Missouri Set to Nullify All Federal Gun Laws

[darkone999]

Ok I will start by saying my first daughter I named "Liberty"...Here is the Definition of LIBERTY

1: the quality or state of being free:
a : the power to do as one pleases
b : freedom from physical restraint
c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control
d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges
e : the power of choice

The word Liberty was used in our Constitution and by our founding fathers many times.Today the word Liberty seems to be just used as lip service for those who use that word having little wisdom or understanding of what it means or why our founders used that word so much.

Here is the preamble to the Bill of Rights(even wiki does not include this on there bill of rights wiki page "very sad")But you have to read the preambles to help U understand the means to the end............

"THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution."

What is my point.My point is our bill of rights is in place to protect us from our Government and ourselves.Any government official or agency who breaks these rights our breaking the laws and have become criminals and in fact traitors to our Nation.The other point is make your self aware by reading and understanding your rights and why they where formed into our great documents such as the Constitution.Knowledge is power my friends.

I guess you now Know where I stand on gun control...........

Freedom is choice
Tim

Tim

[Stealhead]

No one on this planet is truly able to enjoy part "A".

What if it pleases you to expose yourself in public?
What if you are most pleased by driving drunk?
Or by running over cats?
What if you are most pleased by raping someone or killing them?
What if you want to greet people by punching them in the face?



The founding fathers where thinking of part "C" and "D".

If we truly had the right to "do as one pleases" things would be very interesting you would have hard core liberals forcing you to live one way and hard core conservatives telling you how to live another way.I say that because many people love to tell others how they should live their lives.

Like it or not on some level if you have a government you are being controlled to some extent.Even in a place like Somalia where there is no central government the warlord who has the most fighters and guns has control and he is going to be taxing people in some way other wise he will not be able to pay his fighters I guees you could refuse and grab your AK but good luck facing 100 AKs 4 or 5 DhSK-38s and a few ZSU-23s.

I guess you now Know where I stand on gun control...........

Not really Darkone, as gun control isn't a yes/no issue unless you havn't thought about it.
Stealhead already pointed out the flaw in (a
So on gun control, what is your stand on convicted felons being allowed to buy any gun they please?

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by darkone999

My point is our bill of rights is in place to protect us from our Government and ourselves.

My only disagreement here would be the use of the word "ourselves". We make laws to protect us from each other, not ourselves. Laws that protect us from ourselves, such as drug, helmet and seatbelt laws, are arbitrary and have nothing to do with liberty.

Freedom is choice

I've often said that the freedom to choose for yourself is the only true freedom.

Originally Posted by Stealhead

No one on this planet is truly able to enjoy part "A".

I agree with your summation in general, but in any interaction with other human beings you have to draw the line somewhere. My opinion on that is "I have the right to do anything I want, as long as it doesn't interfere with anyone else's right to do the same."

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Not really Darkone, as gun control isn't a yes/no issue unless you havn't thought about it.
Stealhead already pointed out the flaw in (a
So on gun control, what is your stand on convicted felons being allowed to buy any gun they please?

Simple. Someone who commits a felony relinquishes all his rights, Liberty included, possibly even Life, sometimes Property, certainly the Pursuit of Happiness. He loses those by virtue of having denied those same rights to someone else. A paroled felon is still a felon. He has been extended a chance to prove himself to the society that condemned him in the first place.

That's where I disagree with the law as it stands. A parolee is still only to be partly trusted, but the man who has served his full term is described as having "paid his debt to society". It's my belief that his full rights should be restored to him, including the right to vote and to own the means to protect himself and his family, just like any other citizen.

Simple.

Thank you Sailor.
So the yes/no position doesn't give an answer as terms and conditions apply.
That can be spread to every aspect of firearm regulation can't it, which means someones position on gun control can't be known unless they fill in all the details on what their specific stand is.

[Sailor Steve]

I think he gave more than enough detail for anyone to know what his stance on gun control is...for himself. He would probably add to that all free citizens. It looks to me like you're just trying to trip him up by quibbling over details.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

I think he gave more than enough detail for anyone to know what his stance on gun control is...for himself. He would probably add to that all free citizens. It looks to me like you're just trying to trip him up by quibbling over details.

Really? he gave no detail at all.
Since its all about detail in firearms regulation(like any regulation) it isn't your "quibbling" again is it.
All but the most extreme fringe of the yes/no camps don't actually mean yes/no and when pushed on specifics those few cannot really defend the yes/no position as the devil is in the detail.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by darkone999

Here is the preamble to the Bill of Rights....

Kudos on researching the preamble. I would opine that the majority of people in the US are not even aware that there IS a preamble to the Bill of Rights. The preamble to the Bill of Rights is an important part OF the Bill of Rights.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Really? he gave no detail at all.
Since its all about detail in firearms regulation(like any regulation) it isn't your "quibbling" again is it.
All but the most extreme fringe of the yes/no camps don't actually mean yes/no and when pushed on specifics those few cannot really defend the yes/no position as the devil is in the detail.

He left no doubt at all as to his stance on gun control. He's against it, at least for him.

[Red October1984]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

Why not? Washington and Colorado just did that with the dope laws. Looks like a win for the states.

Well...

Drugs are an entirely different issue for me...but if my state wants to nullify Federal Gun Laws they have my full support.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Red October1984

Well...

Drugs are an entirely different issue for me...but if my state wants to nullify Federal Gun Laws they have my full support.

What if your state decides to nullify the Federal Gun Laws and implement their own State Gun Laws that may be even more restrictive?

[Red October1984]

Originally Posted by Platapus

What if your state decides to nullify the Federal Gun Laws and implement their own State Gun Laws that may be even more restrictive?

Then there would be a hell of a lot of pissed off Rednecks.

[Stealhead]

Not to mention the fact that even if a state chooses not to follow federal law the fire arms manufactures will still have to meet federal laws.So unless the firearm is made in Missouri despite the difference in laws the federal laws will trump the state laws and they will not produce a federally banned weapon because they will not be able to sell it to 99% of the market.

Most firearms producers already make California compliant rifles where the strictest laws exist if federal laws would change to be as strict as CA or more so they would simply produce firearms that are legal.As I have said before firearms manufactures are for profit business.They care about money not your rights.Bottom line is so long as they have some sort of market they care not they will gladly shell out what is federally legal all day long.

He left no doubt at all as to his stance on gun control. He's against it, at least for him.

Which is no stand at all.
Take another poster in this topic, he has seemingly made his "stance" well known repeatedly, yet it now appears that he doesn't really know where he is standing himself.

What if your state decides to nullify the Federal Gun Laws and implement their own State Gun Laws that may be even more restrictive?

That's the double edged sword.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Which is no stand at all.
Take another poster in this topic, he has seemingly made his "stance" well known repeatedly, yet it now appears that he doesn't really know where he is standing himself.

Well, that's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. On the other hand you seem to have a lot of opinions on other peoples stances without ever espousing one of your own.