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
    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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 120 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 »
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