Missouri, Wyoming and Texas have it all wrong. A view from an Australian!

OK guys and gals settle down.

The Constitution of the US does not need to be reinforced by the States. It exists and should be enough on it's own. If it gets to the stage where 'We the people' have to act then you are at the stage of 'the blood of patriots.' Interestingly, those type of passages regarding bloodshed being required never seem to mention trials of the Tyrannical rulers. Just bloodshed seems to cover it all. LOL.

Associated thread is

www.abovetopsecret.com...

and a great thread it is.

Missouri enacted a new law which in part says:

Any official, agent, or employee of the federal government who enforces or
attempts to enforce any act, order, law, statute, rule, or regulation of the federal
government upon a personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is owned
or manufactured commercially or privately in the state of Missouri and that remains
exclusively within the borders of the state of Missouri shall be guilty of a class D felony.

Now that is great, but, I think it is the wrong type of law. A much better law would have been:

Any President, Congressman, official, agent, or employee of the federal government who enforces or
attempts to enforce any act, order, law, statute, rule, or regulation of the federal government that in any way whatsoever infringes or attempts to infringe on the Constitution of the United States of America or any part or amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America and enters within the borders of the state of Missouri shall be arrested and charged with a crime against the fabric of Democracy and must be charged with a class D felony.

You can not continue to handle this in piecemeal fashion. Once you enact this law then it is up to the State's Judges to decide the fate of the accused - as it should be.

P

Any US citizen who disagrees with citizens having Guns or a certain type of Gun should band together and attempt to change the 2nd by using the rules imbedded in the Constitution that enable changes to be made.

There is not and should never be any other way to 'water down' a countries constitution. If you try and fail the the people have been heard and you should either move to another country or STFU.

There are a few Australians on ATS who are being RCs on this issue, please do not assume they speak for all Aussies, THEY DON'T

P

reply to post by pheonix358


you dont understand the nature of our country.

I woudlnt expect you too, but this is why we say to watch and listen rather than speak about what you do not understand.

We are not a federation of states with a central federal authority.

We are a UNION, hence united states. Each sate is a NATION with its own constitution. Like the EU.

We have cohesion through the federal government whose jurisdiction ends in DC.

The national constitution mirrors state constitutions and establishes the federal government. It is a CONTRACT.

The states CHOOSE to honor it and participate in the union. We are not forced to.

A good example was the civil rights movement here in the US. Each state had to pass its own laws to reflect the federal ones that they CHOSE not to comply with. That was the big deal about the civil rights movement. It was hard fought because they had to win each state, one at a time.

Also we have something called the supremacy clause that is misunderstood to establish an authority OVER state sovereignty. That is not the case. It exists to protect federal CONSTITUTIONALLY granted powers. It can not be used to pass unconstitutional laws or violate any other laws or treaties. It is a safe guard against the federal government losing say, coinage rights by congress to any one state, or private entity like the Fed. ( funny huh.)

So these states are entirely in their right and are doing exactly what our laws and system DEMAND of them to do. If not we risk breaking up the union by forcing the will of a few on the diverse and varied NATIONS ( states) that make up the union.

Please, leave us to OUR country.

reply to post by pheonix358


Catchy title.. I read both your posts.. I LOVE it...

I really wish they had passed your version instead..

@above poster... Maybe re-read what was posted by the Aussie?

Here is a Link That Shows the true and only way to change the second amendment, and that is ANOTHER amendment to the Constitution.... NO other Way...

This requires 38 State Legislatures to Agree, after 2/3 support in the House and Senate...

Any other law that infringes the right to bare arms is unlawful, and unconstitutional...


It's quite amazing how much more I have learned about Law trying to figure out how to defeat Tyranny than I ever did in school..

Besides, the only way to change the Constitution is with a Constitutional Convention. There are inherent dangers in doing this, and is largely considered, well, inherently dangerous!

The reason being, when you open a Con-Con, as it is called, this is a two way street, you see.

You can't just run in and say, "Hey! We wanna change this and we win! Neener! Neener!" and run out and close the doors, it does't work that way.

The other side gets to do stuff, too!

So.. yeah, it's not such a good idea, because, they may just change something YOU don't want them to change. Then what?

Con-Cons are not common, are not taken, nor done lightly.

Besides, as was pointed out above, each STATE has it's Constitution. The Federal Constitution is realllllllly clear. It limits the Federal Government powers.

The only lenience that is given, is just that, given.

That which is given CAN be taken away.

This is what you are witnessing.

What is a Constitutional Convention?

en.wikipedia.org...

teachingamericanhistory.org...

reply to post by Libertygal


I have studied the US Constitution and I am aware of what you speak of. IF the will of 'we the people' is to change the Constitution then the Constitution gets changed. If the people of a State wish to change the State's Constitution the it gets changed. IF it gets changed and you do not like it, tough titties!

You are a democratic Republic. Get used to it.

What I find objectionable is the President, Congress or Mayors and Governors who think they can water down Constitutional provisions. They Can't and should be tried and locked up for life!

P

reply to post by zedVSzardoz


Yes, I do understand how the US works. People anywhere in the world can study. Under the 1st Amendment I have the right to free speech. You do not seem to understand that.

P

ETA. I will make a bargain, you leave every one else in peace and stop interfering in all the other countries on planet earth and I will gladly leave you alone. Until that day happens I am free to comment.

reply to post by pheonix358


I do leave everyone else alone. I have not invaded anyone, forced anyone to do anything, or asked anyone of anything.

And the 1st amendment only applies to my countrymen. To everyone else it is a courtesy.

Like I said, leave us to our country. I appreciate the concern, but I would not speak about another country from a few hours,or days of study. I would listen. That is advice, not an "order".

reply to post by zedVSzardoz


My country enjoys the benefits of free speech. I am using it now. I am being courteous. If you do not want to read my thoughts you have the option of ignoring this thread.

P

reply to post by pheonix358


again, I offered my advice. It would seem like good advice. You can offer your opinion. Sure. But I would trust your opinion of your country when speaking about laws and the system then that of someone from else where.

Would you ask a mechanic for help tutoring your child in math, or literature or a teacher what options you have for tuning your car?

I didnt want to come off as rude, but in all fairness if I was to preach to any body from another country as to how I think they should do things, they would tell me to bugger off. I would expect that. I didnt do that to you, but anything I did say, you should expect. It is not your country and all your "study" does not make you more qualified than ANY average American when it comes to OUR country.

you may have a point, but honestly, who cares. It is coming from someone who really couldnt care how well we are doing as a country. You might, but not the way someone from the US will.

You also lack the perspective of BEING one of us. Arguing this doesnt even make sense.

I appreciate the concern, but if you really are interested in this subject, you are in a position to learn, not teach.

Originally posted by pheonix358
reply to post by Libertygal

 

You are a democratic Republic. Get used to it.


P

WRONG! We are Representative Republic, sometimes called a Constitutional Republic. We are no form of democracy whatsoever.

Democracy is defined as two wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

With replies like these one has to step back and think WOW.

P

reply to post by pheonix358


One thing that I find absurd is how can someone swear to protect and uphold the constitution and push to make changes to it without breaking that same oath. The ways to make alterations in this setup must be extremely well formalized and no simple subterfuge would permit a violation of the process.

Having read what the OP written the following can be stated:

The US is a complex landscape of politics, people and diversity, as with any country. And like most countries, it has its own set of politics, politicians and people with their own agendas. But the one universial truth that is true with most politicians around the world is the following:

All Politicians lie, they do not tell the absolute and whole truth, and there in is the problems at hand. And in the US, this is very prevelant, and ultimately a problem. Idealy, the politicians listen to the voice of the people, where the majority rules and minorities have their rights protected. And this system of the US is a 3 ring circus, where one branch creates the laws, the other branch enforces and the last determines if it is fair and balanced.

But here is the question that is on everyones minds, when the federal government, charged to keep the peace and maintain the country as a whole, does not follow the very laws that it passed and has been through the entire legal system? What is a state to do, when such happens? And that is what is going on, and is currently seen, in other areas, not just in gun control, where the federal government is either overstepping or under reaching the very laws that it is charged to enforce, in different areas.

And states, in a legal quagmire, are having to their best to muddle through if not decide to take matters into their own hands and do what they believe is correct. So that is where you are getting states that are deciding to create their own laws, based on the precidents set by the different levels of courts.

For the record, what these states are doing is legal, based off of several supreme court cases, where the majority opinion was that when it comes to gun control, it is with in the control of the individual state, not the federal government.