Confiscate Firearms - Missouri Democrats Introduce Legislation : Gives Gun Owners 90 Days to Turn in

page: 5
42
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 
If your map is for real (and I'm sure it is ) where did this person come from? I just wonder if a state can even make a law like this what with all the powers the Sheriffs have. May be two different things all together......time to research.

Thanks for the map, reminds me of a little guy on an island with one pom tree defying all odds no matter how "stupied" his idea is.




posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by AwakeinNM
 




gun grabbing communists


Gun grabbing has nothing to do with communism or any social order beyond the reinforcement of state power and its control on the monopoly over the use of force. Since communism or capitalism (the two poles) are not specifically predicated in the power of the state over the citizenship you should probably have framed it around the corporatist strangle hold around political discourse and actions in the US. That has nothing to do with communism or capitalism, in fact it falls more closely to the extreme right aspirations of the upper class that controls said corporations in close similitude to national socialism but well beyond since corporations have world markets domination aspirations and any pretense of nationalism serves only to secure their interests against externally based opposition in the national market.



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 06:55 PM
link   
This is in Missiouri, the land of hunters and a lot of gun owners, good luck in getting all the red necks to surrender their firearms, fracken liberals, maybe they should look in the mirror first beefore coming up with something so stupid.



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 07:31 PM
link   
No worries, this would never pass in Missouri, would it wrabbit?



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by akalepos

Originally posted by GuyverUnit I

4. Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have ninety days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution:

(1) Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state of Missouri;

(2) Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable; or

(3) Surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction, subject to specific agency regulations.

5. Unlawful manufacture, import, possession, purchase, sale, or transfer of an assault weapon or a large capacity magazine is a class C felony..


Source

Read The Bill

So it begins.
Will it pass?


This idea blatantly violates the Ex Post Facto clause in the Constitution. These idiot people do not realize that they are completely violating the Constitution.

King George did this to us. He would arbitrarily demand something that took a man who was in compliance with the law on one day and make him a criminal the next. They can legally pass laws (maybe) that out law certain weapons but because you own one before the effective date of the law you are supposed to be left alone about it.

These damn fools.


10th amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

States cannot pass any law that overrides what is in the Constitution.



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 08:03 PM
link   
It's to the point now where legality or constitutionality hardly matter any more. The federal government has ignored the Constitution for ages now so it's only a matter of who has the cojones to draw the line in the sand. If any law (read "ANY LAW") is enacted by state or fed restricting the right to keep and bear arms, it's illegal plain as day. Now it's just a game of pandering to the popular belief and the federal government has the upper hand because they pretty much own the MSM. Again, it's up to those who have the cojones to stand up.

The Second Amendment was considered to be one of those rights that are "natural rights" by the founding fathers, therefore any infringement OR any attempts to repeal them, even by constitutional convention, are null and void.

This will be a standoff and a true test of guts for a lot of people.



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tuttle
So how many people here who own one of these weapons are going to hand them in?

Failing that,

How many people here are going to engage in a gun battle to the death with state/federal forces who attempt to relieve you of your constitutional right to bear arms?


Turning weapons in?

Gun battles?

Already seen my share of that. I'm going fishing instead.

DON'T follow me to the fishing hole.

OH, I see! You already have your OWN fishing hole!

Having any luck?



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 08:35 PM
link   
It is very presumptuous of our Nation’s political elite to expect the American people to believe any thing that they say anymore on face value, after what they try to pull all year long in Washington D.C.! They fabricate, spin, and weave stories that would make a nun blush, and they lie to the American people about everything under the sun, from how many barrels of crude oil are leaking into the Gulf of Mexico from the ruptured Deep Water Horizon, to how many billions of dollars the Nation is going deeper into debt every single day! Now we are just supposed to suspend our incredulity, and believe them, when they tell us to turn in our Guns........



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by cantsee4looking
its gonna happen guys.....

fight all ya like....


You just said that to 'Mericans?

You Do realize that "as much as we like" could amount to an awful lot of fighting, don't you?



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Raist
Being a Missouri resident I can say this (at least for the area I live in and around) there is no way they will be taking any firearm in this area. I do not think a lot of the hillbillies and rednecks most of the time just because of our differences, but I can say they will not let a gun be taken from them.

Many around here did things in their younger years and still do today things that are very near making them criminals anyway. They are a very rough crowd that take little slack from people looking to impose their ideas on them. Many are still not really good at interacting with those deemed more civil than them. Instead of talking things out they fight them out.

That said I will bring this to the eyes of a few who will in turn spread the word. There are a few things you do not mess with when it comes to rednecks, hillbillies, and cowboys, and that is you do not touch their beer, their women, their kids, or their guns. I am sure there are a few places within driving distance that would just as soon hang someone coming for their gun as to talk to them. For what it is worth even though these people make me nervous when they are out drinking (why I stopped partying long ago) I feel safe in knowing that I support their right to own guns. If you support their cause they will support you.


Raist


Re-quoted for truth.

People like you make me every bit as nervous as people like me make you, BUT - you catch my back in a battle for my rights, and you can bet your ass I'll have yours in a battle for yours. As you astutely observed, we can be some real mean fighters, too. When it comes to a fight, it can't hurt to have us around.

That's just the way it works.



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 10:00 PM
link   
INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVES ELLINGER (Sponsor), SCHUPP, MCNEIL AND WALTON GRAY (Co-sponsors).

0776L.01I D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

Maybe some these are the people that need to be QUESTIONED about this?



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by StumpDrummer
INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVES ELLINGER (Sponsor), SCHUPP, MCNEIL AND WALTON GRAY (Co-sponsors).

0776L.01I D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

Maybe some these are the people that need to be QUESTIONED about this?


done



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 10:47 PM
link   
I live in MO. I'll welcome the confiscators at my front door when they come for my weapons. Just to make it easier, I WILL be giving them my bullets first.



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 11:54 PM
link   
My email sent to Ellinger, McNeil, and Schupp (Gray was not on House email list):

Sir/Madam,

I am not in any one of your constituencies, so feel free to not respond. I am writing in response to your introduction and sponsorship of House Bill 545. I am curious why you would introduce a bill which you must know is clearly unconstitutional.

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads "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".

The bill you have proposed obviously infringes on the right to keep and bear arms. Furthermore, the bill you propose subverts the intention of the Second Amendment and jeopardizes the security, sovereignty, and civil liberties of the very people you are supposed to represent. Being complicit in such a bill would make one think that you were also complicit in a grander scheme to take control of the general population and take away the liberties and benefits that were guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution.

Although I do not reside within your constituency, I will make every effort possible to inform those who do live in your constituency how you are trying to legislate away their freedom, independence, and security simply by informing them of this bill you are introducing and the subsequent effects that would result if such a bill was passed.

If you have any questions about the meaning and the intent of the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution I would be glad to help you out as much as I could. Any further questions you may have regarding the U.S. Constitution or any of its Amendments and the intent of any part of it, I can either answer for you or easily direct you to convenient resources which clearly explain the text and intent.

I would hope that you would reconsider your interest in this bill and retract your sponsorship. This bill does not represent the constituency, nor does it represent the best interests of the people of the sovereign state of Missouri.

Respectfully,



I blind copied my own rep and I'm guessing he'll get a good laugh out of it. He would never, repeat NEVER vote in a bill like this one.



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 12:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tuttle
So how many people here who own one of these weapons are going to hand them in?

Failing that,

How many people here are going to engage in a gun battle to the death with state/federal forces who attempt to relieve you of your constitutional right to bear arms?


You must not be from Missouri. You honestly think our Sheriff would even think of trying to enforce something like this? Around here? A Sheriff's department who's armored vehicle is a run down Humvee handed down to them by the National Guard? In a county where the day before firearms deer season is our biggest revenue day of the year?


It's all for nothing though. As our Dear Wrabbit pointed out, this has a snowball's chance in hell of passing. Any politician here knows that if they were to vote for this they might as well go clean out their office afterward.



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 01:42 AM
link   
I wonder if the 90 limit is so that any court actions will take longer then the people have to turn in there AWs

It would be real bad if the law passed and a injunction with the court in over 90 said the law was unconstitutional
you know the cops would never give back the guns.

I would never turn in a AW, i would move it out of state until the final court ruling. Then you still have the option of selling the weapon to a state that don't ban AWs like Texas.



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 02:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000



(Source)



If you look at the Presidential election you basically see the same pattern in every state. Even in my state that is true blue (Washington) The blue is around Seattle and the rest of the state is red. Down near Vancouver Washington it is very red, but populations of the big cities determine what direction the state goes.

The interesting part is big Unions and subsistence living populates much of what we see as big cities, and that is what ends of controlling the direction of our country.

edit on 16-2-2013 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 11:05 AM
link   
As a Missourian, this would never pass. Even if it did, there are enough people with a lot of guns (and even more ammo) in my small hometown alone to form quite a resistance to anything this state could dish out...and we have people like this everywhere in the state. People here don't kid around, they buy ammo by thousand round cases and stockpile it. I mean you couldn't walk a block here without running into at least one person with 20 or so guns and at the very least 10 thousand rounds of ammo. Also, this is a state where an anti gun control bill is set for legislation with wide support.



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000



(Source)



If you look at the Presidential election you basically see the same pattern in every state. Even in my state that is true blue (Washington) The blue is around Seattle and the rest of the state is red. Down near Vancouver Washington it is very red, but populations of the big cities determine what direction the state goes.

The interesting part is big Unions and subsistence living populates much of what we see as big cities, and that is what ends of controlling the direction of our country.

edit on 16-2-2013 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)


so...unpopulated large tracks of land by a few wealthy owners should be the disciding factor in elections, and not individual votes by all the people of that area including cities?
isn't that what drove people out of england to america in the first place? so one land owner that has 500 acres has more voting power than one apartment dweller in a city...po' people need to learnt to obey yo' massa



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Screwed
 


Why oh why can't I star your post, lololol.



top topics
 
42
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join