Officer

Enola, AR

#1 Jan 30, 2013
I read our State Representative's recent report in the Prospect-News this week. I know that gun control has put everyone in a snit recently, but his support of a state law criminalizing the actions of federal or state officers in enforcing federal laws is a bit much for my taste. I am not in favor of massive new gun control laws but I am even less in favor of people who violate their oaths and duties as elected representatives just to curry political favor. Sponsorship of the legislation he is describing is a violation of his oath and duty as a government officer. By the terms of Article VI of the U. S. Constitution he, like all legislators, must "be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution." You cannot fullfill this oath by ignoring the other clause of Article VI of our Constitution which reads,"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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." The Civil War settled this matter beyond dispute; you cannot pass a state law which supercedes a federal law for any reason unless you want to have a replay of that Civil War. Speak out against the wisdom of federal laws if you want to Rep. Cookson, but an attempt to oppose those laws by force of state law is not what you were elected to do and is a violation of your very oath of office.
to days class

Vilonia, AR

#3 Jan 30, 2013
Officer wrote:
I read our State Representative's recent report in the Prospect-News this week. I know that gun control has put everyone in a snit recently, but his support of a state law criminalizing the actions of federal or state officers in enforcing federal laws is a bit much for my taste. I am not in favor of massive new gun control laws but I am even less in favor of people who violate their oaths and duties as elected representatives just to curry political favor. Sponsorship of the legislation he is describing is a violation of his oath and duty as a government officer. By the terms of Article VI of the U. S. Constitution he, like all legislators, must "be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution." You cannot fullfill this oath by ignoring the other clause of Article VI of our Constitution which reads,"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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." The Civil War settled this matter beyond dispute; you cannot pass a state law which supercedes a federal law for any reason unless you want to have a replay of that Civil War. Speak out against the wisdom of federal laws if you want to Rep. Cookson, but an attempt to oppose those laws by force of state law is not what you were elected to do and is a violation of your very oath of office.
obama is in violation of his oath of office too!

Since: Jan 09

Vilonia, AR

#4 Feb 1, 2013
Unconstitutional laws are not actually laws.
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;" means laws that are based on the Constitution. A state law criminalizing the actions of someone attempting to enforce unconstitutional mandates is appropriate and in keeping with the 10th amendment, as well.
Officer wrote:
I am not in favor of massive new gun control laws but I am even less in favor of people who violate their oaths and duties as elected representatives just to curry political favor.
So it's OK if a different set of oathbreakers make a law, an unconstitutional law, and you'll go along with them instead of Cookson? Did I really just read that?
Officer

Enola, AR

#5 Feb 1, 2013
CPL USMC wrote:
Unconstitutional laws are not actually laws.
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;" means laws that are based on the Constitution. A state law criminalizing the actions of someone attempting to enforce unconstitutional mandates is appropriate and in keeping with the 10th amendment, as well.
<quoted text>
So it's OK if a different set of oathbreakers make a law, an unconstitutional law, and you'll go along with them instead of Cookson? Did I really just read that?
What part of "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding" did you not understand. Cookson needs to get himself elected to Congress not the State Legislature. He's way above his pay grade on this matter.
Yeah

Vilonia, AR

#6 Feb 2, 2013
All politicians needs to be removed from office if they have been there over 1 term. Anything after that and they get greedy. So people should vote them out and new ones put in for 1 term and change the format again. Might make a difference in how the laws are enforced. Really need to impeach that thing in the oval office first thing. Couldn't tell the truth even if they knew it.
This is Serious

Harviell, MO

#7 Feb 2, 2013
Officer wrote:
I read our State Representative's recent report in the Prospect-News this week. I know that gun control has put everyone in a snit recently, but his support of a state law criminalizing the actions of federal or state officers in enforcing federal laws is a bit much for my taste. I am not in favor of massive new gun control laws but I am even less in favor of people who violate their oaths and duties as elected representatives just to curry political favor. Sponsorship of the legislation he is describing is a violation of his oath and duty as a government officer. By the terms of Article VI of the U. S. Constitution he, like all legislators, must "be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution." You cannot fullfill this oath by ignoring the other clause of Article VI of our Constitution which reads,"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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." The Civil War settled this matter beyond dispute; you cannot pass a state law which supercedes a federal law for any reason unless you want to have a replay of that Civil War. Speak out against the wisdom of federal laws if you want to Rep. Cookson, but an attempt to oppose those laws by force of state law is not what you were elected to do and is a violation of your very oath of office.
You need to listen and listen good. What Cookson and his fellow legislators are doing is trying to avoid a civil war. Seriously. If the states do not stand up and stop this, it will be up to the people to rise up against the government. Is that what you want? I, like millions of Americans, will NEVER give up our semi-auto firearms, will NEVER accept a restriction on our magazines and will NEVER register my guns.

Our only hope at this point is for the states to stand up and refuse to allow these gun control laws to be enforced. If not, it will be up to each citizen to fight it out to the death when they come for you contraband guns and magazines. Obviously, Cookson wants to avoid this. I am glad there are some reps in this state who are willing to stand up to this tyranical government. I wish more local officals would have stood up to Hitler in Germany.

I would encourage all our elected officals to fight the feds on this. I have a family to raise, I don't want to have to shoot it our with gun control enforcers on my property. The federal government must be stopped and I hope the State of Missouri stands up for its citizens.
Officer

Enola, AR

#8 Feb 2, 2013
This is Serious wrote:
<quoted text>
You need to listen and listen good. What Cookson and his fellow legislators are doing is trying to avoid a civil war. Seriously. If the states do not stand up and stop this, it will be up to the people to rise up against the government. Is that what you want? I, like millions of Americans, will NEVER give up our semi-auto firearms, will NEVER accept a restriction on our magazines and will NEVER register my guns.
Our only hope at this point is for the states to stand up and refuse to allow these gun control laws to be enforced. If not, it will be up to each citizen to fight it out to the death when they come for you contraband guns and magazines. Obviously, Cookson wants to avoid this. I am glad there are some reps in this state who are willing to stand up to this tyranical government. I wish more local officals would have stood up to Hitler in Germany.
I would encourage all our elected officals to fight the feds on this. I have a family to raise, I don't want to have to shoot it our with gun control enforcers on my property. The federal government must be stopped and I hope the State of Missouri stands up for its citizens.
Why would anyone want to stand up for you on this issue? You obviously don't have any sympathy for your fellow citizens who disagree with you despite the fact that you have just as much right and opportunity to vote as they do. So if your fellow citizens support a gun control law you disagree with your solution is to resort to violence. Good luck with that. It was tried by a bunch of yahoos 150 years ago and did not work out so well. As I recall, the federal government is still alive and well and the confederacy is still a lost cause. If you want to fight it again you are either stupid or downright evil. Vote any way you want and elect any yahoo like Cookson you can, but if the rest of the country wants to go a different way, deal with it and stop posturing about resorting to violence. Otherwise you will lose just like your Confederates.
Get Real

Quitman, AR

#9 Feb 2, 2013
The Courts, State and Federal, determine whether or not laws are constitutional, not State legislators. They don't really have a good track record on that. Let Cookson get arrested for violating the gun laws, then he can challenge it in court. That's the way it's done.
Proud Loyal Citizen

Harviell, MO

#10 Feb 2, 2013
These patriots really disturb me. Yes, as you have stated, the Civil War has settled this. The federal government has supreme power and the states are to enforce federal law, not oppose it. These state reps have no rights to oppose the directive of Obama and Congress. There are the supreme leaders, it is open rebellion to disagree with them in a public manner. This is treason and revolution.

I think our country went wrong from the very beginning. A bunch of radicals who didn't want to pay taxes (Tea Party idiots) left the greatest empire ever known to have their little Christian fundamentalist country. It was based on "freedom." Well, "freedom" has never worked. Would you let your kids just run wild with no discipline? Would you allow your spouse to be "free" to have sex with others? Should we be "free" to kill people at will? That is the danger of freedom.

People must be controlled. Lets face the fact, most people are simply not smart enough to manage their own lives. It is the duty and responsibility of those people who are gifted with knowledge to rule over us and keep us safe. The government is like our parents and we are rebellious children who need to be disciplined. We would not put up with our children talking back to us, we should expect the same from our leaders.

The idea that individuals can "own" property is a perfect example of the flawed logic this coutnry was founded on. No one owns the Earth. The idea that mere citizens can have guns is insane. That is like allowing prisoners to be armed. How stupid! This is one of the reasons our leaders can't fix things. The rebellious brats would rise up and kill them if they did the things that need to be done to get us back in line. These guns should have been taken away long ago so these freedom activists (radical trouble makers) would have no power.

I think Obama will be able to roll much of this back during his second term. Once we can disarm these people, their threats of rebellion will become laughable. What to do with them is another issue. I hope that we educate them. These gun-loving libertarians should be forced into some type of school where they can be taught the error of their ways. Re-educating them away from these selfish ideas and toward a collective interest will finally bring peace and order to this country. I hope one day it extends to the entire planet.

For you Christains, Romans 13 says that God creates governments and you must obey them. Obama speaks for God, Romans 13 makes that clear. It is your duty to obey him as you would obey God. That is Biblical, look it up. You have no right to oppose him. He knows more that most of us do and while some may not like it, these things are in our best interest.

We are children playing with guns and running wild. Our leaders are going to restore some order in this home and put us into the corner for some time out to reflect on what we have done. Take your bitter pill and drop your selfish pursuits of "freedom" and obey like adults.

There should be no more "I", only "We". We can form a better society. Let us put this outdated Constitution you people keep throwing up into our faces aside and get back to a more orderly society. We are to be ruled by Kings on Earth, that is also in the Bible. There is an entire book of the Bible called "Kings", it is the "King James Bible" for goodness sake! We are suppose to be ruled by Kings so that our selfish urges are controlled.

Quit all of the fuss about your silly guns, your "private property", leadership chosen by votes of the people, all these different protestant churches, etc. and get back to the way things were before this bizzare experiment called American was thrust upon the world.
Officer

Arnold, MO

#11 Feb 3, 2013
Although I agree that the federal government is supreme over the states in areas where the Supreme Court has authorized it to be, it does not mean that the government is supreme over the people. Many, if not most adults are truly ignorant of their responsibilities as citizens, but that does not deprive them of their say in how their federal government is elected and established. And the right to bear arms in some fashion, as determined by Supreme Court precedent, cannot be taken away under our Constitution. Neither is that right unlimited. If our elected leaders pass a law on gun control that the Supreme Court will rule as being constitutional, then everyone must follow it. No exceptions, no excuses, no Patriot drivel or yahoo redneck tantrums. Steve Cookson swore an oath to support the U. S. Constitution and he damn well knows that federal laws passed by Congress, signed by the President and upheld by the Supreme Court will not be countermanded by the likes of him or his fellow sponsors of this treasonous legislation. He is just playing to the ignorant fools who he thinks he needs to get re-elected. Shame on him, especially since he could get re-elected without lowering himself to their level. Stop this insane incitement to violence when laws that you have a say in making differ from what you want. This applies to the gun nuts in their bunkers or legislators threatening violence against federal officers doing their job of enforcing federal law.

Since: Jan 09

Vilonia, AR

#12 Feb 3, 2013
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/02/09/st...

The Ninth Amendment reads,“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

The Tenth Amendment specifically provides,“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.”

http://www.wnd.com/2009/02/88218/

The sovereignty of a state is determined with reference to the U.S. Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land.

For proud loyal citizen. You are not wanting to be a citizen, you want to be a subject. If all Governments derive from God, I entreat you to take the next plane to one of the kitty-litter countries and live as a subject under a Sharia Law government and see what you think then.

I'll remain a citizen, thank you.

Since: Jan 09

Vilonia, AR

#13 Feb 3, 2013
Officer wrote:
Although I agree that the federal government is supreme over the states in areas where the Supreme Court has authorized it to be, it does not mean that the government is supreme over the people.
To a certain extent, I agree with this.
Officer wrote:
If our elected leaders pass a law on gun control that the Supreme Court will rule as being constitutional, then everyone must follow it. No exceptions, no excuses, no Patriot drivel or yahoo redneck tantrums.
The problem with that is the Supreme Court is appointed by the Executive Branch, therefore giving the EB the ability to sway SCOTUS's opinion. It is the DUTY of every citizen to resist, deny, and strive against any and all unconstitutional laws. After all, SCOTUS used to say that blacks couldn't own property, or defend themselves. Also, SCOTUS said it was OK to OWN another human being.

Patriot drivel? You've forgotten your history, sir, and are well on your way to being a well-groomed obedient subject and servant.

I'll remain a free citizen, thank you.
Yeah

Vilonia, AR

#14 Feb 3, 2013
Amen Cpl.USMC!!! Officer sounds like a nutcase of obama's. They both should be deported to the land of Sharia Law and live there. Wonder how long it would take for Officer to change his mind?? obama wants to be the almighty! Got news for him--he isn't!!'Like you Cpl I'll remain a citizen of the USA and uphold the Constitution!!
Officer

Arnold, MO

#15 Feb 3, 2013
CPL USMC wrote:
<quoted text>
To a certain extent, I agree with this.
<quoted text>
The problem with that is the Supreme Court is appointed by the Executive Branch, therefore giving the EB the ability to sway SCOTUS's opinion. It is the DUTY of every citizen to resist, deny, and strive against any and all unconstitutional laws. After all, SCOTUS used to say that blacks couldn't own property, or defend themselves. Also, SCOTUS said it was OK to OWN another human being.
Patriot drivel? You've forgotten your history, sir, and are well on your way to being a well-groomed obedient subject and servant.
I'll remain a free citizen, thank you.
Free citizen you will remain until you violate a law that some officer decides to prosecute you for; then you will stand trial like anyone else and your patriotic drivel will not help you if your fellow citizens on the jury decide you are the nut case I suppose you are. And don't expect the other nut cases to come to your defense; their puckering sphincters will be trying to figure out how to distance themselves from your crime. One thing criminals always forget is that someday, somewhere, somebody will rat you out. If you decide to act on your patriotic drivel and actually violate a law for which you can be prosecuted, I look forward to hearing from that rat. Of course, that presupposes that you are not just all talk on topix like most of you redneck yahoos who populate this site.

Since: Jan 09

Greenbrier, AR

#16 Feb 7, 2013
At the risk of beating a dead horse and talking to a brick wall:

George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Paul Revere, Benjamin Franklin, and other criminals made sure you have the rights to talk, talk, talk (or write, as the case may be) however you choose. Even if you choose to insult me or any other who prefers to remain free.

But you're an officer, right? The same laws and rules don't apply to you, do they?
Officer

Enola, AR

#17 Feb 8, 2013
CPL USMC wrote:
At the risk of beating a dead horse and talking to a brick wall:
George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Paul Revere, Benjamin Franklin, and other criminals made sure you have the rights to talk, talk, talk (or write, as the case may be) however you choose. Even if you choose to insult me or any other who prefers to remain free.
But you're an officer, right? The same laws and rules don't apply to you, do they?
You keep quoting Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, while all I hear from you is the warmed over drivel of John C. Calhoun and Jefferson Davis. Nullification is a doctrine that died in the Civil War and should remain dead lest we have to kill off a similar generation of Southern nut cases. Your "freedom" is merely the selfish tantrum of a two year old child and needs to be dealt with just as firmly as any decent parent would deal with such a child; firm but unrelenting opposition to misguided self destructive tendencies. Go out and shoot your big guns and play soldier. But make no mistake about it; when your childish petulance interferes with the smooth working of society in general, that society will take notice and correct your delusions of self importance.
man

Rogersville, MO

#18 Feb 8, 2013
so u guys want yo bring back slavery then you bumb a$$ need to leve the country then i know cookson and back him 1000 percent
Ace

Enola, AR

#19 Feb 8, 2013
You support a sensationalizing opportunist. How special.
oOo

Neelyville, MO

#20 Feb 10, 2013
Cookson is the St. Rep. bought with over $20,000 by a big Republican donar. Remember all of the big campaign signs that money bought? The Republican party has adopted second admendment protection in the midwest because that is popular here. All of the members of the US congress take an oath to protect the constitution as does the president and vice president, so a lot of elected officials are in violation of their oaths. War is not the answer tho. Most that cry outrage are far from the front lines when trouble starts. If you don't like anti-gun laws, join the NRA. A convicted felon has no gun rights and some of the anti government statements could get you a felony conviction.
Wait a min

Quitman, AR

#21 Feb 11, 2013
Is this u skip?
Officer wrote:
I read our State Representative's recent report in the Prospect-News this week. I know that gun control has put everyone in a snit recently, but his support of a state law criminalizing the actions of federal or state officers in enforcing federal laws is a bit much for my taste. I am not in favor of massive new gun control laws but I am even less in favor of people who violate their oaths and duties as elected representatives just to curry political favor. Sponsorship of the legislation he is describing is a violation of his oath and duty as a government officer. By the terms of Article VI of the U. S. Constitution he, like all legislators, must "be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution." You cannot fullfill this oath by ignoring the other clause of Article VI of our Constitution which reads,"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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." The Civil War settled this matter beyond dispute; you cannot pass a state law which supercedes a federal law for any reason unless you want to have a replay of that Civil War. Speak out against the wisdom of federal laws if you want to Rep. Cookson, but an attempt to oppose those laws by force of state law is not what you were elected to do and is a violation of your very oath of office.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Doniphan Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Who is Brandie Wilson? 6 hr telling the truth 12
jason coleman Tue Melissa 48
dirty deeds Tue EdMac 3
Rory Calhoun (Mar '13) Tue Guest 10
Felon Hunting Rights (Sep '09) Mon Guest 96
Change Sony NEX-6 MTS/M2TS to iMovie friendly v... (Dec '12) Dec 21 futhercareer 2
does anyone know pete paisley (Jun '14) Dec 21 hbb1223 8
Doniphan Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Doniphan People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Doniphan News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Doniphan

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 8:25 am PST

NBC Sports 8:25AM
Jeff Fisher thought Josh Brown should have been ejected for kick
NBC Sports11:06 AM
Preston Parker fined $15,000 for role in brawl with Rams
ESPN12:17 PM
Giants' Jenkins irked after getting $16K fine
NBC Sports12:47 PM
6 Giants fined by NFL for actions in Rams game - NBC Sports
NBC Sports 2:23 PM
Ogletree, Laurinaitis 1-2 in tackles entering finale - NBC Sports