Missouri Senate Bill 39

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Really? I've never seen a definition in the Constitution for those. I even pulled it up and didn't see a list of definitions in there. We're in a country where a perhaps majority of people think that "AR" self-evidently stands for "assault rifle", and a good chunk of the populace considers mask mandates an infringement. So yeah, I really think definitions are important. If we were to just make assumptions about what "arms" was at the time of the framing, and considering that at the time, private citizens could own their own cannons, warships, and whatever else they could dream up, I suppose that means I could go get myself a Nimitz class carrier for a party boat --- or at least an A10 to cruise the skies.


Again, I'd like to know where in the Consitution illegal aliens are mentioned. Could you be so kind as to point it out?

You won't find a definition of "a", "and" and "the" along with most of the words used in the Constitution in the Constitution. Peruse a dictionary if you are confused or in doubt. I recommend "Johnson's Dictionary of the English Language, c. 1755" . It is contemporary with the writing of the Constitution. There is no need to make assumptions of what words meant.

Boy, a Nimitz class carrier would make one hell of a party barge, wouldn't it! Per the Second Added Article to the Constitution - AKA the Second Amendment - there is nothing to stop you from buying one provided you could find someone willing to sell it to you or build one for you - except a lack of money, maybe. Same thing with an A-10, or F-22 ...

Congress is authorized to create law to control immigration in Article I, Section 8, Clause 4. The Constitution doesn't mention illegal immigration(aliens) directly, but Congress is authorized "...to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, ...".

Woody

 

[Fredkrueger100]

This bill will be meaningless if the state of Missouri doesn’t back it up and protect the citizens. Kansas has a law that allows ones to purchase suppressors without registering them with the NFA. They are supposed to protect the people of Kansas but when the moment came for them to do it, they didn’t do jack crap to help the two men who got arrested and charged with felonies. And when this case was being urged to be taken up by the Supreme Court Trump urged them to not hear it. .

But I really hope this passes and the people of Missouri can actually gain their freedom back and the state will protect them. If so, our state dang sure better follow. What would have been better is if our state was the first to do it! I’m surprised Nathan Dahm hasn’t filed a bill like this.

 

[Fredkrueger100]

Really? I've never seen a definition in the Constitution for those. I even pulled it up and didn't see a list of definitions in there. We're in a country where a perhaps majority of people think that "AR" self-evidently stands for "assault rifle", and a good chunk of the populace considers mask mandates an infringement. So yeah, I really think definitions are important. If we were to just make assumptions about what "arms" was at the time of the framing, and considering that at the time, private citizens could own their own cannons, warships, and whatever else they could dream up, I suppose that means I could go get myself a Nimitz class carrier for a party boat --- or at least an A10 to cruise the skies.


Again, I'd like to know where in the Consitution illegal aliens are mentioned. Could you be so kind as to point it out?

Are you against someone being able to own a fighter jet or a cannon or machine gun or anything else they can dream up? Because the 2A didn’t discriminate when it was written. Back then they believed EVERYONE was entitled to own whatever they wanted. Sadly there are a lot (even on this forum) that don’t believe in that. I do however. Even if the constitution plainly defined what “arms” were do you really think the government wouldn’t infringe upon it? I can guarantee they would. They don’t care what the constitution says. Neither does the SCOTUS.

 

[OKCHunter]

Are you against someone being able to own a fighter jet or a cannon or machine gun or anything else they can dream up? Because the 2A didn’t discriminate when it was written. Back then they believed EVERYONE was entitled to own whatever they wanted. Sadly there are a lot (even on this forum) that don’t believe in that. I do however. Even if the constitution plainly defined what “arms” were do you really think the government wouldn’t infringe upon it? I can guarantee they would. They don’t care what the constitution says. Neither does the SCOTUS.

I think the intent was for the citizens to own the same tools as the government. So, if you want own a fighter jet - I say you should have it.

 

[Fredkrueger100]

I think the intent was for the citizens to own the same tools as the government. So, if you want own a fighter jet - I say you should have it.

I wish. When I went through MEPS I failed the eye test so my dreams of being a pilot were immediately destroyed. Lol.

 

[Rez Exelon]

This bill will be meaningless if the state of Missouri doesn’t back it up and protect the citizens. Kansas has a law that allows ones to purchase suppressors without registering them with the NFA. They are supposed to protect the people of Kansas but when the moment came for them to do it, they didn’t do jack crap to help the two men who got arrested and charged with felonies. And when this case was being urged to be taken up by the Supreme Court Trump urged them to not hear it. .

But I really hope this passes and the people of Missouri can actually gain their freedom back and the state will protect them. If so, our state dang sure better follow. What would have been better is if our state was the first to do it! I’m surprised Nathan Dahm hasn’t filed a bill like this.

I'm probably the rain on the parade guy, but this has kind of been my point in the thread. Sure it's great on paper, but would the state protect and shield their own? I doubt it. So far no one in this thread has wanted to go be case #1.

Are you against someone being able to own a fighter jet or a cannon or machine gun or anything else they can dream up? Because the 2A didn’t discriminate when it was written. Back then they believed EVERYONE was entitled to own whatever they wanted. Sadly there are a lot (even on this forum) that don’t believe in that. I do however. Even if the constitution plainly defined what “arms” were do you really think the government wouldn’t infringe upon it? I can guarantee they would. They don’t care what the constitution says. Neither does the SCOTUS.

Again, you're backing my point. I want an A-10 personally. But "apparently" I can't have one. Not with a BRRT anyways. So if a bill is going to say they are opening things up I want to see definitions on what is and isn't cool, because if it doesn't say I can own my Warthog then GTFO and try again.

 

[dennishoddy]

like with pot, enough states start saying no and the feds have to look at the problem again.

Probably the most powerful statement in this discussion.
The feds do have to listen to the states as they rely on the states for a lot of funding.

If enough states took this approach and formed a union it would be tough for the feds to enforce anything because most of the feds money comes from states.
The feds always threaten to remove funds for infrastructure and so on if the individual state doesn’t comply with one of their mandates. But it’s the states money in the first place.

 

[Rez Exelon]

If enough states took this approach and formed a union....

LOL....once all the individual states get together in the Union maybe we could even call it the "United States" since they are all working together.

 

[Snattlerake]

LOL....once all the individual states get together in the Union maybe we could even call it the "United States" since they are all working together.

That there is funny, and sad.

 

[dennishoddy]

LOL....once all the individual states get together in the Union maybe we could even call it the "United States" since they are all working together.

As I said the states have to work in union.
If enough states get on board, the feds can’t intimidate anyone because the majority source of funding for the feds comes from from the states.
Of course the liberal states won’t get onboard but the leftists coasts don’t represent the rest of the fly over country that does support the 2A