Missouri senate passes bill to ban Federal gun control laws

#howcivilwarstarts

originally posted by: looneylupinsrevenge

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
This will go exactly nowhere. You'll see. In ten years (assuming they haven't banned guns or rights (or both) or individuality (or all three)) we will still be having this "debate". Which isn't a debate because rights are not debatable by default. So if TPTB are telling you that we're engaged in a debate over your rights, they're telling you that you don't have any rights in their book. It's as simple as that.

This is a lost cause. The propaganda machine is not on your side. You will lose no matter what you do.

Ok... and what is it that you suggest people do, just lay down an die? Sorry but that's just simply not an option most people will accept.

Pretty sure that what I was trying to convey was that it really doesn't matter what they try to do. The outcome is going to be the same. You can accept it or you can not accept it but the inevitable does not care whether you accept it or not.

I believe this will come down to being decided in "the court of public opinion". I believe the mind of the average human being is the most malleable clay that you could possibly imagine in the hands of a skilled propagandist (Think Goebbels on steroids). The people who are working on depriving us of our rights are among the most skilled and resourceful propaganda artists who have ever lived. Realistically, we will lose in the so-called "court of public opinion" every single time.

So. Your best bet is to be (mentally) ahead of the game they're playing in the here and now. And believe me. It is just a game. To them, the goal is simply to wear down public support for a given thing (gun rights, in this case) to nothing. They do not care how long it takes. They have been at this for decades and if it was not obvious all along, they are nothing if not persistent and determined. They have made tremendous headway in just the last 20 years.

Really, if you want to pinpoint the exact moment when things started to go their way, it was Columbine. It was not entirely obvious at the time but look at where we are now and contrast that with where we were then.

Regardless of how this happened, they are winning the endurance game. They do not have to win big victories. They just have to plant seeds and wait and harvest the crops. They have done so so slowly but surely most people who are debating this right now don't even realize it.

Let me put it to you this way. If you went to bed tonight and woke up tomorrow morning and everything was backwards from how it was just one day ago, would there even be a chance that you'd not notice? Or course not! It would probably be the first thing that would pop into your head. But, if you woke up tomorrow morning and just a few little things had changed while you slept you'd likely not even notice. And if this happened every single night for the rest of your life, you would probably EVENTUALLY notice how drastically everything was changing but you would probably be hard pressed to point out exactly how this happened. That's where they have you. They have you in reaction mode. You're reacting to everything as it happens and you're pretty much in a panic because you can see things are not going your way but you don't know why. You can't care why. You can't afford to think about it and reason it out and keep calm. But either way, they have played a devious game and even just figuring out where all the key moves have been made would not do you any good now. Other than simply to come to the realization that you have been really outmatched by these people.

The truth? Those who want to keep their gun rights cannot think their way out of a wet paper bag and those who want to take them away are college professors, doctors, lawyers, politicians, script writers, actors, directors, musicians and artists or all strips and financiers. Various types of saboteurs and provocateurs. You name it. They have (deftly and artfully) picked these locks that you trusted to protect your valuables. It's done. It's all over but the shouting. The alarm sounded years ago while most of us were sleeping. That was the real alarm. The one you're hearing now is just for show.

Simply stating that you know your rights will not do much against a systematic subversion of them. Pragmatism. I believe that what will be will be and if you are not ready to accept it, you are in for a rude awakening.

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: LightSpeedDriver
a reply to: caterpillage

I am a confused European. Can you help me out? I thought that federal law always supersedes state law. I read that even though certain states have legalised cannabis use, the Feds can still bust people.

Only for interstate commerce and transactions with foreign governments.
All the rest belong to the States.
Except for this "Implied Power" which is a bunch o crap and flies in the face of the Constitution of the United States of America. That document says it all.

The document does say it all. And the document, in Article VI, clause 2 says, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. So Missouri can go pound sand.

originally posted by: F4guy

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: LightSpeedDriver
a reply to: caterpillage

I am a confused European. Can you help me out? I thought that federal law always supersedes state law. I read that even though certain states have legalised cannabis use, the Feds can still bust people.

Only for interstate commerce and transactions with foreign governments.
All the rest belong to the States.
Except for this "Implied Power" which is a bunch o crap and flies in the face of the Constitution of the United States of America. That document says it all.

The document does say it all. And the document, in Article VI, clause 2 says, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. So Missouri can go pound sand.

You did not read the post nor the Constitution , did you ?
The only Federal powers are Interstate/International trade and treaties.
The rest are left up to the State.

a reply to: F4guy

We Missourians can pound sand? LOL.

Na, we'll just take the constitution and live by it, thank you. You might try reading it sometime. It's really not very hard to understand, especially when you consider all the Supreme Court decisions that have been made in support of it's true meaning.

a reply to: caterpillage

Way to go Missouri! Thanks for posting. I had not seen this article anywhere until you mentioned it. It's laughable what the MSM will try to keep out of the news.

originally posted by: F4guy

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: LightSpeedDriver
a reply to: caterpillage

I am a confused European. Can you help me out? I thought that federal law always supersedes state law. I read that even though certain states have legalised cannabis use, the Feds can still bust people.

Only for interstate commerce and transactions with foreign governments.
All the rest belong to the States.
Except for this "Implied Power" which is a bunch o crap and flies in the face of the Constitution of the United States of America. That document says it all.

The document does say it all. And the document, in Article VI, clause 2 says, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. So Missouri can go pound sand.

Funny how all the liberal judges who sued Trump on various lawsuits seemed to have missed this part of the Constitution. But in all seriousness the federal government does not have power over an individual state's laws. You might think it does but it doesn't. The only jurisdiction the federal government technically has within a state are on federal lands. Any federal law withing the US can be objected to and not enforced by any state at anytime. The state can choose to sue the federal government or choose to simply not enforce the law. Most states use "common sense" law which means they tend to enforce those federal laws that are common sense.

Within most states there are multiple contradicting laws on the books. From federal, to state, to local levels there are laws across the US that directly conflict with each other. Many cities have laws that are not legal based on state law yet they are enforced until they are sued in court.

Look at marijuana. Made illegal by the federal government yet every liberal area in the country chooses not to enforce federal law. Too much tax revenue to be made from it so why would they cut off their nose to spite their face.

Missouri can do what ever it wants...and it did. It's the way it should be.

Just curious...do you live in Missouri?

originally posted by: caterpillage
In a bold move to curtail unconstitutional federal gun law, the missouri senate passed a bill prohibiting the federal government enforcing its will on a free state.

Good job Missouri! I hope it gets signed into law, and many more states follow suit.

I'm lookin at you ohio.



thesentinel.net...

“All federal acts, laws, executive orders, administrative orders, court orders, rules, and regulations, whether past, present, or future, which infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the United States I and Section 23 of the Missouri Constitution shall be invalid in this state, shall not be recognized by this state, shall be specifically rejected by this state, and shall be considered null and void and of no effect in this state.”

I've been looking for a new state to move to. Missouri was never really on my list, but after this legislation, Missouri might have a new tax payer out of me.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
So it is now a "sanctuary state"?

Do we have an amendment in the constitution protecting non citizens that break our laws?

originally posted by: F4guy

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: LightSpeedDriver
a reply to: caterpillage

I am a confused European. Can you help me out? I thought that federal law always supersedes state law. I read that even though certain states have legalised cannabis use, the Feds can still bust people.

Only for interstate commerce and transactions with foreign governments.
All the rest belong to the States.
Except for this "Implied Power" which is a bunch o crap and flies in the face of the Constitution of the United States of America. That document says it all.

The document does say it all. And the document, in Article VI, clause 2 says, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. So Missouri can go pound sand.

Thats the best arguement the fed has against states doing this, but it's the pursuant part that trips it up.
Pro gun types say federal gun laws are not pursuant to the constitution, anti gunners say they are.

shall not be infringed tells me that the federal government has no authority granted to it by the constitution to legislate gun ownership in any way.

And the constitution was devised to limit the power of federal government.

a reply to: GraffikPleasure

The problem with Term limits is the inclusion of the new breed of Marxist politicians... AOC and her ilk!

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: F4guy

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: LightSpeedDriver
a reply to: caterpillage

I am a confused European. Can you help me out? I thought that federal law always supersedes state law. I read that even though certain states have legalised cannabis use, the Feds can still bust people.

Only for interstate commerce and transactions with foreign governments.
All the rest belong to the States.
Except for this "Implied Power" which is a bunch o crap and flies in the face of the Constitution of the United States of America. That document says it all.

The document does say it all. And the document, in Article VI, clause 2 says, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. So Missouri can go pound sand.

You did not read the post nor the Constitution , did you ?
The only Federal powers are Interstate/International trade and treaties.
The rest are left up to the State.

I first read and studied the Constitution while in law school and then taught it as a law professor. According to your theory it is up to the states to maintain armies and declare war, right? They are not "Interstate/International trade and treaties." And according to you, the FAA can't regulate airline flights between Dallas and Houston, or LA an San Francisco.According to you I guess I could have refused to go to Vietnam, since Kentucky didn't issue the orders sending me there. I suppose you don't pay federal taxes because your state doesn't say you have to, right? And which state issues the patents on the computer you're using. I don't know where you went to law school. bit I'd ask for my money back.

originally posted by: F4guy

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: F4guy

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: LightSpeedDriver
a reply to: caterpillage

I am a confused European. Can you help me out? I thought that federal law always supersedes state law. I read that even though certain states have legalised cannabis use, the Feds can still bust people.

Only for interstate commerce and transactions with foreign governments.
All the rest belong to the States.
Except for this "Implied Power" which is a bunch o crap and flies in the face of the Constitution of the United States of America. That document says it all.

The document does say it all. And the document, in Article VI, clause 2 says, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. So Missouri can go pound sand.

You did not read the post nor the Constitution , did you ?
The only Federal powers are Interstate/International trade and treaties.
The rest are left up to the State.

I first read and studied the Constitution while in law school and then taught it as a law professor. According to your theory it is up to the states to maintain armies and declare war, right? They are not "Interstate/International trade and treaties." And according to you, the FAA can't regulate airline flights between Dallas and Houston, or LA an San Francisco.According to you I guess I could have refused to go to Vietnam, since Kentucky didn't issue the orders sending me there. I suppose you don't pay federal taxes because your state doesn't say you have to, right? And which state issues the patents on the computer you're using. I don't know where you went to law school. bit I'd ask for my money back.

If I took your class, I would want my money back.

I doubt your purported credentials, as your premise would have no legal standing whatsoever. A second year law student would know that.

a reply to: F4guy

According to your theory it is up to the states to maintain armies and declare war, right?

What does the term International mean ? That is a Federal responsibility . Just as I said. International treaties.
Yet , the States do maintain their own army . The National Guard

And according to you, the FAA can't regulate airline flights between Dallas and Houston

Interstate trade . Just as I said

According to you I guess I could have refused to go to Vietnam, since Kentucky didn't issue the orders sending me there

The United States military falls under the US Federal government

And which state issues the patents on the computer you're using.

The US Patent Office falls Under the US Department of Commerce . Get it Commerce ? You lnow , Interstate trade.

I don't know where you went to law school. bit I'd ask for my money back.

I did not go to law school
I just know the US Constitution .

Denying ignorance
Why ?
Ancient Aliens is on.

a reply to: caterpillage

Excellent

This is what it takes to send a loud and clear message: we will not obey your illegal gun laws. When in conflict with the Constitution, their hastily and poorly crafted laws lose every time

I especially enjoy the Constitutional Sheriff's who have already pledged to refuse any gun control and especially gun confiscation law. Gun-grabbers defy or test these Sheriff's at their own risk.....

originally posted by: OwenTrousers
#howcivilwarstarts

#HowGunGrabbersStartCivilWar

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: F4guy

According to your theory it is up to the states to maintain armies and declare war, right?

And according to you, the FAA can't regulate airline flights between Dallas and Houston

Interstate trade . Just as I said

I haven't looked at whatever map you are using, but on my map Dallas and Houston are in the same state - that is inTRAstate, not interstate. Why don't you just admit you are repeating some other whackaloon's talking points.

a reply to: F4guy
You do not get it , do you ?
Or , are you just trolling ?

a reply to: F4guy

It is irrelevant.

Have we not been clear?

ANY gun control law will be outright ignored and disregarded entirely. There will be no registrations, no confiscation, no bans and most importantly we will continue to sell our private property to other private citizens at our own discretion.

Period. End of discussion. This isn't a conversation it is an ultimatum.

The current state of affairs in this country ensures any act against firearms and their lawful ownership will be rightfully seen as a hostile act of war. We see what is happening in Venezuela and in other socialist leftist countries - and I promise you it will not happen here.

Any attempts to come after our firearms will be rightfully seen as a violent act, and handled accordingly.

a reply to: JBurns

Couldn't agree more. This is what they want.
We banned most guns in the UK years ago, doesn't seem to have really worked.
It's almost like criminals don't care about laws !!