First time visitor? Learn more.

Landmark Suit Tells Feds: State Gun Laws Are None Of Your Business

by Mars ( 102 Comments › )
Filed under Communism, Crime, Democratic Party, Fascism, Free Speech, government, Liberal Fascism, Nazism, Patriotism, Politics, Progressives, Second Amendment at December 16th, 2013 - 7:00 am

 

Landmark Suit Tells Feds: State Gun Laws Are None Of Your Business

Written by: Tara Dodrill Self Defense December 6, 2013 1 Comment

Lawsuit states that Montana gunmakers want the federal government to “butt out” of gun sales which take place within the state, and they’ve sued the US Justice Department in an attempt to do just that.

The lawsuit filed by the Montana Shooting Sports Association maintains the US Constitution does not give the federal government authority to enact regulations and restrictions pertaining to guns made, sold, and kept inside the State of Montana.

The lawsuit asks the Supreme Court to uphold the Montana Firearms Freedom Act, which was enacted in 2009 and which says the federal government does not have authority over firearms that are made and sold within the state of Montana. For firearms to not be subject to federal laws, each gun must be labeled “Made In Montana,” according to the ’09 law. Other states have implemented similar laws, although their future is uncertain.

A lower court and appeals court ruled against Montana’s law.

Specifically, the lawsuit asks the high court to uphold the 9th and 10th Amendments.

The 9th Amendment says:

“The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

The 10th Amendment reads:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

Gary Marbut, president of the Montana Shooting Sports Association, actually wrote the Supreme Court justices a personal letter in November, explaining the rationale behind the law. Such a letter is unique and was separate from the legal briefs.

Marbut told local media that he wants to make a bolt-action, small, youth-model rifle he calls the Montana Buckaroo. The gun would be sold within the state. Marbut’s plan to manufacture the youth rifle has been thwarted by federal officials and courts who say the gun would be illegal.

Marbut told the Supreme Court justices:

“The natives are beyond restless. They are at the stage of collecting torches and pitchforks and preparing to head for the castle gates en masse.

Advocates of the law have garnered legal support from the attorneys general from the states of Montana, Utah, Alaska, Idaho, Michigan, Nebraska, South Carolina, South Dakota, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

An excerpt from the Montana Shooting Sports Association lawsuit reads:

The wholesale stripping of independent sovereignty from the states has destroyed the balance of power, and given the federal government advantages it demonstrably tends to abuse. The outrage that is our $17 trillion national debt [which amounts to more than $149,000 per taxpayer] may be the worst example. By borrowing more money than the current generation can repay in our lifetimes, Congress leaves a legacy of debt for future generations. Our progeny did not consent to the monumental hole their parents are digging for them. Still, they will certainly be saddled with the duty to make good. This is tyranny.

The Montana Shooting Sports Association lawsuit also argues that “dual sovereignty” should be restored within the US. Marbut staunchly feels that the lawsuit and the 10th Amendment protections extend far beyond the issue of gun rights.

Read the entire article here.

Comments

Comments and respectful debate are both welcome and encouraged.

Comments are the sole opinion of the comment writer, just as each thread posted is the sole opinion or post idea of the administrator that posted it or of the readers that have written guest posts for the Blogmocracy.

Obscene, abusive, or annoying remarks may be deleted or moved to spam for admin review, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their content by any other commenter or the admins of this Blogmocracy.

We're not easily offended and don't want people to think they have to walk on eggshells around here (like at another place that shall remain nameless) but of course, there is a limit to everything.

Play nice!

102 Responses to “Landmark Suit Tells Feds: State Gun Laws Are None Of Your Business”
( jump to bottom )

  1. 1 | December 16, 2013 7:48 am

    Very noble, but I think they’re pissing up a legal rope there…


  2. 2 | December 16, 2013 7:57 am

    @ Mike C.:

    Yeah, the Supreme Court always sides with the Federal government on things like this, or at least always has. It was only fairly recently (US v Lopez) that the Tenth Amendment has been given any legal weght at all. I don’t expect to see this do much. In Tennessee we have a Firearms Freedom act that “legalizes” sound suppressors that travel in intrastate commerce as not having to be registered, but I wouldn’t want to Possess one based on that. The government might back off. They’ve been pretty much letting theStates go their own way on “medical” marijuana, and now you have Colorado and Oregon? legalizing recreation useage. We’ll see what that goes. I wouldn’t want to go into a commercial venture raising weed based on it being legal in my State. FedZilla can always decide to wreck your world, and there isn’t much you can do about it.


  3. 3 | December 16, 2013 8:09 am

    Well, I was thinking more about the Commerce Clause…


  4. 4 | December 16, 2013 8:09 am

    Although I could see one thign come out of this. I am assuming that the reason he gun would be “illegal” is that its barrel is too short. The Supreme Court during the GHW Bush Administration had a “short-barreled” rifle case where Bush was trying to make the Thompson Contender illegal because you could combine a pistol barrel with a rifle stock. I don’t recall the name of the case, but Sandra Day O’Connor wrote the ecision that told the Bush Administration to pound sand. IIn that decision she stated that the Court did not see anything especially dangerous about a short-barreled rifle that the State would have compelling interest in restricting the weapon. Now, this was before Heller and McDonald. After Heller and McDonald I don’t see how, given that, they have any right to restrict short-barreled rifles no matter what level of scruitneythey eventually say needs to be used on a Second Amendment case. There is no compelling State reason to restrict such weapons, therefore the NFA, in regards to short-barrleled rifles, is Unconstitutional. I don’t know if this guy is prepared to make that a part of the case, but it is one way that the Supreme Court could grant him relief without raising the 9th and 10th Amendment issue.


  5. rain of lead
    5 | December 16, 2013 8:12 am

    morning IF and any other pixel people hanging around
    tis a great day to start vacay whee….
    now with more stress free non weekend christmas shopping


  6. 6 | December 16, 2013 8:18 am

    @ Mike C.:

    That’s why they specify that the weapon would only be sold in Montanna. Under that rubric, the Commerce Clause des not apply. The Commerce Clause only gives the Federal Government the right to regulate interstate commerce. Intrastate commerce is not within their purview. The Frirearms Freedom law that I referenced above only grants that weapons manufactured in Tennessee that haven’t travelled in interstate commerce are effected. I have seen people selling suppressors at gun shows that meet those requirements, but, s I said, I wouldn’t want to base my freedom on that technicallity, because they will quite litterally rape you if you get caught with an unregistered suppressor. My dad kne wa guy, a machinist, back uin the ’90s that silenced a Ruger 10/22. He showed it off to some of his “closest friends” ando one of them as an infromant for the BATF. He got 5 years Federal time out of the deal, and actually had to serve 4 of them. For making a toy. He didn’t go out and shoot anyone with it. He represented no threat to the community. That case is one of the reasons I am sure that the BATF has investigated me. This was back in the ’94-’95 range, and f they were sending covert informants to meet wiht people like this, I figure it id dead certain that they would have sent one after me at some point. Morally, I am certain that the guy who wanted to sell me fully-automatic AKs was BATF. I can’t prove that, bccause I didn’t take the bait. But I a as certainas I can be that he was trying to set me up. One thing I’ve always heard is that the person who tries to convince you to break the law is usually a police informant. Ral people don’t encourage you to break the law.


  7. 7 | December 16, 2013 8:20 am

    @ rain of lead:

    Stress free? Are you going to take a couple of Valium before you go shopping? Moring. Tell Momcat I said hi. I am ready for Christmas to get here. I’ve gotten all of my wife’s presents. I don’t think she has started shopping for me yet. I think she knows what she wants to give me, but she hasn’t ordered it yet. It is no big deal. I have her and my cats so most everything else is negiotiable.


  8. 8 | December 16, 2013 8:22 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    Well, no. There have been a number of cases (don’t ask me for citations) that found that purely intrastate commerce and even private use effected interstate commerce and so fell under the commerce clause. It ain’t right, but it’s precedent on the books.


  9. 9 | December 16, 2013 8:25 am

    @ Mike C.:

    Er, “affected”, not “effected.”


  10. 10 | December 16, 2013 8:34 am

    @ Mike C.:

    It’s sa debatable point. US v Lopez found that possession of a pistol did not substantively affect interstate commerce, IIRC. That was mostly a tenth amendment case, but IIRC they did deal with the Commerce Clause as well. And Lopez was a bad case for us on Second Amendment grounds. The guy in question was a minor in possession of a pistol on school grounds. Nobody thinks that should be legal, except maybe under certain circumstances (schools used to have rifle teams. They cut that out before I made it to High School). Still, the Court found the “Gun Free Schools” act (or whatever it was) Unconstitutional under tenth amendment grounds. Someone once said that the Commerce Clause meant “whatever the hell Congress says it means”, but Lopez set that back some.


  11. huckfunn
  12. rain of lead
    12 | December 16, 2013 8:42 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    oh hell yeah stress free
    the big stuff for the girl has been gotten
    everything else is just for fun
    got plenty of time so I can just chill and look around
    it’s in the workweek so no crowds and no pressure
    kinda stoked actually


  13. 13 | December 16, 2013 8:47 am

    @ rain of lead:

    Cool, man. Like I said, I got the Old Lady’s presents already. One o the things I got her was an emerald ring. It i s a lab-created emerald, so it was much cheaper than a natural emerald would be, and it is set in sterling silver rather than white gold. We simply couldn’t have the kind of Christmas we wanted this year. We had to do over $2K worth of work to my piece of shit Chrysler, and we have about another $500 left to go. That was the money we’d planned on spending to go visit my wife’s mother in New Orleans. We’ve got to do that sometime in the near future.


  14. rain of lead
    14 | December 16, 2013 8:59 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    sweet
    emeralds are awesome
    I think the lab stones sometimes look better


  15. 15 | December 16, 2013 9:11 am

    rain of lead wrote:

    I think the lab stones sometimes look better

    They don’t have flaws that a natural stone has. I gave her a sapphire ring for Christmas years ago that was natural stones. They are so blue they are almost black. But as far as looks go, lab created stones are the same materials as natural stones. The only place natural stones beat lab created stones is in price. That is, if you want to spend mosre money, you’ll go withthe natural stones. I doubt that the naked eye can tell the difference between natural stones and created stones. But the price differential is nearly ten times the value of the created stone. This little emrald that I got my wife would have cost a couple of thousand dollars if it were natural. Why spend the extra money if you don’t have to?


  16. eaglesoars
    16 | December 16, 2013 9:12 am

    Iron Fist wrote:

    It i s a lab-created emerald, so it was much cheaper than a natural emerald would be,

    Not only that. I’ve NEVER seen a natural emerald w/o flaws/occlusions. With a lab emerald, it’s not the case.


  17. 17 | December 16, 2013 9:20 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    Your wife’s from nawlins? So is mine.

    I hope it trust around for y’all, man.


  18. 18 | December 16, 2013 9:22 am

    @ eaglesoars:

    Yeah, the woman who sold it to me mentioned that natural emeralds tend to be more brittle than created stones. This is a real pretty ring. They have a pair of lab created emerald earrings at CostCo that I’d like to get for myself. They aren’t terribly expensive, but I wish they had a way for you to only buy one. I could see me going out of pockt $75 for an earring, but going out $150 for something that I know I’ll only wear one of seems a bit wasteful right now.


  19. 19 | December 16, 2013 9:23 am

    @ MacDuff:
    Hope it TURNS around. Auto spell hell…


  20. 20 | December 16, 2013 9:25 am

    @ MacDuff:

    Thanks, man. Yeah my wife is from NOLA. She hasn’t lived there since she was a kid, but her mother still lives there. I’ve been to NOLA twice, once for Mardi Gras, but I was in high school on a band trip for that, so I didn’t get to enjoy the real Mardi Gras experience. It is nice enough, I guess, as cities go. I love the old oak trees and such.


  21. 21 | December 16, 2013 9:25 am

    Iron Fist wrote:

    @ eaglesoars:

    Yeah, the woman who sold it to me mentioned that natural emeralds tend to be more brittle than created stones. This is a real pretty ring. They have a pair of lab created emerald earrings at CostCo that I’d like to get for myself. They aren’t terribly expensive, but I wish they had a way for you to only buy one. I could see me going out of pockt $75 for an earring, but going out $150 for something that I know I’ll only wear one of seems a bit wasteful right now.

    There’s a real under served market for men’s single earrings.


  22. eaglesoars
    22 | December 16, 2013 9:26 am

    must deliver the beagles to dogcamp before they finish destroying the house

    later


  23. eaglesoars
    23 | December 16, 2013 9:28 am

    Iron Fist wrote:

    It is nice enough, I guess, as cities go. I love the old oak trees and such.

    my mom was from NOLA. I’m half hillbilly, half cajun. I find NOLA vulgar. Don’t like it Food is good tho


  24. 24 | December 16, 2013 9:29 am

    @ MacDuff:

    I understood what you meant :P Things look better for us in the future. We are just going through some tough times on the economic front. We will get beyond them is a few years. That seems like a long time when you have it before you, but in the grand scheme of things it’ll be over before I know it. I am very fortunate, really. I have a really good job that pays relatively well, and it is a solid job. I am unlikely to ever be let go from this place as long as I keep on doing what I’ve been doing.


  25. 25 | December 16, 2013 9:33 am

    @ MacDuff:

    It is. I am not really sure why, either. Lots of men wear earrings this day and age, and for the most part they go with only one ear being pierced. I’ve had mine double-pierced for 25 years now, but that was extremely rare when I did it. I wear two hoops, one with a dangly cross that is really a woman’s necklace pendant, and then the one behind it. But I’d love to get one of those little emeralds to wear in place of my second hoop. Maybe one day. The only place I’ve ever seen them selling single earrings is at head shops or the County Fair. In neither place do they sell the quality I want for the jewelry that I wear.


  26. 26 | December 16, 2013 9:37 am

    @ eaglesoars:

    I like NOLA though over the years many places in the Quarter have gone from “naughty” to nasty. We went down there for a couple of days last spring and had a ball. It seemed the city is on the rebound.


  27. 27 | December 16, 2013 9:39 am

    Unconfirmed reports of explosives at four locations on the Harvard campus……


  28. RIX
    28 | December 16, 2013 9:43 am

    MacDuff wrote:

    Unconfirmed reports of explosives at four locations on the Harvard campus……

    Good morning Mac.I just heard that on the radio. They are trying to confirm it.


  29. 29 | December 16, 2013 9:46 am

    @ Iron Fist:
    Stability and security in employment is a valuable currency these days. I’ve always believed that good things come to good people, eventually, and from what I’ve seen it’s true. Hang in there man.


  30. 30 | December 16, 2013 9:47 am

    @ MacDuff:

    Those wicked Tea Party typs at it again? Figures. One thing we can be certain of is that whomever did it is not Muslim. Islam is a Religion of Peace®, after all.


  31. 31 | December 16, 2013 9:51 am

    @ MacDuff:

    No lie. I’ve only been out of work for three months in the last 16 years. I haven’t always loved my job, and who doesn’t want more money, but for the most part my jobs have been tolerable. Where I am at now is the best job I’ve ever had. I hope that it stays this way. I am so much more fortunate than a lot of Americans these days. The job market for anything not in the tech field is pretty brutal these days. Where I live, though, in the tech field there is full employment. Anybody with the skillset and the desire to work can find a job. Outside of the tech field, though, people are hurting.


  32. 32 | December 16, 2013 9:52 am

    Iron Fist wrote:

    @ MacDuff:

    Those wicked Tea Party typs at it again? Figures. One thing we can be certain of is that whomever did it is not Muslim. Islam is a Religion of Peace®, after all.

    I’m sure Harvard is a “gun free zone”, but is it a “bomb free zone”? Clearly, more signs are needed.


  33. 33 | December 16, 2013 9:58 am

    @ MacDuff:

    Yeah, if they just had signs warning people not to bring bombs on campus, they’d be much safer. When all else fails, just making laws that forbid certain behaviors is enough to stop them… :roll:


  34. RIX
    34 | December 16, 2013 10:03 am

    The Boston Globe has just issued a report that after extensive research they have determined Tamerlan
    Tsarnov was hearing voices prior to the Boston Marathon Bombings.
    Get it? He was a nutbag schitzo. What ,you thought that Islam had something to do with it?/


  35. 35 | December 16, 2013 10:12 am

    RIX wrote:

    He was a nutbag schitzo.

    Nutbag schitzo == Muslim.

    You hae to give them that they will lie, cheat, and steal to manipulate the narrative. I guess that Tsarnaev was in Dagestan communing with his inner voices, then. The Russians were wrong when they warned us hed gone to Jihadi Day Camp.


  36. RIX
    37 | December 16, 2013 10:13 am

    WLS radio in Chicago is reporting that Harvard is clearing the Campus & suspending final exams for today.
    I think the next step is to call in CAIR to investigate which Christian or Jewish group is respnsible for the
    suspicion of plantiing bombs.


  37. RIX
    38 | December 16, 2013 10:15 am

    Iron Fist wrote:

    RIX wrote:

    He was a nutbag schitzo.

    Nutbag schitzo == Muslim.

    You hae to give them that they will lie, cheat, and steal to manipulate the narrative. I guess that Tsarnaev was in Dagestan communing with his inner voices, then. The Russians were wrong when they warned us hed gone to Jihadi Day Camp.

    It’s really an awkward attempt to protect Islam. A lot of the survivors are outraged.


  38. 40 | December 16, 2013 10:31 am

    RIX wrote:

    What will it take for Progressives to end their love affair with Islam?

    They never will. They see Islam as a weapon that they can use against Christians, who are the real target of the Progressives. As long as the Muslims are killing infidels for them, they’ll ignore the brutal repression of women in the Mohammedan world and things like the fact that they kill gays in Mohammedan countries.


  39. 41 | December 16, 2013 10:32 am

    RIX wrote:

    http://weaselzippers.us/2013/12/16/top-london-university-bans-female-students-from-speaking-at-islam-seminar-forced-to-walk-through-separate-sisters-only-entrance/
    What will it take for Progressives to end their love affair with Islam?

    Can you imagine the cries of outrage if the Catholic Church re-instituted the practice of women placing a small covering atop their head when in church?


  40. RIX
    42 | December 16, 2013 10:41 am

    @ MacDuff:
    Can you imagine the cries of outrage if the Catholic Church re-instituted the practice of women placing a small covering atop their head when in church?
    That would just be further proof of thw War on Women led by Pope Pius George W Bush!


  41. 43 | December 16, 2013 10:58 am

    @ MacDuff:
    That would be the Christian Taliban !!!11ty!!

    But, of course, the Leftists don’t have any problem with the real Taliban. Mohammedans can stone women to death, and the Democrats will smile and nod and talk abou t the joys of cultural diversity. Christians suggest that gays are comitting sin when they engage in homosexual behavior is awful. Iran hanging gays is just Cultural Diversity again. The diversity freaks like anything that is anti-Christian and anti-West. But if you suggest that Western culture has its good points you are evil (even though the Left don’t really believe in evil).


  42. eaglesoars
    44 | December 16, 2013 11:53 am

    This is the creepiest thing I’ve seen all year. Straight out of Orwell.

    Tapestry of Obama at U.S. embassy in London


  43. 45 | December 16, 2013 12:05 pm

    @ eaglesoars:

    Yeah, I saw that yesterday. It reminds me of the pictures of Stalin they had up allover the place in the Soviet Union when Stalin was running the show. I think that there is no doubt that if Obama thought there was a way to make himself President-for-Life Obama, and convert everything in America into a totalitarian dictatorship he would do it. He isn’t going to like being shuffled off the stage in 2017, even if Hilary is elected to succeed him.


  44. RIX
    46 | December 16, 2013 12:15 pm

    eaglesoars wrote:

    This is the creepiest thing I’ve seen all year. Straight out of Orwell.

    Tapestry of Obama at U.S. embassy in London

    Will he pen a Little Red Book?


  45. eaglesoars
    47 | December 16, 2013 12:22 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    I’d like to know how much of our $$$ was used to pay for that out-of-my-worst-nightmare horror


  46. eaglesoars
    48 | December 16, 2013 12:23 pm

    RIX wrote:

    Will he pen a Little Red Book?

    Bill Ayers will do it for him


  47. buzzsawmonkey
    49 | December 16, 2013 12:31 pm

    Regarding the thread topic—all court cases are two-edged swords. If the Montana case is successful, and carves out a state exemption for Montana’s gun laws, it will destroy, or at least undermine, the basis on which to challenge the constitutionality of New York’s draconian gun law under the Second Amendment.


  48. eaglesoars
    50 | December 16, 2013 12:32 pm

    eaglesoars wrote:

    @ Iron Fist:
    I’d like to know how much of our $$$ was used to pay for that out-of-my-worst-nightmare horror

    Here we go.

    You can buy your very own for $100k

    h/t Todd Foster, commenter at powerline


  49. RIX
    51 | December 16, 2013 12:33 pm

    eaglesoars wrote:

    RIX wrote:

    Will he pen a Little Red Book?

    Bill Ayers will do it for him

    True, Obama does not write well. Must be that Ivy League thing./


  50. 52 | December 16, 2013 12:36 pm

    The wife and I went to see Spyro Gyra last night. They played in a very intimate nightclub setting and our table was 10 ft from the stage, it’s the way jazz was meant to be heard and they’re one of the best bands out there, for my money. it was a very memorable evening!


  51. 53 | December 16, 2013 12:42 pm

    RIX wrote:

    eaglesoars wrote:
    This is the creepiest thing I’ve seen all year. Straight out of Orwell.
    Tapestry of Obama at U.S. embassy in London
    Will he pen a Little Red Book?

    “Power flows from the barrel of my mouth.”


  52. eaglesoars
    54 | December 16, 2013 12:46 pm

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    it will destroy, or at least undermine, the basis on which to challenge the constitutionality of New York’s draconian gun law under the Second Amendment.

    I don’t see how. The Constitution is the Constitution. Unless you’re the Obama admin, that is


  53. buzzsawmonkey
    55 | December 16, 2013 12:46 pm

    Iron Fist wrote:

    He isn’t going to like being shuffled off the stage in 2017, even if Hilary is elected to succeed him.

    100th anniversary of the Soviet revolution, BTW…


  54. 56 | December 16, 2013 12:50 pm

    @ eaglesoars:

    What he’s saying is that it could be argued that you are unincorporating the 2nd amendment. I don’t see that myself, but I believe that’s what he’s getting at.


  55. 57 | December 16, 2013 12:50 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    Not necessarily. The Second Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights, and generally speaking the States don’t have the right to limit what is protected by the Bill of Roights, but there is nothing saying that they can’t more fully protect those rights if they so choose. Montanna could have the right to say that this guy could manufacture hi s”youth rifle” for intrastate consumption, and still say that New York did not have to rght to limit someone to only seven rounds in the magazine of their pistol. They are really separate questions. That said, the Democrats did try to make a States’ Rights arguement in McDonald, and they were turned back basically on the reasoning that I put forth here. However it is my understanding that Rahm Emmanuel essentially asked how many tank divisions the Supreme Court has. I don’t think McDonald has ever been allowed to buy his gun despite the Supereme Court saying that he had a right to. This is one o the reasons I keep pointing out that gun control is the newsegregation. Just like the segregationists, the gun controllers want tpo pretend that the Bill of Rights just doesn’t apply to them. My staunch opposition to Chris Chiristie stems from him having said essentially that about New Jersey’s gun laws. Anyone who is out there saying the Bill of Rights does not apply to the government is too damned authoritarianfor me to be comfoprtable with them anywhere near the levers of power.


  56. buzzsawmonkey
    58 | December 16, 2013 12:53 pm

    eaglesoars wrote:

    I don’t see how. The Constitution is the Constitution. Unless you’re the Obama admin, that is

    Well, first, because it is the Obama administration. Secondly, because the Heller and McDonald cases said, “the Constitution mandates that states and municipalities cannot take away the citizen’s right to bear arms.”

    But this suit is saying, “the states can tell the federal government to go to hell, and can permit guns that the federal government forbids.” Well, sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander; if the state can thumb its nose at the federal government by permitting more weapons, why can’t a state thumb its nose at federal decrees by banning weapons more stringently than the federal government does?

    I can think of a number of arguments against this position, chief among them being that the Second, Ninth and Tenth Amendments are all designed to increase rather than decrease the amount of personal liberty and to decrease rather than increase the amount of government interference in people’s lives—but do not think for a moment that the argument I’ve made above in favor of the individual state’s greater restrictions on gun ownership cannot and will not be made.


  57. eaglesoars
    59 | December 16, 2013 12:58 pm

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    but do not think for a moment that the argument I’ve made above in favor of the individual state’s greater restrictions on gun ownership cannot and will not be made.

    Oh I believe it.


  58. 60 | December 16, 2013 1:10 pm

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    but do not think for a moment that the argument I’ve made above in favor of the individual state’s greater restrictions on gun ownership cannot and will not be made.

    Like I said, the Leftists on the Court have already tried to do this in McDonald. That said, though, if Chicago can just blatantly ignore the Supreme Court on this matter, as they apparently have, then I don’t know what any other court decisions are goin gto matter. I won’t even say what I think the people of Chicago should do about his, but when you let the gangs run city hall, you shouldn’t be too surprised when the gangs run wild in the street killing people. Chicago isn’t quite as bad as Mogadishu, I guess, but it is hardly a civilized place.


  59. RIX
    61 | December 16, 2013 1:12 pm

    Mike C. wrote:

    RIX wrote:

    eaglesoars wrote:
    This is the creepiest thing I’ve seen all year. Straight out of Orwell.
    Tapestry of Obama at U.S. embassy in London
    Will he pen a Little Red Book?

    “Power flows from the barrel of my mouth.”

    “And my awesome fabulousness”


  60. 63 | December 16, 2013 1:31 pm

    @ MacDuff:

    Was there a fat bloated pony tail Jazz guy from California playing?

    :lol:


  61. 64 | December 16, 2013 1:32 pm

    @ eaglesoars:

    The god-king.


  62. 65 | December 16, 2013 1:37 pm

    @ eaglesoars:

    It is about time somebody did that. What part of “free exercise of religion” do these people not get? The abortion and contraception mandate is one of the things that ultimately turned me against the gay marriage thing as well. If they can order Christians to provide abortion services in contravention of their religious beliefs, they could likewise order Christian churches to perform gay marriages in contravention of those beliefs. Any modicum of good that would be produced by that would be far outweighed to the harm to free exercise of religion that would come with it. I have no doubt that Obama would be overjoyed about ordering his OFA-SS to storm through Christian churches looting and burning as they go.


  63. eaglesoars
    66 | December 16, 2013 1:40 pm

    Iron Fist wrote:

    I have no doubt that Obama would be overjoyed about ordering his OFA-SS to storm through Christian churches looting and burning as they go.

    I forget which state this was in, but some court did rule that a bakery violated a gay couple’s right for refusing to bake a wedding cake for them. That’s going to be appealed and I’m fairly certain overturned.


  64. RIX
    67 | December 16, 2013 1:40 pm

    http://weaselzippers.us/2013/12/16/hhs-chief-sebelius-issa-trying-to-stifle-intimidate-obamacare-navigators-with-hearings/

    This takes arrogance to a new level. They apparently are above any scrutiny.
    He maybe it’s racism./


  65. eaglesoars
    68 | December 16, 2013 1:43 pm

    RIX wrote:

    This takes arrogance to a new level.

    These people lie about lying.

    gotta go get the Christmas tree. Play nicely


  66. RIX
    69 | December 16, 2013 1:45 pm

    eaglesoars wrote:

    RIX wrote:

    This takes arrogance to a new level.

    These people lie about lying.

    gotta go get the Christmas tree. Play nicely

    Good luck.


  67. RIX
    70 | December 16, 2013 1:51 pm

    15 Dec
    OFA ✔ @OFA
    Chestnuts roasting by the open fire, conversations about health insurance in the air: http://OFA.BO/DZVvfT

    They seriously tweeted this. Remember the nerd that you went to school with?
    He’s over at OFA.


  68. 71 | December 16, 2013 1:52 pm

    @ eaglesoars:

    Yeah I heard about that. It might have been in Oklahoma. If peple don’t want your business, you take your business elsewhere. You don’t sue. What’s the point in that? For people like these, it is all about being in your face to people who don’t approve of their behavior. like that is going to make people think better of them. I long ago quit caring what most of the world thought about me. My business is none of their business unless I go out of my way to make it their business. The gays would be shocked to learn that Nobody cares what they do, as long as they keep their private lives private. When they first started with the gays in the military nonsense, I had a gay friend who thought that they should shut up and do their job. When I worked for the Marines the woman directly over me was a lesbian, but she didn’t make that everybody elses’ business, so it didn’t matter. She was one o the few (read only) adults that showed any real concern for me when I started to go down a darker path. I wish I’d listened more to her, but that’s water 26-27 years under the bridge. Live and learn.


  69. buzzsawmonkey
    72 | December 16, 2013 1:55 pm

    eaglesoars wrote:

    I forget which state this was in, but some court did rule that a bakery violated a gay couple’s right for refusing to bake a wedding cake for them. That’s going to be appealed and I’m fairly certain overturned.

    There have been numerous such cases in the last few years; over cakes, over the obtaining of wedding photos, over flower arrangements, over hiring halls and honeymoon suites. At least one of these, in Washington State, had the state attorney general weighing in on behalf of the aggrieved same-sex couple against the business.

    The objective is twofold—first, to build up the human-rights special privileges of “gay rights” in the public and the judicial mind as being equivalent to the Constitutionally-protected civil rights accorded religious practitioners and invoked in the case of racial discrimination. The gay-rights movement has been trying to do this for decades, but has not, until now, come close to achieving it.

    The second objective is to build on this false equivalency in order to be able to attack and undermine the free exercise of religion as “hate speech” if religions teach traditional morality or refuse to perform same-sex weddings. There have already been rulings against traditional congregations for “hate speech” in Europe, I believe; we are not far behind.


  70. 73 | December 16, 2013 1:58 pm

    @ RIX:

    No, these aren’t the nerds. All the nerds have jobs in software now. The OFA losers are all the stoners who barely made it through high school, sat in the back of the class and threw paperwads at the teacher, then whined when they got detention.


  71. 74 | December 16, 2013 2:00 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    They have already achieved this at a societal level via the pop culture.


  72. 75 | December 16, 2013 2:04 pm

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    The second objective is to build on this false equivalency in order to be able to attack and undermine the free exercise of religion as “hate speech” if religions teach traditional morality or refuse to perform same-sex weddings. There have already been rulings against traditional congregations for “hate speech” in Europe, I believe; we are not far behind.

    And that is what turned me from someone who was mildly for gay marriage into someone who is totally opposed. If you look, you can see the pattern as it is developing. The goal of the Left has always been to deligitimize traditional religion, going back to at least the mid-Ninteenth century. “Religion is the opiate of the masses” Marx proclaimed, and in his name the Soviet Union was officially Atheist, as though that isn’t just enforcing another State religion. Obama is taking us down the same path by trying to force Christians to pay for abortions against their own beliefs. Gay marriage will simply become another venue for that. Did you see where that judge the other day threw out Utah’s anti-polygamy law? Who didn’t see that coming? Religion is the enemy of socialism. More correctly, Judeo-Christian religion is the enemy of the Socialists. They don’t much care about Zoroastrians, Hindus, or Buddhaists one way or the other, but Jews and Christians much be attacked at every turn.


  73. 76 | December 16, 2013 2:06 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    OFA are bunch of geeks that picked on his HS and now want revenge on society. They have recruited those stoner losers to be their foot soldiers. But the people who run OFA are evil and vicious. They are committed to victory and with their technological prowess, they will do anything to achieve it.


  74. 77 | December 16, 2013 2:11 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    They are committed to victory and with their technological prowess, they will do anything to achieve it.

    Tey haven’t really impressed me with their technical prowess yet. Oh, I know that they had killer datamining going on during the election, but I think that was really the NSA feeding them data under the table, not the minions of OFA itself actually doing anything impressive. I have no doubt that they’ll do anything to achieve victory, but just as Obama has accomplished nothing since his re-election, likewise OFA. They’ve not done anything noteworthy since the election except maybe shake the money tree. And eve that has more to do with them being a way to funnel defacto bribes to Obama than it does with any special fundraising abilities that they have.


  75. 78 | December 16, 2013 2:12 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    Progressive won the Gay Marriage war becasue the Right argues it it stupidly. They went on rants on how Gays are evil, this made them sympathetic to the public. Gays are very influential in the Pop Culture an they used these means to push their viewpoint on the public.

    The situation is that now Gays are viewed as victims standing up to Conservative bullies. The Right botched this one badly and now the genie is out the bottle. The next battle is preservation of Religious Liberty.

    I advocate people of faith of all denomination to begin to form militias to protect through force of arms their religious liberty. I’ve spoken to some people about forming a Catholic militias, but that is all I will say publicly.


  76. 79 | December 16, 2013 2:14 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    @ MacDuff:

    Was there a fat bloated pony tail Jazz guy from California playing?

    Heh :D No, he wouldn’t make a patch on the ass of one of these guys.


  77. 80 | December 16, 2013 2:16 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    They had had the best team of data analysts ever assembled. I am sure the NSA gave them information, but the way they used that data reveals a level of tech know that is professional.

    But OFA is just a piece of the puzzle. By themselves they are not much, but with the Media, Pop Culture and Silicon Valley they are an electoral powerhouse.


  78. 81 | December 16, 2013 2:18 pm

    @ MacDuff:

    It would have grossed you out!


  79. buzzsawmonkey
    82 | December 16, 2013 2:18 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    They have already achieved this at a societal level via the pop culture.

    Looking back on the 1970s, the disco craze was the mainstreaming of male gay-bar mores into the popular culture. The rock-and-roll types who blew up piles of disco albums screaming “Disco sucks!” may or may not have been at least subliminally aware of this (it is my belief they were, given their use of the term “sucks” and its cultural implications), but that is what it was. It made “gay” public and cool, and hookup culture (previously confined to “free-love” hippies and, perhaps, Leftist radicals) a mainstream thing.

    When AIDS hit in the early ’80s, hookup culture (and fashionable bisexuality) had become widespread enough to make the fear stories of an imminent AIDS breakout into the larger society seem possible, if not plausible. and this media-driven fear helped build broad public support for the red ribbon anti-AIDS campaigns, which did nothing with regards to AIDS, but which made the gay-rights movement respectable.


  80. 83 | December 16, 2013 2:21 pm

    New Thread.


  81. 84 | December 16, 2013 2:29 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    Interesting take and you make valid points. One of the biggest mistakes the Right made was in attacking the Pop Culture instead of infiltrating it and neutralize it.

    I have no answers on what to do now. The Pop Culture is solidly Left and will not allow any Rightist views into it. Look at how Jon Stewart ruined Megyn Kelly’s reputation. Now people think she is racist for making an innocuous comment.


  82. buzzsawmonkey
    85 | December 16, 2013 2:35 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    Look at how Jon Stewart ruined Megyn Kelly’s reputation. Now people think she is racist for making an innocuous comment.

    I don’t know this story. What occurred and when?


  83. 86 | December 16, 2013 2:42 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    Look at how Jon Stewart ruined Megyn Kelly’s reputation.

    Tempest in a tea pot. Anyone to whom Jon Stewart’s views matter wouldn’t have liked Kelly to begin with. He can’t cost her waht she never had. OTOH, she has kicked Rachel Maddow all over the place in ratings. Her viewership may be as high (or possibly even higher) than Sean Hannity’s. Ratings are all that matters to the people calling the shots in media. Kelly’s are higher than Stewart’s. I looked at his ratings back of this, and he get rather mediocre ratings. To be sure, his word is golden among the hipster crowd, but hipsters aren’t even a majority among the younger demographic (18-29 year olds).


  84. 87 | December 16, 2013 2:45 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    Some idiot from MSNBC said that as a Black girl growing up, seeing Santa Claus as white made her not get into the Christmas spirit. She suggested that Santa Claus should be changed to a Penguin.

    Kelly responded on her show last Wednesday talking about the historical origins of Santa Claus saying that St. Nicolas was Greek, hence Santa Claus is a white. Now granted the image of Santa Claus is really based on Germanic Pagan lore, but was co-opted by Christians made into ST. Nick but that’s not her point. She then said Jesus was White since he was Jewish.

    I was watching when she said this and thought nothing of it. The next day, Jon Stewart attacked her ruthlessly. Then the Left went into full bore smear mode. Kelly addressed the issue Friday saying her remarks were snarky and in response to the stupidity of the issue. All weekend the Left has been bashing her relentlessly.


  85. 88 | December 16, 2013 2:48 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    With Stewart it’s not the total viewership that is his strength., It’s the people who watch him are influential in the media and pop culture. When he makes a statement it gets filtered out through the media.

    Kelly may get higher ratings, but the people watching her are just normal people many of whom have no influence. So Stewart is way more powerful than Kelly.


  86. 89 | December 16, 2013 2:50 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    All weekend the Left has been bashing her relentlessly.

    Which they would be doing anyway. So what. They are a noise machine. The only people that they are going to “turn off” to Kelly are people that she couldn’t have gotten ratings from anyway. We need to stop being so concerned that the Left isn’t going to like us. I, myself, don’t see the Left being particularly sensitive to the feelings of the Conservatives, and we are winning elections on the State and even Federal level (House of Representatives). They don’t care that we hate them, and really there is no reason why they should. They just need to understand that we believe in guns, and will do unto them terrible things if they go too far.


  87. 90 | December 16, 2013 2:54 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    Its about discrediting and smearing someone’s reputation. Kelly was not an object of hate before this smear job. It was coordinated and an example of what the leftist machine.

    e are winning elections on the State and even Federal level (House of Representatives).

    That’s like winning a College championship game, means nothing. The Presidency and Senate are NFL playoff games and as of now, the GOP can’t compete there. Besides, the GOP is losing some Governorship next year like PA and Florida.


  88. 91 | December 16, 2013 2:54 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    So Stewart is way more powerful than Kelly.

    I absolutely disagree, andI suspect that Stewart’s employers would disagree, too. Most people of any stripe aren’t watching Jon Stewart. I don’t really care if Union Leadership watches him. He is preaching to the choir. They wouldn’t be any less intransigent in he abscence of him. Viewership makes the pecking order in the Media world. Companies that are willing to lose tons of money to push their viewpoint ultimately go bankrupt. That is what we saw happen with Current TV and what was it? Air America? The Leftist “talk radio” group that was started up to counter Rush Limbaugh. They are pretty much out of business now. MSNBC is well on the way to following in their footsteps. Stewart isn’t even on a news station. The people who are watching him are watching him to be entertained, not informed.


  89. 92 | December 16, 2013 2:58 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    Besides, the GOP is losing some Governorship next year like PA and Florida.

    And we’ll no doubt win some as well, though you may find out that Charlie Crist Still doesn’t have what it takes to win the governorship there.

    The Senate and the House are co-equal branches of govenrnment. The Senate is no more or less powerful that te house in most things. The Senate does Advise and Consent and treaty ratification, but pretty much everything else has to get past both the House and the Senate to make it into law. If you think the House is powerless, you haven’t paid attention for the last couple of years.


  90. 93 | December 16, 2013 2:59 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    Oh, and we may win the Senate next year, too. It is hard to say right now. We’ll know in a little less than 11 months.


  91. 94 | December 16, 2013 3:03 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    The House is a different animal than the Senate. Because of its strengths in Rural areas, the GOP does well in the House. But because of its weakness in Suburban/Urban areas, they struggle in the Senate and Presidency. The GOP can change this, but it does not want to and many of its voters will not allow the GOP to adapt.

    Right now the GOP is a top notch SEC College Football team. The Democrats are a 5 times repeating Superbowl champions.


  92. 95 | December 16, 2013 3:06 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    I have my doubts because of recent history. The GOP will nominate some false flaggers talking about how Rape is awesome or some ethnic group is evil. They will make gains but because of the Leftist infiltration into the GOP, they will fall short thanks to false flaggers.

    Maybe the GOP will get lucky and nominate good candidates and actually run the table. We will see, but they will make gains.


  93. 96 | December 16, 2013 3:14 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    GOP will nominate some false flaggers talking about how Rape is awesome or some ethnic group is evil.

    Funny, that, because nobody did that in 2012. Akins statement of rape was pretty inexcusible, but it wasn’t saying how “awsoime” rape was. And Mourdoch wasn’t even that. You think there isn’t a moral dimension to terminating someone’s life because of what their father did? Because that simply is what aborting the child of a rapist is. It is (or should be) a very delicate issue in the law. Any way you cut it an injustiuce will occur. There really is no “right” answer, nor is there a “good” answer. On something that delicate, I would argue against the power of the state interfering, but that is a whole different take than “Just snuff the kid”. If I’d been Mourdock, I’d have asked the reporter why they were so all fired up and eager to kill a child, and then refused to answer any more questions from the dickhead.


  94. Speranza
    97 | December 16, 2013 3:55 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    I have my doubts because of recent history.

    They are the “stupid party” for a reason.


  95. Speranza
    98 | December 16, 2013 3:56 pm

    Iron Fist wrote:

    @ Iron Fist:
    Oh, and we may win the Senate next year, too. It is hard to say right now. We’ll know in a little less than 11 months.

    It would have been a lot easier if we had not thrown so many seats a way with poor candidates since 2006.


  96. Speranza
    99 | December 16, 2013 3:57 pm

    Iron Fist wrote:

    Most people of any stripe aren’t watching Jon Stewart.

    It’s not how many people watch him, it’s about who watches him or quotes him.


  97. Speranza
    100 | December 16, 2013 3:59 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    Look at how Jon Stewart ruined Megyn Kelly’s reputation.

    Kelly is not the type of gal to be intimidated.


  98. RIX
    101 | December 16, 2013 4:05 pm

    Iron Fist wrote:

    @ RIX:

    No, these aren’t the nerds. All the nerds have jobs in software now. The OFA losers are all the stoners who barely made it through high school, sat in the back of the class and threw paperwads at the teacher, then whined when they got detention.

    Now that you mention it that’s probably right.
    Nerds go to Northwestern and become your boss. Nerds are generally pretty good guys at that.


  99. Purre
    102 | December 16, 2013 7:04 pm

    @ eaglesoars:

    That picture makes me want to sing in Russian (no, I don’t speak Russian):

    “Sing to the America, home of the free,
    Bulwark of peoples in immense debt.
    O Party of Obama, the strength of the corrupt,
    To Communism’s triumph lead us on!”

    No… I haven’t turned communist. But the spirit of Lenin and Stalin is strong in that picture.


Back to the Top

The Blogmocracy

website design was Built By David