If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(KMOV St. Louis)   Surprising: O'Fallon, MO city council votes down a gun-rights proposal. Maximum Trolling: On fiscal conservatism grounds   (kmov.com) divider line 110
    More: Amusing, O'Fallon, Missouri, gun controls, local ordinance, student council, fiscal conservatives, council members  
•       •       •

2453 clicks; posted to Politics » on 30 Mar 2013 at 1:07 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



110 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-30 08:50:51 AM
I'd like to think that this had something to do with the few folks (myself included) who kindly pointed out to the Council the many and egregious logic flaws in their proposal - not to mention a tiny thing called the supremacy clause.

/probably not
//but I can dream
 
2013-03-30 09:08:45 AM
So a city council decided not to enact a law that was designed to override county, state and Federal laws?  And they chose not to do so because the city would be guaranteed to lose any lawsuit due to the fact that the city would be trying to override county, state and Federal laws?

Why that's perfectly logical on every front.  Except of course for the idiots who put the ordnance up in the first place.
 
2013-03-30 12:30:07 PM
Several citizens expressed their support for the bill which would 'prevent Federal, State or local infringement on the right to keep and bear arms, arms accessories, or ammunition.  are farking morans.

Edited for brevity
 
2013-03-30 01:15:11 PM
This sounds like St. Charles County/O' Fallon alright.

/lives off of Zumbehl Rd
 
2013-03-30 01:15:19 PM
Why not just institute the Attention Whore Tax to pay for the antics of a politically rabid DA or any other public servant.
 
2013-03-30 01:18:30 PM

GAT_00: So a city council decided not to enact a law that was designed to override county, state and Federal laws?  And they chose not to do so because the city would be guaranteed to lose any lawsuit due to the fact that the city would be trying to override county, state and Federal laws?

Why that's perfectly logical on every front.  Except of course for the idiots who put the ordnance up in the first place.


And the three morons on the council who voted in favor of it.
 
2013-03-30 01:19:43 PM
If I told you there was a thriving counter-culture scene in Missouri and not everyone who lives there was an ignorant champion of amendment 2, would you believe me?
 
2013-03-30 01:20:12 PM
I just bought my first house in O'Fallon, MO, this last Tuesday. I moved there from another town in Missouri, Valley Park, where the mayor had been pepper sprayed by police and had a mask put over his face to stop him from spitting. It's a refreshing change.
 
2013-03-30 01:23:02 PM
fta Council members stated they didn't want to spend the tax money to defend it against possible lawsuits.

So you'd rather have jack-booted government thugs drive tanks down Main Street? Now Obama knows you're vulnerable, you fools!
 
2013-03-30 01:24:05 PM

Notabunny: So you'd rather have jack-booted government thugs drive tanks down Main Street?


I hope not. Traffic on Main Street in O'Fallon is already screwed up as is.
 
2013-03-30 01:28:18 PM

BarrRepublican: If I told you there was a thriving counter-culture scene in Missouri and not everyone who lives there was an ignorant champion of amendment 2, would you believe me?


As someone that lives in Fenton:  Probably not.
 
2013-03-30 01:28:31 PM
Ah....Valley Park does have a charm of its own.  (my kid loves going to the Whittle Railroad so we spend too much time and money there)  And as for O'Fallon...you know, the O'Fallon brewery does a nice peach flavored wheat beer.

I'd prefer to ignore the local insanity.
 
2013-03-30 01:30:01 PM

Notabunny: fta Council members stated they didn't want to spend the tax money to defend it against possible lawsuits.

So you'd rather have jack-booted government thugs drive tanks down Main Street? Now Obama knows you're vulnerable, you fools!


It's jack-hemleted government thugs piloting black helicopters down Main Street. WAKE UP, SHEEPLE
 
2013-03-30 01:33:05 PM

BarrRepublican: If I told you there was a thriving counter-culture scene in Missouri and not everyone who lives there was an ignorant champion of amendment 2, would you believe me?


I do. But I also know they're next to non-existent outside of STL, KC, and Columbia.
 
2013-03-30 01:35:31 PM

Shrugging Atlas: BarrRepublican: If I told you there was a thriving counter-culture scene in Missouri and not everyone who lives there was an ignorant champion of amendment 2, would you believe me?

As someone that lives in Fenton:  Probably not.


St. Charles isn't that much better.
 
2013-03-30 01:35:57 PM

Bartle J.: Notabunny: fta Council members stated they didn't want to spend the tax money to defend it against possible lawsuits.

So you'd rather have jack-booted government thugs drive tanks down Main Street? Now Obama knows you're vulnerable, you fools!

It's jack-hemleted government thugs piloting black helicopters down Main Street. WAKE UP, SHEEPLE


Everybody take down the road signs in your neighborhood!  They contain encrypted codes for the UN occupation forces!!1!
 
2013-03-30 01:39:01 PM

BarrRepublican: If I told you there was a thriving counter-culture scene in Missouri and not everyone who lives there was an ignorant champion of amendment 2, would you believe me?


Thriving Missouri counter-culture group
a57.foxnews.com
 
2013-03-30 01:40:37 PM

Mrtraveler01: Shrugging Atlas: BarrRepublican: If I told you there was a thriving counter-culture scene in Missouri and not everyone who lives there was an ignorant champion of amendment 2, would you believe me?

As someone that lives in Fenton:  Probably not.

St. Charles isn't that much better.


As a lifelong resident, I can confirm this, but it's getting better.
 
2013-03-30 01:53:12 PM

Bartle J.: Notabunny: fta Council members stated they didn't want to spend the tax money to defend it against possible lawsuits.

So you'd rather have jack-booted government thugs drive tanks down Main Street? Now Obama knows you're vulnerable, you fools!

It's jack-hemleted government thugs piloting black helicopters drones down Main Street. WAKE UP, SHEEPLE


Black helicopters are so 2012.
 
2013-03-30 02:00:56 PM
download.gamespotcdn.net
 
2013-03-30 02:07:51 PM

jaytkay: BarrRepublican: If I told you there was a thriving counter-culture scene in Missouri and not everyone who lives there was an ignorant champion of amendment 2, would you believe me?

Thriving Missouri counter-culture group
[a57.foxnews.com image 450x350]


Woah, and nut jobs shoot up places of learning, not groups like this. I wonder what the political implications would be if it were crowds like that that were shot up.
 
2013-03-30 02:11:48 PM
The very fact that gun ownership is a constitutionally protected right is ridiculous.
 
2013-03-30 02:15:11 PM

The Name: The very fact that gun ownership is a constitutionally protected right is ridiculous.


I disagree and I'm not even a gun nut. 

coyo: jaytkay: BarrRepublican: If I told you there was a thriving counter-culture scene in Missouri and not everyone who lives there was an ignorant champion of amendment 2, would you believe me?

Thriving Missouri counter-culture group
[a57.foxnews.com image 450x350]

Woah, and nut jobs shoot up places of learning, not groups like this. I wonder what the political implications would be if it were crowds like that that were shot up.


A) I really don't want to make these morons martyrs by having someone shoot them.

B) Many in the survivalist/militia movement are sympathetic or actively participate in white supremacist groups.
 
2013-03-30 02:20:07 PM

Fart_Machine: The Name: The very fact that gun ownership is a constitutionally protected right is ridiculous.

I disagree and I'm not even a gun nut.


Why shouldn't guns be granted the same status as any other object, i.e. legally subject to the full extent of state's ability to regulate, ban or protect?
 
2013-03-30 02:22:44 PM

GAT_00: So a city council decided not to enact a law that was designed to override county, state and Federal laws?  And they chose not to do so because the city would be guaranteed to lose any lawsuit due to the fact that the city would be trying to override county, state and Federal laws?

Why that's perfectly logical on every front.  Except of course for the idiots who put the ordnance up in the first place.


Odd as it may be, I'm with you on this one.

Had the law said "The town is forbidden to spend any resources on enforcing state or federal firearms law", I'd be fine with it, and it would be legal, because local law enforcement isn't obligated to enforce federal law (state law may vary).   But the way they worded it was pretty obviously unenforceable.
 
2013-03-30 02:23:52 PM

Fart_Machine: Bartle J.: Notabunny: fta Council members stated they didn't want to spend the tax money to defend it against possible lawsuits.

So you'd rather have jack-booted government thugs drive tanks down Main Street? Now Obama knows you're vulnerable, you fools!

It's jack-hemleted government thugs piloting black helicopters drones down Main Street. WAKE UP, SHEEPLE

Black helicopters are so 2012.


Oddly enough, they're actually midnight green.  They just *LOOK* black.
 
2013-03-30 02:26:06 PM

The Name: Fart_Machine: The Name: The very fact that gun ownership is a constitutionally protected right is ridiculous.

I disagree and I'm not even a gun nut.

Why shouldn't guns be granted the same status as any other object, i.e. legally subject to the full extent of state's ability to regulate, ban or protect?


Because the ownership and bearing of arms, of which guns are a subcategory, are specifically protected by the Constitution.  You *CAN'T* ban handguns, for example, that's explicitly unconstitutional, and has been ruled to be so twice, and yes, that prohibition on bans applies to the states.
 
2013-03-30 02:26:29 PM
I don't even care anymore. However, since I didn't see any greenlit threads about Fartbongo's EPA raising gas prices eleventy cents per gallon yesterday; I'm just going to mention that Mrs. Dahnkster and I are taking the 68' convertible Lincoln out of the garage tomorrow from our huge beachfront home. We'll be cruising to Ruth's Chris Steakhouse in Destin, FL.

We will not be attending Easter church services (as we'll be sleeping in late and enjoying morning wood), My wife will be wearing a huge garish hat. We will eat arugula and steak. 'Nadine' (The Lincoln) has no catalytic converter and probably won't even get 12 miles per gallon. If we see any poor people along the way, we shall point and laugh.
 
2013-03-30 02:27:49 PM

dittybopper: The Name: Fart_Machine: The Name: The very fact that gun ownership is a constitutionally protected right is ridiculous.

I disagree and I'm not even a gun nut.

Why shouldn't guns be granted the same status as any other object, i.e. legally subject to the full extent of state's ability to regulate, ban or protect?

Because the ownership and bearing of arms, of which guns are a subcategory, are specifically protected by the Constitution.  You *CAN'T* ban handguns, for example, that's explicitly unconstitutional, and has been ruled to be so twice, and yes, that prohibition on bans applies to the states.


So . . . we shouldn't get rid of the second amendment, because we have the second amendment?
 
2013-03-30 02:34:04 PM

The Name: Fart_Machine: The Name: The very fact that gun ownership is a constitutionally protected right is ridiculous.

I disagree and I'm not even a gun nut.

Why shouldn't guns be granted the same status as any other object, i.e. legally subject to the full extent of state's ability to regulate, ban or protect?


Because an amendment made before the United States had a standing army wanted an armed populace to fight invasions. Oh, and the Derp Squad like to think they live in an action movie, where chaotic situations are solved with MOAR GUNS, and a scrappy, ragtag rebellion can successfully overthrow the American government.

Newsflash, Teabaggers: People like you tried rebelling against the Feds. It was called the "American Civil War", and the rebels got stomped into the dust, despite debatably having the better generals. And this was when a rebellion and the military were on FAR more equal footing, firepower-wise. The US government simply had more access to resources (being the federal government and all), while the Confederates, despite a strong start...didn't.

Nowadays, the gap between civilian firepower and military firepower makes the Grand Canyon look miniscule. And Teabagger fantasies aside, the bulk of the military probably would *not* defect to the rebels. Especially if said rebels rebel because the President tried to give poor people healthcare/let the gays marry/had the wrong sort of mustard/whatever the Teabagger WHARRGARBL of the week is.
 
2013-03-30 02:34:54 PM

The Name: Fart_Machine: The Name: The very fact that gun ownership is a constitutionally protected right is ridiculous.

I disagree and I'm not even a gun nut.

Why shouldn't guns be granted the same status as any other object, i.e. legally subject to the full extent of state's ability to regulate, ban or protect?


They already are except you can't outright ban them.
 
2013-03-30 02:36:23 PM

The Name: dittybopper: The Name: Fart_Machine: The Name: The very fact that gun ownership is a constitutionally protected right is ridiculous.

I disagree and I'm not even a gun nut.

Why shouldn't guns be granted the same status as any other object, i.e. legally subject to the full extent of state's ability to regulate, ban or protect?

Because the ownership and bearing of arms, of which guns are a subcategory, are specifically protected by the Constitution.  You *CAN'T* ban handguns, for example, that's explicitly unconstitutional, and has been ruled to be so twice, and yes, that prohibition on bans applies to the states.

So . . . we shouldn't get rid of the second amendment, because we have the second amendment?


Oh, if you want to get rid of the Second Amendment, be my guest.  There is a specific process for that.  You know, the whole 2/3rds of both the Senate and House, and ratification by 3/4ths of the state legislatures thing.

Until such time as you can manage that, though, you have to treat it just as seriously as you would any other part of the Constitution.

/Oh, and you might actually start a nasty little shooting war if you did manage to get close to repealing it.
 
2013-03-30 02:39:14 PM

dittybopper: /Oh, and you might actually start a nasty little shooting war if you did manage to get close to repealing it.


That really doesn't help the argument.
 
2013-03-30 02:44:01 PM

dittybopper: Until such time as you can manage that, though, you have to treat it just as seriously as you would any other part of the Constitution.


Which is exactly what I intend to do.

dittybopper: Oh, and you might actually start a nasty little shooting war if you did manage to get close to repealing it.


Is that a threat?

Fart_Machine: They already are except you can't outright ban them.


Well, no, they're not really, considering that pretty much every attempt to regulate them ends up sparking a constitutional battle that wouldn't apply to regulations on other objects.  And they should be subject to bans, just like any other object (you may not realize this, but states can ban just about anything they want, provided that doing so doesn't violate the constitution -everything from forks, to lawnmowers to water bottles, to chairs, etc.) .  If you don't like the idea, then vote against it when it comes up in your city or state.  We're a democracy, right?
 
2013-03-30 02:46:44 PM
Yesterday a guy told me that Russian UN troops are confiscating weapons at Tennessee roadblocks. Obama can do this because the Great Smoky Mountains National Park is federal property.

He knows it's true, because his buddy in Tennessee told him.

Gun "rights" enthusiasts are thoughtful and intelligent. We need to take their opinions seriously.
 
2013-03-30 02:47:27 PM

dittybopper: The Name: Fart_Machine: The Name: The very fact that gun ownership is a constitutionally protected right is ridiculous.

I disagree and I'm not even a gun nut.

Why shouldn't guns be granted the same status as any other object, i.e. legally subject to the full extent of state's ability to regulate, ban or protect?

Because the ownership and bearing of arms, of which guns are a subcategory, are specifically protected by the Constitution.  You *CAN'T* ban handguns, for example, that's explicitly unconstitutional, and has been ruled to be so twice, and yes, that prohibition on bans applies to the states.


Well-regulated. Even the right wing's darling installed by Reagan agrees. Go look up what Scalia says. Better yet, go look up with Reagan says or what the NRA said for all of its existence until the last ten to fifteen years.
 
2013-03-30 02:49:01 PM

jaytkay: BarrRepublican: If I told you there was a thriving counter-culture scene in Missouri and not everyone who lives there was an ignorant champion of amendment 2, would you believe me?

Thriving Missouri counter-culture group
[a57.foxnews.com image 450x350]


as if Illinois Nazis weren't enough, now we've got Missouri Nazis?


/hates Illinois Nazis
 
2013-03-30 02:53:14 PM

The Name: Well, no, they're not really, considering that pretty much every attempt to regulate them ends up sparking a constitutional battle that wouldn't apply to regulations on other objects.


Probably because there is a huge lobby protecting firearms.

The Name: (you may not realize this, but states can ban just about anything they want, provided that doing so doesn't violate the constitution -everything from forks, to lawnmowers to water bottles, to chairs, etc.)


And realistically that's not going to happen either.
 
2013-03-30 03:00:07 PM
I'd suggest anyone who is against gun watch "Olympus Has Fallen." It does a pretty good job of accurately depicting how easily a terrorist force could take over Obamas temporary residence without an armed populace in DC. Granted the second half goes all Die Hard-y and silly, but the first half is pretty scary how easily a third world country could come in and take us hostage.
 
2013-03-30 03:03:27 PM

The Name: dittybopper: Oh, and you might actually start a nasty little shooting war if you did manage to get close to repealing it.

Is that a threat?


No.  But it's been recognized by academia as a distinct possibility since I was in grade school, at least:

This hard-core group is probably very small, not more than a few
million people, but it is a dangerous group to cross. From the point
of view of a right-wing threat to internal security, these are perhaps
the people who should be disarmed first, but in practice they will
be the last. As they say, to a man, "I'll bury my guns in the wall
first." They ask, because they do not understand the other side,
"Why do these people want to disarm us?" They consider themselves
 no threat to anyone; they are not criminals, not revolutionaries. But slowly,
as they become politicized, they find an analysis that fits the phenomenon
they experience: Someone fears their having guns, someone is afraid of
their defending their families, property, and liberty.
Nasty things may happen
if these people begin to feel that they are cornered.
 
2013-03-30 03:03:31 PM

Fart_Machine: The Name: (you may not realize this, but states can ban just about anything they want, provided that doing so doesn't violate the constitution -everything from forks, to lawnmowers to water bottles, to chairs, etc.)

And realistically that's not going to happen either.


Right.  But I, for once, would like to come across a good argument for why guns SHOULDN'T (not won't, not can't, but SHOULDN'T) be classed among those other objects that can, in theory, be legally banned should the voters and politicians decide that it's a good idea to do so.  In theory, if the good people of Kansas got together and decided (for whatever reason) that they hate forks and never want to see another fork as long as they live, they could pass a law banning ownership of forks and it would be perfectly constitutional.  Why SHOULDN'T we get rid of the second amendment and allow the same flexibility vis-a-vis guns?

I've had this conversation on Fark a good dozen or so times, and I have not received a single answer that did not either 1) misunderstand the premise, 2) devolve into post-apocalyptic fantasies of gub'mint tyranny or 3) cite gun culture itself as a justification for keeping those protections, as if every object that has a culture built around it needs constitutional protection.

So if someone could please enlighten me without making me endure those inanities, I would be much appreciative.
 
2013-03-30 03:03:49 PM

snowshovel: It does a pretty good job of accurately depicting how easily a terrorist force could take over Obamas temporary residence without an armed populace in DC.


Unless the population was trained in counter-terrorism techniques and constantly patrolling the DC area how would that matter?
 
2013-03-30 03:05:47 PM

dittybopper: Nasty things may happen
if these people begin to feel that they are cornered.


Those nasty things include being shot to hell by the largest army the world has ever seen.
 
2013-03-30 03:08:19 PM

Fart_Machine: snowshovel: It does a pretty good job of accurately depicting how easily a terrorist force could take over Obamas temporary residence without an armed populace in DC.

Unless the population was trained in counter-terrorism techniques and constantly patrolling the DC area how would that matter?


If everyone was armed, the North Koreans wouldn't be able to take the White House with only 40 dudes. They would need to amass a much larger army (notice how the Koreans never invade Texas) to handle the sheer amount of well-regulated militias instead of a bunch of Starbuck drinking Libs ducking for cover.
 
2013-03-30 03:09:45 PM

snowshovel: Fart_Machine: snowshovel: It does a pretty good job of accurately depicting how easily a terrorist force could take over Obamas temporary residence without an armed populace in DC.

Unless the population was trained in counter-terrorism techniques and constantly patrolling the DC area how would that matter?

If everyone was armed, the North Koreans wouldn't be able to take the White House with only 40 dudes. They would need to amass a much larger army (notice how the Koreans never invade Texas) to handle the sheer amount of well-regulated militias instead of a bunch of Starbuck drinking Libs ducking for cover.


Ah, so you're trolling.
 
2013-03-30 03:11:13 PM

snowshovel: Fart_Machine: snowshovel: It does a pretty good job of accurately depicting how easily a terrorist force could take over Obamas temporary residence without an armed populace in DC.

Unless the population was trained in counter-terrorism techniques and constantly patrolling the DC area how would that matter?

If everyone was armed, the North Koreans wouldn't be able to take the White House with only 40 dudes. They would need to amass a much larger army (notice how the Koreans never invade Texas) to handle the sheer amount of well-regulated militias instead of a bunch of Starbuck drinking Libs ducking for cover.


And you're basing this on a script for a third-rate action movie that couldn't get Bruce Willis?

Why would North Korea invade Texas anyway?  This sounds about as retarded as Red Dawn.
 
2013-03-30 03:12:38 PM

The Name: Fart_Machine: They already are except you can't outright ban them.

Well, no, they're not really, considering that pretty much every attempt to regulate them ends up sparking a constitutional battle that wouldn't apply to regulations on other objects.  And they should be subject to bans, just like any other object (you may not realize this, but states can ban just about anything they want, provided that doing so doesn't violate the constitution -everything from forks, to lawnmowers to water bottles, to chairs, etc.) .  If you don't like the idea, then vote against it when it comes up in your city or state.  We're a democracy, right?


Do you think guns are subject to no regulation?
 
2013-03-30 03:15:18 PM

dittybopper: Nasty things may happen if these people begin to feel that they are cornered.


Good
www.sstibbs.com
 
2013-03-30 03:26:35 PM

cameroncrazy1984: dittybopper: Nasty things may happen
if these people begin to feel that they are cornered.

Those nasty things include being shot to hell by the largest army the world has ever seen.


The fact that you enjoy that idea is truly pathetic. If you think that the current conditions of government/corporate rule are bad, just wait until even the remote threat of armed insurgency is removed.
 
2013-03-30 03:27:32 PM

Fart_Machine: snowshovel: It does a pretty good job of accurately depicting how easily a terrorist force could take over Obamas temporary residence without an armed populace in DC.

Unless the population was trained in counter-terrorism techniques and constantly patrolling the DC area how would that matter?




Numbers and response times.

It was an idea recognized from well before the revolutionary war days.
An organized force of well equipped professionals could take days to reach the fight, but the citizens themselves could be there in hours if they weren't already on scene.
Hence the purpose of the second amendment, to organize citizens and protect their stashes or armaments. This lets them put a quick halt to an enemy advance and reign in criminals when all else fails.

The catch is you've got novices entering a fight against possibly well trained professionals. Lots of people are going to die, but they could easily outpace and overwhelm any attacker.
No number of soldiers could stand against the population of a city coming down on them. Since other nations knew this, the US grew up without much of a need for a military.

/outside of zombie movies, film makers rarely take militia into account.
/I can only figure its because it would detract from the heroes doing their heroism.
/even in avengers and transformers. The most well armed populace in the world is represented by a dozen cops with pistols.
 
Displayed 50 of 110 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report