Missouri Dems introduce assault weapon confiscation bill

Just HOW THE HELL can a state overturn a right codified in the Constitution? Does the tenth amendment now trump ALL the others????

It doesn't take a law degree to read and understand the Bill of Rights, only to try to subvert it. Originally Posted by Iaintliein

While I agree 100% with this, the reality is that its already happened in several cities.
The big difference here with the Missouri proposal is the turn in/confiscate part. Even the federal Feinstein proposal is for registration...outside that specific list of weapons.

The tenth amendment had been so shit upon at this point, everyone seems to think that it no longer exists.

Hell, CC. The Constitution doesn't exist anymore, let alone the 10th amendment.

Its a state issue and this state is proposing the legislation, not the Feds. Exactly as the system was designed.
Whether we agree or disagree with it is irrelevant to anyone residing outside of Missouri. Originally Posted by Chica Chaser

Well, the State will have to deal with that pesky 2d Amendment.

It will never pass constitutional muster.

The Dems in Missouri are basically just trying to use emotion to generate political points hopefully in their favor. Unfortunately, when successful, this can lead to the generation of knee-jerk legislation (NEVER a good thing, witness the Patriot Act). Ironically, although he used some of the data selectively, Greg Abbott tweeted last month about the FBI stats where more people were killed by hammers and blunt objects than by rifles. Even Politifact verified it as true, however, with a couple of minor caveats.

http://www.politifact.com/texas/stat...eople-are-kil/

Well, the State will have to deal with that pesky 2d Amendment.

It will never pass constitutional muster. Originally Posted by Jackie S

Chicago, New York City, Washington DC are already banning all guns, have for several years.
The second amendment doesn't seem to slow them down. Its another one that has been shit upon for so long that some people think it doesn't really exist anymore, just some meaningless words on an old sheet of paper.

Hasn't exactly lowered their crime rate either as I recall.

Crime rate or gun violence rate?

what's the goal here?

Its a state issue and this state is proposing the legislation, not the Feds. Exactly as the system was designed.
Whether we agree or disagree with it is irrelevant to anyone residing outside of Missouri. Originally Posted by Chica Chaser

They’d need to revoke the 14th Amendment which preempts states infringing on the Bill of Rights.

Hasn't exactly lowered their crime rate either as I recall. Originally Posted by chefnerd

The government has not demonstrated that it can eliminate crime by banning anything. The Volstead Act banned the manufacture and sale of liquor, but it failed. Thousands of laws have been created to ban recreational drugs and the illicit use of legal drugs; they have all failed. Since a large part of gun related homicides (btw, most gun deaths are suicides) tend to revolve around the illegal drug trade, it seems that the libetards could and would connect the dots – if the government cannot effectively ban the illicit drug and alcohol trade, why the hell do libetards think it can enforce a ban on guns?

A DRUG-WAR POLICY, NOT A GUN POLICY

Reliable statistics on the number of drug-related murders in the United States are hard to come by. A 1994 Department of Justice report suggested that between a third and a half of U.S. homicides were drug-related, while a recent Center for Disease Control study found that the rate varied between 5% and 25% (a 2002 Bureau of Justice report splits the difference). Part of this variance is that "drug-related" murders are hard to define. There are murders committed by people on drugs, murders committed by addicts to get money for drugs, turf-war murders by drug suppliers, and murders committed by gangs whose principal source of income is drug sales.

But very few would argue that the illegal drug trade is a significant cause of murders. This is a straightforward result of America's three-decade-long "drug war." Legal bans on drug sales lead to a vacuum in legal regulation; instead of going to court, drug suppliers settle their disputes by shooting each other. Meanwhile, interdiction efforts raise the price of drugs by curbing supply, making local drug supply monopolies (i.e., gang turf) a rich prize to be fought over. And stuffing our overcrowded prisons full of harmless, hapless drug addicts forces us to give accelerated parole to hardened killers.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/...ug-war/266505/

. . . and for all of the grandstanding by Chicago-machine politicians, Chicago isn't effectively enforcing the laws it already has:

CHICAGO (Reuters) - Two reputed members of a Chicago street gang were charged on Monday in the murder of a 15-year-old girl who was gunned down days after performing with her high school band at inauguration festivities for President Barack Obama, police said.

The slaying of Hadiya Pendleton on January 29, eight days after the majorette appeared at an inauguration event in Washington, highlighted a rash of deadly shootings in Chicago and became a rallying cry for advocates for tougher gun control nationally.

Two men identified by police as gang members, Micheail Ward, 18, and Kenneth Williams, 20, both of Chicago. . . .

Williams and Ward were seeking revenge on a rival gang that shot and wounded Williams in July, McCarthy said. They fired into a crowd at a public park, killing Pendleton as she and some friends were seeking shelter there from a rainstorm near their school, he said.

The Obama family's Chicago home is about a mile from the park where Pendleton, a sophomore at Martin Luther King Jr. College Prep High School, was slain.

Ward, who police say confessed to the shooting, had previously been arrested in 2011 on charges of unlawful use of a firearm and was sentenced to two years of probation.

http://news.yahoo.com/two-charged-ki...045126593.html

If they made assault weapon ownership a crime then the crime rate would spike like crazy.

Incrementalism. Originally Posted by EXTXOILMAN

Yep, a little at a time, just like taxes.

How many times have you heard, well it's only a 9 cent tax increase,
it's only a 25 cent tax increase.

Put about two dozen of those together over a period of time
and what do you have.

Back in OUR FAVORITE country? My fav country is the one we currently reside in.

Are you saying you love ISREAL more than the USA? Or are you referring to YOUR fav country, IRAN? I think they are both shit holes. Fuck Israel.its like Nevada...but with more rubble.

If an Israeli chick gets buttfucked by a Palestinian while blowing an Iranian....
Will she then walk like an Egyptian.? Originally Posted by UB9IB6

Stupid has spoken.

So there!

Chicago, New York City, Washington DC are already banning all guns, have for several years.
The second amendment doesn't seem to slow them down. Its another one that has been shit upon for so long that some people think it doesn't really exist anymore, just some meaningless words on an old sheet of paper. Originally Posted by Chica Chaser

Well, CC, thank God we have the NRA which has the funds and power to bring lawsuites against States that insist on ignoring our Bill of Rights. Yes it takes time, and money, but it is a fight worth fighting.

Ever see that movie "The American President"? In it, Michael Douglas's character of President was asked by a political opponent if he was a member of the ACLU. His answer was, "yes, and why aren't you."

I say the same thging about the NRA. I would tell President Obama, or any other believer in our Constitution, that I am a member of the NRA, and by question to them would be, "why aren't you".

Incrementalism. Originally Posted by EXTXOILMAN

Yep, a little at a time, just like taxes.

How many times have you heard, well it's only a 9 cent tax increase, it's only a 25 cent tax increase.

Put about two dozen of those together over a period of time and what do you have. Originally Posted by bojulay

So you DO believe in evolution, then?

The NRA is the oldest civil rights organization in the country despite what the NAACP would have you believe and the NRA is not about skin pigmentation.


Incrementalism reminds me of an officer we had on the ship. We nick named him "drop two turns" Thompson. He was an all right guy but usually found himself in over his head. The practice is to move junion officers around from one department to the other to learn the ways of each. He finally got to engineering which I think was his last stop. When he was part of the deck department he stood bridge watches and was qualified as OOD. As the ship approached Haifa one night he had the con and he kept telling the helmsman to slow the speed of the shaft by two, one, or three turns to slow the ship. Once in awhile he would increase the speed but mostly he slowed the speed. Anyway, throughout the mid watch he continued to incrementally slow the speed of the ship. As the watch ended and the Captain arrived to take command the helmsman said the ship, instead of proceeding at 12 knots, was traveling at 6 knots. Demanding an explanation, which was going to make us late in arriving, the helmsman added up all the orders and showed the result. Unbelieving they came down to engineering where I was standing watch and confirmed all the speed changes. His incrementalism had slowed the ship to barely above steerage (the slowest speed that the rudder can change the direction of the ship) and made us two hours late for the tugs and pierside services.

Well, CC, thank God we have the NRA which has the funds and power to bring lawsuites against States that insist on ignoring our Bill of Rights. Yes it takes time, and money, but it is a fight worth fighting.

Ever see that movie "The American President"? In it, Michael Douglas's character of President was asked by a political opponent if he was a member of the ACLU. His answer was, "yes, and why aren't you."

I say the same thging about the NRA. I would tell President Obama, or any other believer in our Constitution, that I am a member of the NRA, and by question to them would be, "why aren't you". Originally Posted by Jackie S

I agree, but the fact remains as of this writing those gun laws remain in force.