Suck it, libs

[mavs>spurs]

http://radio.woai.com/cc-common/mainheadlines3.html?feed=119078&article=10700507

:lmao

[TSA]

I need to get out of CA ASAP. After seeing what is happening in NY I fear we are next.

[ElNono]

Unfortunately for that lawmaker, federal trumps state law...

Texas should just go ahead and secede, tbh...

[George Gervin's Afro]

king obama lol... this reeks of butt hurtness.. just like the sissy who started the thread..

[ChumpDumper]

This posturing is hilarious.


At some point there needs to be a showdown between the states and the federal government over the Supremacy Clause.That point was 1788, when the Supremacy Clause was ratified by the states along with the rest of the Constitution.

[Wild Cobra]

Unfortunately for that lawmaker, federal trumps state law...

Texas should just go ahead and secede, tbh...
That doesn't mean federal officials can't be sitting in jail until the courts rule on it. Make an interesting 10th amendment case.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I guess we could say that Obama has told conservatives to suck it...

[ChumpDumper]

That doesn't mean federal officials can't be sitting in jail until the courts rule on it. Make an interesting 10th amendment case.lol cafeteria constitutionalist

[ElNono]

That doesn't mean federal officials can't be sitting in jail until the courts rule on it. Make an interesting 10th amendment case.

Nah... the DoJ can simply have the state sheriff arrested and the agent freed. There's really nothing interesting about it.

[Clipper Nation]

Unfortunately for that lawmaker, federal trumps state law...
The Constitution IS the law of the land, and it protects our gun rights with the Second Amendment and state sovereignty with the Tenth Amendment....

[George Gervin's Afro]

I would welcome the federal invasion of TX.. as a matter of fact I would turn in M>S faster than you could blink.. I'd have him hog tied and dragged through the streets.. to make a point that traitors aren't tolerated..

[Koolaid_Man]

Unfortunately for that lawmaker, federal trumps state law...

Texas should just go ahead and secede, tbh...


Southerners writing letters to Obama asking if they can secede is on par with Kids writing letters to Santa for gifts :lol

in each instance the letter writer is a dumbass

[ElNono]

The Constitution IS the law of the land, and it protects our gun rights with the Second Amendment and state sovereignty with the Tenth Amendment....

Sure... but 'state sovereignty' is limited to what's not under the federal umbrella. This isn't rocket science, it's the same reason states like Texas and Florida will have to enact ACA much to their disgust.

[SA210]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlB1QxU13Vo

[boutons_deux]

"protects our gun rights with the Second Amendment"

it allows gun ownership for a well regulated citizen MILITARY militia, PERIOD. All the rest of your "rights" are NRA/gun industry LIES.

[Clipper Nation]

Sure... but 'state sovereignty' is limited to what's not under the federal umbrella. This isn't rocket science, it's the same reason states like Texas and Florida will have to enact ACA much to their disgust.
The "federal umbrella" isn't always constitutional, and the federal government choosing to encroach into powers not delegated to them by the Constitution doesn't change the words or intent of the Constitution....

At the end of the day, it seems the general public has forgotten that the Constitution is a compact between the states.... if boundaries are overstepped at the federal level, the states should be allowed to protest if the law negatively impacts them in some way....

[Wild Cobra]

Sure... but 'state sovereignty' is limited to what's not under the federal umbrella. This isn't rocket science, it's the same reason states like Texas and Florida will have to enact ACA much to their disgust.


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.

[ElNono]

The "federal umbrella" isn't always constitutional, and the federal government choosing to encroach into powers not delegated to them by the Constitution doesn't change the words or intent of the Constitution....

At the end of the day, it seems the general public has forgotten that the Constitution is a compact between the states.... if boundaries are overstepped at the federal level, the states should be allowed to protest if the law negatively impacts them in some way....

They have a way... they can sue and go all the way to the SCOTUS to determine what's constitutional or not... including challenges under the 10th Amendment.

Again, see ACA.

[vy65]

The "federal umbrella" isn't always constitutional, and the federal government choosing to encroach into powers not delegated to them by the Constitution doesn't change the words or intent of the Constitution....


The New Deal says hi.

[vy65]

Is the commerce clause unconstitutional?

[ChumpDumper]

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.Either get the federal law declared unconstitutional or change Congress so the law will change.

Quit being idiots about this.

[vy65]

That doesn't mean federal officials can't be sitting in jail until the courts rule on it.

Wrong.

[Wild Cobra]

Is the commerce clause unconstitutional?
The way they have managed to apply it? I would say yes in many cases. They use it as a catch-all for things never intended.

[Clipper Nation]

"protects our gun rights with the Second Amendment"

it allows gun ownership for a well regulated citizen MILITARY militia, PERIOD. All the rest of your "rights" are NRA/gun industry LIES.
Nice spin attempt, but the NRA wasn't around when Federalist Paper #46 was written, dumbass....


Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government.... To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands...


Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.


Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors.

The "well-regulated" (which, by the way, means "properly trained," as opposed to the modern definition of regulation) militia is the citizenry itself, for the purposes of self-defense and protection from oppression....

[ElNono]

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.

Exactly. Crafting of federal laws is a power delegated by the Constitution to Congress. Which means it's not available to the States.

[Wild Cobra]

Wrong.
Do you really want to test a pissed off Texan law enforcement official?

[vy65]

The way they have managed to apply it? I would say yes in many cases. They use it as a catch-all for things never intended.

Who is "they," what are the applications and unintended consequences you speak of? Be specific.

/ChumpDumper

[ElNono]

Like I said... Texas can always opt to secede...

[vy65]

Do you really want to test a pissed off Texan law enforcement official?

Yes, if I am a federal law enforcement officer enforcing federal law.

[ElNono]

Do you really want to test a pissed off Texan law enforcement official?

That'd be a jailed Texas law enforcement official in no time...

[vy65]

Like I said... Texas can always opt to secede...

http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j102/dglockster/come-and-take-it1.jpg

image courtesy of www.glocktalk.com

[Wild Cobra]

Who is "they," what are the applications and unintended consequences you speak of? Be specific.

/ChumpDumper
LOL...

[Creepn]

Like I said... Texas can always opt to secede...

Texas proposed it, WH said no. That's the end of that.

[Wild Cobra]

That'd be a jailed Texas law enforcement official in no time...
Maybe, maybe not...

If both are following a law given to them to enforce, how long until a judge will have them released?

[vy65]

LOL...

What's really LOL is you not answering any of the questions. I wasn't mocking him so much as you...

[ElNono]

Maybe, maybe not...

It's actually pretty clear cut. There's no maybe.

[Clipper Nation]

Exactly. Crafting of federal laws is a power delegated by the Constitution to Congress. Which means it's not available to the States.
Article 1, Section 8 lists what Congress is allowed to legislate, and it expressly states that Congress must "provide for organizing, ARMING, and disciplining" the "well-regulated militia" (the citizenry) whose rights are protected by the Second Amendment....

It also expressly limits Congress to making only laws that are "necessary and proper" to maintain the "Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof"... needless to say, harsh gun control seems to be directly opposed to the powers that are actually vested in Congress.....

[ChumpDumper]

Maybe, maybe not...

If both are following a law given to them to enforce, how long until a judge will have them released?A federal judge enforcing federal law concerning a jailed Texas law enforcement officer?

A pretty long time, depending on bail.

[vy65]

Maybe, maybe not...

If both are following a law given to them to enforce, how long until a judge will have them released?

Depending on how long the lawyer takes to draft the habeas petition, pretty quickly.

[ElNono]

Article 1, Section 8 lists what Congress is allowed to legislate, and it expressly states that Congress must "provide for organizing, ARMING, and disciplining" the "well-regulated militia" (the citizenry) whose rights are protected by the Second Amendment....

It also expressly limits Congress to making only laws that are "necessary and proper" to maintain the "Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof"... needless to say, harsh gun control seems to be directly opposed to the powers that are actually vested in Congress.....

That's opinion, but ultimately doesn't change the fact that federal law trumps state law in all cases.

EDIT: I should add, except when declared unconstitutional.

[vy65]

Article 1, Section 8 lists what Congress is allowed to legislate, and it expressly states that Congress must "provide for organizing, ARMING, and disciplining" the "well-regulated militia" (the citizenry) whose rights are protected by the Second Amendment....

It also expressly limits Congress to making only laws that are "necessary and proper" to maintain the "Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof"... needless to say, harsh gun control seems to be directly opposed to the powers that are actually vested in Congress.....

[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;

[Clipper Nation]

That's opinion, but ultimately doesn't change the fact that federal law trumps state law in all cases.
Federal law is still subject to the terms of the Constitution, which requires Congress to do the exact opposite of rounding up everyone's guns....

[ElNono]

Federal law is still subject to the terms of the Constitution, which requires Congress to do the exact opposite of rounding up everyone's guns....

:lol Congress isn't rounding anyone's guns last I checked. Link?

[Winehole23]

God forbid the Executive should take any administrative steps to, you know, enforce laws already passed by Congress . . .

[CosmicCowboy]

Unfortunately for that lawmaker, federal trumps state law...

Texas should just go ahead and secede, tbh...

Funny to think that 150 years after the civil war a black president has declared war on southern conservatives.

[ChumpDumper]

:lol Congress isn't rounding anyone's guns last I checked. Link?Moreover, gun control measures to this point have been found to be constitutional by the body that decides such constitutional issues as defined by the constitution.

[Clipper Nation]

:lol Congress isn't rounding anyone's guns last I checked. Link?
That's what some clearly would like to see happen, tbh....

[ChumpDumper]

Funny to think that 150 years after the civil war a black president has declared war on southern conservatives.Gotta love the hyperbole.

[ChumpDumper]

That's what some clearly would like to see happen, tbh....Some would like to see the races separated again.

Doesn't mean it's going to happen.

[Creepn]

Isn't this how the civil war started? The south was afraid the president was trying to take away their slaves even though the president said they could keep them and the south continued their stupid ways. The results ended up with their slaves freed. Why wouldn't the outcome be the same with guns?

[ElNono]

Funny to think that 150 years after the civil war a black president has declared war on southern conservatives.

Hard to tell who declared war on who... I mean, we still don't know what this 'gun control' will amount to, but some folk sure have wasted no time making a stinker out of it...

[George Gervin's Afro]

Funny to think that 150 years after the civil war a black president has declared war on southern conservatives.

actually they have declared war on him..

[Clipper Nation]

Isn't this how the civil war started? The south was afraid the president was trying to take away their slaves even though the president said they could keep them and the south continued their stupid ways. The results ended up with their slaves freed. Why wouldn't the outcome be the same with guns?
A completely ridiculous comparison, tbh... owning human beings and forcing them to work for you against their will is a LOT different than owning an inanimate object that you are licensed to possess....

[Creepn]

A completely ridiculous comparison, tbh... owning human beings and forcing them to work for you against their will is a LOT different than owning an inanimate object that you are licensed to possess....

Slaves were considered property...

[ElNono]

That's what some clearly would like to see happen, tbh....

SCOTUS already stated that's not constitutional... so whoever 'some' are, are not going to get that.

[Clipper Nation]

Slaves were considered property...
Yes, in an effort by slaveowners and their apologists to obscure the guilt and shame surrounding the fact that they were owning and abusing human beings...

Again, completely dissimilar to someone being licensed to own an inanimate object....

If guns were living things with feelings and their owners were keeping them against their will and assaulting them regularly, your comparison would make sense... instead, it's a dumbass shit take, per par from gun-grabbers....

[Wild Cobra]

EDIT: I should add, except when declared unconstitutional.
Exactly!

[ElNono]

Exactly!

But then it's not a law anymore... so in a way, the first part is actually correct.

[TSA]

SCOTUS already stated that's not constitutional... so whoever 'some' are, are not going to get that.

Gov will just do what New York is doing. Limit magazines to 7 rounds and tell everyone they've got 90 days to figure it out, making every handgun illegal besides a 1911. No way magazine manufacturers can redesign and crank out new 7 round clips for every single handgun that's not a 1911. They are basically disarming them.

[Wild Cobra]

But then it's not a law anymore... so in a way, the first part is actually correct.
The problem is the damage done before such laws are struck down.

Don't you think that if a law isn't clearly constitutional, that it shouldn't be crafted in the first place?

[ElNono]

Gov will just do what New York is doing. Limit magazines to 7 rounds and tell everyone they've got 90 days to figure it out, making every handgun illegal besides a 1911. No way magazine manufacturers can redesign and crank out new 7 round clips for every single handgun that's not a 1911. They are basically disarming them.

But New York didn't make 'every handgun illegal besides a 1911'... and New York isn't taking away any guns from capable owners... the penalty for having a mag with over 7 bullets is a misdemeanor...

Plus for the federal government to institute that it would need a law from Congress, which is not happening with *this* Congress...

[ElNono]

The problem is the damage done before such laws are struck down.

That's why courts award remedies. So you agree that federal law trumps state law in all cases now?

[George Gervin's Afro]

So following along with this logic,... Colorado peace officers would be allowed to arrest DEA Agents enforcing Federal marijuana laws....

[ElNono]

So following along with this logic,... Colorado peace officers be allowed to arrest DEA Agents enforcing Federal marijuana laws....

They'll shoot at eachother... with 7 round magazines, of course.

[CosmicCowboy]

SCOTUS already stated that's not constitutional... so whoever 'some' are, are not going to get that.

SCOTUS balance of power can shift in 4 years.

[George Gervin's Afro]

SCOTUS balance of power can shift in 4 years.

we can only hope

[CosmicCowboy]

But New York didn't make 'every handgun illegal besides a 1911'... and New York isn't taking away any guns from capable owners... the penalty for having a mag with over 7 bullets is a misdemeanor...

Plus for the federal government to institute that it would need a law from Congress, which is not happening with *this* Congress...

Handguns in New York are already illegal unless licensed and registered.

[ElNono]

SCOTUS balance of power can shift in 4 years.

So what? SCOTUS also uses precedent. The precedent is all there.

Now, if you think the SCOTUS is going declare unconstitutional any law banning rocket launchers, I think that's not going to happen. They've been clear which kind of weapons are protected (most of which are semi-auto).

[ChumpDumper]

SCOTUS balance of power can shift in 4 years.And back four years later.

[ElNono]

Handguns in New York are already illegal unless licensed and registered.

So they're not illegal, they simply have to be registered. Registration is permissible and doesn't infringe on the 2nd amendment IIRC.

[Wild Cobra]

That's why courts award remedies. So you agree that federal law trumps state law in all cases now?
Now?

I get pretty tired of your inserting nonexistent views you think I have. You do so, then think you won something, when I refuse to answer stupid questions.

I have always agreed federal law trumps state law, when it is legal.

[ElNono]

I get pretty tired of your inserting nonexistent views you think I have.

I asked you a question. I get pretty tired of you dodging them.

[ElNono]

Unfortunately for that lawmaker, federal trumps state law...


That doesn't mean federal officials can't be sitting in jail until the courts rule on it. Make an interesting 10th amendment case.

:lol smh

[Wild Cobra]

I asked you a question. I get pretty tired of you dodging them.
I did.

Now bug off until you have reasonable non-leading questions to ask.

[ElNono]

Now bug off until you have reasonable non-leading questions to ask.

make me

[Wild Cobra]

make me
LOL...

Are you a three year old?

[ElNono]

I'm still here... lol bugoff

[DMC]

lol Cumdumpster with 7 posts and not a single response from anyone.

lol faggot with worthless shit takes

[ChumpDumper]

lol Cumdumpster with 7 posts and not a single response from anyone.lol you responded


lol faggot with worthless shit takeslol bitter, misguided homophobe with nothing else to say

[Wild Cobra]

lol Cumdumpster with 7 posts and not a single response from anyone.

lol faggot with worthless shit takes
Why feed the troll?

[ElNono]

BTW, I would agree that Cuomo is an idiot, tbh

[ChumpDumper]

Why feed the troll?Eh, you couldn't refute the Constitution.

Makes sense that you wouldn't reply in this case.

[Koolaid_Man]

I'd like a repub gun advocate to explain this to me: If the government can regulate nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, without violating the 2nd amendment, then why can't they also regulate guns? Aren't all of those examples of "arms"? Or, does the constitution only refer to the flintlock rifles used in the 1700's? What about the phrase about a "well-regulated militia"? was that just a meaningless phrase put in the constitution as filler? Or, does the 2nd amendment's right to arms only apply to those who are in "well-regulated militias"?

Please explain. thanks.

[Clipper Nation]

I already explained that by "well-regulated," they meant "proper training," basically that gun owners have to know how to use a gun properly and responsibly....

[ChumpDumper]

I already explained that by "well-regulated," they meant "proper training," basically that gun owners have to know how to use a gun properly and responsibly....Where did you get that?

[Clipper Nation]

Where did you get that?
http://constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

[ChumpDumper]

http://constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htmDoes that really change anything though?

Congress was supposed to tell the states how to organize and train their militias, and all militias would be under the ultimate command of the POTUS.

Is that what the militia movement today goes through and believes?

[Trill Clinton]

if more blacks and latinos went out and purchased guns, legally, i bet there would be stricter gun control laws passed.

the mulford act is proof of this.

[Jacob1983]

If CBS wants to improve the already great ratings of 60 Minutes, they should hire Ben Swann.

[mavs>spurs]

TEXAS CALLIN YOU PUSSY FUCKING LIBS OUT BOYS, bring it. I'll be volunteering with the police when this pops off providing support, I encourage any real men to join.

[ChumpDumper]

Providing support for what?

[mavs>spurs]

if more blacks and latinos went out and purchased guns, legally, i bet there would be stricter gun control laws passed.

the mulford act is proof of this.

i go shooting with a black and a latino who i convinced to purchase a firearm, stop making this about race. i see a lot of black at the gun counter every time i'm in academy or cabelas.

[clambake]

civilian brandishing gun will be shot by police.

last words: "hey, i'm on your side"

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Handguns in New York are already illegal unless licensed and registered.

OH NOES!!!! They know where you live too and what kind of car you have! OH NOES!!!

[Trill Clinton]

i go shooting with a black and a latino who i convinced to purchase a firearm, stop making this about race. i see a lot of black at the gun counter every time i'm in academy or cabelas.

cody, chill.

i don't believe you go shooting with a black and a latino. even if you did, it's gonna take more than 2 minorities to see a change.

like i said, the mulford act was created by reagan(one of the most overrated presidents ever) to keep guns out of the hands of blacks in california.

we put fear in the governments heart.

[George Gervin's Afro]

cody, chill.

i don't believe you go shooting with a black and a latino. even if you did, it's gonna take more than 2 minorities to see a change.

like i said, the mulford act was created by reagan(one of the most overrated presidents ever) to keep guns out of the hands of blacks in california.

we put fear in the governments heart.


did you know he finished at the top if class last semester?

[Trill Clinton]

did you know he finished at the top if class last semester?

who, cody?

i believe it.

[George Gervin's Afro]

who, cody?

i believe it.

Then it's a shame he's so ignorant

[Koolaid_Man]

cody, chill.

i don't believe you go shooting with a black and a latino. even if you did, it's gonna take more than 2 minorities to see a change.

like i said, the mulford act was created by reagan(one of the most overrated presidents ever) to keep guns out of the hands of blacks in california.

we put fear in the governments heart.

hey...just for shits and giggles I opened an online account through a sex pop up ad that came through to my yahoo account...I only had to pay a one time fee of 49.95 now I have all kinds of women sending me emails and they're all over my dick...I met this one white chic and she only requires that I pay an additional 24.95 to get access to her profile...I'm feeling pretty good about my manhood because of this..things are looking up for me Trill...you Negro's are jealous of Kool...I now consider myself a certified mack and a Ho pimp..I'm da man :lol

[Koolaid_Man]

I already explained that by "well-regulated," they meant "proper training," basically that gun owners have to know how to use a gun properly and responsibly....

I'd like a repub gun advocate to explain this to me: If the government can regulate nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, without violating the 2nd amendment, then why can't they also regulate guns? Aren't all of those examples of "arms"? Or, does the constitution only refer to the flintlock rifles used in the 1700's?

[Trill Clinton]

hey...just for shits and giggles I opened an online account through a sex pop up ad that came through to my yahoo account...I only had to pay a one time fee of 49.95 now I have all kinds of women sending me emails and they're all over my dick...I met this one white chic and she only requires that I pay an additional 24.95 to get access to her profile...I'm feeling pretty good about my manhood because of this..things are looking up for me Trill...you Negro's are jealous of Kool...I now consider myself a certified mack and a Ho pimp..I'm da man :lol

:rollin

daaamn you getting bitches like that?!!

i thought cody was bullshitting when he told us about that site but lo and behold he was right.

shoot me that lank pleighboi so i can check it out.

i am intrigued. at first i was like

http://i49.tinypic.com/2585850.jpg

now i'm like

http://i50.tinypic.com/2unyjig.jpg

[DMX7]

lol King Obama. They used to just call him a nig. Now they call him a king.

[Wild Cobra]

Where did you get that?


http://constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm
My understanding is at the time, "well regulated" was meant to achieve "accurate and proper functioning." after all, you cannot have a militia without weapons. Doesn't it make sense to promote the idea that citizens buy their own militia weapons?

[Wild Cobra]

Where did you get that?


I'd like a repub gun advocate to explain this to me: If the government can regulate nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, without violating the 2nd amendment, then why can't they also regulate guns? Aren't all of those examples of "arms"? Or, does the constitution only refer to the flintlock rifles used in the 1700's?
I'm not a "repub" so I don't think you will accept my answer. I see it simply that the likes of such weapons are not employed, even today, buy our modernized militia. The National Guard.

The militia was meant as a ground force.

Now I will accept that since the government has taken on the role of have a 24/7 military, that restrictions can be made on the degree of weapons available to the public. I think any ban of semiautomatic rifles or lesser weapons would be wrong, as for people could possible be in an "urban warfare" environment should we be invaded.

[The Reckoning]

im all for a handgun ban in dc.

just to watch violent crimerate go up :lol

[George Gervin's Afro]

Oregon sheriff tells Biden he won't enforce new gun regulations
Published January 15, 2013
Associated Press

Jan. 15, 2013: Linn County, Sheriff Tim Mueller displays a copy of the letter he sent to Vice President Joe Biden, at his office in Albany, Ore. (AP)

PORTLAND, Ore. – An Oregon sheriff has sent a letter to Vice President Joe Biden saying his department will not enforce any new gun laws it considers unconstitutional.

Linn County Sheriff Tim Mueller, in his letter dated Monday, said politicians are "attempting to exploit the deaths of innocent victims" by supporting laws that would harm law-abiding Americans. The sheriff said he took an oath to support the Constitution, and laws preventing citizens from owning certain semi-automatic firearms and ammunition magazines would violate their rights.

"We are Americans," Mueller wrote. "We must not allow, nor shall we tolerate, the actions of criminals, no matter how heinous the crimes, to prompt politicians to enact laws that will infringe upon the liberties of responsible citizens who have broken no laws."

Mueller told The Associated Press in a phone interview from Albany, Ore., that he felt compelled to make his views known because sheriffs have not had much of a say on the vice president's anti-gun violence task force. Mueller said his constituents have been repeatedly asking his deputies about what will happen if new gun restrictions are adopted.

"We're restricted and prohibited from enforcing all types of federal laws, including immigration laws," he said Tuesday. "It would be unreasonable for anyone to think that I would enforce a federal firearms law."

The sheriff figures Biden probably won't even receive his letter, but "it needed to be said, so I said it."

"I tried to be as respectful as possible, but I also needed to get my point across," Mueller said.

Mueller said some other sheriffs expressed support for his stance, but he does not know of any who have pledged to take similar action in regard to potential gun laws. Holly Russell, executive director of the Oregon State Sheriff's Association, did not respond to phone and email messages left late Tuesday afternoon.

Linn County is largely rural and politically conservative. Fewer than 40 percent of its registered voters supported President Barack Obama in November. Mueller said most households in the county have guns.

Though the letter might add fuel to an already hot topic, Mueller said he wishes people could have a civilized discussion about the issue, rather than resort to threats and name-calling. He said he doesn't think the vice president is a bad person; he just doesn't like the path he appears to be on regarding gun laws.

"We don't have to be jerks to each other over it," he said. "If old Joe wants to come out here to Linn County, we'd have a good conversation."



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/15/ore-sheriff-says-wont-enforce-new-gun-laws/#ixzz2I9BXCMMR


I guess when you lose at the ballot box and get laws you don't like it becomes acceptable to not abide by the law.... very dangerous slippery slope consevratives with this flaunting of the law contiuing... you guys have have decided that if you don't like the rules you are not going to play by them... sorry it but it doesn't work like that.

[CubanMustGo]

LOL at sheriffs deciding what law is and isn't constitutional.

[boutons_deux]

LOL at sheriffs deciding what law is and isn't constitutional.

sheriff as supreme Constructional interpreter and enforcer (although he is probably not a lawyer, nor college educated, and elected by corporate money) is EXACTLY what these assholes believe:

http://oathkeepers.org/oath/

[Winehole23]

Funny to think that 150 years after the civil war a black president has declared war on southern conservatives.read the proposed policy. where does Obama declare war on Southerners and conservatives?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/16/read-obamas-plan-to-reduce-gun-violence/

[mavs>spurs]

Looks like this morning libs had to get DOOOOOOOOOOOWN on dem knees and SUCK IT!

[Winehole23]

you pissed your pants, even threatened insurrection and race war, over nothing. you look very ridiculous right now.

[Th'Pusher]

you pissed your pants, even threatened insurrection and race war, over nothing. you look very ridiculous right now.
:tu

[mavs>spurs]

Fear of patriots and the threat of revolution are what saved the day, you can thank me later.

[mavs>spurs]

Lol never threatened race war, only in your preprogrammed mind does standing up for the constitution = racist

[Winehole23]

Fear of patriots and the threat of revolution are what saved the day, you can thank me later.lol you taking credit for Obama's executive orders. you're obviously deluded.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Lol never threatened race war, only in your preprogrammed mind does standing up for the constitution = racist

you did hope someone's wife was raped...

[mavs>spurs]

That isn't threatening race war

[Winehole23]

my bad. you didn't. I misread a semi-grammatical post. you did piss your pants, though.

[Th'Pusher]

m>s is the definition of the common rabble that right-wing media types target when they are looking to rile up the base for revenue and ratings.

[LnGrrrR]

TEXAS CALLIN YOU PUSSY FUCKING LIBS OUT BOYS, bring it. I'll be volunteering with the police when this pops off providing support, I encourage any real men to join.

I thought you were a thug? Now you want to be a policeman?

[ChumpDumper]

m>s is just another faux conservative who lost his shit.

Everyone here knew they weren't coming to take anyone's guns.

[Koolaid_Man]

I'm not a "repub" so I don't think you will accept my answer. I see it simply that the likes of such weapons are not employed, even today, buy our modernized militia. The National Guard.

The militia was meant as a ground force.

Now I will accept that since the government has taken on the role of have a 24/7 military, that restrictions can be made on the degree of weapons available to the public. I think any ban of semiautomatic rifles or lesser weapons would be wrong, as for people could possible be in an "urban warfare" environment should we be invaded.

So the "right to bear arms" means that we must keep up with semi-automatic weapon technology that the merchants of death come out with...So you have your guns (and so do I :lol) does that mean that it's a violation of my rights if Obama stops me from purchasing newer gun models if he deems it a public safety risk...for example what if gun makers developed a gun or a weapon (similar to the ones on Men in Black) that shot Gamma Rays instead of bullets..and that would destroy anything within a 20 ft radius...should we ban those or would it be an infringement upon our constitutional right to buy the latest and greatest new "modern militia" weaponry?

[mavs>spurs]

everyone already knew :cry

[ChumpDumper]

everyone already knew :cryYep, many said it.

[mavs>spurs]

yeah many did :cry

suck my long rifle barrel resembling dick, BITCH!!!

[Agloco]

yeah many did :cry

suck my long rifle barrel resembling dick, BITCH!!!

lulz mad.

[DMX7]

I thought you were a thug? Now you want to be a policeman?

:lmao

[mavs>spurs]

"assault weapons" :cry

fuckin pansies

[TSA]

It's funny that all the libtards here are pretending they never wanted an assault weapons ban because :cry we knew it wouldn't pass anyways :cry

[ChumpDumper]

It's funny that all the libtards here are pretending they never wanted an assault weapons ban because :cry we knew it wouldn't pass anyways :cryHow many here said they wanted an assault weapons ban?

And it's not like one has even been voted upon yet.

[Agloco]

"assault weapons" :cry

fuckin pansies

:madrun

[Winehole23]

Funny to think that 150 years after the civil war a black president has declared war on southern conservatives.He just did it again:

http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/technolog/atf-grants-crypto-anarchist-license-3-d-printing-guns-1C8930018

[Winehole23]

On Saturday, Defense Distributed (http://defensedistributed.com/)—America’s best-known group of 3D gunsmiths (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/03/3d-printing-gunmaker-forms-company-to-flout-copyright-law-a-la-the-pirate-bay/)—announced on Facebook that its founder, Cody Wilson, is now a federally licensed gun manufacturer and dealer. The group published a picture of the Type 7 federal firearms license (http://www.atf.gov/firearms/how-to/become-an-ffl.html) (FFL) to prove it.


“The big thing it allows me to do is that it makes me [a manufacturer] under the law—everything that manufacturers are allowed to do,” he told Ars. “I can sell some of the pieces that we've been making. I can do firearms transactions and transport.”
Wilson and his colleagues have been making prototypes of guns for months now. Most recently, the group demonstrated an AR-15 semi-automatic (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/03/download-this-gun-3d-printed-semi-automatic-fires-over-600-rounds/), which is allowed under American law without a license. The legal difference now is that Wilson can sell and distribute the guns he makes.


Earlier this month Wilson told Ars that he had submitted the application to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (a division of the Department of Justice) back in October 2012. The process can take as little as 60 days, but in this case it took around six months.


Currently, Wilson said he will not actually begin manufacturing and selling guns until he receives an “add-on” to his FFL, known as a Class 2 Special Occupational Taxpayer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Occupational_Taxpayers) (SOT), as licensed under federal law (http://www.atf.gov/publications/download/p/atf-p-5300-4.pdf) (PDF). This would allow him to manufacture and deal a broader range of firearms under the National Firearms Act (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act). The Class 2 SOT would grant Wilson the ability to manufacture, for example, a fully-automatic rifle. Wilson applied for the SOT on Saturday and expects to receive approval within a few weeks.http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/03/3d-printed-gunmaker-now-has-federal-firearms-license-to-manufacture-deal-guns/

[spurraider21]

"protects our gun rights with the Second Amendment"

it allows gun ownership for a well regulated citizen MILITARY militia, PERIOD. All the rest of your "rights" are NRA/gun industry LIES.

Here is the actual second amendment, in its full text:

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.

For those who don't understand, it says that people's (individuals like you and me) rights to own and bear (wear, use) arms can't be taken away. The first part, that reads "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is merely explaining why guns are necessary. For the dense who think militia is military or national guard or something, like me give you the very definition of militia per United States code:

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/32/313) of title 32 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/32), under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are— (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.



So part 2 of part B specifically says the militia includes able bodied males who are NOT members of organized military units. Thus I qualify, and I assume most members on this board qualify. Historically, militias are used to fight off the peoples OWN oppressive government, much like American militia in the revolutionary war. It wasn't the US army vs British army. It was essentially English militia (who then called themselves American, not enlgish) against the English government/military.

Long story short, the government has promised us the ability to keep guns, so that in case of oppression, we will be able to fight back when needed.

Now the liberal "kind hearted, warm, peace loving" President is trying to start digging away at our second amendment rights and in the meanwhile has authorization to call drone strikes on anybody in the US including its own citizens. :lol big brother

[boutons_deux]

Here is the actual second amendment, in its full text:

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.

For those who don't understand, it says that people's (individuals like you and me) rights to own and bear (wear, use) arms can't be taken away. The first part, that reads "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is merely explaining why guns are necessary. For the dense who think militia is military or national guard or something, like me give you the very definition of militia per United States code:

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/32/313) of title 32 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/32), under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are— (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.



So part 2 of part B specifically says the militia includes able bodied males who are NOT members of organized military units. Thus I qualify, and I assume most members on this board qualify. Historically, militias are used to fight off the peoples OWN oppressive government, much like American militia in the revolutionary war. It wasn't the US army vs British army. It was essentially English militia (who then called themselves American, not enlgish) against the English government/military.

Long story short, the government has promised us the ability to keep guns, so that in case of oppression, we will be able to fight back when needed.

:lol thank you! NRA fellator! But we've heard the guns-and-ammo industry perverted, miconstrued, outright erroneous press releases via the NRA many times. It is amusing to see all that shit once again. now, GFY.

[ChumpDumper]

Historically, militias are used to fight off the peoples OWN oppressive governmentNo.

Simply no.

[TeyshaBlue]

:lol thank you! NRA fellator! But we've heard the guns-and-ammo industry perverted, miconstrued, outright erroneous press releases via the NRA many times. It is amusing to see all that shit once again. now, GFY.

lol thinkprogress fellator.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Here is the actual second amendment, in its full text:

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.

For those who don't understand, it says that people's (individuals like you and me) rights to own and bear (wear, use) arms can't be taken away. The first part, that reads "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is merely explaining why guns are necessary. For the dense who think militia is military or national guard or something, like me give you the very definition of militia per United States code:

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/32/313) of title 32 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/32), under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are— (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.



So part 2 of part B specifically says the militia includes able bodied males who are NOT members of organized military units. Thus I qualify, and I assume most members on this board qualify. Historically, militias are used to fight off the peoples OWN oppressive government, much like American militia in the revolutionary war. It wasn't the US army vs British army. It was essentially English militia (who then called themselves American, not enlgish) against the English government/military.

Long story short, the government has promised us the ability to keep guns, so that in case of oppression, we will be able to fight back when needed.

Now the liberal "kind hearted, warm, peace loving" President is trying to start digging away at our second amendment rights and in the meanwhile has authorization to call drone strikes on anybody in the US including its own citizens. :lol big brother


the definiton of militia only mentions males... so to follow your logic this would imply that the same rights don't pertain to females.. since they are not included in the definition of militia..

[boutons_deux]

the definiton of militia only mentions males... so to follow your logic this would imply that the same rights don't pertain to females.. since they are not included in the definition of militia..

no, no! 2nd Amendment lovers are strict textual originalists ONLY when they can cherry pick and distort to suit their current needs (profits), just like "Christians" and the Bible.

[Wild Cobra]

the definiton of militia only mentions males... so to follow your logic this would imply that the same rights don't pertain to females.. since they are not included in the definition of militia..
No it doesn't, and as far as I know, "he" is used when individualized. By your logic, women cannot run for office.

[Clipper Nation]

no, no! 2nd Amendment lovers are strict textual originalists ONLY when they can cherry pick and distort to suit their current needs (profits), just like "Christians" and the Bible.
Maybe you should have read this text more closely, since you're both wrong:


(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are— (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

[CosmicCowboy]

LOL talk about taking a few words in a sentence out of context...

and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

[Winehole23]

lol passive-aggressive vaguebooking

[Clipper Nation]

LOL talk about taking a few words in a sentence out of context...

and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
Apparently you can't read either.... it clearly states that the "militia" is made up of male citizens and female citizens, and comprised of both the National Guard and the unorganized militia (everyone else).... I see nothing there that states females cannot be part of the unorganized militia, tbh....

[CosmicCowboy]

Apparently you can't read either.... it clearly states that the "militia" is made up of male citizens and female citizens, and comprised of both the National Guard and the unorganized militia (everyone else).... I see nothing there that states females cannot be part of the unorganized militia, tbh....

wow

it's right there in black and white

[Wild Cobra]

Besides, any other law or regulation can be superseded if it's not the constitution, hence my usage of "he." If we go by strict interpretations, I don't believe there is a constitutional amendment that allows a "she" to run for office.

[Winehole23]

if so, the nineteenth century saw that as no impediment to a woman standing for office:








1866
Elizabeth Cady Stanton was the first woman to run for the U.S. House of Representatives, even though she was not eligible to vote. She ran as an Independent from New York State, receiving 24 votes of 12,000 that were cast.


1872
Victoria Woodhull, a stockbroker, publisher, and protégé of Cornelius Vanderbilt, ran for president of the United States on the Equal Rights Party ticket.


1884
Belva Lockwood, the first woman admitted to practice law before the U.S Supreme Court, ran for president on the Equal Rights Party Ticket; she did so again in 1888.


1887
Susanna Salter was elected mayor of Argonia, Kansas – the first woman mayor in the country.


1894
Three women were elected to the Colorado House of Representatives, the first women elected to any state legislature. They were Clara Cressingham, Carrie C. Holly, and Frances Klock.


1896
Martha Hughes Cannon was elected to the Utah State Senate, becoming the first woman state senator.


1900
Frances Warren of Wyoming became the first woman delegate to a Republican National Convention. In the same year, Elizabeth Cohen of Utah was chosen as an alternate to the Democratic National Convention. When another delegate became ill, Cohen became the first woman delegate to a Democratic National Convention.


1917
Jeannette Rankin, a Republican from Montana, entered the U.S. House of Representatives, the first woman ever elected to Congress. She served from 1917 to 1919 and again from 1941 to 1942; a pacifist, she was the only lawmaker to vote against U.S. entry into both world wars.


http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/fast_facts/resources/Firsts.php

[spurraider21]

the definiton of militia only mentions males... so to follow your logic this would imply that the same rights don't pertain to females.. since they are not included in the definition of militia..

It's also noted that at the time, women were denied many rights such as even the right to vote. Since that time, equality has been granted between men and women, which includes gun ownership. The reason it states men specifically is for the same reason that women aren't required to sign up for selective service and cannot get drafted

[spurraider21]

No.

Simply no.

any revolution ever fought was via militia, hence, citizens in arms uniting

[spurraider21]

:lol thank you! NRA fellator! But we've heard the guns-and-ammo industry perverted, miconstrued, outright erroneous press releases via the NRA many times. It is amusing to see all that shit once again. now, GFY.

:lol name calling in a political forum, how cute.
:lol im not a member of the NRA
:lol I don't even own a gun

My political stance is typically sides with Libertarians, with my general motto being "maximum rights for all so long as they don't infringe upon others' rights." Gun ownership included. My right to own a gun doesn't infringe upon any of your rights. Hence why my stance on drug legalization is "sure why not" even though I don't use. Same with my "sure why not" view on gay marriage even though it wouldn't affect me

[ChumpDumper]

any revolution ever fought was via militia, hence, citizens in arms unitingAny militia formed and used under the auspices of the US constitution fought for the US government.

[spurraider21]

Any militia formed and used under the auspices of the US constitution fought for the US government.

there was no US government when the colonists' militia revolted against the British govt, which at the time, was the governing body over the american colonies

[ChumpDumper]

there was no US government when the colonists' militia revolted against the British govt, which at the time, was the governing body over the american coloniesThat doesn't change the constitution or the militias formed and used under that constitution.

[spurraider21]

That doesn't change the constitution or the militias formed and used under that constitution.

bottom line is militia, armed citizens, are allowed in order to give citizens the right to protect themselves. this includes from an oppressive government. it was given as a constitutional right to ensure future governments dont oppress us like king george's did

[ChumpDumper]

bottom line is militia, armed citizens, are allowed in order to give citizens the right to protect themselves. this includes from an oppressive government. it was given as a constitutional right to ensure future governments dont oppress us like king george's didThe constitution says nothing of the sort.

[spurraider21]

The constitution says nothing of the sort.

why else would you need a militia in addition to military/national guard?

[ChumpDumper]

why else would you need a militia in addition to military/national guard?There was no national guard when the constitution was written.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

There was no national guard when the constitution was written.

It's pretty obvious that he has a half cocked sense of history and and a completely inane interpretation of social contract in coming up with his position.

[ChumpDumper]

It's ridiculously easy to look up the history of militia use in the US -- and if anyone bothered to read, you know, the constitution, they would know explicitly how the militia was to be used. No one has to guess any of this.

[Winehole23]

The US Senate, following Obama's lead, continues to wage war on southern conservatives:


The gun control bill headed for the Senate floor bears little resemblance to the far-reaching proposal President Obama unveiled after the deadly shooting in Newtown, Conn.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has decided the federal assault weapons ban will not be a part of the base bill, and warned Tuesday an expansion of background checks to cover private sales might not make the cut either.

Instead, a bipartisan measure cracking down on straw purchasing and illegal trafficking of firearms will serve as the foundation of firearms legislation.

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/289037-senate-gun-bill-wont-include-assault-weapons-ban#ixzz2O5nlsxg2

[Clipper Nation]

The constitution says nothing of the sort.
The Federalist Papers, which explain the intent behind the Constitution, back up the point that the militia is simply armed citizens....

"Little more can reasonably be aimed at with respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped"
- Federalist #29

"...the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation."
- Federalist #46

Many Founding Fathers agreed at the time, btw...

"The great object is, that every man be armed... Every one who is able may have a gun."
- Patrick Henry

"I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason

[boutons_deux]

Former Halliburton Subsidiary Received $39.5 Billion In Iraq-Related Contracts Over The Past Decade

The accounting of the financial cost of the nearly decade-long Iraq War will go on for years, but a recent analysis has shed light on the companies that made money off the war by providing support services as the privatization of what were former U.S. military operations rose to unprecedented levels.

Private or publicly listed firms received at least $138 billion of U.S. taxpayer money for government contracts for services that included providing private security, building infrastructure and feeding the troops.

Ten contractors received 52 percent of the funds, according to an analysis by the Financial Times that was published Tuesday.

The No. 1 recipient?

Houston-based energy-focused engineering and construction firm KBR (http://www.businessinsider.com/blackboard/kbr), Inc. (NYSE:KBR), which was spun off from its parent, oilfield services provider Halliburton Co. (NYSE:HAL), in 2007.

The company was given $39.5 billion in Iraq-related contracts over the past decade, with many of the deals given without any bidding from competing firms, such as a $568-million contract renewal in 2010 to provide housing, meals, water and bathroom services to soldiers, a deal that led to a Justice Department lawsuit over alleged kickbacks (http://www.chron.com/business/article/KBR-gets-no-bid-contract-to-support-Army-in-Iraq-1702336.php), as reported by Bloomberg (http://www.businessinsider.com/blackboard/bloomberg).

Who were Nos. 2 and 3?

Agility Logistics (KSE:AGLTY) of Kuwait and the state-owned Kuwait Petroleum Corp. Together, these firms garnered $13.5 billion of U.S. contracts.

http://www.ibtimes.com/winner-most-iraq-war-contracts-kbr-395-billion-decade-1135905#ixzz2O6ZmAxaL

I'm sure dickhead is totally suprised by his "liberate Iraq" windfall for Halliburton.

[ChumpDumper]

The Federalist Papers, which explain the intent behind the Constitution, back up the point that the militia is simply armed citizens....

"Little more can reasonably be aimed at with respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped"
- Federalist #29

"...the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation."
- Federalist #46

Many Founding Fathers agreed at the time, btw...

"The great object is, that every man be armed... Every one who is able may have a gun."
- Patrick Henry

"I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George MasonWhether they explain the intent of the constitution entirely is debatable -- the constitution itself states what militias are and how they are to be used -- but none of those quotes don't really support what spurraider21 was saying at any rate.

[Wild Cobra]

Solyndra good... Halliburton bad...

[boutons_deux]

WC blind ideological fucktard ... WC always ...

[TeyshaBlue]

Thanks for my daily dose of Vitamin I.

[boutons_deux]

Thanks for my daily dose of Vitamin I.

TB :lol always great contribution on topic, never stalking me.

[TeyshaBlue]

:cry Quit stalking me!:cry

I'm not stalking you, I'm mocking you, retard. Stop posting stupid shit.

[Agloco]

It's ridiculously easy to look up the history of militia use in the US -- and if anyone bothered to read, you know, the constitution, they would know explicitly how the militia was to be used. No one has to guess any of this.

Asking for too much tbh.

[Agloco]

I'm not stalking you, I'm mocking you, retard. Stop posting stupid shit.

See my prior post.