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  
•       •       •

3305 clicks; posted to Politics » on 28 Aug 2013 at 5:02 PM (51 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
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 20 of 120 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report