The latest threat to gun rights: Arizona senator Lori Klein

[Bobbo]

The quickest way to lose rights is by doing stupid things while trying to exercise those rights.   

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/arizona-politician-defensive-reporter-says-she-aimed-loaded-152935796.html

[The Anvil]

It's also a good opportunity for 2 amendment supporters to look smart and effectively police their own. If they act defiant over this then they're gonna lose. She needs to be called out as the idiot that she is. If they handle it correctly (I'm pretty sure that intentionally pointing a loaded gun at someone who is not threatening you is a criminal act and should warrant immediate revocation of the right to own firearms) they could actually come out of it looking pretty good.

But this is a great example of why I did not support some NH State reps push to allow carry in the Statehouse. It is an official place of law and should be treated like a court. Being an elected official obviously does not prevent you from being a moron who has no business owning a gun.

[BIG--T]

It's also a good opportunity for 2 amendment supporters to look smart and effectively police their own. If they act defiant over this then they're gonna lose. She needs to be called out as the idiot that she is. If they handle it correctly (I'm pretty sure that intentionally pointing a loaded gun at someone who is not threatening you is a criminal act and should warrant immediate revocation of the right to own firearms) they could actually come out of it looking pretty good.

But this is a great example of why I did not support some NH State reps push to allow carry in the Statehouse. It is an official place of law and should be treated like a court. Being an elected official obviously does not prevent you from being a moron who has no business owning a gun.

I was going to get my NH CWP last year for $20 so I could carry nationwide. I got sidetracked and word spread like wildfire, so a month later I went online and the fee was $125.00!! Talking about greed uping it $105! I'd hate to see what it is now not that I care because the $125 was too much!

[tank_post142]

"(I'm pretty sure that intentionally pointing a loaded gun at someone who is not threatening you is a criminal act and should warrant immediate revocation of the right to own firearms)"

while what she did (if true) is highly dangerous, i personally think the latter part of this statement is every bit as stupid.  

[RoadKill]

"(I'm pretty sure that intentionally pointing a loaded gun at someone who is not threatening you is a criminal act and should warrant immediate revocation of the right to own firearms)"

while what she did (if true) is highly dangerous, i personally think the latter part of this statement is every bit as stupid.  

She obviously is not smart enough to breed or vote so why is she in office ? I guess stupid still is not a crime so she is free to go 
She said she cleared it...I doubt it. The reporter claimed assault a little too late as far as I'm concerned. Either he was skeert or he wudunt ! 

[The Anvil]

"(I'm pretty sure that intentionally pointing a loaded gun at someone who is not threatening you is a criminal act and should warrant immediate revocation of the right to own firearms)"

while what she did (if true) is highly dangerous, i personally think the latter part of this statement is every bit as stupid. 

Why? It's one of the things that's DRILLED into your head in any firearms safety course. You NEVER point a loaded weapon at an individual unless you have a reason do so. I'm a firm believer in zero tolerance the kind of stupidity that would cause someone to violate one of the core tenets of gun safety. These are the kind of morons who leave their unsecured weapons unattended around children.

[tank_post142]

but to revoke their gun rights? makes as much sense to revoke your driving rights if you were to kick a car door! good chanced i'd invoke the castle doctrine and revoke someones breathing rights, were they to do that down here. of course in fl. you don't need a permit to carry a weapon in a holster in a glovebox.

[ValhallaIamComing]

"(I'm pretty sure that intentionally pointing a loaded gun at someone who is not threatening you is a criminal act and should warrant immediate revocation of the right to own firearms)"

while what she did (if true) is highly dangerous, i personally think the latter part of this statement is every bit as stupid.  

In Missouri, that is called Unlawful Use of a Weapon - Flourishing and it is a Class D felony punishable by up to 4 years in prison.  That is if the person you flourished was not really afraid.  If he/she was afraid for their life... it is Assault 2nd and punishable by up to 15 years.

[tank_post142]

most states 'brandishing' is a high misdemeanor. punishable by up to $500 fine and one year in jail

[PAVALKER]

The whole situation was a "fail" IMO.   

Granted...  she should not have been pointing, but as we all know... just "showing" the gun to someone can be construed as pointing at some point, depending on your perspective of course.  I do not believe it was intentional and agree with Senate Ethics Rule Chair Ron Gould, who told the Capitol Times. "She wasn't brandishing the weapon. I think she just thought it would be cute to shine the laser sight on the reporter."

That being said.... she was still breaking the law by carrying her pistol into the Statehouse when Guards tried to stop Klein from going in with the weapon, but she insisted on her right to carry, and the incident became something of a crusade for the pro-gun movement. Since then, Arizona Senate President Russell Pearce has lifted a weapons ban in the Senate building, despite an existing state  law that bans guns in government buildings.   And even if Russell Pearce lifted the weapons ban..... the existing law remains in effect.   

So..... she was not real bright from the Git Go.... but isn't that a prerequisite for Political Office.   

[BigAl]

You can lose a privalage like driving or fishing.

But owning a Firearm is my GOd Given Right, says so in our Constitution.

Supreme Court upheld this time and time again, Like I need them to translate for me..

So if you think it's privalage then your dead wrong.

You can lose your rights by being a law breaking felon or if you are not mentally fit, which includes abusing your wife.

But that is about it.

It is our Right not a privalage to be bandied about with.

[The Anvil]

You can lose a privalage like driving or fishing.

But owning a Firearm is my GOd Given Right, says so in our Constitution.

Supreme Court upheld this time and time again, Like I need them to translate for me..

So if you think it's privalage then your dead wrong.

You can lose your rights by being a law breaking felon or if you are not mentally fit, which includes abusing your wife.

But that is about it.

It is our Right not a privalage to be bandied about with.

If it can be taken away for any reason then it is in effect a PRIVILEGE and it is just that. It is not like an individually guaranteed right like due process. It is a right for the collective people, (i.e. an entity separate from official government). It is never individually guaranteed and as common sense dictates, there are just some people who shouldn't have them.

And if you point a loaded gun at someone because you think "it's cute" then you've declared yourself not mentally fit. You've also broken laws and as such, may in fact forfeit your privilege if found guilty.

If automobiles had existed back when the BoR was written there may very well have wound up being an amendment that guaranteed the people the right to operate motor vehicles on public roads. There isn't one but f you behave in accordance with the law and can demonstrate basic aptitude it is for all practical purposes a right. But if you do not then it becomes a privilege.

[musclehead]

that was a blond moment, what if she accidentally discharged her pistol?

I didn't even need to go to a firearms safety course to know NOT to point the muzzle at anything you don't intend to shoot. that was drilled in by family, dad and uncle.

as bad as this is it's about par for the course when considering how lackadaisical some people are behind the wheel. for $25 and 15 minutes you too can have a (FL) drivers license

I can't defend her use of a firearm like that

[musclehead]

You can lose a privalage like driving or fishing.

But owning a Firearm is my GOd Given Right, says so in our Constitution.

Supreme Court upheld this time and time again, Like I need them to translate for me..

So if you think it's privalage then your dead wrong.

You can lose your rights by being a law breaking felon or if you are not mentally fit, which includes abusing your wife.

But that is about it.

It is our Right not a privalage to be bandied about with.

If it can be taken away for any reason then it is in effect a PRIVILEGE and it is just that. It is not like an individually guaranteed right like due process. It is a right for the collective people, (i.e. an entity separate from official government). It is never individually guaranteed and as common sense dictates, there are just some people who shouldn't have them.

And if you point a loaded gun at someone because you think "it's cute" then you've declared yourself not mentally fit. You've also broken laws and as such, may in fact forfeit your privilege if found guilty.

If automobiles had existed back when the BoR was written there may very well have wound up being an amendment that guaranteed the people the right to operate motor vehicles on public roads. There isn't one but f you behave in accordance with the law and can demonstrate basic aptitude it is for all practical purposes a right. But if you do not then it becomes a privilege.

I know we can argue that one until we're blue in the face. I'll say it's a right, you can say it's a privilege. shall not be infringed means shall not be infringed, unless unfit, which she may be, or a felon which i don't think she qualifies for. bad judgement to the Nth degree.

[BigAl]

Right.

No less than this will satisfy me.


The Second Amendment reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

[tank_post142]

the US Constitution:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

then comes the bill of rights:( it enumerates some of the afore mentioned rights)

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

the Militia act of 1792 defines the Militia:

That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years

[The Anvil]

I know we can argue that one until we're blue in the face. I'll say it's a right, you can say it's a privilege. shall not be infringed means shall not be infringed, unless unfit, which she may be, or a felon which i don't think she qualifies for. bad judgement to the Nth degree.

Well as I said, it correlates with something like driving a car (also a deadly weapon in the wrong hands). It is effectively a right until you screw up or cannot demonstrate a minimal proficiency (and we don't really even have THAT for gun ownership). Then it's a privilege. To me a true unqualified RIGHT is something like protection from cruel and unusual punishment. That is something that you cannot, through any action, forfeit your access to or protection from.

Voting, a right or privilege? Is has an age qualification and when you're incarcerated you can't do it. Though it's called a "right" but in practice it's really a privilege because it can be taken away. So you don't really have the "right" to vote. What you have is the RIGHT to have an election.

You're right MH, you really you can call it any number of things but it is in practice a privilege.

[The Anvil]

that was a blond moment, what if she accidentally discharged her pistol?

I didn't even need to go to a firearms safety course to know NOT to point the muzzle at anything you don't intend to shoot. that was drilled in by family, dad and uncle.

as bad as this is it's about par for the course when considering how lackadaisical some people are behind the wheel. for $25 and 15 minutes you too can have a (FL) drivers license

I can't defend her use of a firearm like that

Good post.

[BigAl]

Liberals get your big boy drawers on,, you ain't gonna like this.

The 2nd amendment garuantees the 1st. NO argument can be made about that.

!st amendment garauntees that No Law shall be made to stop the practice of any religion AND

protects free speech at the same time.

Gabrial Giffords who was shot in the head was a gun rights activist.

Why in the H E Double LL do we need gun rigts activists when our bill of rights plainly states it shall not be infringed upon.

Crazy stuff that part.

Here she is on the House Floor proclaiming this very most sacred right.

THe 1st amendment.

Gabrielle Giffords Reads 1st Amendment	powered by Aeva

[The Anvil]

The 2nd amendment garuantees the 1st. NO argument can be made about that.

I'll bite. So tell me, how does it do that?

[BigAl]

The myth debunked.

Some misguided people try to claim that this quote from Thomas Jefferson establishes the "separation of church and state" that we now have today:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State". 1

The first problem with that assertion is that this quote is not from an official government document.  The second is that it was Jefferson's original intent that this meant that the church was to be protected from the government, not the reverse (which is the case today).  For more information about this, see:
 http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources

[BigAl]

Posted on Monday, July 04, 2011 6:54:52 AM by marktwain

USA --(Ammoland.com)- When we celebrate the Fourth of July, let’s keep in mind that the first Americans won their independence from England with the force of arms.

It was, in fact, a British effort in 1775 to confiscate military arms they believed were stored in Lexington and Concord, Massachusetts that sparked the war.

The Founding Fathers were so aware of the need for an armed citizenry that, after ensuring freedom of religion, speech, press and the right to peacefully assemble in the First Amendment, the Second guaranteed their right to bear arms.

80,000,000 Americans own Guns and about 40,000,000 criminals do too.

But this is more than enough to make the Gov't to think twice before stripping our rights like in China, Russia, Cuba, Germany(WWII ERA by Hitler)

[The Anvil]

The myth debunked.

Some misguided people try to claim that this quote from Thomas Jefferson establishes the "separation of church and state" that we now have today:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State". 1

The first problem with that assertion is that this quote is not from an official government document.  The second is that it was Jefferson's original intent that this meant that the church was to be protected from the government, not the reverse (which is the case today).  For more information about this, see:
 http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources

What does that have to do with this argument?

But if T-Jeff (his gangsta rap name) says that this was the intent then we should take him at his word. So much of the constitution is open to interpretation and here we actually have one of the FF spelling it out for us. But when it doesn't fit your argument then suddenly a FF doesn't know what he's talking about? Seems kinda hypocritical...

[BigAl]

The 1st and 2nd amendments are tied together with the blood of patriots is my point.

The two cannot live without the both of them being strong.

Any attempt by our government to severe these two and the whole thing comes unraveled is my point.

Most reasonabale people can agree with this concept.

Reasonable is the catch phrase.

[Bobbo]

the US Constitution:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

I think you meant the Declaration of Independence.

[musclehead]

that was a blond moment, what if she accidentally discharged her pistol?

I didn't even need to go to a firearms safety course to know NOT to point the muzzle at anything you don't intend to shoot. that was drilled in by family, dad and uncle.

as bad as this is it's about par for the course when considering how lackadaisical some people are behind the wheel. for $25 and 15 minutes you too can have a (FL) drivers license

I can't defend her use of a firearm like that

Good post.

are you trying to build consensus again? we can agree on a few things, like how to spot an idiot!

[The Anvil]

Posted on Monday, July 04, 2011 6:54:52 AM by marktwain

USA --(Ammoland.com)- When we celebrate the Fourth of July, let’s keep in mind that the first Americans won their independence from England with the force of arms.

It was, in fact, a British effort in 1775 to confiscate military arms they believed were stored in Lexington and Concord, Massachusetts that sparked the war.

The Founding Fathers were so aware of the need for an armed citizenry that, after ensuring freedom of religion, speech, press and the right to peacefully assemble in the First Amendment, the Second guaranteed their right to bear arms.

80,000,000 Americans own Guns and about 40,000,000 criminals do too.

But this is more than enough to make the Gov't to think twice before stripping our rights like in China, Russia, Cuba, Germany(WWII ERA by Hitler)

Talk about debunking, I love tearing apart the argument that the weapons in possession of civilians is what keeps this country from turning into a military dictatorship. That has absolutely NOTHING to do with it. If you really think that the citizens of America could prevent a determined U.S. Military from subjugating them in a heartbeat then you're delusional. A small group of Americans can not come together to decide where to order pizza for lunch (or talk on an internet forum) without arguing nevermind mounting an effective insurgency against the best equipped, most disciplined, thoroughly trained and technologically advance fighting force the world has ever seen.

The majority of Americans are also fat, lazy and pampered. A few would valiantly resist but would be quickly crushed or dispersed. The rest would seek what comfort or sense of normalcy they can find. People have a lot more to lose now than they did in the 1700's. And if my own experience at the range has taught me anything it's that even most of the ones with guns can't shoot very well anyway let alone handle all of the other things that go with guerrilla warfare. Don't use Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan as examples either. While in all those cases the military was determined, they were never unleashed to their full potential. When they are the enemy is ground into dust (Japan).

No, what keeps this from becoming a military dictatorship is the military, their code of honor and their mission. Their own unwillingness to participate is what prevents you from going from citizen to subject.

[Bobbo]

If you really think that the citizens of America could prevent a determined U.S. Military from subjugating them in a heartbeat then you're delusional.

This has happened before.  It began in 1775 and ended with those citizens driving back and defeating the most powerful military in the world, namely the British military.

[tank_post142]

bobbo i stand corrected

[RoadKill]

Posted on Monday, July 04, 2011 6:54:52 AM by marktwain

USA --(Ammoland.com)- When we celebrate the Fourth of July, let’s keep in mind that the first Americans won their independence from England with the force of arms.

It was, in fact, a British effort in 1775 to confiscate military arms they believed were stored in Lexington and Concord, Massachusetts that sparked the war.

The Founding Fathers were so aware of the need for an armed citizenry that, after ensuring freedom of religion, speech, press and the right to peacefully assemble in the First Amendment, the Second guaranteed their right to bear arms.

80,000,000 Americans own Guns and about 40,000,000 criminals do too.

But this is more than enough to make the Gov't to think twice before stripping our rights like in China, Russia, Cuba, Germany(WWII ERA by Hitler)

Talk about debunking, I love tearing apart the argument that the weapons in possession of civilians is what keeps this country from turning into a military dictatorship. That has absolutely NOTHING to do with it. If you really think that the citizens of America could prevent a determined U.S. Military from subjugating them in a heartbeat then you're delusional. A small group of Americans can not come together to decide where to order pizza for lunch (or talk on an internet forum) without arguing nevermind mounting an effective insurgency against the best equipped, most disciplined, thoroughly trained and technologically advance fighting force the world has ever seen.

The majority of Americans are also fat, lazy and pampered. A few would valiantly resist but would be quickly crushed or dispersed. The rest would seek what comfort or sense of normalcy they can find. People have a lot more to lose now than they did in the 1700's. And if my own experience at the range has taught me anything it's that even most of the ones with guns can't shoot very well anyway let alone handle all of the other things that go with guerrilla warfare. Don't use Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan as examples either. While in all those cases the military was determined, they were never unleashed to their full potential. When they are the enemy is ground into dust (Japan).

No, what keeps this from becoming a military dictatorship is the military, their code of honor and their mission. Their own unwillingness to participate is what prevents you from going from citizen to subject.

WOW!  This guy might actually believe his own drivel, he thinks he's actually smart !!   

[The Anvil]

If you really think that the citizens of America could prevent a determined U.S. Military from subjugating them in a heartbeat then you're delusional.

This has happened before.  It began in 1775 and ended with those citizens driving back and defeating the most powerful military in the world, namely the British military.

I know. Bad example. For one thing once on land the British enjoyed very little technological superiority to Colonial forces. In fact it was effectively none.  That gulf is now so vast as to be unfathomable. What little technology we posses would be quickly destroyed, captured or just plain SHUT OFF.

The average American was also at least familiar with the concept of being an "outdoorsman" (not what passes for it today either) and I'd venture that the majority of Americans were at least familiar with how to fight. Many were experienced in fighting Indian wars. These people comprised our army. The same battle hardened one that (in this fanciful scenario) is now our enemy.

The British were also fighting on unfamiliar terrain in an expeditionary fashion. That would not be the case here. And don't even get me started on logistics like non-standardized ammo and where to replenish, fuel, feeding the resistance and their families etc.

I can also tell you that it would be made doubly difficult by not only government sympathizers among the populace but also by internal power struggles for leadership. We'd be TOAST. That's why we'd better hope that we never have a robot army willing to follow orders without conscience or question.

But I say all of this with a deep, deep respect for our military. My fellow average American? Well let's just say I've lost some faith in them over time.

[The Anvil]

Posted on Monday, July 04, 2011 6:54:52 AM by marktwain

USA --(Ammoland.com)- When we celebrate the Fourth of July, let’s keep in mind that the first Americans won their independence from England with the force of arms.

It was, in fact, a British effort in 1775 to confiscate military arms they believed were stored in Lexington and Concord, Massachusetts that sparked the war.

The Founding Fathers were so aware of the need for an armed citizenry that, after ensuring freedom of religion, speech, press and the right to peacefully assemble in the First Amendment, the Second guaranteed their right to bear arms.

80,000,000 Americans own Guns and about 40,000,000 criminals do too.

But this is more than enough to make the Gov't to think twice before stripping our rights like in China, Russia, Cuba, Germany(WWII ERA by Hitler)

Talk about debunking, I love tearing apart the argument that the weapons in possession of civilians is what keeps this country from turning into a military dictatorship. That has absolutely NOTHING to do with it. If you really think that the citizens of America could prevent a determined U.S. Military from subjugating them in a heartbeat then you're delusional. A small group of Americans can not come together to decide where to order pizza for lunch (or talk on an internet forum) without arguing nevermind mounting an effective insurgency against the best equipped, most disciplined, thoroughly trained and technologically advance fighting force the world has ever seen.

The majority of Americans are also fat, lazy and pampered. A few would valiantly resist but would be quickly crushed or dispersed. The rest would seek what comfort or sense of normalcy they can find. People have a lot more to lose now than they did in the 1700's. And if my own experience at the range has taught me anything it's that even most of the ones with guns can't shoot very well anyway let alone handle all of the other things that go with guerrilla warfare. Don't use Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan as examples either. While in all those cases the military was determined, they were never unleashed to their full potential. When they are the enemy is ground into dust (Japan).

No, what keeps this from becoming a military dictatorship is the military, their code of honor and their mission. Their own unwillingness to participate is what prevents you from going from citizen to subject.

WOW!  This guy might actually believe his own drivel, he thinks he's actually smart !!   

I've killed more brain cells with caffeine binges than you started with RK. 

[RoadKill]

The fact that you think the U.S. military would turn on it's own populace is not only ignorant,it is insulting to all of our soldiers.  The U.N. knows this but that is a whole other post.

[The Anvil]

The fact that you think the U.S. military would turn on it's own populace is not only ignorant,it is insulting to all of our soldiers.  The U.N. knows this but that is a whole other post.

WHOAH, slow down and reread a few things. Like: "No, what keeps this from becoming a military dictatorship is the military, their code of honor and their mission. Their own unwillingness to participate is what prevents you from going from citizen to subject."

I specifically said that the military would NOT do this.

[RoadKill]

The fact that you think the U.S. military would turn on it's own populace is not only ignorant,it is insulting to all of our soldiers.  The U.N. knows this but that is a whole other post.

WHOAH, slow down and reread a few things. Like: "No, what keeps this from becoming a military dictatorship is the military, their code of honor and their mission. Their own unwillingness to participate is what prevents you from going from citizen to subject."

I specifically said that the military would NOT do this.

So, your entire post teeters on the semantics ....  "Determined military" ?

[bscrive]

the US Constitution:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

then comes the bill of rights:( it enumerates some of the afore mentioned rights)

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

the Militia act of 1792 defines the Militia:

That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years

So, if I got this right then the only ones who are allowed to own guns are white males over the age of 18.  I guess that means that she does not have the right to own a gun nor does any other woman or black person, hispanic, asian, etc.

[The Anvil]

The fact that you think the U.S. military would turn on it's own populace is not only ignorant,it is insulting to all of our soldiers.  The U.N. knows this but that is a whole other post.

WHOAH, slow down and reread a few things. Like: "No, what keeps this from becoming a military dictatorship is the military, their code of honor and their mission. Their own unwillingness to participate is what prevents you from going from citizen to subject."

I specifically said that the military would NOT do this.

So, your entire post teeters on the semantics ....  "Determined military" ?

No. Under the first definition:

de·ter·mined/diˈtərmind/Adjective
1. Having made a firm decision and being resolved not to change it.

2. Showing deep resolve.

Our military is already determined. As to what, it is (thankfully) not our destruction or subjugation but our protection. But it doesn't HAVE to mean that.

[Oss]

there was stuff before the Bill of Rights... lots and lots of it
ya see not all religions had rights in individual colonies in those days before the Bill of Rights

for instance this exchange....

During a visit to Newport, R.I., in 1790, a year before the Bill of Rights was ratified, President George Washington received a letter from Moses Seixas, warden of the Touro Synagogue. Below is the transcript of the letter and its reply. Original spelling, punctuation and capitalization have been retained.


[edit] The letter from Moses Seixas to President George Washington

To the President of the United States of America.

Sir:

Permit the children of the stock of Abraham to approach you with the most cordial affection and esteem for your person and merits — and to join with our fellow citizens in welcoming you to NewPort.

With pleasure we reflect on those days — those days of difficulty, and danger, when the God of Israel, who delivered David from the peril of the sword, — shielded Your head in the day of battle: — and we rejoice to think, that the same Spirit, who rested in the Bosom of the greatly beloved Daniel enabling him to preside over the Provinces of the Babylonish Empire, rests and ever will rest, upon you, enabling you to discharge the arduous duties of Chief Magistrate in these States.

Deprived as we heretofore have been of the invaluable rights of free Citizens, we now with a deep sense of gratitude to the Almighty disposer of all events behold a Government, erected by the Majesty of the People — a Government, which to bigotry gives no sanction, to persecution no assistance — but generously affording to all Liberty of conscience, and immunities of Citizenship: — deeming every one, of whatever Nation, tongue, or language equal parts of the great governmental Machine: — This so ample and extensive Federal Union whose basis is Philanthropy, Mutual confidence and Public Virtue, we cannot but acknowledge to be the work of the Great God, who ruleth in the Armies of Heaven, and among the Inhabitants of the Earth, doing whatever seemeth him good.

For all these Blessings of civil and religious liberty which we enjoy under an equal benign administration, we desire to send up our thanks to the Ancient of Days, the great preserver of Men — beseeching him, that the Angel who conducted our forefathers through the wilderness into the promised Land, may graciously conduct you through all the difficulties and dangers of this mortal life: — And, when, like Joshua full of days and full of honour, you are gathered to your Fathers, may you be admitted into the Heavenly Paradise to partake of the water of life, and the tree of immortality.

Done and Signed by order of the Hebrew Congregation in NewPort, Rhode Island August 17th 1790.

Moses Seixas, Warden


[edit] The letter from George Washington in response to Moses Seixas

To the Hebrew Congregation in Newport Rhode Island.

Gentlemen,

While I receive, with much satisfaction, your Address replete with expressions of affection and esteem; I rejoice in the opportunity of assuring you, that I shall always retain a grateful remembrance of the cordial welcome I experienced in my visit to Newport, from all classes of Citizens.

The reflection on the days of difficulty and danger which are past is rendered the more sweet, from a consciousness that they are succeeded by days of uncommon prosperity and security. If we have wisdom to make the best use of the advantages with which we are now favored, we cannot fail, under the just administration of a good Government, to become a great and happy people.

The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent national gifts. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.

It would be inconsistent with the frankness of my character not to avow that I am pleased with your favorable opinion of my Administration, and fervent wishes for my felicity. May the children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and figtree, and there shall be none to make him afraid. May the father of all mercies scatter light and not darkness in our paths, and make us all in our several vocations useful here, and in his own due time and way everlastingly happy.

G. Washington

[bscrive]

If you guys think that your military would not turn on it's own citizens, you just have to look at Libya.  True, it is run by a d!psh!t dictator.  But, if the military will still back a butthead like him, you don't think they would back your president.  Did you not have a previous civil, did you not learn from the past.  The military will do as they are told, even if the gov't has to lie through their teeth.  That is true with any country out there.

[RoadKill]

If you guys think that your military would not turn on it's own citizens, you just have to look at Libya.  True, it is run by a d!psh!t dictator.  But, if the military will still back a butthead like him, you don't think they would back your president.  Did you not have a previous civil, did you not learn from the past.  The military will do as they are told, even if the gov't has to lie through their teeth.  That is true with any country out there.

You obviously know nothing of the U.S. military. They are not just any soldiers,they are the worlds best.   The ones that did turn on the people would soon run in fear of all the ones that refused.