Gun control in Missouri and Kansas
And what's even better is that the measure is backed by a veto-proof majority. This means that as long as those representatives that supported it initially are willing to support it again (in the case of a veto from the Governor), it will become law on July 1, regardless of what the Governor does or doesn't do.
Kansas was brave enough to take the lead in the fight against federal gun control. And now the Kansas Governor and Secretary of State are duking it out with Eric the "Fast and Furious.
But Missouri's bill is even better (in part):
All federal acts, laws, orders, rules, and regulations, whether past, present, or future, which infringe on the people's right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 23 of the Missouri Constitution shall be invalid in this state, shall not be recognized by this state, shall be specifically rejected by this state, and shall be considered null and void and of no effect in this state.
(2) Such federal acts, laws, orders, rules, and regulations include, but are not limited to:8232;.
(a) The provisions of the federal Gun Control Act of 1934.
(b) The provisions of the federal Gun Control Act of 1968.
(c) Any tax, levy, fee, or stamp imposed on firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition not common to all other goods and services which could have a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens.
(d) Any registering or tracking of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition which could have a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens.
(e) Any registering or tracking of the owners of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition which could have a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens.
(f) Any act forbidding the possession, ownership, or use or transfer of any type of firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition by law-abiding citizens; and.
(g) Any act ordering the confiscation of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition from law-abiding citizens.
It also includes a provision that makes it a criminal misdemeanor for any federal agent to attempt to enforce unconstitutional gun control measures in the state.
Missouri is announcing its complete sovereignty over the feds. They're even declaring gun control acts from 1934 and 1968 to be null and void. Holder is going to have a fit with this one, assuming it passes.
If this does pass, it will be the strongest federal gun control nullification measure in our history. Let's hope it succeeds, and that other states follow suit.
Read more: [URL]http://politicaloutcast.com/2013/05/missouri-legislature-nullifies-all-federal-gun-control/[/URL]#ixzz2 TCK5 iXEs.
How about that!!
Will be interesting to see what Eric the Red (as in Marxist) does next.
Don B.
Wow, 60 plus years of suffering & pain.
[QUOTE=DonB;433535]Yeah same old history. Obama is a disaster and Bush was crummy, then we have Woodrow (He kept us out of war) Wilson and Franklyn (I say to you again and again, your sons will not fight in foreign wars) Roosevelt. Hell, the only good President since Cleveland was Coolidge and I've lived under 14 that I didn't like.
Don B.[/QUOTE]I admire you, man.
Esten. Your logic and timing are amazing
You say the premise doesn't exist at a time when we now know the administration lied to us in order to get re-elected and put this above the safety of its citizens and that its taxing authority singled out political groups, which were not in line with the grand scheme, I mean plan? Our Country has not been at this much risk during my life time. Our elected officials are now not only incompetent but clearly will and have used their powers in direct contradiction to the Constitution. Open your eyes, Big O is just like other Chicago Politicians: a crook. Nixon got impeached for lying about breaking into the DNC. Big O gets away with lying about the killing of US Citizens, creating an aliby for their killers, and allowing the IRS to target and discriminate against groups to lower their possible fiscal capabilities and as revealed today, to funnel information to competing political interests outside the IRS. And you don't think those who believe in our Country's real values have any reason to exercise their Constitutional Rights at this time in our history. Amazing.
Pete.
[QUOTE=Esten;433578]Hey Bob long time no see. As far as what I post, if I enjoy discussing and debating a topic, it is not a waste of time to me at all.
I agree with your points, including #2. Anyone following the gun debate knows that fighting against a "tyrannical government" was a common defense of the second amendment. Of course in this day and age it's ridiculous, but nevertheless it was an argument hardcore gun owners were invoking, even our own Punter127 if I recall correctly.
Regarding #1, have a look at the attached NRA "donation" itemization I came across. No doubt this is just a piece of the money flowing from the gun industry.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]28764[/ATTACH][/QUOTE]
Glenn Beck loves people like Peter
There's a whole industry that profits from fueling fear and paranoia about the government. Now some of the time there may be some truth to it, and the IRS story may well prove to be an example (let's get all the facts first). Watch the Glenn Beck crowd celebrate that they actually may have found an example. But most of the fuel is profit-driven fabrication or distortion. Peter is quick to conclude Obama "allowed" the IRS to focus on certain groups, even though there is no evidence whatsoever Obama knew. Peter thinks he knows the facts already, but he's only deluding himself.
My favorite moment from the presidential debates: Romney is sure he's got Obama cornered lying about Benghazi, and Obama says "Pull the transcript". And it turned out, Obama referred to Benghazi as an Act of Terror the very next day. Remember that? There's also been no proof that the timing of the attack wasn't triggered by the video protests. Perhaps the so-called editing of the talking points was simply an exercise to not proclaim fact before facts were known. Everybody knew from day 1 that it wouldn't be surprising at all if a terror group was involved. And that is why the GOP are largely making themselves a laughing stock with their Benghazi circus.
And, that is why you'll continue to see Obama's ratings sail fair above those of the House GOP.
[QUOTE=PeterSideburn;433579]You say the premise doesn't exist at a time when we now know the administration lied to us in order to get re-elected and put this above the safety of its citizens and that its taxing authority singled out political groups, which were not in line with the grand scheme, I mean plan? Our Country has not been at this much risk during my life time. Our elected officials are now not only incompetent but clearly will and have used their powers in direct contradiction to the Constitution. Open your eyes, Big O is just like other Chicago Politicians: a crook. Nixon got impeached for lying about breaking into the DNC. Big O gets away with lying about the killing of US Citizens, creating an aliby for their killers, and allowing the IRS to target and discriminate against groups to lower their possible fiscal capabilities and as revealed today, to funnel information to competing political interests outside the IRS. And you don't think those who believe in our Country's real values have any reason to exercise their Constitutional Rights at this time in our history. Amazing.[/QUOTE]
Don't Cry For Me, America: Comparing Argentina And The United States
Balls Deep sent this to me by email.
I don't know why he didn't feel it was suitable for posting in the forum, but here it is.
[URL]http://www.forbes.com/sites/alejandrochafuen/2013/05/15/dont-cry-for-me-america-comparing-argentina-and-the-united-states/[/URL]
[BLUE][b]NOTE to Sidney:[/b] Please note how I added the quote formatting and cleaned up this article by deleting the text associated with advertisements, photo captions, banner links, etc. that one normally captures when copying an article from a website.[/BLUE]
[B]Don't Cry For Me, America: Comparing Argentina And The United States[/B]
[QUOTE]Many observers have pondered if the United States is following the same troubled path as Argentina. In the 1940s, Argentina’s Juan Domingo Perón used government agencies for political gain and created a popular form of fascism called Perónism. In the United States, the recent revelation of the Internal Revenue Service targeting political enemies is a bad omen. Are we on an Argentinean course?
The road to decay in my native country, Argentina, began with the implementation of one of the most powerful collectivist doctrines of the 20th century: fascism. The Labour Charter of 1927 – promulgated by Italy’s Grand Council of Fascism under Mussolini – is a guiding document of this doctrine and provides for government-based economic management. This same document recommends government provision of healthcare and unemployment insurance. Sound familiar?
Since adopting its own brand of fascism, “Justicialismo,” Argentina began to fall in world economic rankings.
•In 1930, Argentina’s gold reserves ranked 6th. After the “experts” took over the central bank, reserves fell to 9th in 1948 (with $700 million), 16th during 1950-54 (with $530 million), and 28th during 1960-1964 (with $290 million).
•The Argentine central bank, created in 1935, was at first a private corporation. Its president lasted longer (seven years) than the president of the country, and it had strict limits for government debt purchases and even had foreign bankers on its board. It became a government entity in 1946.
When Perón assumed power shortly thereafter, he hastily expanded the role of government, relaxed central banking rules and used the bank to facilitate his statist policies. In just 10 years, the peso went from 4.05 per U.S. dollar to 18 in 1955 (and later peaked at 36 that same year). After Perón’s rule, Argentina further devalued its currency to 400 pesos per U.S. dollar by 1970.
Bipartisanship in bad policy-making can be especially damaging. Just as some of President Obama’s interventionist monetary policies were preceded by similar Bush administration policies, some of Perón’s policies were similarly foreshadowed: “Already before we reached power, we started to reform, with the approval and collaboration of the previous de facto regime,” said the populist.
Perón was removed from power in 1955 but his policies lived on. The “Liberating Revolution” claimed it was leading an effort to return to the free-market system dictated by the Argentine Constitution of 1853. But Argentines chose an interventionist, Raúl Prebisch, as minister.
Inflationary policies and political use of the monetary regulatory authority, especially after Perón’s first presidency, devastated the economic culture and rule of law of Argentina. In the United States, the Fed does not have all the powers delineated by Perón, and has not caused as much destruction as the Argentine central bank, but the process has been similar and more gradual. The U.S. dollar buys less than 10 percent of what it did in 1913 when the Federal Reserve was created, the debt limit increases regularly—thus stimulating further debt monetization—and monetary authorities have increased their arbitrary interventions.
Under Perón, government agencies gradually got involved in all areas of the economy. We see a similar pattern in the United States–many sectors of the economy now depend on control, encouragement, or direct management. Obamacare is the best example; it is Perónism or corporatism on steroids.
There are similarities beyond the economic realm. Unlike other populist leaders, such as Hitler and Mussolini, Perón did not have belligerent imperialist ambitions. The same can be said about President Obama. His conservative critics argue that he wants to reduce U.S. influence around the world. Moreover, Perón shunned the Argentine founding fathers who favored the free society. Likewise, President Obama is not prone to quoting Madison, Washington, or Jefferson.
But some major differences between cultures still exist, such as the “cult of the leader,” attacking mediating institutions (e.g., Catholic associations and the press), and appealing to the left as well as the right. Regarding the latter, Peron achieved vast influence over most of the three main components of fascism: labor unions, business corporations, and government. It’s not likely that a U.S. leader will gain control of all three of these in the near future. During the beginning of the Obama administration it looked as though much of the business world was on board, but if there was ever a honeymoon, it didn’t last long. The Chamber of Commerce, for example, voiced its opposition during the middle of Obama’s first term, and continues to voice its criticism on several fronts.
Other differences, so far, are:
•The use of government funds for partisan efforts in Argentina is much worse than in the United States.
•The U.S. government is reluctant to directly attack capitalism. Interventions are positioned as “going against capitalism to save capitalism.”
•In the United States, there is greater understanding of the dangers of protectionist and nationalist economic policies.
• There is stronger support for the rule of law in the United States. The control of the judiciary by the Argentine government is reaching tyrannical levels.
A major source of hope in the United States is the strength and variety in governments among the 50 states and the richness of our civil society. Economic power is more diffused in the United Statesand some of it, as I noted in a recent column, is moving south to more conservative states. State spending and regulation has grown, but the federal government does not yet have the power to make the states follow all of its dictates and whims.
Pessimists may argue that the stage is set for an ambitious U.S. president, like it was for Perón, to make the majority of the economy dependent on government. From the year before Perón assumed power and to the end of his rule (1945-1955), total spending by the central government averaged 11% of GNP; this compares with 24% in the United States today. Argentine conservatives created regulatory agencies thinking they would be used for the common good. Likewise, U.S. conservatives have expanded government and regulations. The regulatory state is much larger today in the United States than in old Perónist Argentina. As with government spending, it can be used to control, encourage, or discourage business. Employed by both countries, excessive regulation is a more secretive means of picking winners and losers, which creates more opportunity for corruption. Perón understood that government spending and regulation could be used as tools of power to reward friends and punish enemies. He did it, and he ruined the Argentine dream.
What we’re seeing in many of today’s U.S. agencies, including the politicization of the IRS, demonstrates that the United States is not immune to the Argentine disease. Indeed, if we fail to preserve the institutions of the republic, the American dream will be in grave danger.[/QUOTE]
MSNBC never has any hosts/guests whose opinions others might consider "extreme".
[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;433852]Just an Independent Viewers review From the People (Left).
Sorry about Fox, it is great for Laughs.
Since they realized Glenn Beck is not all There.
Sorry About The Caps, (DickHeaD) But I Am A Union Printer![/QUOTE]Yea, and MSNBC never has any hosts/guests whose opinions others might consider "extreme".
Of course I'm still trying to understand why MSNBC gets 800k nightly viewers, and FNC gets 6 million nightly visitors.
Wait, I figured it out! The problem is that the average person is incapable of grasping the brilliant thinking of these MSNBC commentators.
It's a good thing that we have the liberals to figure everything out for all of us who are not enlightened.
Thanks,
Jackson
