Missouri Bill Would Make It A Felony For Lawmakers To Propose Gun Control Legislation

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by SilentPanda, Feb 20, 2013.

  1. SilentPanda Moderator emeritus

    SilentPanda

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2002
    Location:
    The Bamboo Forest
    #1
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/19/missouri-gun-bill_n_2717360.html

    I doubt it'll go through but what a waste of time.
     
  2. eric/ Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #2
  3. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #3
    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.
     
  4. eric/ Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #4
    Where is it illegal to do so?

    Let's not turn this into that kind of conversation.
     
  5. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #5
    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.
     
  6. ctdonath macrumors 65816

    ctdonath

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2009
    #6
    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.
     
  7. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #7
    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.

    If this is legitimate law then we should be throwing people in jail who propose legislation that bans things like gay marriage and abortion.
     
  8. eric/ Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #8
    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.

    Even if they don't work, the symbolic gesture is just fine.

    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?

    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.
     
  9. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #9
    You can disagree all you want but it doesn't matter. It's fact. Federal law trumps state law every time.

    The "symbolic gesture" is a waste of money and time that could actually be spent trying to fix some of the problems we have.


    They could cut off all federal money going to Missouri. Missouri would last about 2 hours before they started crying for it back.

    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.
     
  10. eric/ Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #10
    Hmm?


    Well you could say the same about banning ar-15s.


    Why?


    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.



    Ok, but that's pretty much a waste, because the feds don't have the resources to enforce laws if states don't comply.

    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"?

    No they aren't. The federal government holds all states at gunpoint. War would ensure if a state tried.

    Why would trade and travel over Missouri borders stop?
     
  11. iMikeT macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Location:
    California
    #11


    Yup. And there was this small but significant war during the 1860's that resolved that issue.
     
  12. eric/ Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #12
    How was the Civil War small?
     
  13. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #13
    Guess which states are still sore about it.

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

    ----------

    Sarcasm.
     
  14. iMikeT macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Location:
    California
    #14

    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?



    :)
     
  15. edk99 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 27, 2009
    Location:
    FL
    #15
    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.
     
  16. GermanyChris macrumors 601

    GermanyChris

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2011
    Location:
    Here
    #16
    This is no more or less valid than the California senator that wants state pension to divest themselves of "gun" stock.
     
  17. iMikeT macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Location:
    California
    #17


    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? :rolleyes:
     
  18. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #18
    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.


    Not really, because that would actually be banning a material object. Hardly symbolic.


    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/taxfoundation.org/files/docs/ftsbs-timeseries-20071016-.pdf]


    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.





    Tell that to the people who are sitting in federal prison right now for abiding by state law.


    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.


    You answered your own question.
     
  19. eric/ Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #19
    But it does indicate states don't have to abide by federal law. They are sitting there doing it right now.

    They could also not follow the law and not be arrested. As people do now that marijuana is legal.

    Well it would be symbolic though, because it doesn't do anything.



    They would just have to spend less.


    A modern civilized 21st century America would include liberties such as being able to own an assault rifle. :)


    Tell that to people driving around in Colorado eating bag after bag of cheetos.


    Do you ever think of things outside of a right vs left context?

    Right, so are you advocating gay people leave the country?

    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.




    That didn't answer my question at all
     
  20. edk99 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 27, 2009
    Location:
    FL
    #20
    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
     
  21. iMikeT macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Location:
    California
    #21


    What??? :confused:

    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.
     
  22. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #22
    And perhaps you listen to too much Limbaugh. :rolleyes:
     
  23. MuddyPaws1 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2012
    #23
    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.:rolleyes:
     
  24. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #24
    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.
     
  25. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #25
    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.
     

Share This Page