Good for the Sheriff's

This is a discussion on Good for the Sheriff's within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Some good reading 'No' Sheriff in Town: Some Lawmen Refuse to Enforce Federal Gun Laws - NBC News...

Results 1 to 4 of 4
Like Tree9Likes
  • 3 Post By Concealed_in_KY
  • 1 Post By RickyD
  • 4 Post By Calvito
  • 1 Post By RickyD

Thread: Good for the Sheriff's

  1. #1
    New Member Array Concealed_in_KY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    7
    StormRhydr, WHEC724 and Calvito like this.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    Distinguished Member
    Array RickyD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    North Georgia
    Posts
    1,753
    This proves that government is far more effective at local levels and loses its representative position the larger it gets. These sheriffs live in their communities and can honestly represent the people who elected them. As we move to the state level some of that connection is lost. And, when we get to the federal level we find that much, if not all connection is lost. How many US Senators truly reprsent their constituents? How many even live in their home states?

    Power belongs at a local level where we the people can control it - our founders were very wise to understand this.
    WHEC724 likes this.

  4. #3
    Member Array Calvito's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    141
    “We had lots of people come in (to testify against the bill) and without any basis say, ‘This violates the Second Amendment,’” Frosh said. “They can cite the Second Amendment, but they couldn’t explain why this violates it. And the simple fact is it does not. There is a provision of our Constitution that gives people rights with respect to firearms, but it’s not as expansive as many of these people think.”

    That, ladies and gentlemen is the root of the misunderstanding. The Constitution of the United States guarantees our rights. It does not give them to us. Nor does Mr Frosh, the State of Maryland nor the federal government. I salute the sheriffs for standing up for what is right, even when it's a losing battle (New York & Maryland). Maybe this will give hope and encouragement to those afraid to stand alone.

  5. #4
    Distinguished Member
    Array RickyD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    North Georgia
    Posts
    1,753
    Quote Originally Posted by Calvito View Post
    “We had lots of people come in (to testify against the bill) and without any basis say, ‘This violates the Second Amendment,’” Frosh said. “They can cite the Second Amendment, but they couldn’t explain why this violates it. And the simple fact is it does not. There is a provision of our Constitution that gives people rights with respect to firearms, but it’s not as expansive as many of these people think.”

    That, ladies and gentlemen is the root of the misunderstanding. The Constitution of the United States guarantees our rights. It does not give them to us. Nor does Mr Frosh, the State of Maryland nor the federal government. I salute the sheriffs for standing up for what is right, even when it's a losing battle (New York & Maryland). Maybe this will give hope and encouragement to those afraid to stand alone.
    Couldn't have said it better. There are those who believe that government is or should be the ultimate authority to effectively rule over the population and there are those who believe that the people are the ultimate source of power and the government should serve them. That is a fundamental difference that is nuanced, but critical to our future asa a country. Rights are sacrosanct and supersede all government.
    Calvito likes this.

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •