A Candle in the Wind?

May God preserve us all, and prosper the undertakings of the people and State of Oklahoma.
 
I hear you, Tom.
I don't know where the answer lay, maybe somewhere in between. A ways back we individual States lost a large amount of our autonomous powers. Could we run this huge country without more central power. I believe so. Is it easier to run this large country with the way we are managing now, possibly.
The right system with any persons in charge or the right people in command with a flawed system. Right now I'd take either, and Right now I don't see either.

If I'm the pooch, at least buy me dinner first...
Mark

Be well Amigo
 
I was pretty well taken aback when I read about Democrat Jerry Ellis proposing the below when I was reading my morning paper a few days ago.:thumbup: :cool: :D

Doesn't appear it's gonna make it through though.:(

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1981379/posts


[SIZE=+1]OK: Bill would lower concealed-gun age to 18[/SIZE]
Tulsa World ^ | 3/5/08 | MICK HINTON

Posted on 03/06/2008 8:49:07 AM PST by kiriath_jearim

OKLAHOMA CITY -- A bill that would lower the age at which people can carry concealed weapons from 21 to 18 is headed to the state House for consideration.
"In my district when you turn 18, you already have 16 years of experience with a gun," said Rep. Jerry Ellis, who added that he was exaggerating to make his point.
Ellis, from southeastern Oklahoma, is the author of House Bill 2232, which was approved 15-1 on Monday by the House Judiciary and Public Safety Committee.
The bill was requested by the Oklahoma Rifle Association, the state affiliate of the National Rifle Association, said Ellis, D-Valliant.
Charles Smith of Yukon, executive director of the state association, said the reason for passing the bill is simple.
"If people can vote and serve in the military at age 18, they should be able to carry a concealed gun," he said.
Rep. Marian Cooksey, R-Edmond, who cast the lone dissenting vote, said she realizes that sometimes, especially in rural areas, fathers teach their sons how to hunt and handle a gun at an early age.
"I'm not against guns," she said. "But, I wonder whether 18-year-olds are old enough to carry them. I am here to vote for what I think is right."
A week ago, the judiciary committee approved a bill that would allow 21-year-olds to carry concealed weapons on college campuses and sent the bill to the House.
Ellis emphasized that his bill has nothing to do with that measure, sponsored by Rep. Jason Murphey, R-Guthrie.
But Rep. Lucky Lamons, a former longtime Tulsa police officer, said that if these bills both pass, an 18-year-old would be able to carry a concealed weapon into a college classroom.
Lamons, D-Tulsa, said he realizes that it is difficult for lawmakers to vote against legislation dealing with the Second Amendment's right to bear arms because they don't want to be perceived by their constituents as being against guns.
Lamons said college officials are quietly contacting legislators to express concerns about Murphey's bill but that administrators don't want to speak publicly against gun-carrying laws.
"It's a sad day in Oklahoma and the United States that we are even looking at these issues," Lamons said.
Rep. Mark McCullough, R-Sapulpa, who was not present during the committee meeting when the vote was taken, said he is still struggling with the merits of Ellis' legislation.
"I am a staunch supporter of gun rights and have a permit myself," said McCullough, a lawyer and a former assistant district attorney.
He and Lamons agreed that the Legislature needs to consider the bill's ramifications.
"This is something that we ought to have robust discussion about before we do this," McCullough said.
Meanwhile, the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation says it is having a difficult time keeping up with all the applications for concealed-carry licenses. The OSBI has to run security and background checks on applicants within 90 days.
"We are absolutely inundated," OSBI spokeswoman Jessica Brown said. "We are barely able to process applications in the time frame allowed by law."
More than 60,000 Oklahomans are licensed to carry concealed weapons. Licenses granted in 2006 totaled 9,591. That number jumped to 16,426 in 2007, according to the OSBI.
 
Could we run this huge country without more central power. I believe so. Is it easier to run this large country with the way we are managing now, possibly.

If you go back and look at our founding documents, the reason we are called the United States, and not the United Provinces, is that each state was just that -- a state, or country, in itself. The federal government had little control, basically being there to mint a common (non-fiat) currency, to facilitate inter-state trade, deal with foreign powers, maintain a Navy, and raise an Army should there be a common threat to all the states. Otherwise, the states ran everything else. We quickly degenerated to what we have today.
 
Seems I heard last week that there were a total of 11 states that were in the process of passing similar bills telling the Fed Gov't to BACK OFF! There were many (Wyoming included) that were planning on turning down the "stimulus package" monies because it had too many strings attached to it.

I'm glad to see that Okla. passed theirs!
 
I don't believe this has passed. I have heard that the chances of it passing are pretty slim. I'm glad that it was proposed and I wish it would pass, but I'm not very hopeful.

SDS
 
If you go back and look at our founding documents, the reason we are called the United States, and not the United Provinces, is that each state was just that -- a state, or country, in itself. The federal government had little control, basically being there to mint a common (non-fiat) currency, to facilitate inter-state trade, deal with foreign powers, maintain a Navy, and raise an Army should there be a common threat to all the states. Otherwise, the states ran everything else. We quickly degenerated to what we have today.

I'm with ya Cpl. P.
Yet, to what founding documents are you referring? The Articles of Confederation or the newer ones that diminish our rights or the newest ones, yet?

:D
Mark
 
If you go back and look at our founding documents, the reason we are called the United States, and not the United Provinces, is that each state was just that -- a state, or country, in itself. The federal government had little control, basically being there to mint a common (non-fiat) currency, to facilitate inter-state trade, deal with foreign powers, maintain a Navy, and raise an Army should there be a common threat to all the states. Otherwise, the states ran everything else. We quickly degenerated to what we have today.
I suppose somethings can be said for the horse as compared to the internal combustion engine.

Under the Articles of Confederation we had no army or navy worthy of respect. The UK and Spain occupied teritory that we claimed as part of the United States with impunity. We were an international punk.

Trade within the Confederation strangled due to state tariffs, including tariff wars between the states. The States were locked in what we would call today permanent recession.

Individual states attempted to conduct their own foreign policies, contary to the interests of the Unted States as a group and other states as members.

The requirement of the approval of nine states to pass any laws and all 13 to change the Articles paralized efforts to improve the situation by adjustments. This resulted in a convention to scrap the articles and begin anew.

The rise of this nation was due, in great part, to the adoption of the Consitution. The problems many see result from FDR's discovery that he could blackmail the Supreme Court by the threat of court packing. Ever since, the Supreme Court, with few exceptions, has allowed the power of the federal government to steadily increase contrary to the clear terms of the Constitution, the expressed intent of those who wrote and secured the adoption of the Constitution, and Jefferson's warnings.
 
Back
Top