Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Feb 20, 2013, 12:14 PM   #1
SilentPanda
Moderator emeritus
 
SilentPanda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Bamboo Forest
Missouri Bill Would Make It A Felony For Lawmakers To Propose Gun Control Legislation

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2717360.html

Quote:
A Republican state legislator in Missouri has proposed legislation that would make it a felony for lawmakers to introduce legislation to restrict Second Amendment rights in the state.

Legislation introduced Monday by state Rep. Mike Leara (R-St. Louis) would make state legislators guilty of a Class D felony if they introduce legislation "that further restricts an individual's right to bear arms." Leara said that the bill is needed because he sees a growing number of his colleagues looking to take away gun rights from the state's residents.
I doubt it'll go through but what a waste of time.
__________________
My 24 hour web cam! ʕノᴥʔノ ︵ ┻━┻
And remember.
SilentPanda is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 20, 2013, 12:16 PM   #2
eric/
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Ohio, United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilentPanda View Post
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2717360.html



I doubt it'll go through but what a waste of time.
Yeah that's a bit ridiculous. They should just institute "we're going to ignore the feds" legislation like everybody else instead.

It's also counter to the spirit of law in general.
eric/ is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 20, 2013, 12:29 PM   #3
zioxide
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Massachusetts
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric/ View Post
Yeah that's a bit ridiculous. They should just institute "we're going to ignore the feds" legislation like everybody else instead.
Which would also be illegal and a complete waste of time.


This country continues to mock itself daily. Europe must enjoy their daily laughs over us.
zioxide is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 20, 2013, 12:37 PM   #4
eric/
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Ohio, United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by zioxide View Post
Which would also be illegal and a complete waste of time.
Where is it illegal to do so?

Quote:
Originally Posted by zioxide View Post
This country continues to mock itself daily. Europe must enjoy their daily laughs over us.
Let's not turn this into that kind of conversation.
eric/ is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 20, 2013, 12:43 PM   #5
yg17
macrumors G5
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: St. Louis, MO
I wish the politicians in my state would stop making Missouri an embarrassment on the national stage. First Todd Akin, now this wanker.

At least, unlike Akin (when he was a rep), I'm not in this guy's district. Barely. By about a half mile.
__________________
Barack Obama is not a foreign born, brown skinned, anti-war socialist who gives away healthcare. You're thinking of Jesus.
yg17 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 20, 2013, 12:45 PM   #6
ctdonath
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Turnabout is fair play.
Legislators want to make people felons for mundane and common exercise of enumerated rights, so why not make legislators felons for attempting to enact such outrageous laws?

There is, in fact, precedent:
Quote:
18 U.S.C. 241 : US Code - Section 241: Conspiracy against rights

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same ... They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both
That's current US law. The Missouri bill would just mirror that as applied to a particular right.
ctdonath is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 20, 2013, 12:57 PM   #7
zioxide
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Massachusetts
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric/ View Post
Where is it illegal to do so?
Federal law trumps state law. Every time.

So these types of legislation are just a waste of time.

If the federal government passes new gun laws, every state WILL have to abide by it.

For example-

Marijuana is now completely legal for personal use for people 21+ in Washington and Colorado, yet you could still be arrested by the feds in those states for possession because it's still a schedule 1 drug under federal law.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ctdonath View Post
Turnabout is fair play.
Legislators want to make people felons for mundane and common exercise of enumerated rights, so why not make legislators felons for attempting to enact such outrageous laws?

There is, in fact, precedent:

That's current US law. The Missouri bill would just mirror that as applied to a particular right.
If this is legitimate law then we should be throwing people in jail who propose legislation that bans things like gay marriage and abortion.
zioxide is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 20, 2013, 01:07 PM   #8
eric/
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Ohio, United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by zioxide View Post
Federal law trumps state law. Every time.
Strongly disagree. And it's a problem. This whole mentality that one area can decide what's good for every other area in the country every single time no matter what is ridiculous.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zioxide View Post
So these types of legislation are just a waste of time.
Even if they don't work, the symbolic gesture is just fine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zioxide View Post
If the federal government passes new gun laws, every state WILL have to abide by it.
They just won't, and nothing will happen except federal funding for some stuff would be cut. What are the feds going to do about it? Declare war on the state of Missouri?

Quote:
Originally Posted by zioxide View Post
For example-

Marijuana is now completely legal for personal use for people 21+ in Washington and Colorado, yet you could still be arrested by the feds in those states for possession because it's still a schedule 1 drug under federal law.
Highlighting the incompetence of the federal government in determining such laws for the entire country, and further highlighting that states can in fact not abide by federal law and regulation.
eric/ is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 20, 2013, 02:12 PM   #9
zioxide
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Massachusetts
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric/ View Post
Strongly disagree. And it's a problem. This whole mentality that one area can decide what's good for every other area in the country every single time no matter what is ridiculous.
You can disagree all you want but it doesn't matter. It's fact. Federal law trumps state law every time.

Quote:
Even if they don't work, the symbolic gesture is just fine.
The "symbolic gesture" is a waste of money and time that could actually be spent trying to fix some of the problems we have.


Quote:
They just won't, and nothing will happen except federal funding for some stuff would be cut. What are the feds going to do about it? Declare war on the state of Missouri?
They could cut off all federal money going to Missouri. Missouri would last about 2 hours before they started crying for it back.

Quote:
Highlighting the incompetence of the federal government in determining such laws for the entire country, and further highlighting that states can in fact not abide by federal law and regulation.
Highlighting incompetence, maybe, but more like highlighting that it takes time for changes in society to progress through all areas of the country.

And it doesn't indicate states don't have to abide by federal law at all. Ask all the dispensary owners and operators in California (where medical marijuana has been legal for over 15 years) who have been arrested by DEA and other federal agencies while operating legally and regulated under state laws.

It just indicates that state and local law enforcement won't use their resources enforcing that specific law. So, if Missouri were to pass some type of firearm law that went against federal law, then the cops in Eastbum****, Missouri wouldn't arrest a citizen for violating that federal law but you can take it to the bank that if they got caught by ATF, FBI, etc, they would be arrested and thrown in jail.

This states-rights nonsense is just that.. nonsense. Missouri is a state of the United States of America so they have to abide by the laws and regulations set by the US government. They aren't the free and independent state of Missouri where they can do as they please. Don't like it? They are free to secede and start their own country, but they would have to do that knowing that they would be losing every benefit of being part of the USA, isolating themselves from the rest of the country and the world, and they would be the ones losing out.

Lets see how long they would survive with no federal money, no trade or travel whatsoever over Missouri borders, etc.
zioxide is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 20, 2013, 02:18 PM   #10
eric/
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Ohio, United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by zioxide View Post
You can disagree all you want but it doesn't matter. It's fact. Federal law trumps state law every time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zioxide View Post
And it doesn't indicate states don't have to abide by federal law at all.
Hmm?


Quote:
Originally Posted by zioxide View Post
The "symbolic gesture" is a waste of money and time that could actually be spent trying to fix some of the problems we have.
Well you could say the same about banning ar-15s.


Quote:
Originally Posted by zioxide View Post
They could cut off all federal money going to Missouri. Missouri would last about 2 hours before they started crying for it back.
Why?


Quote:
Originally Posted by zioxide View Post
Highlighting incompetence, maybe, but more like highlighting that it takes time for changes in society to progress through all areas of the country.
I think it's more so highlighting that blanket legislation that ignores how people in different parts of the country think or value is bad.



Quote:
Originally Posted by zioxide View Post
Ask all the dispensary owners and operators in California (where medical marijuana has been legal for over 15 years) who have been arrested by DEA and other federal agencies while operating legally and regulated under state laws.

It just indicates that state and local law enforcement won't use their resources enforcing that specific law. So, if Missouri were to pass some type of firearm law that went against federal law, then the cops in Eastbum****, Missouri wouldn't arrest a citizen for violating that federal law but you can take it to the bank that if they got caught by ATF, FBI, etc, they would be arrested and thrown in jail.
Ok, but that's pretty much a waste, because the feds don't have the resources to enforce laws if states don't comply.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zioxide View Post
This states-rights nonsense is just that.. nonsense. Missouri is a state of the United States of America so they have to abide by the laws and regulations set by the US government. They aren't the free and independent state of Missouri where they can do as they please. Don't like it?
Why are states rights nonsense?

Would you be saying the same thing if gay marriage was banned federally, and states wanted to not have it banned? Would you just say "well, just do what the feds say, or leave"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by zioxide View Post
They are free to secede and start their own country, but they would have to do that knowing that they would be losing every benefit of being part of the USA, isolating themselves from the rest of the country and the world, and they would be the ones losing out.
No they aren't. The federal government holds all states at gunpoint. War would ensure if a state tried.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zioxide View Post
Lets see how long they would survive with no federal money, no trade or travel whatsoever over Missouri borders, etc.
Why would trade and travel over Missouri borders stop?
eric/ is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 20, 2013, 02:19 PM   #11
iMikeT
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: California
Quote:
Originally Posted by zioxide View Post
You can disagree all you want but it doesn't matter. It's fact. Federal law trumps state law every time.


Yup. And there was this small but significant war during the 1860's that resolved that issue.
iMikeT is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 20, 2013, 02:20 PM   #12
eric/
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Ohio, United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by iMikeT View Post
Yup. And there was this small but significant war during the 1860's that resolved that issue.
How was the Civil War small?
eric/ is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 20, 2013, 02:21 PM   #13
NT1440
macrumors G3
 
NT1440's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Hartford, CT
Quote:
Originally Posted by iMikeT View Post
Yup. And there was this small but significant war during the 1860's that resolved that issue.
Guess which states are still sore about it.

Hint: Who elects tea party (drown the federal government in the tub) people?

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by eric/ View Post
How was the Civil War small?
Sarcasm.
NT1440 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 20, 2013, 02:27 PM   #14
iMikeT
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: California
Quote:
Originally Posted by NT1440 View Post
Guess which states are still sore about it.

Hint: Who elects tea party (drown the federal government in the tub) people?

When I read that I instantly thought, "The South will rise again, arrrrggggghhhh!!!" Haha.

Seriously though, why is it these anti-government, pro-"freedom", pro-"states rights" people always want to get involved in things they are against? Doesn't that go against all logic and screams of hypocrisy?


Quote:
Originally Posted by NT1440 View Post
Sarcasm.

iMikeT is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 20, 2013, 02:44 PM   #15
edk99
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: FL
Quote:
Originally Posted by iMikeT View Post
When I read that I instantly thought, "The South will rise again, arrrrggggghhhh!!!" Haha.

Seriously though, why is it these anti-government, pro-"freedom", pro-"states rights" people always want to get involved in things they are against? Doesn't that go against all logic and screams of hypocrisy?

Then when states like Arizona want to enforce the existing federal laws on illegal aliens this administrations tells them you can't do that because we are not enforcing those laws anymore. crazy i know isn't it.
edk99 is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 20, 2013, 02:49 PM   #16
GermanyChris
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Here
This is no more or less valid than the California senator that wants state pension to divest themselves of "gun" stock.
GermanyChris is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 20, 2013, 03:01 PM   #17
iMikeT
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: California
Quote:
Originally Posted by edk99 View Post
Then when states like Arizona want to enforce the existing federal laws on illegal aliens this administrations tells them you can't do that because we are not enforcing those laws anymore. crazy i know isn't it.


Federal agents should be the proper agency that handles immigration issues, not individual states or localities unless commissioned by the federal government. Why? Because immigration is a federal issue, not a single state issue.

Arizona is full of racist extreme-right dingbats that believe this "freedom" and "states rights" nonsense and use that as a smokescreen for their own racism. Bottom line, Arizona enacted a "papers please" law that targeted anyone who doesn't look white. Then again, it is McCain country so they're all mavericks and can do what every they want right?
iMikeT is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 20, 2013, 03:03 PM   #18
zioxide
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Massachusetts
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric/ View Post
Hmm?
Try learning reading comprehension.

"You can disagree all you want but it doesn't matter. It's fact. Federal law trumps state law every time."

"And it doesn't indicate states don't have to abide by federal law at all."

Take the two negatives out (which cancel each other out) and what does that sentence say?

"And it indicates states have to abide by federal law."

I see that you tried to make it seem like my two statements contradicted themselves, but they don't, and you just failed miserably.

The state might not have their local agencies use their local resources to enforce the law, but make no mistake, the people still have to abide by that law or they could face arrest and prosecution by the federal government.


Quote:
Well you could say the same about banning ar-15s.
Not really, because that would actually be banning a material object. Hardly symbolic.


Quote:
Why?
For every dollar Missouri pays in taxes to the feds they get $1.32 back. I doubt they would be able to handle cutting over 25% of their budget very well.

[http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxfo...20071016-.pdf]


Quote:
I think it's more so highlighting that blanket legislation that ignores how people in different parts of the country think or value is bad.
It's really just highlighting the fact that Missouri wants to remain the old wild west and doesn't want to wake up and join the east and west coast in creating a modern, civilized 21st century America.





Quote:
Ok, but that's pretty much a waste, because the feds don't have the resources to enforce laws if states don't comply.
Tell that to the people who are sitting in federal prison right now for abiding by state law.


Quote:
Why are states rights nonsense?

Would you be saying the same thing if gay marriage was banned federally, and states wanted to not have it banned? Would you just say "well, just do what the feds say, or leave"?
States rights are nonsense because all it has become now is an excuse the right tries to use to deny the rights of other citizens.

And in case you didn't notice, the federal government still doesn't recognize same-sex marriage (which is ridiculous in itself when our country was started with a document stating "all men are created equal") and the gay community is still fighting tooth and nail to get DOMA repealed. Lower courts have ruled it unconstitutional but it's still working its way up to the Supreme court.

Once it's found unconstitutional and repealed, then all states should be forced to honor these marriages.

No state should be allowed to use the "states rights" nonsense to deny any American their equal civil rights.


Quote:
Why would trade and travel over Missouri borders stop?
Quote:
The federal government holds all states at gunpoint. War would ensure if a state tried.
You answered your own question.
zioxide is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 20, 2013, 03:11 PM   #19
eric/
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Ohio, United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by zioxide View Post

"You can disagree all you want but it doesn't matter. It's fact. Federal law trumps state law every time."

"And it doesn't indicate states don't have to abide by federal law at all."

Take the two negatives out (which cancel each other out) and what does that sentence say?

"And it indicates states have to abide by federal law."

I see that you tried to make it seem like my two statements contradicted themselves, but they don't, and you just failed miserably.
But it does indicate states don't have to abide by federal law. They are sitting there doing it right now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zioxide View Post
The state might not have their local agencies use their local resources to enforce the law, but make no mistake, the people still have to abide by that law or they could face arrest and prosecution by the federal government.
They could also not follow the law and not be arrested. As people do now that marijuana is legal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zioxide View Post
Not really, because that would actually be banning a material object. Hardly symbolic.
Well it would be symbolic though, because it doesn't do anything.



Quote:
Originally Posted by zioxide View Post
For every dollar Missouri pays in taxes to the feds they get $1.32 back. I doubt they would be able to handle cutting over 25% of their budget very well.

[http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxfo...20071016-.pdf]
They would just have to spend less.


Quote:
Originally Posted by zioxide View Post
It's really just highlighting the fact that Missouri wants to remain the old wild west and doesn't want to wake up and join the east and west coast in creating a modern, civilized 21st century America.
A modern civilized 21st century America would include liberties such as being able to own an assault rifle.


Quote:
Originally Posted by zioxide View Post
Tell that to the people who are sitting in federal prison right now for abiding by state law.
Tell that to people driving around in Colorado eating bag after bag of cheetos.


Quote:
Originally Posted by zioxide View Post
States rights are nonsense because all it has become now is an excuse the right tries to use to deny the rights of other citizens.
Do you ever think of things outside of a right vs left context?

Quote:
Originally Posted by zioxide View Post
And in case you didn't notice, the federal government still doesn't recognize same-sex marriage (which is ridiculous in itself when our country was started with a document stating "all men are created equal") and the gay community is still fighting tooth and nail to get DOMA repealed. Lower courts have ruled it unconstitutional but it's still working its way up to the Supreme court.
Right, so are you advocating gay people leave the country?

Quote:
Originally Posted by zioxide View Post
Once it's found unconstitutional and repealed, then all states should be forced to honor these marriages.


No state should be allowed to use the "states rights" nonsense to deny any American their equal civil rights.
Sure. I agree. But those states do have rights to run their own state. People routinely fall under the misconception that the US is DC. It's not.




Quote:
Originally Posted by zioxide View Post

You answered your own question.
That didn't answer my question at all
eric/ is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 20, 2013, 03:24 PM   #20
edk99
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: FL
Quote:
Originally Posted by iMikeT View Post
Federal agents should be the proper agency that handles immigration issues, not individual states or localities unless commissioned by the federal government. Why? Because immigration is a federal issue, not a single state issue.

Arizona is full of racist extreme-right dingbats that believe this "freedom" and "states rights" nonsense and use that as a smokescreen for their own racism. Bottom line, Arizona enacted a "papers please" law that targeted anyone who doesn't look white. Then again, it is McCain country so they're all mavericks and can do what every they want right?
wow. So you are against the federal government enforcing immigration laws where they have to ask someone for their so called "papers"? All Arizona wanted to do was enforce existing laws not create new ones above federal law. I think you watch to much pMS.NBC
edk99 is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 20, 2013, 03:50 PM   #21
iMikeT
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: California
Quote:
Originally Posted by edk99 View Post
wow. So you are against the federal government enforcing immigration laws where they have to ask someone for their so called "papers"? All Arizona wanted to do was enforce existing laws not create new ones above federal law. I think you watch to much pMS.NBC


What???

I am not against the federal government enforcing laws so long as it's the correct agency to do so, reread my original post. Federal agencies and federal officers should be enforcing these laws for themselves. Arizona enacting laws for localities to enforce federal law is actually the state of Arizona extending their own jurisdiction.

Your post perfectly describes to me the typical CONservative tactic of being against something unless it benefits your twisted idiotologies. In this case, be against the federal government and cry "states rights", then when you want to get rid of the non-white people you're all off a sudden in favor of federal laws. Real backwards thinking at play here.

I don't watch the mainstream media. If anything, you should stay away from Faux Noise.
iMikeT is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 20, 2013, 06:02 PM   #22
Thomas Veil
macrumors 68020
 
Thomas Veil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Reality
Quote:
Originally Posted by edk99 View Post
...I think you watch to much pMS.NBC
And perhaps you listen to too much Limbaugh.
Thomas Veil is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 20, 2013, 07:53 PM   #23
MuddyPaws1
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
This bill as just as silly as the one circulating by Sen. Nikiya Harris (D), Rep. Mandela Barnes, (D), Rep. Evan Goyke (D), and Rep. Fred Kessler (D) that seeks to ban expanding (hollow point) bullets.

Both sides are just out of control on this.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by iMikeT View Post
Your post perfectly describes to me the typical CONservative tactic of being against something unless it benefits your twisted idiotologies.
The same thing could be said about the libs and gun control, or other things. Why not go after the government to crack down on criminals and keep guns out of the hands of crazy people and leave the law abiding people alone? I mean killing whales is wrong, killing seals is wrong, chopping trees down is wrong there is a owl in there, no walking on the beach because there is a plover, no driving in the forest because there is a slug on the flat rocks and you might run it over.....but yea, go ahead and kill a baby, that's a personal choice.
MuddyPaws1 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 20, 2013, 09:09 PM   #24
MacNut
macrumors P6
 
MacNut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: CT
Quote:
Originally Posted by MuddyPaws1 View Post
This bill as just as silly as the one circulating by Sen. Nikiya Harris (D), Rep. Mandela Barnes, (D), Rep. Evan Goyke (D), and Rep. Fred Kessler (D) that seeks to ban expanding (hollow point) bullets.

Both sides are just out of control on this.

----------



The same thing could be said about the libs and gun control, or other things. Why not go after the government to crack down on criminals and keep guns out of the hands of crazy people and leave the law abiding people alone? I mean killing whales is wrong, killing seals is wrong, chopping trees down is wrong there is a owl in there, no walking on the beach because there is a plover, no driving in the forest because there is a slug on the flat rocks and you might run it over.....but yea, go ahead and kill a baby, that's a personal choice.
If the NRA would agree to universal background checks maybe we can get the guns out of the crackpots hands. There are probably some NRA members that are too unstable to own a gun.
__________________
The thoughts in my head are rated TV-MA. Viewer discretion is advised.
Now batting, Number 2 Derek Jeter, Number 2
MacNut is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 20, 2013, 09:28 PM   #25
Ugg
macrumors 68000
 
Ugg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Penryn
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacNut View Post
If the NRA would agree to universal background checks maybe we can get the guns out of the crackpots hands. There are probably some NRA members that are too unstable to own a gun.
Of that I have no doubt and it once again proves that the NRA is not about gun rights but about selling as many guns as possible to a dwindling # of old white folks.
Ugg is offline   1 Reply With Quote


Reply
MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Missouri Lawmakers Pass 72- Hour Waiting Period Before Abortions Southern Dad Politics, Religion, Social Issues 13 May 19, 2014 10:09 PM
Missouri gun murders 'rose after law repeal' mrkramer Politics, Religion, Social Issues 13 Feb 18, 2014 06:10 PM
A New Bill in Tennessee Could Nullify Federal Gun Control Laws jkcerda Politics, Religion, Social Issues 69 Jan 26, 2014 10:55 PM
Assault Weapons Ban is Red Herring, will make it harder to pass Gun Control laws. PracticalMac Politics, Religion, Social Issues 93 Mar 8, 2013 03:41 PM
Wyoming moves to nullify any new federal gun legislation glocke12 Politics, Religion, Social Issues 143 Jan 17, 2013 03:39 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:42 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC