• #3
    What NEW gun laws.....oh, you mean those 23 presidential memos requesting congress to enact legislation.....those NEW laws?? They ain't laws dumdum's, they are (in the real world) work instructions.....and like most employees, the congress will just ignore them and scream like little girls!!
  • #5
    Seems some states need smarter law enforcement officials... kinda scary to think that people who don't evenb understand the issues are in control of our law enforcement...
  • #10
    @woodtick57 Understand the issues or not. Did you read any "laws" in those 23 memos? I only read "work instructions" or requests or affirmative directions. Maybe I read wrong?
  • #11

    Those law enforcement people are enforcing the will of the people in their state. Not everybody is so willing to roll over and to submit to a bunch of federal bullshit.
  • #12

    See, you're really bad at making assumptions, you should stop doing it...

    i have no team. i was merely pointing out that these LEO' don't undersdtand the issue, as steppedinit pointed out. seems you don't understand them either...
    which team is yours?, just for future reference of those that don't know the issues...)
  • R Load more replies

  • #55
    well i think they have us...instead us gun control,lets go after the mental cases,which by their definition includes,God fearing,rifle totin,hillbillies..also they are especially after the veterans,???there is a big push to get veterans to come forward with post traumatic stress syndrome,if you do that well up your benefits etc,,,guess what you have just become mentally unfit to own a firearm,..don't forget those wack jobs that support the constitution.or Christians,right to life,anti-gay,yep those and more are cast as wack jobs,look at the posts on here... yep they have morons believing that we need more and new taxes,and now we will beg them to take our 2nd amendment freedoms thru mental health long before you are deemed a threat????!!!
  • #123
    Thank God for True and Real Americans.
    Obama wont enforce Immigration laws...We must not have a double standard!
    Join the NRA, and Stand up for your rights, Because if they werent there, Liberals would have already stolen your rights.
  • #62
    The constitution says federal government supercedes state? I thought it mainly spelled out our rights and what the government cannot do to us! What about if the federal government is ignoring it?
  • #25
    Article VI, clause 2, "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, anything in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

    This is called the supremacy clause, and it still means what it did in the 1850's, which is that TEA Partiers are required to follow the nation's laws, even if they can't read or understand the Constitution.
  • #100
    @Knightmare There is no liberal war on religion, or freedom of religion, there is only an assertion of freedom of religion in that Dominionist Christians are being resisted when they are groping for governmental power. Of course, when the shoe is on the other foot, and right wingers are disparaging non Christian religion, especially Islam, then that isn't a war on religion, although it certainly carries all of the earmarks of a war on religion.
  • R Load more replies

  • #23
    Remember when grown ups used to run things. If a state thought a law unconstitutional the attorney general would sue the Feds on that basis and we would let Supreme Court decide what is constitutional? These states no full well that every single recommendation that Obama made for congress and everyone one of the overhyped executive orders are 100% constitutional and that they will lose in court. This is nothing but BS posturing to win approval for their base and give a pointless finger to President Blackenstein.
  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • #22
    You didn't even mention MO. Man we get no respect. Still I'm glad to live here. We outlawed Obama Care and next we'll outlaw unconstitutional gun laws. I will not comply!
  • #126
    Keep electing Bachman and it's going to be that way on the respect front. Supreme Court > state law. FYI, the south lost the last time. The south would lose again if it came to it. You live in the most economically repressed area in the country that feels entitled to federal dollars to keep you going and then whine that about what you have to give when it's less than you take.
    If the south secedes how are they going to fund, well, anything?
  • #15
    I may be taking an entirely different tack on this but it is my belief that there are 2 different issues in this one struggling to get out. One is the Constitutional Amendment which should remain intact. The other is <cringe> States Rights.
    To my thinking, it should be up to a state or local jurisdiction to make and enforce their own laws regarding regulation of firearms according to the populace and circumstances. A smaller rural town/county/state would have different policies than, for example, a larger urban city such as Chicago with numerous gangs or criminal elements resident. I'd be interested to hear you folks take on that one.
    Incidentally, the concept would also apply to 'gay marriage', abortion, medical pot (already). etc...
  • #98
    It is interesting, and also frightening. I think the issue of the 2nd ammendment has already been settled, although clips and background checks, I feel, wouldnt be found an infringement. I think that the states want and probably need clarification on their rights in this regard. My other thought is it needs to happen with the current supreme court or there may be trouble. A growing pain or a mortal wound?
  • #111
    The Intent of the 2nd amendment was to limit the Federal Government from controlling the ability of the States to form a militia and have a well armed State Population that had been Well Trained (Well Regulated) at the call of the State when required. The Only power given the Federal Government was the ability to control Interstate transfer of arms as a form of commerce.. It by intent gives the Federal Government No authority to make any laws what so ever concerning firearms within each state.

    Now within the States they can pass any laws they wish concerning firearms. A State can Ban all firearms completely if the People so choose... The States can amend their state constitutions to make it Unconstitutional for that states citizens to possess any firearms or if the State Constitution does not protect such rights local jurisdictions such as cities or counties can pass local laws to do so...

    If we followed the Intent of the Constitution a State could allow the Manufacture and Sales of Fully Automatic firearms within the states and the sales, possession within the state and the Federal Government has no authority to limit such manufacture and sales Within the State.....

    This Intent was to allow the People the ability to control the laws within the state and gave the People the Ability to settle in a state with a law base that fits their individual lifestyle choice... If a Individual wanted to be with others that do not like guns in the public they could move to a state that limited such possession... It allowed for experimentation within states to form a government that works for that state.. If that states laws are found lacking then the People could leave, If a states laws were found exceptable then their populations would grow... It gave The People Freedom of Choice....
  • #114
    @Quantummist while I appreciate your interpretation of the intent of the second amendment, I have to disagree in what it actually means. The intent holds less merit than the actual wording. And in the wording, there is nothing that would allow the states or the federal government to neuter standardmagazine sizes or ban rifles based on the way they look or function. In my opinion, for a ban of the magnitude they are talking about to be constitutional, I believe they need to write an amendment to amend or repeal the second amendment. This would be a much harder task, so they put out all this bs about the "intent" of the bill of rights. All partys have trampled on the bill of rights, it has just been getting worse in the past 15-20 years. So I'm not blaming liberals or conservatives, they're all to blame. Our government is being sold to the highest bidder every 2 years in November.
  • #116
    @mynameisaric ... I'm going by the Actual wording of the Constitution and the Actual Verbiage use at the time of it's inception... The Intent of the Constitution when written and ratified was as a limit on Federal Governmental Powers and to designate what power was given to the federal government by the states specifically. It gave all power not specifically delegated to the federal government to the individual states.

    There are many, many documents that speak of this and the debates on the authority given to the federal government and what power was retained by the state.. The State individually has it's own Constitution which governs it's authority. There is No controlling wording in the Federal Constitution that limits the ability of a State to make laws regarding how the people of the state choose to make law.

    What I think to many people do is think the Constitution was written to limit the People ... It was Not... I was written to Limit Only the Federal Government... This was one of the Big argument had about it in the first place... Some wanted a National Government instead of a Federal Government... During the debates the Federalist Won... But the Nationalist have never given up and they have perverted the language of the constitution to change the US into a National Government without using the only method allowed by the Constitution, Amendment and Ratification.. The Ability of the Federal Government to legislate the laws within a state is a Nationalistic extra constitutional perversion of the intent of the Constitution....

    But the States own individual Constitutions are the controlling documents regarding what laws can be passed and enforced within the states...

    "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 term Well Regulated has nothing to do with Regulating via Laws... And the amendment points to a Free State showing the states are Free to make State Laws as their people feel needed.. And the Shall Not Be Infringed is Specific to the Federal Government Only not having the authority to limit the states or the people in them in any way....

    "Well Regulated" :
  • #120
    @Quantummist I absolutely agree that the constitution limits the government and not the people. I'm also aware of the tenth amendment. I understand what you're saying. Absolutely makes sense. Irritates methat my state can do what it does, but you're right that it's a state issue. Thank you for the clarification.
  • R Load more replies

  • #143
    What does it say about states rights in the confederate constitution? Maybe someone should look into that. Looks like some states are leaning toward states rights again. Might have to get that CSA constitution back and see what it says about the government not being able to take your property. Humm, my guns are my property.
  • #142
    While I OPPOSE the proposed new laws, by law States cannot refuse to enforce Federal Laws, which supersede any state law passed. It's too bad it is this way, as it creates a problem for the states that have legalized marihuana for medicinal purposes, but we have to face reality until our central government stops trying to micromanage our lives. I say if the Federal Government is bound and determined to assume the role of Nanny-in-Chief, then it needs to find a way to suppress the Supreme Court Decision of Warren v. District of Columbia, which stated that the government, nor its political subdivisions, the police department(s) have a duty to protect the individual. Before he signed those 23 Executive Orders, President Obama said he was doing so for a PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL, a little girl who was murdered by a psychotic killer in Newtown, CT. Because he articulated THAT as his reason for signing such orders, he has opened up a way to challenge those Executives Order using the Supreme Court's Decision in Warren v. District of Columbia, i.e., President Obama DOESN'T have a duty to do so, and therefore he exceeded his authority.
  • #140
    thank god us tennesseans have got something right but all this fuss over gun control is going to start another civil war and im joining up with the states with the guns like here in tennessee
  • #139
    Let's not count gun deaths from the Gov't. entitled ,career welfare , Section 8 dependant breeders & human waste , phony ass 'gangstas ' & ' street thugs'. These animals will kill each other for a $quarter or a mis-spoken word . Take them off the statistics, if we could concentrate these dregs of humanity to a safe area - I recommend arming them & supplying them with all the ammo they need to play 'king of dope mountain or the streets. But never allow them to leave this secured area. Throw some food in , some ammo & more free dope & let them do us all a favor by wiping each other out. These low-lifes have nothing to do with legal , law abiding gun owners. Saves us all money in many ways , but Sharpton , Jackson & barry soetoro need these figures to suit their 'victim' agenda.
  • R Load more comments...