Should Red States Nullify the new Federal Assault Weapons law should it pass?

Should states nullify this federal law?

  • Yes

    Votes: 66 94.3%

  • No

    Votes: 4 5.7%
  • Total voters
    70
There isn't one...

The most they could do would be to refuse to enforce it, and to direct state and local law enforcement not to assist in investigations or prosecutions of such crimes.

That might have administrative consequences, e.g. highway funds, but there's nothing the Federal government could do to compel cooperation, so far as I know. Well, I guess they could send in the Army, but not much short of that. Which wouldn't happen.

--Shannon
 
This "red" and "blue" state crap really needs to stop. The country is already divided like never before, and it doesn't help to suddenly start throwing entire states into pigeon holes just because a majority of people voted a particular way. Its stupid, and ignorant.
Click to expand...



I think the country is divided. However I don’t think it is clearly understood what the division actually is. As it is presented by the media it is between liberalism and conservatism but these terms are just a way of putting a pretty face on what is in reality socialism and capitalism. On the one hand, capitalism is the force that produced in a scant 200 years the wealthiest, most powerful and most generous nation the earth has ever known. Socialism on the other hand has a long and well established record. It has given us Soviet Russia, Cuba, France, Pol Pot, the Khmer Rouge, etc. etc. The short version is that the socialist says you and everything you have or produce is property of the government while the capitalist say you are a free individual who can own private property and by the simple fact that you are a living human being you are inherently the owner of everything you produce i.e. the product of your labor belongs to you.

The WWII generation, due to their place in history was keenly aware of this. The generation that followed, because they were raised by the WWII generation and also lived under the specter of Soviet Russia were also keenly aware of this. Our present generation seems to be keenly unaware of this. I think this is due to the fact that the socialist movement in this country which really gained strength during the Viet Nam war has pretty much taken over our education system and the Democrat side of our government. Oh and lets not forget all those fine young journalist that our socialist run collages are turning out, who then go on to host the major news outlets and tell you what the shape of the world is.


Yes I do think the country is divided but I think the nature of that division is very much obscured and I would add, intentionally obscured. After all socialism does have a long and bloody history. The socialist movement is not going to present themselves as what they are. No they are going to dress themselves up with nifty catch phrases like “for the children” and all manner of altruistic ideals that are nothing more than sugar coating used to obscure and push through their agenda and to fundamentally change the character of this country without the country realizing it until it is too late and the secret police are knocking on your door.
 
I agree with Ron to an extent. A lot of my generation (I'm 26) seems to be made up of peace mongers - hippies. I don't think I'd go as far as saying they all are that way, it's just hard to find people that actually care about real issues. These people seem to think Darfur and global warming are bigger issues than basic Constitutional rights. I guess when you've got George Clooney telling you it's important and you were raised by the hippies of the 60s you really don't end up thinking for yourself much.

I'd also agree about a lot of the college professors these days. I didn't go to college, my old lady did. She'd come home talking about things that the professors had said. She didn't even seem to notice that they were spending most of their time teaching their agenda and less about valuable curriculum. She took a WWII class for instance, a large majority of the curriculum was based on the (the professor's) theory that Hitler was really gay. That he had one testical. That his mommy didn't hold him enough, name the cliche. If I asked her about Bastogne or Nijmegan she wouldn't have a clue what I was talking about. Think like me or you'll fail the class.

We have to just keep trucking along and try to defend what's ours and try to educate people with real facts. If we don't, they'll pass another AWB and then they'll make up more of [their] 'facts' such as: during the AWB violent crime went down blah blah percent and say it's due to the AWB.
 
Federal law trumps state law so long as enough states continue to submit. If enough states decide not to then the dynamic changes. It really is that simple. There's nothing sacred or holy or righteous about federal law, after all.

So the question is not should states do this. That answer is obvious: Of course. States should regularly smack down the fedgov. The only lesson settled in 1865 is it takes a larger percentage and better propaganda to make it stick. The real question is: What issue will make enough of the Citizenry demand that enough states actually defy the essentially helpless fed? It's just a matter of numbers, since fedgov's power is entirely based on submission via intimidation.

Thing is, guns won't be the thing that does it. There's just too many cowards and preliterate fools out there who are too scared for this to be the issue. Property rights and taxation combined might do it. Illegal immigration and the loss of sovereignty to the coming AU(combined with land rights and taxes perhaps) really might do it. But the 2ndA? Forget it. Buy what you can while you can and wait for a bigger issue to weld together the kind of public groundswell needed to make a difference.

Or, just keep the extreme left as represented by the Democrat Party out of power in '08. Keep buying time until we find some other way out of this mess...or until we're too old to care anymore.
 
Or, just keep the extreme left as represented by the Democrat Party out of power in '08. Keep buying time until we find some other way out of this mess...or until we're too old to care anymore.
Click to expand...

Now that is a classic Lenninist concept! Nice one!

WildprovokethechangeAlaska
 
Federal law trumps state law so long as enough states continue to submit. If enough states decide not to then the dynamic changes. It really is that simple. There's nothing sacred or holy or righteous about federal law, after all.
Click to expand...

What a bunch of baloney. Ever hear of the supremacy clause...

"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."

Every single state, in order to gain entrance into the union agreed to abide by this clause. Not only is it logical, but its legality is beyond question.

Gun owners can be our own worst enemies, and when we make uninformed statements like this, we are.
 
What a bunch of baloney. Ever hear of the supremacy clause...

"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."
Click to expand...

Read that again...
 
*LOL*

What a bunch of baloney. Ever hear of the supremacy clause...
Click to expand...

Again, there is nothing holy or righteous or sacred about federal law. If enough people of enough states decide to no longer submit that's it. Its authority ceases to exist. In light of such an eventuality your quoted clause means nothing. It has weight only so long as enough people accept it...just like any law. What you think you are arguing or what position you think you have staked out I have no idea. Reality is somewhere quite far from it, whatever it may be. There's certainly nothing uninformed about that fact.
 
I could say the exact same about the 2nd amendment.
Click to expand...
And you'd be right. If there comes a time when only 10% of the population feels that private gun ownership should be allowed then the rest of us are going to be SOL. There are methods in place to repeal amendments, the 2nd is as susceptible as any.
 
I assume as in "Right" you mean those according to the "Original Bill of Rights" that were given to us by the founding fathers.

Edit: I say given and I mean that because they can just as easily be taken away by the legislation or by some justice who decides what the law says. Also when a crime is committed you forfeit most of your "rights" while some privileges are allowed so you can arrange to clear up the problems caused (phone call and lawyer for example) in the event of innocence.

Just thought I'd elaborate on that and make it clear what I meant
 
Therein lies the problem..when you suffer from the belief that your rights are given to you by government it only naturally follows that they government has the right to take those same rights away.

Some of us do not suffer from that particular affliction. While we understand that the government has the power to curtail the exercise of our rights, we realize that no authority has the right to permanently take those rights from us.

It's a different mindset. If you honestly believe that our rights are bestowed by government then, while you may be disappointed, you really have not real right to complain if the government takes them away. If the government granted them then it can also legitimately take them away.

However those of us who realize that our rights transcend government also know that we have every right and duty to fight against any force which would seek to take those rights away. What the government did not grant, it CANNOT take away.

edit: you can curtail the exercise of a right but you cannot take it away. I suppose in practice there is not much of a difference but in theory there is a great difference.
 
We must not allow it to get that far

Lets write to our members of Congress right now !!! Phone, write, email or whatever, we can't let that senseless bill get that far that it has to be nullified, we can just ignore it if passed but the LEOs and the ATF won't ignore us !!!! Let your Congress Person know today, we aren't gonna have it.........
 
True Redworm..but while they can repeal an amendment they cannot repeal a right.
Click to expand...
True, but not everyone agrees on what rights we have. Some folks feel they have a right to say four letter words on network television, some people feel they have a right to be free from violence that includes firearms, some feel they have a right to marry within their gender, some feel they have the right to marry 14 year old girls to 60 year old men and use religion as an excuse.

Rights are abstract, laws are written down.
 
There are methods in place to repeal amendments, the 2nd is as susceptible as any.
Click to expand...

Who said anything about repealing the amendment.

2nd amendment here doesn't think we need to abide by any process. If enough people of enough states decide to no longer submit that's it. Its authority ceases to exist. In light of such an eventuality your quoted clause means nothing. It has weight only so long as enough people accept it...just like any law.

Lets all just forget about the system. Why even bother.:rolleyes:

Like I said, we are our own worst enemy sometimes, and the fact that so many of you don't understand the supremacy clause and the hundreds of years of consistent precedent behind it is telling.
 
Federal law trumps state law so long as enough states continue to submit. If enough states decide not to then the dynamic changes. It really is that simple. There's nothing sacred or holy or righteous about federal law, after all.
Click to expand...
What a bunch of baloney. Ever hear of the supremacy clause...
Click to expand...
2nd Amendment and STAGE 2 are both right.

When enough (38) states are fed up with a federal law, they can amend the Constitution to eliminate the offending law.
 
Like I said, we are our own worst enemy sometimes, and the fact that so many of you don't understand the supremacy clause and the hundreds of years of consistent precedent behind it is telling.
Click to expand...
You discount the possibility that some people may be willing to not play by the "rules."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top