but they require the states to follow federal guidelines on how these roads should be built.  Do we want some corrupt politicians from a particular state to award the road-building contract to some of their buddies for a kickback, while these buddies grade a dirt path across the state for $5 billion and call it an Interstate highway?

Politics suck, but that's what we have to deal with, and the less huffing and puffing we do, the more energy we'll have left to actually do the things that might make a difference.

Now, if anyone can point out a "real" purpose behind this resolution, something that has some teeth in it, I may jump on board.  Otherwise, it sounds like the UN telling the Somalian pirates they shouldn't be stealing ships, killing crew members, and holding them for ransom, because it's not nice.

[FarmerRick]

I think that it is more symbolic than anything.  However, if it gets people off their butts to do something about the over-reach and encroachment of the federal government into our everyday lives, I'm all for it.

[rugermanx]

I realize I don't post much around here due to my busy schedule and other contributing factors, and due to this fact my opinion may not hold the sway of others (esp the board and the distinguished members who seem to be very intelligent and honestly great guys) However. I feel that this is a fairly important piece of legislation. I understand that it is a little repititive as far as it states the already stated. There are several things which the Federal government has made huge moves to destroy. Including as we all know the 2nd amendment. Health care "reform" or rather "ruination". And one of the latest IMO is the fact that we are being taxed without representation. Now I am not calling for rebellion or anything else (I have taken heat for that statement in the past) But I do believe that a statement should be made to the federal government. Both republicans and democrats that we as a nation are a group of states. We believe that the government does more messing up than fixing and that the closer we keep the power to us the better. (since a city/state rep is far easier to contact and make an impression on then some far off tv figure that you have never met.) I believe the federal government is grabbing power and this resolution makes it clear (on a far bigger stage) that we as a state disagree with what is going on. These resolutions seem to be a growing movement nationwide. With Montana, Tennessee, New Hampshire, and Texas leading the way. These resolutions in the states of Montana and Tennessee have led to resolutions confirming the sale of guns inside the state to be non federally regulated transfers so long as the gun doesn't cross borders. They have led to Texas basically stating that if this Health care Mandate goes thru they will deny it. If more states get into gear here then there is a chance that the damage being done by the federal governments spending habits (if I spent like they are my wife would kill me) will be stopped. I realize that everyone says contact your senator or your HoR Reps but it seems that when we melted the phone lines and shut down email servers against the stimulus and the omnibus spending bill we were ignored. This bill basically tells them that they are not in charge. (and seeing as they don't seem to read or at least understand the constitution of the US then they need to be reminded in other ways.) This brings a larger voice to the table. One that is more local and has more sway than everyone of us sitting here and spamming the servers of our representatives with calls and emails 24 hours a day and 7 days a week (since every member of this forum/group can be to lincoln in under 12 hours and be sitting outside the capital waiting to talk to the governor).

I am going to go out on a limb and say that most of your are conservative and are at least a little active in your following of politics. I am going to go out even further and say that most of you just want to go to work, go to the range, and live your life (while protecting yourself from criminals) without being told when and how to do so. Crawling even farther, I would say that there are some (if not most) that read the news and see that there seems to be no rhyme or reason to what is going on in this country. and even a little farther onto this branch I would say there are many that believe that there is no accountability in the federal government. Even in the local government it seems that the corruption and the insanity seem to be taking hold but at least when the capital of the county is less than a few hours away we can be there ready to make a stand. The closer the power is to the people that hand it over to be safe guarded the better off we are. 

As far as your concern, armed and humorous, The federal "health care reform" is one such piece of legislation. In the bill they state that after a set amount of time it becomes a mandated program that will partially be funded by the states. (I believe if I remember correctly) that this set time is 10 years. Then it becomes the states problem to fund a portion. This bill has nothing to do with free market and is specifically aimed at killing the health insurance industry. Since at least one of the proposed bills has wording that makes it impossible to change plans without either going onto the public option, or paying the penalty tax. I believe the wording basically makes a plan that is "eligible" (in other words meets criteria) ok to have until it gets changed by the insurance company or you change plans. Then it becomes null and you have to pay the penalty tax. Even if the new plan would have met the criteria for "eligibility" under the initial rules.
The power grab goes on and on and on IMO.

Now I know that I have rambled on here for quite awhile, and have probably had a few people doze off or leave the thread but thank you to those that have made it to the end. The big thing for me is that since they don't read the constitution then technically for these people its not repetitive but for those of us that care, or were forced, or were inclined to read the constitution and bill of rights then, yes, its repeating well known facts. But that is lost on some people apparently.

[armed and humorous]

Rugermanx:

I don't know that I would disagree with anything you've said.  I haven't really followed the healthcare issue.  It's not because it isn't important, or that I don't think it will affect me.  It's just more than I want to deal with.  If you think your comment was long and boring, try reading some of this legislation (well, you probably did).  I guess to me, it's just not worth my time and effort for what little I would be able to affect the outcome anyway.

I certainly wouldn't deny that the feds have often overstepped their authority, and I firmly believe we should be following the Constitution.  And, I have no real reason to vote against this proposed resolution.  But, even the tenth amendment itself is more or less a restatement of the main body of the Constitution.  Here is something I found on Wikipedia:

The Tenth Amendment, which makes explicit the idea that the federal government is limited only to the powers granted in the Constitution is generally recognized to be a truism. In United States v. Sprague (1931) the Supreme Court noted that the amendment "added nothing to the [Constitution] as originally ratified."

From time to time states and local governments have attempted to assert exemption from various federal regulations, especially in the areas of labor and environmental controls, using the Tenth Amendment as a basis for their claim. An often-repeated quote, from United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 124 (1941), reads as follows:

The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers.....

Still, I'm not opposed to the resolution, I just don't know if it really makes any difference.

[FarmerRick]

http://www.omaha.com/article/20090727/NEWS01/707279958

Nebraska legislators seek to assert state sovereignty

By Martha Stoddard
WORLD-HERALD BUREAU
? Metro/Region


LINCOLN ? At least three Nebraska lawmakers want to send a message to the federal government:

Butt out of state business.

Next year they will see if a majority of their colleagues agrees.

The senators are working on resolutions asserting Nebraska's sovereignty under the 10th Amendment of the Constitution.
Congressional powers
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.

Nebraska wouldn't try to secede from the union under their proposals but would go on record objecting to federal laws that they say go beyond constitutional authority.

?My goal here is to shine light on the fact that the federal government is overstepping its bounds,? said State Sen. Tony Fulton of Lincoln. ?We would be making a statement on behalf of Nebraska.?

The tension between states' rights and federal authority has been a repeated theme in U.S. history, starting with arguments among the founding fathers.

The struggle turned bloody when Southern states seceded, citing states' rights on the question of slavery, and the Civil War ensued.

Critics say the current measures amount to little more than political posturing ? passing resolutions doesn't mean that states refuse to comply with federal law or send back federal funds that come with mandates.

State Sen. Bill Avery of Lincoln said the proposals sound disturbingly similar to the states' rights arguments made in defense of racial segregation and laws blocking blacks from voting.

?The history of this movement is rife with racism in the name of states' rights,? he said. ?I'm not saying that the people making the case now are racist, but I don't think Nebraska needs to be getting in bed with these kinds of resolutions.?

Colleagues denied links to that history. Fulton, an Asian-American, said he has no intention of promoting racism or segregation.

Interest in states' rights is spreading as the federal government has taken over businesses, mandated driver's license security measures and proposed a public health care program.

Seven states passed resolutions this year affirming their sovereignty, and resolutions were introduced in 30 others. Some states have filed lawsuits or taken legislative action to challenge federal laws.

In Iowa, State Senate Republican leader Paul McKinley of Chariton offered a resolution this year calling on the federal government to ?cease and desist? in issuing mandates that go beyond what the 10th Amendment allows. The body's Democratic majority has kept the resolution alive but bottled up in committee.

The movement's rise followed the election of President Barack Obama. Most of its supporters, though not all, can be found in conservative camps, such as libertarian talk-show host Glenn Beck and his conservative Web site. The states passing resolutions all voted Republican in the 2008 presidential election.

Online petitions urge Nebraska's state lawmakers to act.

?Either states can use the Constitution to maintain the power they have always had, or they can give it up,? said Gregory Boyle of Omaha, who started one online petition this spring.

A constitutional scholar questions the effectiveness of legislative resolutions and legal challenges.

?This is an outlet for those who are worried that the federal government will take over everything,? said Mark Kende, director of the Drake University Constitutional Law Center in Des Moines.

Richard Duncan, a constitutional law professor at the University of Nebraska College of Law, said legislative resolutions send valuable political messages even with no legal weight.

?It's kind of a nice warning that people are growing tired of the size of the federal government,? he said.

Under the 10th Amendment, states and citizens retain all powers not specifically given to the federal government.

Sovereignty supporters argue that the federal government has overstepped those bounds on matters such as endangered species protection and seat belt laws. Others say the Constitution, as interpreted by courts from the 1800s on, gives the federal government broad authority.

Fulton and Sens. Mark Christensen of Imperial and Ken Schilz of Ogallala are researching possible resolutions.

?I absolutely don't like where our government is going right now,? Christensen said.

Among his complaints are the mandates attached to federal stimulus funds and the new national health care proposals.

Fulton listed federal control of General Motors and mandates imposed on schools under the 2001 No Child Left Behind law.

?I'm not saying that every interaction with the federal government is bad,? he said. ?I'm saying that some are over the line.?

Schilz's concerns include a proposal to extend the Clean Water Act to all bodies of water.

None of the three Nebraska lawmakers is ready to advocate giving up most federal funds to avoid the accompanying mandates, although Christensen supported the governor's decision to reject some unemployment stimulus money because of the strings attached.

Speaker of the Nebraska Legislature Mike Flood of Norfolk said he wasn't sure whether he would back a resolution, though he supports states' rights.

?Every day in the Legislature,? Flood said, ?it seems we deal with issues where the federal government has its tentacles, either on the policy or the money or both.?

South Dakota's GOP whip, State Rep. Manny Steele, introduced his state's successful resolution. Steele said change will occur if enough states follow sovereignty measures with legal challenges to federal authority.

Some challenges have already popped up, on both conservative and liberal issues.

Montana, for example, passed a law this year asserting that guns made, sold and used in the state are exempt from federal laws and taxes. The law's chief backers said they hoped it would trigger a court battle.

Arizona lawmakers put a measure on the 2010 ballot that would exempt residents from a federal health care plan.

On the liberal front, Massachusetts cited the 10th Amendment in filing suit against a federal law barring recognition of same-sex marriages.

And six states sided with a California woman who argued to the U.S. Supreme Court that states had the power to legalize medical marijuana. The court ruled for the federal government in the 2005 case.

Kende questioned the states' chances of prevailing, saying the federal government won all cases from 1937 to 1995, although its record has been mixed since.

Courts already have upheld the practice of attaching strings to federal funds, Duncan said.

No matter the result of the court cases, states can make a difference through political pressure, said Michael Boldin, founder of the Tenth Amendment Center in Los Angeles. The howls that greeted a George W. Bush-era law increasing driver's license requirements, for example, forced the federal government to rethink that law.

?With each state,? Steele said, ?we gain power.?

Contact the writer:

402-473-9583, martha.stoddard@owh.com

[armed and humorous]

Thanks for that post, FarmerRick.  Lot's of good incite on the issue.

[JebM]

I think FarmerRick's article pretty much explains why I am in support of this Resolution.  This resolution does not do anything binding like armed and humorous would like, and probably all of us would like, but it does add us to the list of states that are not happy with the way things are going. With enough states voicing their displeasure we may be able to change some things.

[huskergun]

Good paper...Click on "download full paper".... Worth the read and lots of info regarding the 10th.

http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/07/27/the-original-meaning-of-an-omission/

[rugermanx]

Yes armed I read far too many bills. They get dry in a hurry. Its too bad that the people we elect to take care of this stuff don't do their dang jobs. Unfortunately the federal government keeps going into high gear and thinking that the due process of making a law is a drag race, rather than a steady jog. I understand that this is falling far short of what most of us want. and I don't want to come across as bit@*y but honestly its one of those things that for the last 50 or so years the liberals have been taking baby steps at what they want.

I know that not everyone in this forum is going to agree with the principal of this example however it is a VERY clear point to point of how it works on the "slippery slope": that is my disclaimer.

Take the smoking ban. 50 years ago they said "we only want to stop you smoking in public buildings" and so it was passed.
After a few years it was "we only want to stop smoking in restaurants,workplaces, and stores and so it was passed.
Now they are stepping into bars and telling the private owners what they can and can't do in their establishment.

This to me indicates how they are going to go about taking our guns. Little by little. Alot of shot gunners out there are of the mentality that "eh, so you want the assualt weapons, ok take em that doesn't affect my trap league" Alot of the pistol guys I have met are the same way. (i myself until recently being of that exact same mindset) And that is where we lack in strength against the opponents in this political game. For a long time we have been sitting back while all along the pieces have been put into play on the other side to place us in checkmate. The killing of states rights being one of the top casualties in the fight.

I was awakened to the harsh reality of how this is going by doing some looking into the polls and research studies for the stimulus. The fact that it went thru 16 hours after the first printed copy rolled off the presses really shook me up. 16 hours to read that damn much is physically impossible no matter how fast one reads. at the very least you couldn't understand what you were reading even if you had the ability to read it. Then after they pass the bill they bring in a speed reader to show how fast it could have been read. And honestly I felt as if my representatives (not necessarily ours from NE but the HOR and the Senate) basically slapped the American people in the face. I DO NOT want to be a political activist. I DO NOT want to spend ANY of my time reading bills. I have way too many hobbies that I enjoy for that to interrupt them. Unfortunately I believe that if we as a citizenry do not stand up now and start yelling louder then those that want entitlement programs, and free health care (yes they think it is actually free.) and of course those anti 2nders then we are going to be in dire straights. If we can rock the boat now before they roll us all into the water the damage could be stopped.

Please don't take this as an attack, armed. I am simply trying to point out that in the words of Sherlock Holmes "the game is afoot." and currently we are behind. And this legislation if enabled gives a very large LOCAL voice to a national debate.

PS. I am hoping to be able to make the picnic to shake some of your hands. It would be an honor to meet you in person and sit down to have a meal and share ideas. Thank you huskergun I will go download that now hopefully its a little better then the bills I have been reading as of late. (Plus it might cheer me up.) And FarmerRick, I read that this morning. Truly made my day go a bit smoother.

[DanClrk51]

Rugermanx has done an excellent job explaining why this is SO important. Yes, we are only making a statement. We are issuing a warning. If they do not heed this warning then we as a State need to reject the federal healthcare proposal, and the rest of the power grab crap coming out of Washington D.C. We need to sign into law a similar law that Montana passed declaring that our guns and ammo are exempt from federal control and anything else that applies under the 10th Amendment. We need to haul the federal government to court!
Or are we going to be like Germany in the 30's and let the National Socialists (Nazis) take more and more liberties until its too late.
And if the federal government still refuses to listen to the people and continues to steal our liberties away than by the
Declaration of Independence ?That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness?

[armed and humorous]

Rugermanx:

No, I don't take your comments as an attack.  And, I understand the slippery slope concept.  I can't deny that there is some credibility to it.  Your point about the "checkmate" is perhaps the best analogy I've heard and one I hadn't given too much thought.  I generally thought along the lines that if we, the pro-gun crowd, have the voting power to stop the antis, we should be able to stop them at the point when we've taken all we can stand in the way of infringements to our rights.  It isn't necessary to take a zero-tolerance stand against gun control if all they want to do is some minor regulating with bearable costs and restrictions in order to make them happy.  Your analogy of the chess game makes that way of thinking a little less valid.  In a chess game, you start out even, but as you lose more and more pieces, it becomes less and less likely that you will be able to survive.

The one thing that still bothers me is the concept that the anti crowd actually does want nothing less than to take all our guns and will settle for nothing less.  I'm sure there are those in their camp just as firm in that belief as some of us are that we will not accept any infringements on our gun rights at all.  However, from my experience in talking to people and from what I've observed over the years, I doubt if they number all that many.  I think it much more likely that the majority of people who feel we need gun controls are simply hoping to have legislation in place that will help keep guns out of the hands of criminals, and children, and others who may not have the capacity to use them in a safe, non-threatening manner.  Some want better ways of tracking guns or ammunition so that it is more likely we can catch those who use them illegally.  Those are not, in and of themselves, bad things to want.  Some of them will make it a little more of a hassel for us, or a little more expensive, but I'm not opposed to that if it doesn't become prohibitive for the average Joe.  Beyond that is where I draw my line in the sand.

Many in this group of ours are opposed to any such compromises, either out of a strict belief in no infringements, or because they fear the slippery slope.  I can understand both reasons, and I don't blame anyone for taking that stand.  I simply wonder if it is the best approach, because it will force that majority of those who only want "reasonable" restrictions to make a choice between all or none, and I don't know which way they will go.

[armed and humorous]

Yes, I changed my avatar.  For those of you who don't recognize it, this is Heavy Weapons Guy from Team Fortress 2, a video game that my son showed to me.  You may get a kick out of the trailer for this character if you haven't already seen it, or even if you have.

[rugermanx]

I have to say this is the best discussion I have had on this topic in many moons. Since several of them have resulted in me being called a "stupid hick that has no idea of how the world works."

I guess what is bothering me is the fact that they are using every single option to bring about the banning of guns. My stance on the tracking of ammo is that it would be a way of taking our guns. Since the industry has come out with several reports saying that it would take something like six weeks to produce the ammo they do in one day now under the plans that have been introduced. That to me is a defacto ban.

The majority of people in California oppose gay marriage and yet they have had to vote on it 3 times and each time the courts say the people can't say what they did. This is what has led to my views on this being a chess match. It seems they have been mobilizing while we were sitting back. Back to the cali example the votes have been roughly 2/3 for the ban on gay marriage and yet the 1/3 keeps overturning the rest. This tells me that they (even as a minority) are a very agile/worthy opponent. Seems they get what they want. Which is making me believe that the squeaky wheel has been getting the grease. They get loud, they get obnoxious they get what they are after. And we sit back and write our senators/reps. We don't mobilize and cause waves. That's not us, that's not who we are. Never has been. We sit back and believe that its all good, people will leave me alone if I leave them alone.

The best way to put the actual beliefs of people on the guns thing is by taking a shape we learned in high school. A parabola or upside down U in this case. Most of the people are somewhere in the middle with a lot less along the two ends one end being absolutely no guns. the other being no restrictions. I wish I had a graphic for that, I may have to make one up later just to illustrate that a little more clearly. Hopefully we can come to our senses before we have to choose sides but to do that we have to stand up and make waves now before it gets to the point where we stand up and say all or nothing and need to fight for our rights. To do that a strong message must be sent that this is where america stands- RIGHT DOWN THE MIDDLE. don't pull us too far right and don't pull us too far left. That is what this bill would do. Send that message fairly clearly. Then we move onto the 3rd box in the 4 boxes of freedom. (for those of you that have not heard of those they are- Soap box/Ballot Box/Jury Box/Ammo Box. to be used in that order. I don't remember the origin of that so I may have to reread the history of it again. hopefully we never have to go any farther than the jury box. But the past says that sometimes that is necessary.)

I know I am preaching to the choir but basically feel that at this point in time we need to get more active in our efforts to effect our beliefs. Like I said before, Its too bad the people that are elected to deal with this stuff don't do their dang jobs.


Edited to add: I love your avatar Armed. Truly great.

[armed and humorous]

More nice points, Rugermanx.  That parabola you speak is generally called the bell curve, and it is useful in many ways when dealing with statistics.  Hadn't heard of the four-box thing before; that's a good one.  Don't expect we'll need to go to the fourth box; but, what will be, will be.

Glad you liked the avatar.  I just get goose bumps and almost teary-eyed (I know it sounds pathetically feminine) every time I watch that trailer.  If reincarnation is real, that's who I want come back as!

[rugermanx]

Who touched my Sasha?!? That is a great trailer. However I kinda like the sniper myself. Watch for the bottles if you haven't watched it.

[JimP]

Rugermanx:

I don't know that I would disagree with anything you've said.  I haven't really followed the healthcare issue.  It's not because it isn't important, or that I don't think it will affect me.  It's just more than I want to deal with.  If you think your comment was long and boring, try reading some of this legislation (well, you probably did).  I guess to me, it's just not worth my time and effort for what little I would be able to affect the outcome anyway.

....That is just it:  The Progressives have overwhelmed us, and the system with a deluge of this (stuff).  There is no way you or I, or even our PAID elected representatives can keep track of all of it, let alone DO anything about it. 

[rugermanx]

Hence the mobilization and organization of a bigger force.  By getting involved (as the left has been for a long time) We will add power to our side. There are plenty of groups out there that do alot for the conservative side. We just don't utilize them to the same extent that the left does. For a list of a few: Heritage Foundation, 912 Project, Americans for prosperity 10th Amendment center. They are there. They are the ones that keep an eye on this stuff. They do a good job. Just as the NRA watches guns, they watch other portions of the government. But going back to the thing about we just want to be left alone to live our lives and everyone else can do the same. We just need to get behind some of this and start raising a bit of cain. Not getting violent or anything stupid like that. Just raising our voices and saying: Enough!

The biggest hurdle to overcome in my opinion is the sense that we are beat and there is nothing we can do about it. Trust me I understand that theory. I have felt that way for several years. I am nervous posting my opinions on this board for crying out loud. I don't want to make waves. I just want to go to work, live my life, enjoy my hobbies and in the end die (hopefully after a full and FUN life). I just feel that we must get involved or risk loosing our voice. And that has to be started locally and moved up from there. This bill is a start. But its not a final destination. Its the boarding of the train for a much longer journey unfortunately. But we all know you have to start to get somewhere. That's how this board came to be. That's why we are all here talking about all of this in the first place. Someone took the initiative to make this website and form the groups that merged into this one. That's a start. And look where it has grown from there. We must not back down. We have some momentum but need more if we wish to continue.