Ah…The Wonderful Two Sided World of the Gun Debate

Rifles Ah...The Wonderful Two Sided World of the Gun Debate

The New York Times reports that Missouri has dealt a blow to my elitist east coast efforts to accept the people of the so-called flyover states.  The Republican Missouri legislature has suddenly fallen in love with the idea of nullification. This is a concept from the 1830s, which most of us thought the American Civil War finally settled, that states can declare Federal laws unenforceable in individual states.  Apparently Missouri forgot that  Article VI, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution, declares the Federal constitution and laws, to the “the supreme law of the land “ state law or constitutions “ to the contrary notwithstanding. There is more to the Constitution then the Second Amendment.

So why are they reviving obsolete yet dangerous political theories?  Guns, what else?

Missouri has made it illegal to enforce Federal guns laws in that state.  Federal agents can be arrested for trying to enforce Federal law.  They have also tried it for Obamacare, the pet hate of Republicans. But I guess a lot of people consider any thought of limiting their rights to own guns, even a call for responsible gun ownership, is an insult to the American way of life, their sexual prowess, and the sheer feeling of power in a gun too many people want.  And more important than what its opponents call a major threat the economy. Perhaps the good citizens of Missouri want to be sure they can defend themselves from mobs of the unemployed.

The Missouri law, before it gets bounced by the courts for gross violation of the United States Constitution, also makes it illegal to publish the names of gun owners.  And here I thought gun owners were proud, and that owning a gun was a good deterrent to crime. Or has this been another piece of pro-gun propaganda. One course pointed out that this may make it illegal to print the name of the winner of a youth shooting contest, even one run by the NRA.

Apparently the names of Missouri guns owners can appear in the massive NRA data base of gun owners, far larger than their membership. This proves what I always thought.  When the commies take over, the first place they should go is the NRA headquarters –or, these days, hack into their computer.

One of the names may be the wife of veteran right wing rocker Ted Nugent.  She was recently arrested for bring a pistol into Dallas-Fort Worth airport, which may be the only place in Texas where they do not allow guns.  Her husband has always been flamboyantly conservative, and a strong supporter of guns. Maybe they both got Cat Scratch Fever from those two kittens that got loose in the New York subway a few days ago and shut a line down for two hours.

Pro-gun arguments, with their obsessive focus on rights, seem to have forgotten the concept of responsibilities.  The professional lobbyists, craven politicians without the nerve to support denying guns to people with mental problems,  careless parents who leave guns lying around for children to find, clowns who consider Black teenagers with hoodies a mortal threat, not to mention a whole range of gun totting criminals, detract attention from the many more responsible gun owners. Recent news stories have also show that some people who tangle with gun owners, presumably responsible gun owners, are idiots. An escaped prisoner took a senior citizen couple hostage.  He cut their phone and seized one of the legal guns they had in the house.  He managed to overlook a shot gun the couple owned. He also managed to overlook the husband’s former profession; he was a trained prison guard, able to judge a potential mortal threat to him and his wife and able to do something about it.  The hostage did something about it.

Recently a “rocket scientist” decided to rob a gun store with a baseball bat. He seems to have figured that the guns for sale are probably not loaded. He apparently forgot that employees of gun owners might be into guns, know how to use them, and have loaded guns easily available. When the police arrived, the perp was face down on the floor. The clerk had a gun trained on the criminal. Remember the old saying, or something like it — never bring a baseball bat to a gun fight.

Ah … the wonderful two sided world of the gun debate.

Bruce Brager is an experienced freelance writer and ghost writer with an extensive record of publications. His most recent major piece is an e-book on the Texas Revolution and the Battle of the Alamo. Mr. Brager’s e-book Texas Revolution and the Battle of the Alamo can be found at www.collca.com

Be Sociable, Share!
  • more Ah...The Wonderful Two Sided World of the Gun Debate
Filed in: Blog Tags: , , ,

You might like:

CNN Cancels Low-Rated Piers Morgan Show CNN Cancels Low-Rated Piers Morgan Show
Cuomo and de Blasio Say Conservatives Not Welcomed in New York Cuomo and de Blasio Say Conservatives Not Welcomed in New York
Federal Judge Overturns Chicago’s Unconstitutional Gun Sale Ban Federal Judge Overturns Chicago’s Unconstitutional Gun Sale Ban
The Liberal Media’s Shooting Bias The Liberal Media’s Shooting Bias

8 Responses to "Ah…The Wonderful Two Sided World of the Gun Debate"

  1. Diogenes says:

    U.S. Constitution, Article VI, Paragraph (2):
    “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, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”

    Now, it’s patently apparent that the author of this hit piece either doesn’t completely understand the above excerpt, or he is playing fast and furious with the facts in order to suit his particular ideology.

    DO TAKE NOTE of that part which states: “… the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof;”

    Did you miss that part on purpose, or did you just ignore it?

    The legal definition of ‘pursuant to’ is as follows:

    1. In compliance with; in accordance with; 2. As authorised by.

    Ergo, whatever law which shall neither comply with, nor which is authorised by the U.S. Constitution is legal, and is therefore without force in law.

    “The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

    “A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.

    “No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.”
    — 16th American Jurisprudence, 2nd Edition, Volume 16, Section 177.

  2. FreeinTX says:

    You’re kidding right? While federal laws are the supreme law of the land, any federal law that violates a right protected by the Bill of Rights is null and void. And while this author has a problem with our obsessive focus on our rights, his opinion can’t make bad law, enforceable.

    The federal government is not allowed to infringe upon our rights just because they CLAIM it is necessary to keep us safe. Never mind the recent studies from places like Harvard that show gun laws do not keep anyone safer, or that crime statistics show more guns = less crime, and the cities with the strictest gun control laws have the highest crime and murder rates.

  3. Todd Gehret says:

    As far as the federal government creating Acts, Statues, Ordinances, Regulations or other “laws” as attempts to bypass, amend, alter or abolish all or parts of the constitution or the bill of rights for such things as gun CONTROL(among other things), they are all null and void on their face. Playing games with manipulating THE law of the land can only go on so long before states, one by one, start to realign themselves BACK under the constitution regardless of efforts of anyone in Washington to deceive or manipulate people into a dictatorship of Washington and away from a Republican form of government with the constitution forming its base, it’s JUST powers from. Any government detaching itself from THE constitution of the land, ceases to be the legal government of the US. Period, end of discussion.

    “All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.” Marbury Vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803). “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” Miranda Vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491. ” An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.” Norton Vs. Shelby County 118 US 425 p. 442

    • come-and-take-it says:

      All your assertions are correct, but it does not keep a rogue Federal Government from trying to enforce “unconstitutional laws”.

      • Todd Gehret says:

        Exactly. I think the point most people ignore is that those in the Federal(or States in some cases) enforcing unconstitutional “laws” does not mean it is moral, just or lawful. They again use FORCE to get people comply, that does not mean they are right in doing so. With them using force, they show it all for what it really is, and they bring guns to do it! Nothing more than a mobster mentality with a “just cause we say so” to justify their CRIMINAL acts against the people of these states. With the author bringing up the HORRORS of the civil war as some kind of proof of the matter of the authority of the federal government in regards to federal laws and nullification proves one thing. That those in the federal government are PSYCOPATHS who are more than willing to bring about the deaths of hundreds of thousands(or millions) of americans to FORCE their will towards those who “dare” to disagree with them or invoke the 10th amendment rights. For me, I want to see every effort by all to NOT bring about a horrific replay of the civil war to be a 2nd civil war that DOES NOT BE HAPPEN! The first civil war never should have happened, more so for those pushing for a 2nd version of the same garbage. Blessed are the peacemakers!

  4. Mike Stewart says:

    Because gun deaths are such a minor factor in preventable deaths, I am led to believe that the motivation of this article is purely politically motivated propaganda designed to demonize gun owners and the lawful possession of firearms.
    Nullification was not settled with the Civil War, just as liberty was not settled with the constitution or the fight for independence. If one beats me up in a schoolyard, I am not forever his slave, I have the right to take the fight to him once again.
    In fact, it is the DUTY of any true American to continue to fight for liberty in the face of tyranny.
    But conveniently, this well traveled author chooses not to discuss the very valid reasons why an entire state may choose nullification. That would be “balanced”, and the motivation is clearly not balance.

  5. If the Federal Government refuses to comply with the Constitution, then why should We The People? The authority of the federal Government rests on that Constitution. The instant they step outside those restrictions, they cease to be the legal government of this land.

    “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government…” — The Declaration of Independence

    • come-and-take-it says:

      The patently absurd part of the story is the “nullification” done at the individual and corporate level by the Federal Government. What happened to “all men are created equal”? The day I heard the attorney general try to differentiate between “due process” and “judicial process” in implementing warrant-less detention and the end of habeus corpus was the day I knew our government no longer had anything to do with equality or justice. Brigands, thieves on a global scale, mass-murderers, cabal, yes! Legitimate government, no! Is there a provision in the Constitution for a mass recall election at the Federal level?

Leave a Reply

You must be Logged in to post comment.

© 2014 1-800-Politics.com. All rights reserved. XHTML / CSS Valid.
Proudly designed by Theme Junkie.