Missouri sheriffs teaming up to fight...

Missouri sheriffs teaming up to fight new gun control laws

There are 87 comments on the KHQA-TV Quincy story from Jan 24, 2013, titled Missouri sheriffs teaming up to fight new gun control laws. In it, KHQA-TV Quincy reports that:

Read more: Local , National , State , Crime , Politics , Community , News , Legal , Rural Sheriffs Resist Obama Gun Policy , Rural Sheriffs Vow to Oppose New Gun Policies , Assault Weapons , Local Lawmen Vow to Defy Federal Law , Federal Gun Laws , Second Amendment , County Sheriff , Texas , Missouri , Oregon , Senate , President Obama , President ... (more)

Join the discussion below, or Read more at KHQA-TV Quincy.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#21 Feb 18, 2013
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>Shell shocked, huh? Gofuckyourself, Armed Lunatic.
Nah....you first. I insist.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#22 Feb 18, 2013
Tory II wrote:
<quoted text>STFU. You're an antigun communist pig. Everyone here knows it.
Wrong on all three counts you ignorant, paranoid POS. GFY.

Since: Feb 13

Amarillo, TX

#23 Feb 18, 2013
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>It would help if I knew who you were talking about.
You say it is wrong to ignore federal law. The local lawmen can't enforce the federal immigration laws can they? If they gather illegals for the feds the news call them racists and the feds turn most loose. Why should the local lawmen be allowed to enforce federal gun laws.

People want things both ways.

“KONA, baby!”

Since: Jul 08

Jacksonville, FL

#25 Feb 18, 2013
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>It would help if I knew who you were talking about.
I provided it to you before and you conveniently failed to respond. Here it is again:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/774...
Here's a hint, it's your president.

“Happiness comes through giving”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#27 Feb 18, 2013
Shelly Bl wrote:
<quoted text>You say it is wrong to ignore federal law. The local lawmen can't enforce the federal immigration laws can they? If they gather illegals for the feds the news call them racists and the feds turn most loose. Why should the local lawmen be allowed to enforce federal gun laws.
People want things both ways.
Cite some specific.

“Constitutionist/ SAF”

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#28 Feb 18, 2013
You're an antigun communist pig, Retard. Everyone here knows it.
Armed Veteran wrote:
Wrong on all three counts you ignorant, paranoid POS. GFY.
post #: 1132, page 55:

http://www.topix.com/forum/guns/T3U415K99MGTL...

“Happiness comes through giving”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#29 Feb 18, 2013
Pappa wrote:
<quoted text>
I provided it to you before and you conveniently failed to respond. Here it is again:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/774...
Here's a hint, it's your president.
I didn't "fail" to respond. I usually don't read links. But I read this one. Ideally, I wish a president didn't have to bypass Congress. But it is the Tea Party wing of the Republican House and their supplicants that are preventing important progress for the American people.

For example, the Constitution does not ban marriage among same-sex couples. Such a ban would seem unconstitutional. Obama is simply fighting fire with fire. Similarly, Congress is in other ways
obstructing the expansion of freedoms to all Americans.

Again, if a president is overstepping his constitutional bounds, the law should intervene. I say this, not because I don't approve of Obama's aims, but because I'm reminded that George W. Bush invoked executive privilege many more times than Obama in a comparable period. Still, if something is to be held unconstitutional, the courts have to say so.
birt

Batesville, AR

#30 Feb 18, 2013
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>Federal law trumps state law. We are still one country.
wrong, local law alway rules and always has. fed can't even come into a local area with out an invit.

“KONA, baby!”

Since: Jul 08

Jacksonville, FL

#31 Feb 18, 2013
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>I didn't "fail" to respond. I usually don't read links. But I read this one. Ideally, I wish a president didn't have to bypass Congress. But it is the Tea Party wing of the Republican House and their supplicants that are preventing important progress for the American people.
For example, the Constitution does not ban marriage among same-sex couples. Such a ban would seem unconstitutional. Obama is simply fighting fire with fire. Similarly, Congress is in other ways
obstructing the expansion of freedoms to all Americans.
Again, if a president is overstepping his constitutional bounds, the law should intervene. I say this, not because I don't approve of Obama's aims, but because I'm reminded that George W. Bush invoked executive privilege many more times than Obama in a comparable period. Still, if something is to be held unconstitutional, the courts have to say so.
So, what you're saying is that it's okay for the president to not enforce a federal law that he doesn't think is constitutional but not okay for a local law enforcement head to do the same?
Voluntarist

United States

#32 Feb 18, 2013
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>Federal law trumps state law. We are still one country.
Only on federal territory and matters of interstate commerce.

“Happiness comes through giving”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#33 Feb 18, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
Nah....you first. I insist.
Well, if you insist....now wait a minute!

“Happiness comes through giving”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#34 Feb 18, 2013
birt wrote:
<quoted text>wrong, local law alway rules and always has. fed can't even come into a local area with out an invit.
Not only are you totally wrong, but I question your sanity.

“Happiness comes through giving”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#35 Feb 18, 2013
Pappa wrote:
<quoted text>
So, what you're saying is that it's okay for the president to not enforce a federal law that he doesn't think is constitutional but not okay for a local law enforcement head to do the same?
I don't accept your premise about Obama, so I can't answer your question.
Shasta21

United States

#36 Feb 18, 2013
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>Dissent is fine. Ignoring federal law is not.
what part if Missouri state makes this federal?

“Happiness comes through giving”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#37 Feb 18, 2013
Shasta21 wrote:
<quoted text> what part if Missouri state makes this federal?
The part that it is a state of the UNION, otherwise known as the UNITED States of America.
joey

Maringouin, LA

#38 Feb 18, 2013
conservative crapola wrote:
Well expect the next mass murders in MOosouri and VAgina.
the little girly man from Pa.shoots off his mouth again as if his lips hold a 30 round magazine on bullshit?he is a yellow Pa.turd that needs to meet a thug!maube he can use his 9 mill.mouth on him?
Voluntarist

United States

#39 Feb 18, 2013
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>The part that it is a state of the UNION, otherwise known as the UNITED States of America.
The federal government has only 18 enumerated powers, the rest is left for the state's or the people.

The constitution's bill of rights is the supreme law of the land, any law in conflict is repugnant and void ab initio.

The constitution is a restriction on government, it is a list of just some of the people's unalienable rights.
Voluntarist

United States

#40 Feb 18, 2013
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>The part that it is a state of the UNION, otherwise known as the UNITED States of America.
The union was created to facilitate trade easier among other things, congress has no authority to mettle in intrastate affairs.

“Happiness comes through giving”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#41 Feb 18, 2013
Voluntarist wrote:
<quoted text>
The federal government has only 18 enumerated powers, the rest is left for the state's or the people.
The constitution's bill of rights is the supreme law of the land, any law in conflict is repugnant and void ab initio.
The constitution is a restriction on government, it is a list of just some of the people's unalienable rights.
Are you familiar with the time when the federal government had to send in the National Guard to fight off the Southern segregationists? Was that unconstitutional?

“Happiness comes through giving”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#42 Feb 18, 2013
Voluntarist wrote:
<quoted text>
The union was created to facilitate trade easier among other things, congress has no authority to mettle in intrastate affairs.
Your comments belong on a fiction thread. You are laughably wrong. Federal law supercedes state law.

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.

Barack Obama Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Anti-Trump protests to kick off with Washington... 8 min spud 122
News Springsteen cover band changes tune, won't play... 8 min RustyS 4
News Obama's farewell speech in Chicago felt like th... 13 min Carl 24
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 14 min Aquarius-wy 1,478,946
News Obama blasts Bernie Bros for undermining ObamaC... 30 min Venus6619 33
News Republican-led Senate takes first step to repea... 48 min Rubs6085 175
News PM Abe offers support for Duterte's war on drugs 52 min Cakez1200 11
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 1 hr Rogue Scholar 05 233,877
More from around the web