Supremacy clause

An email exchange with lawyer/lobbyist Mike B. (with minor corrections and additions):

Joe: How about putting this on the agenda?
Mike: Won’t work: See supremacy clause.
Joe: Isn’t that the equivalent of saying, “The Fed can’t do that: See 2nd Amendment.”?
Mike: The 2nd Amendment doesn’t have its own tanks. See: Grant v. Lee (1865).
Joe: Vyacheslav Molotov mixes my cocktails: See Finland v. Soviet Union (1939).

You should know that Molotov cocktails have a difficult time with modern tanks. The proper application of Boomerite, thermite, and steel bars into the treads may also be required.

Conversations with special forces trained in improvised anti-tank methods are also useful. I kept my notes from the late 1990s.


9 thoughts on “Supremacy clause

  1. State Militias have tanks too. And towed artillery, and aircraft. Rex Rammel (previous Idaho Gubernatorial candidate) was prepared to use them and openly said as much.

    Part of me says that the Obamatons would like nothing better than some scattered shootouts between feds and states. It’s all part of the Top Down, Bottom Up, Inside Out strategy. Since their goal is Fundamental Transformation, and we know that they hate the founding of the U.S., what’s to stop it? Our foreign enemies too, I believe, are licking their chops over such possibilities. The question then becomes, as you say, a matter of resolve. OK; resolve, numbers, logistics, timing etc., etc. The hope of The Enemy would be that we’re worn down, degraded, intimidated and demoralized pretty thoroughly before anything gets real hot. The latter has been its main agenda for some decades of course, being as you can’t conquer a strong and noble People.

  2. I have hidden a few comments. This is as per the request of someone that made a good case about increasing the risk to our troops abroad because of some of the information made available here. Should it be appropriate to make that information visible I will restore the comments.

    Thank you to everyone that made great comments.

  3. Considering that the TM for improvised munitions and taking out tanks with them is out there in the public, you’re not really hiding any information from someone who really wants to kill a tank.

    Still, no reason to make it easier for them, huh?

    • It’s one thing to discuss generalities and something else entirely to say that Vehicle A has specific flaw B that can best be exploited by techniques X, Y and Z.

  4. I wish I could remember the source, but I recall a story about a polish irregular commander. His men asked him, “what are we supposed to do about tiger tanks with our bolt action rifles?”

    He told them, “when they get out to take a piss, shoot them in the head.”

  5. Much as I love the human mind for amazing creations, and telling others of the success of an attack. I think the first step is to stop listening to the media, and the lost government and peacefully non participate in all activities except emptying the coffers of government. Y’all need to have a government control of nothing outside your shooting range, make great neighbors, keep good friends and a bold heart – the world will breathe easier once the Federal government can’t get anyone to follow instructions for anything…. on your filing income tax, fill in your name and address, sign the form after reporting that the whole thing is too difficult to understand but you trust them to fill in all the number reported to them. Smile!

  6. Pingback: Elvis Syndrome | Shall Not Be Questioned

Comments are closed.