Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(The New York Times)   Gun bill in Missouri could test the limits of State laws meant to nullify Federal laws and who knows could possibly wind up with the SCOTUS limiting the whole concept of Federal supremacy   (nytimes.com) divider line 120
    More: Scary, U.S. Supreme Court, Missouri, federal law, state law, Missouri General Assembly, U.S. law, rural district, Missouri Republican Party  
•       •       •

3311 clicks; posted to Politics » on 28 Aug 2013 at 5:02 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-08-28 01:08:34 PM  
Or the courts just invoke In Re Neagle and spank the state to bits
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-08-28 01:13:21 PM  
If the court didn't create a constitutional crisis over the individual mandate they probably aren't going to try to change our form of government from a Federation to a Confederacy.
 
2013-08-28 01:17:59 PM  

vpb: If the court didn't create a constitutional crisis over the individual mandate they probably aren't going to try to change our form of government from a Federation to a Confederacy.


Yeah that one whole vote difference there is an insurmountable firewall
 
2013-08-28 01:47:55 PM  
link is 504d
 
2013-08-28 01:55:18 PM  
In principle, I like the concept of limiting federal power. Colorado and Waahington did it with legalizing marijuana. I just don't think the Missouri law will gain much traction nationwide.
 
2013-08-28 02:04:14 PM  
State Representative T.J. McKenna, a Democrat from Festus, voted for the bill despite saying it was unconstitutional and raised a firestorm of protest against himself. "If you just Google my name, it's all over the place about what a big coward I am," he said with consternation, and "how big of a 'craven' I was. I had to look that up."

The voters in his largely rural district have voiced overwhelming support for the bill, he said. "I can't be Mr. Liberal, St. Louis wannabe," he said. "What am I supposed to do? Just go against all my constituents?"


If what your constituents want is illegal, then YES!  OF COURSE YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO GO AGAINST THEM!
And I think it's fairly safe to say that the Supreme Court will toss out a law which allows a federal agent to be sued for enforcing federal laws.

Oh, and pet peeve here: Matt Wills, the party's director of communications, thanks in part to the push by President Obama for tougher gun laws. "It's probably one of the best states' rights issues that the country's got going right now," he said.
Republicans, if you want to stop being seen as the 'racist' party, then you should stop using the phrase 'states' rights'.  You can biatch, moan, and whine, claiming that it's a legal term and is not limited to the right of states to allow blacks to be bought and sold, but here's reality: it's a taintedwith being inextricably linked to violent perpetuation of slavery.  For your own sake, pick something new.
 
2013-08-28 02:06:32 PM  

slayer199: In principle, I like the concept of limiting federal power. Colorado and Waahington did it with legalizing marijuana. I just don't think the Missouri law will gain much traction nationwide.


Colorado and Washington did not nullify federal law, and did not even attempt to limit federal power.  They simply changed their own marijuana statutes on their own books.
 
2013-08-28 02:25:25 PM  

Karac: slayer199: In principle, I like the concept of limiting federal power. Colorado and Waahington did it with legalizing marijuana. I just don't think the Missouri law will gain much traction nationwide.

Colorado and Washington did not nullify federal law, and did not even attempt to limit federal power.  They simply changed their own marijuana statutes on their own books.


Marihuana is illegal under federal law so they did nullify existing Federal law. What makes the Missouri law different is that it criminalizes federal agents for enforcing Federal gun laws in Missouri. Hard to gain any sympathy or traction when you do that.

What Colorado and Washington did do is bring up the likelihood of Congress legalizing pot (especially since a majority of Americans support outright legalization).

The Mssouri gun law won't spur any such discussion or do anything to reign in Federal power.
 
2013-08-28 02:32:25 PM  

slayer199: Karac: slayer199: In principle, I like the concept of limiting federal power. Colorado and Waahington did it with legalizing marijuana. I just don't think the Missouri law will gain much traction nationwide.

Colorado and Washington did not nullify federal law, and did not even attempt to limit federal power.  They simply changed their own marijuana statutes on their own books.

Marihuana is illegal under federal law so they did nullify existing Federal law. What makes the Missouri law different is that it criminalizes federal agents for enforcing Federal gun laws in Missouri. Hard to gain any sympathy or traction when you do that.

What Colorado and Washington did do is bring up the likelihood of Congress legalizing pot (especially since a majority of Americans support outright legalization).

The Mssouri gun law won't spur any such discussion or do anything to reign in Federal power.


CO and WA did not nullify federal law. The feds can still bust you for possession or growing weed, but now they have to do it without the participation or assistance of local or state law enforcement (something agencies like the DEA rely heavily on). Local cops can still assist with busts relating to other drugs, just not weed.
 
2013-08-28 02:47:51 PM  

slayer199: Karac: slayer199: In principle, I like the concept of limiting federal power. Colorado and Waahington did it with legalizing marijuana. I just don't think the Missouri law will gain much traction nationwide.

Colorado and Washington did not nullify federal law, and did not even attempt to limit federal power.  They simply changed their own marijuana statutes on their own books.

Marihuana is illegal under federal law so they did nullify existing Federal law. What makes the Missouri law different is that it criminalizes federal agents for enforcing Federal gun laws in Missouri. Hard to gain any sympathy or traction when you do that.

What Colorado and Washington did do is bring up the likelihood of Congress legalizing pot (especially since a majority of Americans support outright legalization).

The Mssouri gun law won't spur any such discussion or do anything to reign in Federal power.


You're confused on either the definition of nullification or on what various states have done to (locally) legalize marijuana.

States which have legalized pot have either removed, or altered to allow medical marijuana, their own state laws on pot.  Which is why, as you said, it's still illegal under federal law in those states.  City, country, and state cops won't arrest you for smoking a joint on the sidewalk, but if you do it in front of a DEA agent, he's still perfectly capable of slapping you in cuffs.

Nullification laws, such as this Missouri one regarding guns, and various Obamacare ones, aim to change federal laws within the boundaries of that particular state.  They're trying to say that if Congress passes a law that says "You can't sell machine guns in the US" that the state of Missouri has the right to change that to say "You can't sell machine guns in the US, except for Missouri - it's cool there."  They're trying to limit federal power by rewriting federal laws.

The part about allowing someone to sue a federal agent for enforcing federal law is actually the most legal, constitutional, and not-insane thing about this law.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-08-28 03:19:51 PM  

NuttierThanEver: Yeah that one whole vote difference there is an insurmountable firewall


Considering that this would much more radical and that the Senate majority and president are Democrats, yes I think it is.
 
2013-08-28 03:36:38 PM  
who knows could possibly wind up with the SCOTUS limiting the whole concept of Federal supremacy

The answer you're looking for is "lolno"
 
2013-08-28 03:45:57 PM  

vpb: NuttierThanEver: Yeah that one whole vote difference there is an insurmountable firewall

Considering that this would much more radical and that the Senate majority and president are Democrats, yes I think it is.


????
I was referring to Chief Justice Roberts being the 1 vote difference in the ruling, I dont see your point
 
2013-08-28 04:10:28 PM  
adweek.blogs.com
 
2013-08-28 04:58:59 PM  

vpb: If the court didn't create a constitutional crisis over the individual mandate they probably aren't going to try to change our form of government from a Federation to a Confederacy.


I thought part of their ruling left the door open to challenging other laws that punished states by witholding dollars if they didn't do exactly what the feds want(i.e highway funds in return for speed limits and drinking age).

This is a bit different though, since they're doing a wholesale "Nuh uh" to the feds, and I don't think any court wants to drag the more or less settled nullification argument back to the fore.
 
2013-08-28 05:06:32 PM  
So, Missouri is joining in the Republican plan to funnel state tax money to lawyers who will argue against blatantly silly/unconstitutional laws? That HAS to be what's going on here, right?
 
2013-08-28 05:07:44 PM  
Hey Missouri taxpayers, do you enjoy paying for the political grandstanding and attention whoring? It's on your dime and the only citizen it's helping is said elected officials...

you keep sucking their dicks though, they like that
 
2013-08-28 05:11:02 PM  
Montana already took a case to the 9th Circuit over a similar law. They found it unconstitutional. Good luck to supporters in convincing SCOTUS to overturn almost a century of precedent on both the Commerce Clause and the Supremacy Clause.
 
2013-08-28 05:13:02 PM  

vpb: If the court didn't create a constitutional crisis over the individual mandate they probably aren't going to try to change our form of government from a Federation to a Confederacy.


WOT?
 
2013-08-28 05:13:44 PM  
He said that another provision of the measure, which makes it a crime to publish the name of any gun owner, violates the First Amendment and could make a crime out of local newspapers' traditional publication of "photos of proud young Missourians who harvest their first turkey or deer."

Unintended consequences be damned. They have fear mongering to work on!

This reminds me of the Charter School law that had the "unintended consequence" of letting other religions take advantage.

Thinking things through is NOT high on right wing lists...
 
2013-08-28 05:13:57 PM  

slayer199: Karac: slayer199: In principle, I like the concept of limiting federal power. Colorado and Waahington did it with legalizing marijuana. I just don't think the Missouri law will gain much traction nationwide.

Colorado and Washington did not nullify federal law, and did not even attempt to limit federal power.  They simply changed their own marijuana statutes on their own books.

Marihuana is illegal under federal law so they did nullify existing Federal law. What makes the Missouri law different is that it criminalizes federal agents for enforcing Federal gun laws in Missouri. Hard to gain any sympathy or traction when you do that.

What Colorado and Washington did do is bring up the likelihood of Congress legalizing pot (especially since a majority of Americans support outright legalization).

The Mssouri gun law won't spur any such discussion or do anything to reign in Federal power.


Marijuana is not illegal under Federal Law.
 
2013-08-28 05:14:55 PM  
It almost as if these people have never read the Constitution of the United States, nor understand what "supreme law of the land" means...
 
2013-08-28 05:15:20 PM  
Yea, who knows?

Oh, right. Everyone except the teabaggers who don't understand the Constitution they claim to love so much.
 
2013-08-28 05:15:57 PM  
The voters in his largely rural district have voiced overwhelming support for the bill, he said. "I can't be Mr. Liberal, St. Louis wannabe," he said. "What am I supposed to do? Just go against all my constituents?"

If you know it's unConstitutional, then YES you craven coward, you sack of stupid shiat, you tax payer money wasting fark.
 
2013-08-28 05:21:20 PM  
The voters in his largely rural district have voiced overwhelming support for the bill, he said. "I can't be Mr. Liberal, St. Louis wannabe," he said. "What am I supposed to do? Just go against all my constituents?"


How about growing a pair and telling your constituents passing the bill would be a huge waste of taxpayer money?
 
2013-08-28 05:22:17 PM  

mcreadyblue: Marijuana is not illegal under Federal Law.


Yes? Go on...
 
2013-08-28 05:22:25 PM  

Lord_Baull: It almost as if these people have never read the Constitution of the United States, nor understand what "supreme law of the land" means...


And yet, they scream about it the most...
 
2013-08-28 05:23:41 PM  
Always remember that the SCOTUS is a part of that federal system you think they'd severely hinder.
 
2013-08-28 05:24:06 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: The voters in his largely rural district have voiced overwhelming support for the bill, he said. "I can't be Mr. Liberal, St. Louis wannabe," he said. "What am I supposed to do? Just go against all my constituents?"

If you know it's unConstitutional, then YES you craven coward, you sack of stupid shiat, you tax payer money wasting fark.



Damn, late to the party again.
 
2013-08-28 05:27:14 PM  

Lord_Baull: Damn, late to the party again.


i1200.photobucket.com
 
2013-08-28 05:33:07 PM  
State Representative T.J. McKenna, a Democrat from Festus, voted for the bill despite saying it was unconstitutional and raised a firestorm of protest against himself. "If you just Google my name, it's all over the place about what a big coward I am," he said with consternation, and "how big of a 'craven' I was. I had to look that up."

The voters in his largely rural district have voiced overwhelming support for the bill, he said. "I can't be Mr. Liberal, St. Louis wannabe," he said. "What am I supposed to do? Just go against all my constituents?"

If your constituents want something that is unconstitutional... YES!

/moran
 
2013-08-28 05:34:04 PM  

Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: Lord_Baull: It almost as if these people have never read the Constitution of the United States, nor understand what "supreme law of the land" means...

And yet, they scream about it the most...


well, that's where they keep the 2nd amendment! right where God intended it!
and the lord said "blessed is he who is burdened by the weight of his firearms and ammo"
 
2013-08-28 05:34:34 PM  
Bet there's an awful lot of self-styled "Constitutional Originalists" voting for this.
 
2013-08-28 05:40:25 PM  
Three years of law school and six years of practice have left my brain a little muddled - did I totally misread Article VI and the practical implications of the Civil War?
 
2013-08-28 05:41:27 PM  
This is precisely why the "founding fathers" established and ratified our structure of local, city, state and federal government.  Decentralized balance of power keeps any one branch or division of government from imposing absurd or tyrannical laws on the people.  It is the responsibility of these states to stand against what they consider over-reaching, unconstitutional or absurd legislative or executive abuse from the Federal government as much as it is the Federal government's job to do the same against individual states.  When the conflict becomes large enough - a constitutional convention is needed to remedy the conflict.

All of these measures are intended protect our country from civil unrest.  Denying the rights of the states or the federal government to compete will likely lead to tyranny and/or revolt.  Let the system work as it was designed.
 
2013-08-28 05:42:13 PM  

mcreadyblue: Marijuana is not illegal under Federal Law.


No, just possessing it, growing it, using it, selling it, or giving it away is.

The court will slap this down, hard, because there's one thing the Justices all agree on:  they love their power.  They would have to give some of it up to let this law through.  It will never happen.  Obama was all about removing power from the presidency until he was elected, and then that initiative mysteriously disappeared.  People like power and once they have it, they rarely give it up.
 
2013-08-28 05:45:23 PM  
Any argument relying upon an appeal to "states rights" is nonsensical. Rights are a property of individuals and are inherent, collectives (such as states) possess "powers" which are granted. If a state has not been granted the power to override federal law, then the state does not have the authority to do so.
 
2013-08-28 05:45:39 PM  

Solon Isonomia: Three years of law school and six years of practice have left my brain a little muddled - did I totally misread Article VI and the practical implications of the Civil War?


i.crackedcdn.com
 
2013-08-28 05:49:15 PM  
You know what we need to do? We need to kick these sacks of shiat out of the country, let 'em form their own splinter countries, have no taxes to run their new country on, and be surrounded by a nation that levies a shiat-ton of tariffs on their imports and exports.

After about 5 years, we can check back to see how "anti fed" they REALLY feel.
 
2013-08-28 05:50:05 PM  

Lsherm: No, just possessing it, growing it, using it, selling it, or giving it away is.


Only if you don't have the proper tax stamp for it.
 
2013-08-28 05:50:46 PM  
Mr. Funderburk, the bill's author, clearly disagrees. And, he said, Missouri is only the beginning. "I've got five different states that want a copy" of the bill, he said.

that's the saddest part of the article.
 
jbc [TotalFark]
2013-08-28 05:53:21 PM  
A large part of the blame goes to Missouri's idiot Speaker of the House, who doesn't give two wet rat farts about the Constitution or responsible government. He also has fello numbnuts Rick Perry up here trying to drum up support for an override of the governor's veto of drastic income tax cuts that would make our education system as bad as the one in Texas.
 
2013-08-28 05:54:41 PM  
I like that the governor has to slowly explain how farking retarded the law is.
 
2013-08-28 06:00:58 PM  
He said that another provision of the measure, which makes it a crime to publish the name of any gun owner, violates the First Amendment and could make a crime out of local newspapers' traditional publication of "photos of proud young Missourians who harvest their first turkey or deer."

So those Sandy Hook kids weren't killed or murdered, they were only harvested. Like Cabbage Patch kids, only with firearms.
 
2013-08-28 06:05:06 PM  
Man the teabaggers really need to take an eight grade civics course because they think they can do a lot of things they can't. They seem to think "states rights" is some kind of magical incantation that lets them ignore the federal government. All these bills that supposedly allow them to arrest federal agents, preach in schools, limit abortions, defund the ACA and the rest of the seemingly endless litany of stupidity being vomited from the right these days aren't worth shiat. They are going to be thrown out of the first federal court they hit and the people opposing them have both the means and inclination to pursue it to that level. So the whole farking thing is just a massive waste of time and tax dollars and then they have the balls to say they are fiscal conservatives farking bags of shiat.
 
2013-08-28 06:11:21 PM  
If states can do as they please without having to bother what the Federal Government says, then we're not one nation, indivisible.
 
2013-08-28 06:14:46 PM  
Well, if the federal government didn't want this to happen then they shouldn't have passed unconstitutional laws.  I don't see what's so "scary" about un-trampling the bill of rights, subby.
 
2013-08-28 06:18:59 PM  
i1.ytimg.com
 
2013-08-28 06:28:21 PM  
We are STATES. NOT NATIONS.

We're not the european union.
 
2013-08-28 06:28:36 PM  
I'm fine with this. Federal laws assume all states want/need the same thing. Don't expect Texas and New Jersey to want the same gun laws.
 
2013-08-28 06:50:13 PM  
5-4 to nullification.

US v. TX stands because they need the red states.
 
2013-08-28 06:56:09 PM  
He said that another provision of the measure, which makes it a crime to publish the name of any gun owner,

So if I purchase a gun, they can't publish my name in any context?  Not even if I commit a crime?  Or run for office?  Or save a bus full of nuns?

F*ck that's stupid.
 
2013-08-28 07:05:22 PM  
Didn't we just have one of these cases last term? A high profile one, even?

Oh yeah, we did. Didn't end well for Arizona.

The Supreme Court, nuts as they may be these days, isn't going to overturn federal supremacy any time soon.
 
2013-08-28 07:07:36 PM  
My guess is that SCOTUS wouldn't take the case because the conservative justices would fear a ruling that could result in a huge smack-down of these laws, and for similar reasons, liberal justices would be worried that the law would be upheld. So mutually assured destruction.
 
2013-08-28 07:08:39 PM  

Befuddled: If states can do as they please without having to bother what the Federal Government says, then we're not one nation, indivisible.


Why wouldn't we have the ability to remain indivisible?  We would remain "United" States rather than a "Federal State", which is what you become when the federal government makes laws that override the states right to make their own laws.  Why have states at all then?
 
2013-08-28 07:10:03 PM  

PanicMan: He said that another provision of the measure, which makes it a crime to publish the name of any gun owner,

So if I purchase a gun, they can't publish my name in any context?  Not even if I commit a crime?  Or run for office?  Or save a bus full of nuns?

F*ck that's stupid.


Proportionally as stupid as "let's public the names and addresses of all the concealed carriers in the state"?  Because I think that's far worse.
 
2013-08-28 07:10:04 PM  

jake3988: We are STATES. NOT NATIONS.

We're not the european union.


The bill of rights is a contract which the federal government has broken.  It's well within a state's rights to reclaim for its citizens, the rights which the federal government illegally restricted.
 
2013-08-28 07:14:25 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: jake3988: We are STATES. NOT NATIONS.

We're not the european union.

The bill of rights is a contract which the federal government has broken.  It's well within a state's rights to reclaim for its citizens, the rights which the federal government illegally restricted.


You know what? You're right.  Lets have another civil war!  YEEEEEE HAAWWWWWWWW
 
2013-08-28 07:16:37 PM  

thornhill: My guess is that SCOTUS wouldn't take the case because the conservative justices would fear a ruling that could result in a huge smack-down of these laws, and for similar reasons, liberal justices would be worried that the law would be upheld. So mutually assured destruction.


No.

Both the conservative and liberal judges are ALL ABOUT the supremacy of federal law. Obviously.

They might not take the case, but if they don't, it will be because it's RIDICULOUS. And if they do take the the case, they'll smack Missouri so hard they won't know what hit them.
 
2013-08-28 07:23:30 PM  
I could have sworn there was a war about this some time ago...
 
2013-08-28 07:36:35 PM  
 
2013-08-28 07:36:59 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: It's well within a state's rights to reclaim for its citizens, the rights which the federal government illegally restricted.


Hover 'round children and I will tell you the story of how you were emancipated from the United States.
 
2013-08-28 07:40:30 PM  
The voters in his largely rural district have voiced overwhelming support for the bill, he said. "I can't be Mr. Liberal, St. Louis wannabe," he said. "What am I supposed to do? Just go against all my constituents?"

The lone Republican opponent of the bill in the House, State Representative Jay Barnes, said, "Our Constitution is not some cheap Chinese buffet where we get to pick the parts we like and ignore the rest." He added, "Two centuries of constitutional jurisprudence shows that this bill is plainly unconstitutional, and I'm not going to violate my oath of office."


So the Republican has more integrity than the Democrat.  Who knew?
 
2013-08-28 07:48:01 PM  

Karac: slayer199: Karac: slayer199: In principle, I like the concept of limiting federal power. Colorado and Waahington did it with legalizing marijuana. I just don't think the Missouri law will gain much traction nationwide.


States which have legalized pot have either removed, or altered to allow medical marijuana, their own state laws on pot.  Which is why, as you said, it's still illegal under federal law in those states.  City, country, and state cops won't arrest you for smoking a joint on the sidewalk, but if you do it in front of a DEA agent, he's still perfectly capable of slapping you in cuffs.


Oh, but in Washington (don't know about Colorado) they can, because it is not legal to smoke it "in public."  The offense would be rather different than before it was legalized, however.

Nullification laws, such as this Missouri one regarding guns, and various Obamacare ones, aim to change federal laws within the boundaries of that particular state.  They're trying to say that if Congress passes a law that says "You can't sell machine guns in the US" that the state of Missouri has the right to change that to say "You can't sell machine guns in the US, except for Missouri - it's cool there."  They're trying to limit federal power by rewriting federal laws.

The part about allowing someone to sue a federal agent for enforcing federal law is actually themost legal, constitutional, and not-insane thing about this law.

Assuming your law knowledge goes beyond a GED, I'd like you to expand on this.  It is not in line with current Fark thinking.
 
2013-08-28 07:51:59 PM  
While this is technically a possible interpretation and I wouldn't go so far as to say they're necessarily legally wrong, I would point out that historically this idea has not ever gotten anyone anywhere good.

I mean, their try at this could be the exception, but typically trying to strip the national government of its immunity to civil remedy... doesn't end well.
 
2013-08-28 07:52:37 PM  

Tyee: Befuddled: If states can do as they please without having to bother what the Federal Government says, then we're not one nation, indivisible.

Why wouldn't we have the ability to remain indivisible?  We would remain "United" States rather than a "Federal State", which is what you become when the federal government makes laws that override the states right to make their own laws.  Why have states at all then?


I agree. National elections for every region, not per state. Republicans wouldn't like this idea much though, since nationally they lose to Democrats.

2 senators per 3,000,000 citizens, 1 representative for every 70, 000, And everyone gets to vote for every single one. 536 selections on your ballot on the good years.
 
2013-08-28 07:52:48 PM  

Mentat: The voters in his largely rural district have voiced overwhelming support for the bill, he said. "I can't be Mr. Liberal, St. Louis wannabe," he said. "What am I supposed to do? Just go against all my constituents?"

The lone Republican opponent of the bill in the House, State Representative Jay Barnes, said, "Our Constitution is not some cheap Chinese buffet where we get to pick the parts we like and ignore the rest." He added, "Two centuries of constitutional jurisprudence shows that this bill is plainly unconstitutional, and I'm not going to violate my oath of office."

So the Republican has more integrity than the Democrat.  Who knew


It doesn't say he was the only one opposing it, it says he is the only republican who opposed it.
 
2013-08-28 07:54:46 PM  

KeatingFive: Tyee: Befuddled: If states can do as they please without having to bother what the Federal Government says, then we're not one nation, indivisible.

Why wouldn't we have the ability to remain indivisible?  We would remain "United" States rather than a "Federal State", which is what you become when the federal government makes laws that override the states right to make their own laws.  Why have states at all then?

I agree. National elections for every region, not per state. Republicans wouldn't like this idea much though, since nationally they lose to Democrats.

2 senators per 3,000,000 citizens, 1 representative for every 70, 000, And everyone gets to vote for every single one. 536 470 selections on your ballot on the good years.


Sorry, forgot only 1/3 of Senate up for re-election every 2 years.
 
2013-08-28 07:55:13 PM  
I'm sorry, but anyone who thinks that the Federal government will cede any authority or power to the states at this late stage of the game is deluding himself, lying to the rest of us or just plain farking retarded.

Anyone who says otherwise can catch a clue from Dr. Cox.   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUttbZcv7WI
 
2013-08-28 08:02:59 PM  

Karac: State Representative T.J. McKenna, a Democrat from Festus, voted for the bill despite saying it was unconstitutional and raised a firestorm of protest against himself. "If you just Google my name, it's all over the place about what a big coward I am," he said with consternation, and "how big of a 'craven' I was. I had to look that up."

The voters in his largely rural district have voiced overwhelming support for the bill, he said. "I can't be Mr. Liberal, St. Louis wannabe," he said. "What am I supposed to do? Just go against all my constituents?"

If what your constituents want is illegal, then YES!  OF COURSE YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO GO AGAINST THEM!
And I think it's fairly safe to say that the Supreme Court will toss out a law which allows a federal agent to be sued for enforcing federal laws.

Oh, and pet peeve here: Matt Wills, the party's director of communications, thanks in part to the push by President Obama for tougher gun laws. "It's probably one of the best states' rights issues that the country's got going right now," he said.
Republicans, if you want to stop being seen as the 'racist' party, then you should stop using the phrase 'states' rights'.  You can biatch, moan, and whine, claiming that it's a legal term and is not limited to the right of states to allow blacks to be bought and sold, but here's reality: it's a taintedwith being inextricably linked to violent perpetuation of slavery.  For your own sake, pick something new.


Liberals have some issues that amount to "state's rights" so how about you make up a new term? What do you want used when advocating that state laws prevail in cases such as marijuana legalization, municipal bankruptcy, etc?
 
2013-08-28 08:03:21 PM  

Chummer45: BraveNewCheneyWorld: jake3988: We are STATES. NOT NATIONS.

We're not the european union.

The bill of rights is a contract which the federal government has broken.  It's well within a state's rights to reclaim for its citizens, the rights which the federal government illegally restricted.

You know what? You're right.  Lets have another civil war!  YEEEEEE HAAWWWWWWWW


Herp..

Soup4Bonnie: BraveNewCheneyWorld: It's well within a state's rights to reclaim for its citizens, the rights which the federal government illegally restricted.

Hover 'round children and I will tell you the story of how you were emancipated from the United States.


.. And .. Derp

Ok, lesson time.

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

 You see, when amendments are created, THEY are constitutional and the states must follow, but if the government just says "fark this, I don't like the 2nd amendment, let's just infringe the hell out of this thing and skip all the constitutional hurdles involved in creating a new amendment" that is not constitutional.  And if the states don't want to follow, that is their right, any violence that happens after that is not the fault of the state, but the fault of the government, because it is the federal government who violated the contract.
 
2013-08-28 08:05:21 PM  
How often does a branch of government choose to subordinate itself to a lower level of government?
 
2013-08-28 08:09:59 PM  

jjorsett: Karac: State Representative T.J. McKenna, a Democrat from Festus, voted for the bill despite saying it was unconstitutional and raised a firestorm of protest against himself. "If you just Google my name, it's all over the place about what a big coward I am," he said with consternation, and "how big of a 'craven' I was. I had to look that up."

The voters in his largely rural district have voiced overwhelming support for the bill, he said. "I can't be Mr. Liberal, St. Louis wannabe," he said. "What am I supposed to do? Just go against all my constituents?"

If what your constituents want is illegal, then YES!  OF COURSE YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO GO AGAINST THEM!
And I think it's fairly safe to say that the Supreme Court will toss out a law which allows a federal agent to be sued for enforcing federal laws.

Oh, and pet peeve here: Matt Wills, the party's director of communications, thanks in part to the push by President Obama for tougher gun laws. "It's probably one of the best states' rights issues that the country's got going right now," he said.
Republicans, if you want to stop being seen as the 'racist' party, then you should stop using the phrase 'states' rights'.  You can biatch, moan, and whine, claiming that it's a legal term and is not limited to the right of states to allow blacks to be bought and sold, but here's reality: it's a taintedwith being inextricably linked to violent perpetuation of slavery.  For your own sake, pick something new.

Liberals have some issues that amount to "state's rights" so how about you make up a new term? What do you want used when advocating that state laws prevail in cases such as marijuana legalization, municipal bankruptcy, etc?


I love that your response can get simplified down to "NOU"
 
2013-08-28 08:10:52 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Well, if the federal government didn't want this to happen then they shouldn't have passed unconstitutional laws.  I don't see what's so "scary" about un-trampling the bill of rights, subby.


Oh, I'll bite.  Please point to these laws, troll.
 
2013-08-28 08:12:54 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Chummer45: BraveNewCheneyWorld: jake3988: We are STATES. NOT NATIONS.

We're not the european union.

The bill of rights is a contract which the federal government has broken.  It's well within a state's rights to reclaim for its citizens, the rights which the federal government illegally restricted.

You know what? You're right.  Lets have another civil war!  YEEEEEE HAAWWWWWWWW

Herp..

Soup4Bonnie: BraveNewCheneyWorld: It's well within a state's rights to reclaim for its citizens, the rights which the federal government illegally restricted.

Hover 'round children and I will tell you the story of how you were emancipated from the United States.

.. And .. Derp

Ok, lesson time.

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

 You see, when amendments are created, THEY are constitutional and the states must follow, but if the government just says "fark this, I don't like the 2nd amendment, let's just infringe the hell out of this thing and skip all the constitutional hurdles involved in creating a new amendment" that is not constitutional.  And if the states don't want to follow, that is their right, any violence that happens after that is not the fault of the state, but the fault of the government, because it is the federal government who violated the contract.


"People getting arrested in Wisconsin and North Carolina for peaceful protests? Meh, they were libs and union supporters, they probably deserved it. It's marginally more difficult for me to buy  security blankets firearms? REVOLUTION!!1!!11!"
 
2013-08-28 08:14:19 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: And if the states don't want to follow, that is their right,..


States deciding what is constitutional.  Yep.  Just like I learned the three branches all those years ago; Executive, Legislative and 50 Judicial states.
 
2013-08-28 08:16:31 PM  
Oh, I see you got to it before I could ask.  Well, that's ... special.
 
2013-08-28 08:16:38 PM  
Go ahead cons scream your bloody little heads off and make all the laws that go against the constitution you say you love so much. We'll just sit back in our smug certainty that the supremacy clause in that very same constitution will knock them down as fast as you can post them.
 
2013-08-28 08:33:40 PM  
This is how the War of Northern Aggression is won?

Y'all need to just Let. It. Go.
 
2013-08-28 08:40:02 PM  

Mentat: The voters in his largely rural district have voiced overwhelming support for the bill, he said. "I can't be Mr. Liberal, St. Louis wannabe," he said. "What am I supposed to do? Just go against all my constituents?"


'My constituents are a bunch of ignorant vicious peckerwoods and I wouldn't get re-elected if I voted against ignorance, viciousness, or peckerwoodism.  Let's keep track of what's important: my job.'
 
2013-08-28 08:43:23 PM  

jjorsett: Karac: State Representative T.J. McKenna, a Democrat from Festus, voted for the bill despite saying it was unconstitutional and raised a firestorm of protest against himself. "If you just Google my name, it's all over the place about what a big coward I am," he said with consternation, and "how big of a 'craven' I was. I had to look that up."

The voters in his largely rural district have voiced overwhelming support for the bill, he said. "I can't be Mr. Liberal, St. Louis wannabe," he said. "What am I supposed to do? Just go against all my constituents?"

If what your constituents want is illegal, then YES!  OF COURSE YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO GO AGAINST THEM!
And I think it's fairly safe to say that the Supreme Court will toss out a law which allows a federal agent to be sued for enforcing federal laws.

Oh, and pet peeve here: Matt Wills, the party's director of communications, thanks in part to the push by President Obama for tougher gun laws. "It's probably one of the best states' rights issues that the country's got going right now," he said.
Republicans, if you want to stop being seen as the 'racist' party, then you should stop using the phrase 'states' rights'.  You can biatch, moan, and whine, claiming that it's a legal term and is not limited to the right of states to allow blacks to be bought and sold, but here's reality: it's a taintedwith being inextricably linked to violent perpetuation of slavery.  For your own sake, pick something new.

Liberals have some issues that amount to "state's rights" so how about you make up a new term? What do you want used when advocating that state laws prevail in cases such as marijuana legalization, municipal bankruptcy, etc?


I think 'We aren't going to have any state laws against smoking marijuana' is a little different from 'Hey, let's arrest some DEA agents for enforcing federal law.'
 
2013-08-28 08:43:38 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: jake3988: We are STATES. NOT NATIONS.

We're not the european union.

The bill of rights is a contract which the federal government has broken.  It's well within a state's rights to reclaim for its citizens, the rights which the federal government illegally restricted.


www.troll.me
 
2013-08-28 08:44:46 PM  

Transubstantive: Always remember that the SCOTUS is a part of that federal system you think they'd severely hinder.


I like how people like you think all branches of government are some how tied together. Like SCOTUS giving the executive branch more power somehow gives them more power. Hint: it doesn't.
 
2013-08-28 08:46:54 PM  
The current MO legislature has gone off the goddamned deep end.  Fark them.
 
2013-08-28 08:50:42 PM  
upload.wikimedia.org
At Missionary Ridge, Chattanooga, Thomas ordered that 
a cemetery be built. This is his response to a chaplain 
who asked if the dead should be buried by state 
(Furgurson 55):
"No, no. Mix them up. Mix them up. I'm tired of states' 
rights."
 
2013-08-28 09:06:30 PM  

Corvus: BraveNewCheneyWorld: jake3988: We are STATES. NOT NATIONS.

We're not the european union.

The bill of rights is a contract which the federal government has broken.  It's well within a state's rights to reclaim for its citizens, the rights which the federal government illegally restricted.

[552x414 from http://www.troll.me/images/futurama-fry/cant-tell-if-troll-or-just-ext remely-stupid.jpg image 552x414]


Both. Definitely Both.
 
2013-08-28 09:07:29 PM  
The South would destroy the North in a Civil War.  There's no precedent elsewise.  Prove me wrong.
 
2013-08-28 09:14:09 PM  
I hate how the rural farks in this state dominate the urban areas.


It's like a Reverse Illinois.
 
2013-08-28 09:27:05 PM  
Going to be honest,  I hate 'states rights'.   I hate the whole need for people to see that their state has power, and that the federal government can have none.   I'm not proud to be a Montanan, or an Arizonan.  At all.  It means less than nothing to me.  I'm proud to be _an American_.   I'm happy to say "ONE NATION" in the Pledge of Allegiance, not '50 crappy little feudal fiefdoms'.

If it were up to me, I'd abolish them outright.  Go from a Federal level government, to a city/municipality one.
The federal level should deal with things that affect everyone in the nation, and the local govt should deal with things that only affect the local area.  (which should frankly be the majority of govt, in my opinion..LOCAL).

I think 'states' are utterly artificial and outmoded ideas who spring from a colonial mindframe.  It's time we moved beyond them.
 
2013-08-28 09:50:52 PM  
If the Cato Institute is telling you how farking retarded your law is, it's farking retarded.
 
2013-08-28 10:06:22 PM  

Soup4Bonnie: BraveNewCheneyWorld: And if the states don't want to follow, that is their right,..

States deciding what is constitutional.  Yep.  Just like I learned the three branches all those years ago; Executive, Legislative and 50 Judicial states.


The 2nd says the "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", so when your supreme court says, "well some infringement is ok" it's not a decision of constitutionality, it's an absolute usurpation of constitutional authority.  If you believe the 2nd amendment is inconsistent with current technology or whatever bullshiat excuse you want to use, that's fine, but you have to make a new farking amendment, and you have to do it with the established process.  If you don't, then you're just breaking the law.  Don't try to pretend otherwise.
 
2013-08-28 10:13:03 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Soup4Bonnie: BraveNewCheneyWorld: And if the states don't want to follow, that is their right,..

States deciding what is constitutional.  Yep.  Just like I learned the three branches all those years ago; Executive, Legislative and 50 Judicial states.

The 2nd says the "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", so when your supreme court says, "well some infringement is ok" it's not a decision of constitutionality, it's an absolute usurpation of constitutional authority.  If you believe the 2nd amendment is inconsistent with current technology or whatever bullshiat excuse you want to use, that's fine, but you have to make a new farking amendment, and you have to do it with the established process.  If you don't, then you're just breaking the law.  Don't try to pretend otherwise.


So you believe everyone should be able to own high-powered and/or full-auto firearms without a background check? Because anything less than that is 'infringing' in some way, and we're just haggling.
 
2013-08-28 10:56:16 PM  

He_Hate_Me: [720x700 from http://tenthamendment.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/ 05/jackson-hickory.jpg image 720x700]
Andrew Jackson settled nullification long ago.


Came here for this.
 
2013-08-28 11:25:32 PM  

Mentat: The voters in his largely rural district have voiced overwhelming support for the bill, he said. "I can't be Mr. Liberal, St. Louis wannabe," he said. "What am I supposed to do? Just go against all my constituents?"

The lone Republican opponent of the bill in the House, State Representative Jay Barnes, said, "Our Constitution is not some cheap Chinese buffet where we get to pick the parts we like and ignore the rest." He added, "Two centuries of constitutional jurisprudence shows that this bill is plainly unconstitutional, and I'm not going to violate my oath of office."

So the Republican has more integrity than the Democrat.  Who knew?


He was just the lone Republican opponent of the bill.  Which means all the other Republicans in the House supported it.

And why does it have to be a Chinese buffet?  Why not just a regular buffet?  Fark Republicans are tone-deaf and stupid.  No wonder only old white people vote for them nowadays.
 
2013-08-28 11:43:44 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: [360x272 from http://adweek.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/csa.jpg image 360x272]


I hate that movie, because it's premise represents all that's wrong with thinking about the civil war. The question of what would have happened if the South had one the war is a fascinating, complex question that reveals the deep interrelationships of our society, and it likely would have effected just about every aspect of how our country developed. The idea that 'everything is exactly the same, except there are still slaves', which is what the movie suggests, is the most ignorant and remedial way to think about the issue.
 
2013-08-29 12:02:51 AM  

LordJiro: So you believe everyone should be able to own high-powered and/or full-auto firearms without a background check? Because anything less than that is 'infringing' in some way, and we're just haggling.


Way to go for the false dichotomy.

Very few gun rights advocates think that the constitution requires universal access to any firearm for anyone. In the same way that all sane people think there are rational limitations to the right of free speech, similarly all sane gun owners think there are rational limitations to the right of gun ownership.

In both cases, the enumerated rights are restricted by the social contract. In both cases, the right should be absolutely unimpeachable so long as your actions don't infringe on another's life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness. If you can demonstrate that a particular act of speech or a particular act of gun ownership will significantly impinge another's rights, then by all means let's limit those rights. It's exactly why we don't yell "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater, it's exactly why we don't allow felons, domestic abusers, or the mentally incompetent to possess firearms. This is what is haggled over, not some nebulous concept of what constitutes a scary looking gun.

By and large, the biggest issue that gun rights advocates have with gun control legislation is when it infringes the right to own guns without demonstrable cause. Two good examples are the ones you cite above: automatic and high power (which I take to mean .50 caliber or larger) weapons. Both types of weapons are subject to onerous regulation, prohibitive taxation, and in the case of automatic weapons, a de-facto ban on ownership. Despite this, legally owned weapons of these types have virtually never been used to commit crimes in the united states, with only two recorded incidents in the last 90 years. This is out of hundreds of thousands of gun crimes, and many millions of violent crimes.  Conversely, cheap low power handguns continue to be lightly regulated, despite these weapons making the bulk of all firearms crime.

I believe that if you look at the history of gun control and gun rights in this country, what you will find is broad support among gun owners for gun control measures  that can be shown to be effective at reducing gun accidents and gun crime,  even when it infringes the rights of legal gun owners.For example, the National Firearms Act, the Gun Control Act, the Firearms Owners Protection Act (sans machinegun ban), the Domestic Violence Offender Ban, etc.

If you look at the laws that gun owners absolutely despise, it's backwards legislation that solves no problem and prohibits weapons/accessories that are known to be not dangerous or commonly used for crime. These are things like the Hughes Amendment, and the Clinton Assault Weapons Ban.
 
2013-08-29 02:03:17 AM  

Fubini: LordJiro: So you believe everyone should be able to own high-powered and/or full-auto firearms without a background check? Because anything less than that is 'infringing' in some way, and we're just haggling.

Way to go for the false dichotomy.

Very few gun rights advocates think that the constitution requires universal access to any firearm for anyone. In the same way that all sane people think there are rational limitations to the right of free speech, similarly all sane gun owners think there are rational limitations to the right of gun ownership.

In both cases, the enumerated rights are restricted by the social contract. In both cases, the right should be absolutely unimpeachable so long as your actions don't infringe on another's life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness. If you can demonstrate that a particular act of speech or a particular act of gun ownership will significantly impinge another's rights, then by all means let's limit those rights. It's exactly why we don't yell "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater, it's exactly why we don't allow felons, domestic abusers, or the mentally incompetent to possess firearms. This is what is haggled over, not some nebulous concept of what constitutes a scary looking gun.

By and large, the biggest issue that gun rights advocates have with gun control legislation is when it infringes the right to own guns without demonstrable cause. Two good examples are the ones you cite above: automatic and high power (which I take to mean .50 caliber or larger) weapons. Both types of weapons are subject to onerous regulation, prohibitive taxation, and in the case of automatic weapons, a de-facto ban on ownership. Despite this, legally owned weapons of these types have virtually never been used to commit crimes in the united states, with only two recorded incidents in the last 90 years. This is out of hundreds of thousands of gun crimes, and many millions of violent crimes.  Conversely, cheap low power handguns continue to be lightly ...


Kindly speak for yourself sir. I think that anyone should be allowed to own a firearm of any type that the infantry uses. Once you start removing rights from a group you open the door to remove all their rights. If we can take away a felon's 2nd amendment right, why not take away their 1st, 4th, 5th, and 6th? After all they cannot be trusted with one right, so they deserve no rights. As for the mentally ill, who defines who is ill? If you've ever cracked open the DSM, you'd know it's a very grey field. And again, if you can remove one right, you can remove them all. All rights are equal.

Besides, the big guns are cost prohibitive. If you can afford to drop $10k on a Barrett you probably aren't shy on resources, which is the biggest cause of violence. Besides, I want a Bazooka when I win the lotto.
 
2013-08-29 02:05:04 AM  
When your argument includes "could make a crime out of local newspapers' traditional publication of "photos of proud young Missourians who harvest their first turkey or deer."as one of the top three points, you don't have a very strong argument.
 
2013-08-29 02:09:02 AM  

ArkAngel: Or the courts just invoke In Re Neagle and spank the state to bits


LOL! You kidding? Clarence Thomas would void the 13th Amendment and dance a jig while being lead off in chains from the bench.
 
2013-08-29 03:24:12 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: The 2nd says the "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", so when your supreme court says, "well some infringement is ok" it's not a decision of constitutionality, it's an absolute usurpation of constitutional authority.


You know the Supreme Court is the one that determines what is constitutional and what is not right? Its their job. Not the job of some moron on a blog.
 
2013-08-29 04:25:07 AM  

GodComplex: Kindly speak for yourself sir. I think that anyone should be allowed to own a firearm of any type that the infantry uses. Once you start removing rights from a group you open the door to remove all their rights. If we can take away a felon's 2nd amendment right, why not take away their 1st, 4th, 5th, and 6th? After all they cannot be trusted with one right, so they deserve no rights. As for the mentally ill, who defines who is ill? If you've ever cracked open the DSM, you'd know it's a very grey field. And again, if you can remove one right, you can remove them all. All rights are equal.


By my experience, you're in the minority.

It's not hard to not become a felon, and as to your argument about a slippery slope, let me remind you that our system of crime and punishment necessarily deprives criminals of rights. In prison/jail they are deprived of their whole liberty: their franchise, right to free speech, gun ownership, and even their ability to move freely. By your logic, this leads to their total disenfranchisement for life.

As for mental illness, notice I said "mentally incompetent". This is a higher standard than just a mental illness, and implies that someone is incompetent to the point of being unable to conduct their own affairs. These are typically people that can't be trusted with their own bank account, for their own safety, much less a gun. It is a legal determination that requires evidence. A person who is mentally incompetent can be considered not in control of their own actions (such as when someone pursues a verdict of innocent by reason of insanity); they cannot be held liable for those actions, they can't enter contracts, etc.

One form of mental incompetence is inebriation, do you think it's OK to have guns while drunk? If so, you're a bad person and a bad gun owner.

Finally, I think most gun owners do not equate gun rights with other rights. All our rights are necessary for our way of life, but they're not the same, and depriving someone of their ability to possess a gun does not disenfranchise them like taking away their speech, their due process, or their vote.
 
2013-08-29 04:48:12 AM  

Fubini: By my experience, you're in the minority.

It's not hard to not become a felon, and as to your argument about a slippery slope, let me remind you that our system of crime and punishment necessarily deprives criminals of rights. In prison/jail they are deprived of their whole liberty: their franchise, right to free speech, gun ownership, and even their ability to move freely. By your logic, this leads to their total disenfranchisement for life.

As for mental illness, notice I said "mentally incompetent". This is a higher standard than just a mental illness, and implies that someone is incompetent to the point of being unable to conduct their own affairs. These are typically people that can't be trusted with their own bank account, for their own safety, much less a gun. It is a legal determination that requires evidence. A person who is mentally incompetent can be considered not in control of their own actions (such as when someone pursues a verdict of innocent by reason of insanity); they cannot be held liable for those actions, they can't enter contracts, etc.

One form of mental incompetence is inebriation, do you think it's OK to have guns while drunk? If so, you're a bad person and a bad gun owner.

Finally, I think most gun owners do not equate gun rights with other rights. All our rights are necessary for our way of life, but they're not the same, and depriving so ...


You are correct, those of us who don't want to take other people's rights away are in the minority.But you're being disingenuous. Most of us are quite aware you are deprived of rights while in jail. The problem is that you don't get those back after you've served your term in places. I think Louisiana just had a court case cause they said you couldn't deprive people with felonies of their right to firearm ownership. Course most states just make you appeal your restriction, but I still state that it's obscene to restrict rights once you're free. If you can't be trusted with your rights, you shouldn't be released.

And define mentally incompetent. Last I checked there wasn't a fully accepted model of intelligence. For fun, look up the case study on the '8 hour retards.' Besides, if we restrict rights of the mentally incompetent, how are 'conservatives' going to get voted into office?

And I'm perfectly okay with guns and drunkenness, I'm a firm believer in natural selection.
 
2013-08-29 07:56:43 AM  

LordJiro: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Soup4Bonnie: BraveNewCheneyWorld: And if the states don't want to follow, that is their right,..

States deciding what is constitutional.  Yep.  Just like I learned the three branches all those years ago; Executive, Legislative and 50 Judicial states.

The 2nd says the "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", so when your supreme court says, "well some infringement is ok" it's not a decision of constitutionality, it's an absolute usurpation of constitutional authority.  If you believe the 2nd amendment is inconsistent with current technology or whatever bullshiat excuse you want to use, that's fine, but you have to make a new farking amendment, and you have to do it with the established process.  If you don't, then you're just breaking the law.  Don't try to pretend otherwise.

So you believe everyone should be able to own high-powered and/or full-auto firearms without a background check? Because anything less than that is 'infringing' in some way, and we're just haggling.


It's what the 2nd amendment says, if you don't like it, make a new amendment.

Mrtraveler01: BraveNewCheneyWorld: The 2nd says the "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", so when your supreme court says, "well some infringement is ok" it's not a decision of constitutionality, it's an absolute usurpation of constitutional authority.

You know the Supreme Court is the one that determines what is constitutional and what is not right? Its their job. Not the job of some moron on a blog.


Yeah?  The same people that think a corporation is a person?  They're doing a bang up job... being just another branch of bought and paid for shills for special interests.
 
2013-08-29 08:20:48 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: LordJiro: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Soup4Bonnie: BraveNewCheneyWorld: And if the states don't want to follow, that is their right,..

States deciding what is constitutional.  Yep.  Just like I learned the three branches all those years ago; Executive, Legislative and 50 Judicial states.

The 2nd says the "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", so when your supreme court says, "well some infringement is ok" it's not a decision of constitutionality, it's an absolute usurpation of constitutional authority.  If you believe the 2nd amendment is inconsistent with current technology or whatever bullshiat excuse you want to use, that's fine, but you have to make a new farking amendment, and you have to do it with the established process.  If you don't, then you're just breaking the law.  Don't try to pretend otherwise.

So you believe everyone should be able to own high-powered and/or full-auto firearms without a background check? Because anything less than that is 'infringing' in some way, and we're just haggling.

It's what the 2nd amendment says, if you don't like it, make a new amendment.


Personally, I think we should ditch the 2nd entirely. It's obsolete; no collection of firearms is going to topple a tyrannical superpower government, and there's no need for a 'well-regulated militia' since we have a standing army.

I'm not saying guns should be banned, but gun ownership as a Constitutional right, on par with freedom of speech, is overkill in this day and age.
 
2013-08-29 08:46:23 AM  

LordJiro: Personally, I think we should ditch the 2nd entirely. It's obsolete; no collection of firearms is going to topple a tyrannical superpower government


Because Afghanistan is over, and it was a breeze for this superpower and Russia too. right, RIGHT?  Because it's even easier to fight an insurgency in the same area where your supply lines exist..  Because it's even easier to identify friend from foe when they speak the same language as your own troops.   You act as if we have enough tanks to cover the whole country, and enough to escort every fuel/weapon/food delivery, and safeguard every power station, and every generator.  You really have no idea what you're talking about in terms of the actual potential danger a domestic insurgency presents to the government, if it were to become tyrannical.
 
2013-08-29 08:50:09 AM  

thornhill: My guess is that SCOTUS wouldn't take the case because the conservative justices would fear a ruling that could result in a huge smack-down of these laws, and for similar reasons, liberal justices would be worried that the law would be upheld. So mutually assured destruction.


If this case gets all the way to SCOTUS, our legal system has totally failed us.
 
2013-08-29 09:14:47 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: LordJiro: Personally, I think we should ditch the 2nd entirely. It's obsolete; no collection of firearms is going to topple a tyrannical superpower government

Because Afghanistan is over, and it was a breeze for this superpower and Russia too. right, RIGHT?  Because it's even easier to fight an insurgency in the same area where your supply lines exist..  Because it's even easier to identify friend from foe when they speak the same language as your own troops.   You act as if we have enough tanks to cover the whole country, and enough to escort every fuel/weapon/food delivery, and safeguard every power station, and every generator.  You really have no idea what you're talking about in terms of the actual potential danger a domestic insurgency presents to the government, if it were to become tyrannical.


In Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, etc., none of the insurgents were even TRYING to topple a tyrannical superpower. They were, in the grand scheme of things, annoying one. Nor would they have come close if they had been.

The Federal government stomped a rebellion way back when the rebels' technology and firepower ALMOST came close to the Union's. What makes you think a rebellion would succeed now?
 
2013-08-29 09:37:41 AM  

LordJiro: BraveNewCheneyWorld: LordJiro: Personally, I think we should ditch the 2nd entirely. It's obsolete; no collection of firearms is going to topple a tyrannical superpower government

Because Afghanistan is over, and it was a breeze for this superpower and Russia too. right, RIGHT?  Because it's even easier to fight an insurgency in the same area where your supply lines exist..  Because it's even easier to identify friend from foe when they speak the same language as your own troops.   You act as if we have enough tanks to cover the whole country, and enough to escort every fuel/weapon/food delivery, and safeguard every power station, and every generator.  You really have no idea what you're talking about in terms of the actual potential danger a domestic insurgency presents to the government, if it were to become tyrannical.

In Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, etc., none of the insurgents were even TRYING to topple a tyrannical superpower.


What don't you get about this?  They were fighting a technologically superior force, they didn't have the ability to strike supply lines, and they still won.   Do you seriously not understand that having many supply lines completely exposed across the entire U.S. would would be a huge disadvantage as compared to vietnam and afghanistan?

Not only that, but you forget that not all soldiers would be completely cool with bombing the shiat out of their own countrymen, and if even only 1 in 10 civilians took up the fight, the military would be severely outnumbered.  Food doesn't magically appear in a soldier's backpack, ammo doesn't either.  Gas doesn't magically appear in gas tanks.  Spare parts aren't pulled out of thin air.  Raw materials don't magically appear at factories.  You seriously think all of these things can be simultaneously defended?  You're just kidding yourself.

They were, in the grand scheme of things, annoying one. Nor would they have come close if they had been.

Only because they were half a world away, but if they were fighting on the U.S. you couldn't say that for sure.

The Federal government stomped a rebellion way back when the rebels' technology and firepower ALMOST came close to the Union's. What makes you think a rebellion would succeed now?

Because it won't be symmetrical warfare tactics that would be employed?  What, you seriously think if that situation arose, people would just march over to D.C. in a big single juicy target?
 
2013-08-29 09:45:42 AM  
Fubini:

Very few gun rights advocates think that the constitution requires universal access to any firearm for anyone. In the same way that all sane people think there are rational limitations to the right of free speech, similarly all sane gun owners think there are rational limitations to the right of gun ownership.

Common misconception. Many of us think exactly that. The same way I don't believe the federal government should have a say in drug laws. Only difference for me is I like guns and I don't like dope. I don't think there need to be limits to free speech. There are consequences for things like slander, and if you go around preaching that you hate gay folks or asians or redheads, there is a good chance a lot of people won't like you. But you can say it, its your belief.
 
2013-08-29 10:37:34 AM  
I guess Missouri doesn't teach US History. SMH.
 
2013-08-29 10:41:22 AM  
How is this even a news story? This is a non-starter, just more grandstanding that won't go jack.

The article didn't mention what their argument was for dodging the commerce clause. If Montana failed a while back when they began producing guns to be used in Montana only, then I don't know how the Missouri law has a prayer.
 
2013-08-29 10:59:45 AM  
This thread needs more people making fun of the name "Funderburk".

Solon Isonomia: Three years of law school and six years of practice have left my brain a little muddled - did I totally misread Article VI and the practical implications of the Civil War?


While I am not a lawyer, it's possible you might have overlooked one of the key parts of Article III, however. If the SCOTUS adopts a principle, no matter how stupid, there remains no further judicial recourse; further appeals must be in the arena of politics, or continue further to still other means.

Which means that the SCOTUS could go along with the gag. Political response via Amendment would be unlikely, and furthermore as easily ignored as Article VI; impeachment would be about the only option, and even that would be unlikely given the current composition and rules of the Legislature. Frankly, assassination would be a compelling option.

However, I can't imagine any way that Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Alito, nor Justice Kennedy would go along with the gag, let alone anyone to Kennedy's left. If it gets to the SCOTUS, I can only picture it doing so on original jurisdiction, and would go at least seven against, and more likely all nine saying "Hell, no."
 
2013-08-29 11:10:36 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Soup4Bonnie: BraveNewCheneyWorld: And if the states don't want to follow, that is their right,..

States deciding what is constitutional.  Yep.  Just like I learned the three branches all those years ago; Executive, Legislative and 50 Judicial states.

The 2nd says the "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", so when your supreme court says, "well some infringement is ok" it's not a decision of constitutionality, it's an absolute usurpation of constitutional authority.  If you believe the 2nd amendment is inconsistent with current technology or whatever bullshiat excuse you want to use, that's fine, but you have to make a new farking amendment, and you have to do it with the established process.  If you don't, then you're just breaking the law.  Don't try to pretend otherwise.


Using this same line of reasoning you don't have an individual right to own a gun at all, because the Supreme Court decided that at Heller, only 5 years ago. The 2nd ammendment has never been a right for an individual, unconnected with a miltia, to own a weapon.

The reality is you want unlimited gun rights, have no concept of history or law, and will use any backwards logic to convince yourself it is a rational position. You're amazingly stupid human being. I pray to any God that would ensure you don't pass your genes on to another generation.
 
2013-08-29 11:13:42 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: What don't you get about this? They were fighting a technologically superior force, they didn't have the ability to strike supply lines, and they still won. Do you seriously not understand that having many supply lines completely exposed across the entire U.S. would would be a huge disadvantage as compared to vietnam and afghanistan?

Not only that, but you forget that not all soldiers would be completely cool with bombing the shiat out of their own countrymen, and if even only 1 in 10 civilians took up the fight, the military would be severely outnumbered. Food doesn't magically appear in a soldier's backpack, ammo doesn't either. Gas doesn't magically appear in gas tanks. Spare parts aren't pulled out of thin air. Raw materials don't magically appear at factories. You seriously think all of these things can be simultaneously defended? You're just kidding yourself.


This is the kind of crazy person that shouldn't be allowed to own guns. Really scary doomsday prepper here.
 
2013-08-29 11:17:54 AM  

abb3w: This thread needs more people making fun of the name "Funderburk".

Solon Isonomia: Three years of law school and six years of practice have left my brain a little muddled - did I totally misread Article VI and the practical implications of the Civil War?

While I am not a lawyer, it's possible you might have overlooked one of the key parts of Article III, however. If the SCOTUS adopts a principle, no matter how stupid, there remains no further judicial recourse; further appeals must be in the arena of politics, or continue further to still other means.

Which means that the SCOTUS could go along with the gag. Political response via Amendment would be unlikely, and furthermore as easily ignored as Article VI; impeachment would be about the only option, and even that would be unlikely given the current composition and rules of the Legislature. Frankly, assassination would be a compelling option.

However, I can't imagine any way that Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Alito, nor Justice Kennedy would go along with the gag, let alone anyone to Kennedy's left. If it gets to the SCOTUS, I can only picture it doing so on original jurisdiction, and would go at least seven against, and more likely all nine saying "Hell, no."


I can absolutely see Clarence Thomas dissenting by saying Wickard v. Filburn was wrongly decided and, therefore, the third prong of the Lopez test cannot be used to justify federal regulation of intrastate commerce. The other eight though, yeah, they'd just say "Cooper v. Aaron, biatches" and be done with it.
 
2013-08-29 11:48:30 AM  

justtray: Using this same line of reasoning you don't have an individual right to own a gun at all, because the Supreme Court decided that at Heller, only 5 years ago.


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.

Was the right given to militias, or people?  Not only that, but during the era in which this was written, a militia was composed of regular citizens who brought what weapons they had.  As usual, you're stunningly ignorant of basic facts.

justtray: BraveNewCheneyWorld: What don't you get about this? They were fighting a technologically superior force, they didn't have the ability to strike supply lines, and they still won. Do you seriously not understand that having many supply lines completely exposed across the entire U.S. would would be a huge disadvantage as compared to vietnam and afghanistan?

Not only that, but you forget that not all soldiers would be completely cool with bombing the shiat out of their own countrymen, and if even only 1 in 10 civilians took up the fight, the military would be severely outnumbered. Food doesn't magically appear in a soldier's backpack, ammo doesn't either. Gas doesn't magically appear in gas tanks. Spare parts aren't pulled out of thin air. Raw materials don't magically appear at factories. You seriously think all of these things can be simultaneously defended? You're just kidding yourself.

This is the kind of crazy person that shouldn't be allowed to own guns. Really scary doomsday prepper here.


Because I understand the importance of logistics better than you, I'm a prepper?  Pretty feeble non sequitur, even from you.

justtray: The reality is you want unlimited gun rights, have no concept of history or law, and will use any backwards logic to convince yourself it is a rational position. You're amazingly stupid human being. I pray to any God that would ensure you don't pass your genes on to another generation.


No factual evidence, and very unoriginal insults, wow, you're such a good debater!
 
2013-08-29 12:34:25 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: justtray: Using this same line of reasoning you don't have an individual right to own a gun at all, because the Supreme Court decided that at Heller, only 5 years ago.

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.

Was the right given to militias, or people?  Not only that, but during the era in which this was written, a militia was composed of regular citizens who brought what weapons they had.  As usual, you're stunningly ignorant of basic facts.

justtray: BraveNewCheneyWorld: What don't you get about this? They were fighting a technologically superior force, they didn't have the ability to strike supply lines, and they still won. Do you seriously not understand that having many supply lines completely exposed across the entire U.S. would would be a huge disadvantage as compared to vietnam and afghanistan?

Not only that, but you forget that not all soldiers would be completely cool with bombing the shiat out of their own countrymen, and if even only 1 in 10 civilians took up the fight, the military would be severely outnumbered. Food doesn't magically appear in a soldier's backpack, ammo doesn't either. Gas doesn't magically appear in gas tanks. Spare parts aren't pulled out of thin air. Raw materials don't magically appear at factories. You seriously think all of these things can be simultaneously defended? You're just kidding yourself.

This is the kind of crazy person that shouldn't be allowed to own guns. Really scary doomsday prepper here.

Because I understand the importance of logistics better than you, I'm a prepper?  Pretty feeble non sequitur, even from you.

justtray: The reality is you want unlimited gun rights, have no concept of history or law, and will use any backwards logic to convince yourself it is a rational position. You're amazingly stupid human being. I pray to any God that would ensure you don't pass your genes on to another generation.

N ...


The right was given to people who were part of a miltia, for use in the militia. As is supported by, at a minimum, 70+ years of legal precendence dating back to Miller ruling. The only time that ever changed was 2008, 217 years later.

If you want a right to personally own any gun you want without restriction, unconnected to a militia, you can go try to pass such an ammendment, but that is not what the 2nd ammendment is, nor has it ever been that. According to YOUR logic, the supreme court cannot change the interpration of it as you do not respect the Heller decision that reaffirms constitutional limitation on gun ownership so we are simply left with the original intent, that you have no individual right to gun ownership.

Get off the internet, Alex Jones. You're an imbecile and an embarrassment to America and the human race in general.
 
2013-08-29 01:34:03 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: justtray: Using this same line of reasoning you don't have an individual right to own a gun at all, because the Supreme Court decided that at Heller, only 5 years ago.

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.

Was the right given to militias, or people?  Not only that, but during the era in which this was written, a militia was composed of regular citizens who brought what weapons they had.  As usual, you're stunningly ignorant of basic facts.

justtray: BraveNewCheneyWorld: What don't you get about this? They were fighting a technologically superior force, they didn't have the ability to strike supply lines, and they still won. Do you seriously not understand that having many supply lines completely exposed across the entire U.S. would would be a huge disadvantage as compared to vietnam and afghanistan?

Not only that, but you forget that not all soldiers would be completely cool with bombing the shiat out of their own countrymen, and if even only 1 in 10 civilians took up the fight, the military would be severely outnumbered. Food doesn't magically appear in a soldier's backpack, ammo doesn't either. Gas doesn't magically appear in gas tanks. Spare parts aren't pulled out of thin air. Raw materials don't magically appear at factories. You seriously think all of these things can be simultaneously defended? You're just kidding yourself.

This is the kind of crazy person that shouldn't be allowed to own guns. Really scary doomsday prepper here.

Because I understand the importance of logistics better than you, I'm a prepper?  Pretty feeble non sequitur, even from you.

justtray: The reality is you want unlimited gun rights, have no concept of history or law, and will use any backwards logic to convince yourself it is a rational position. You're amazingly stupid human being. I pray to any God that would ensure you don't pass your genes on to another generation.

N ...


you know, I've seen a lot of dumb, idiotic, and in other ways asinine stuff on this site overt the years.  But you are the first person I've seriously thought should be banned, if only for your own sake.
 
2013-08-29 02:20:54 PM  

justtray: The right was given to people who were part of a miltia, for use in the militia


Nope, it was given to all people.

justtray: As is supported by, at a minimum, 70+ years of legal precendence dating back to Miller ruling.


appeal to tradition

justtray: If you want a right to personally own any gun you want without restriction, unconnected to a militia, you can go try to pass such an ammendment,


the 2nd already covers this, buddy.

justtray: but that is not what the 2nd ammendment is, nor has it ever been that.


What do you think an inviolable right of the people to bear arms is, exactly?

Grand_Moff_Joseph: you know, I've seen a lot of dumb, idiotic, and in other ways asinine stuff on this site overt the years.  But you are the first person I've seriously thought should be banned, if only for your own sake.


That's an interesting statement coming from a guy who supports state sponsored murder of U.S. citizens without trial.
 
2013-08-29 02:23:19 PM  

Karac: slayer199: In principle, I like the concept of limiting federal power. Colorado and Waahington did it with legalizing marijuana. I just don't think the Missouri law will gain much traction nationwide.

Colorado and Washington did not nullify federal law, and did not even attempt to limit federal power.  They simply changed their own marijuana statutes on their own books.


And what happens when a federal agent wants to arrest someone from smoking weed?
 
Displayed 120 of 120 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report