Conquer Club

11 NEW SECTION. Sec. 6. Any federal law, rule, order, or other act
12 by the federal government violating the provisions of this act is
13 hereby declared to be invalid in this state, is not recognized by and
14 is specifically rejected by this state, and is considered as null and
15 void and of no effect in this state.

This section in particular, stood out to me. It is not so much that Washington State is saying "Whee!! No gun control!", it is more of telling the Federal Government that it can stick it with regard to its (the federal government's) desire to regulate the State in areas where the State has not granted authority to the federal government. The State may well enact its own gun laws which may or may not be more restrictive than the federal ones. But Washington is reserving it to the State to do so. I happen to agree with this idea.

Thanks Stiefel, I'll probably get around to reading it tomorrow. I've been interested in studying the constitution for a while (I've got a copy of it lying around somewhere), especially the meeting and discussions that they had beforehand. The political philosophy and enlightenments ideals that were incorporated into it is fascinating.

Titanic wrote:Thanks Stiefel, I'll probably get around to reading it tomorrow. I've been interested in studying the constitution for a while (I've got a copy of it lying around somewhere), especially the meeting and discussions that they had beforehand. The political philosophy and enlightenments ideals that were incorporated into it is fascinating.

Titanic, are you an ex-pat? or a Brit? Just curious.

I would have liked to have been there when they were arguing it out over the creation of the constitution. Seems like Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams et al. were none to thrilled with the constitution while it was in developement.

Maybe they could do a mini-series on the history channel where they act out the whole drama.

Frigidus wrote:Let me elaborate. During the revolutionary war, the standard military-grade weapons were muskets that soldiers could expect to fire 4 times a minute, given that they are uninterrupted while loading. These things were also very inaccurate beyond 75 yards. You pretty much wouldn't hit your target...

Wow. Thanks for elaborating. I had no idea of technological advancement in the last 200+ years. Lucky for us it's called the "right to bear arms" and not the "right to bear shitty muskets that fire no more than four rounds per minute and can't hit the broad side of a barn beyond seventy-five yards".

By your logic, with all the advances in communication, shouldn't freedom of speech/press be rethought as well?

The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution:

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.

The federal government is NOT happy with this. They want to control LOTS of things that they aren't supposed to be controlling. So what they use is the "Commerce Clause", which gives them the right to control commerce between states. They say Marijuana falls under this, that gun control falls under it, and many many many many many many other items.

The Washington State Bill that is posted in the first post states that guns made in Washington, sold in Washington, don't ever cross borders between states, and thus the Commerce Clause does not apply to this sale, and thus the Federal Governments gun control does not apply to this sale. The bill is accurate and correct, and should be passed.

Notice that for it to have any affect, a gun manufacturer will have to create a manufacturing plant here in Washington State, and then can only sell guns to people in this state. I really don't think this will happen, I'm not sure why the bill has even been considered, I'm sure it'll be dropped at a later point if it hasn't been already.

HapSmo19 wrote:

Frigidus wrote:Let me elaborate. During the revolutionary war, the standard military-grade weapons were muskets that soldiers could expect to fire 4 times a minute, given that they are uninterrupted while loading. These things were also very inaccurate beyond 75 yards. You pretty much wouldn't hit your target...

Wow. Thanks for elaborating. I had no idea of technological advancement in the last 200+ years. Lucky for us it's called the "right to bear arms" and not the "right to bear shitty muskets that fire no more than four rounds per minute and can't hit the broad side of a barn beyond seventy-five yards".

By your logic, with all the advances in communication, shouldn't freedom of speech/press be rethought as well?

No, because you can't slaughter people with freedom of speech.

ser stiefel wrote:

Titanic wrote:Thanks Stiefel, I'll probably get around to reading it tomorrow. I've been interested in studying the constitution for a while (I've got a copy of it lying around somewhere), especially the meeting and discussions that they had beforehand. The political philosophy and enlightenments ideals that were incorporated into it is fascinating.

Titanic, are you an ex-pat? or a Brit? Just curious.

I would have liked to have been there when they were arguing it out over the creation of the constitution. Seems like Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams et al. were none to thrilled with the constitution while it was in developement.

Maybe they could do a mini-series on the history channel where they act out the whole drama.

I'm British, but studying Economic and Politics atm, and applying for a straight politics masters for next year (with a possible thought on a Phd as well). I did political philosophy in the first year, and I liked it but found it too much work (I was so lazy) so I just picked up security and international modules for my remaining years but I've recently started researching the philosophy of the Greeks and then the enlightenment thinkers in my free time. The US constitution is almost the conclusion of all of these thoughts which is why it fascinates me so much (the thinking and debating behind it, rather then the finished product itself).

Titanic wrote:I'm British, but studying Economic and Politics atm, and applying for a straight politics masters for next year (with a possible thought on a Phd as well). I did political philosophy in the first year, and I liked it but found it too much work (I was so lazy) so I just picked up security and international modules for my remaining years but I've recently started researching the philosophy of the Greeks and then the enlightenment thinkers in my free time. The US constitution is almost the conclusion of all of these thoughts which is why it fascinates me so much (the thinking and debating behind it, rather then the finished product itself).

Uh oh, you know what you are talking about! LOL

That same website with the article I quoted has a very nice page which has a lot of historic documents all in one handy list.

http://patriotpost.us/historic/documents/

On the whole, this website (patriotpost) puts forward conservative political views (my views are mostly conservative so I enjoy much of the content on this site), but I especially like this quick reference to a lot of historic documents germane to the development of political philosophies in the united states.

I like the States Rights point of view which keeps power decentralized on the large scale, and leaves much to the states on a more local level. It is easier for me to know my state representatives and to interact with them, than my US representatives. A high school friend of mine was recently in the state legislature, for example.

I think this is why I like the language in the bill proposed at the beginning of this thread. This is a bill which deals more with "the principal of the thing" I think, than a specific desire on the part of the legislator with regard to guns.

Mostly, I think this is bluff and bluster though, because as I understand it, federal monies apportioned to states can be tied to acceptance of federal regulation, either directly or indirectly. So states typically do not have radical reactions to federal regulation.

A couple of things-
1. This entire discussion should be over. Good luck trying to enforce a law that takes away Americans rights to bear arms.
2. If you took away guns from everyone, then the only people that would be armed would be criminals. I imagine that of those 15,000 or so murders in the U.S. that someone threw out there earlier, a vast majority of them were committed with illegally obtained guns. So tell me, what would be the point of taking away guns from everyone?

Burrito wrote:A couple of things-
1. This entire discussion should be over. Good luck trying to enforce a law that takes away Americans rights to bear arms.
2. If you took away guns from everyone, then the only people that would be armed would be criminals. I imagine that of those 15,000 or so murders in the U.S. that someone threw out there earlier, a vast majority of them were committed with illegally obtained guns. So tell me, what would be the point of taking away guns from everyone?

Um ... you didn't read the first post did you? This isn't about taking away our guns. It is telling the federal government they do not have the authority to enforce laws that the state did not specifically give to them, in this case guns that are manufactured, sold to citizens and to remain with the states borders, also called intrastate commerce!

isaiah40 wrote:

Burrito wrote:A couple of things-
1. This entire discussion should be over. Good luck trying to enforce a law that takes away Americans rights to bear arms.
2. If you took away guns from everyone, then the only people that would be armed would be criminals. I imagine that of those 15,000 or so murders in the U.S. that someone threw out there earlier, a vast majority of them were committed with illegally obtained guns. So tell me, what would be the point of taking away guns from everyone?

Um ... you didn't read the first post did you? This isn't about taking away our guns. It is telling the federal government they do not have the authority to enforce laws that the state did not specifically give to them, in this case guns that are manufactured, sold to citizens and to remain with the states borders, also called intrastate commerce!

Yeah I got that part. No my post wasn't entirely on topic. I was simply pointing out a rather obvious fast and my own opinion to those who stated in this thread something like this:

GloryOfThe80s wrote:I never get why so many Americans oppose gun control or at least fear it because this or that part of the constitution (a mighty old piece of paper written in a time long ago) supposedly states thatAT everyone has the right to arm themselves

the simple fact that gun crime is such a problem in the US and the percentage of gun crime is far lower in most other western nations should convince anyone that it's not such a bad idea to have at least some sort of mechanism that makes it a little more difficult to obtain a gun than just going to you local supermarket?

GloryOfThe80s wrote:obtain a gun than just going to you local supermarket?

I also felt that this deserves some sort of map or GPS coordinates or something so that I can find such a wonderful place. I mean, guns right next to my steak and chewing tobacco? Now THAT sounds like the America I know and love.

Burrito wrote:

isaiah40 wrote:

Burrito wrote:A couple of things-
1. This entire discussion should be over. Good luck trying to enforce a law that takes away Americans rights to bear arms.
2. If you took away guns from everyone, then the only people that would be armed would be criminals. I imagine that of those 15,000 or so murders in the U.S. that someone threw out there earlier, a vast majority of them were committed with illegally obtained guns. So tell me, what would be the point of taking away guns from everyone?

Um ... you didn't read the first post did you? This isn't about taking away our guns. It is telling the federal government they do not have the authority to enforce laws that the state did not specifically give to them, in this case guns that are manufactured, sold to citizens and to remain with the states borders, also called intrastate commerce!

Yeah I got that part. No my post wasn't entirely on topic. I was simply pointing out a rather obvious fast and my own opinion to those who stated in this thread something like this:

GloryOfThe80s wrote:I never get why so many Americans oppose gun control or at least fear it because this or that part of the constitution (a mighty old piece of paper written in a time long ago) supposedly states thatAT everyone has the right to arm themselves

the simple fact that gun crime is such a problem in the US and the percentage of gun crime is far lower in most other western nations should convince anyone that it's not such a bad idea to have at least some sort of mechanism that makes it a little more difficult to obtain a gun than just going to you local supermarket?

GloryOfThe80s wrote:obtain a gun than just going to you local supermarket?

I also felt that this deserves some sort of map or GPS coordinates or something so that I can find such a wonderful place. I mean, guns right next to my steak and chewing tobacco? Now THAT sounds like the America I know and love.

Ah I see what you mean now. lol!

Burrito wrote:A couple of things-
1. This entire discussion should be over. Good luck trying to enforce a law that takes away Americans rights to bear arms.
2. If you took away guns from everyone, then the only people that would be armed would be criminals. I imagine that of those 15,000 or so murders in the U.S. that someone threw out there earlier, a vast majority of them were committed with illegally obtained guns. So tell me, what would be the point of taking away guns from everyone?

1) True, the Democrats a pussies and will never challenge the guns laws. Also there is too much public support and conspiracy nuts to actually it. The chance was there post-WWII, and may come again in the future some time, but not atm or anytime soon.

2) Not true, look at every country which has banned guns. The UK has probably the strictest gun laws in the world (following Dunblane), and for the past 10 years there have been only around 40 firearm deaths each year. That means, at the least, there are 325 days a year without a firearms death in the whole of the UK.

bedub1 wrote:The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution:

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.

The federal government is NOT happy with this. They want to control LOTS of things that they aren't supposed to be controlling. So what they use is the "Commerce Clause", which gives them the right to control commerce between states. They say Marijuana falls under this, that gun control falls under it, and many many many many many many other items.

The Washington State Bill that is posted in the first post states that guns made in Washington, sold in Washington, don't ever cross borders between states, and thus the Commerce Clause does not apply to this sale, and thus the Federal Governments gun control does not apply to this sale. The bill is accurate and correct, and should be passed.

Notice that for it to have any affect, a gun manufacturer will have to create a manufacturing plant here in Washington State, and then can only sell guns to people in this state. I really don't think this will happen, I'm not sure why the bill has even been considered, I'm sure it'll be dropped at a later point if it hasn't been already.

Does anybody have a response to this...which is the actual topic? We are talking about the bill, and what it does, and if the State of Washington has this power.... We aren't talking about guns and murder rates and how europe thinks they are so much better than the US....

bedub1 wrote:

bedub1 wrote:The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution:

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.

The federal government is NOT happy with this. They want to control LOTS of things that they aren't supposed to be controlling. So what they use is the "Commerce Clause", which gives them the right to control commerce between states. They say Marijuana falls under this, that gun control falls under it, and many many many many many many other items.

The Washington State Bill that is posted in the first post states that guns made in Washington, sold in Washington, don't ever cross borders between states, and thus the Commerce Clause does not apply to this sale, and thus the Federal Governments gun control does not apply to this sale. The bill is accurate and correct, and should be passed.

Notice that for it to have any affect, a gun manufacturer will have to create a manufacturing plant here in Washington State, and then can only sell guns to people in this state. I really don't think this will happen, I'm not sure why the bill has even been considered, I'm sure it'll be dropped at a later point if it hasn't been already.

Does anybody have a response to this...which is the actual topic? We are talking about the bill, and what it does, and if the State of Washington has this power.... We aren't talking about guns and murder rates and how europe thinks they are so much better than the US....

Of course they have the right. But the federal government will simply tie some federal funds to following their direction, and the bill will go bye-bye.

Woodruff wrote:

bedub1 wrote:

bedub1 wrote:The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution:

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.

The federal government is NOT happy with this. They want to control LOTS of things that they aren't supposed to be controlling. So what they use is the "Commerce Clause", which gives them the right to control commerce between states. They say Marijuana falls under this, that gun control falls under it, and many many many many many many other items.

The Washington State Bill that is posted in the first post states that guns made in Washington, sold in Washington, don't ever cross borders between states, and thus the Commerce Clause does not apply to this sale, and thus the Federal Governments gun control does not apply to this sale. The bill is accurate and correct, and should be passed.

Notice that for it to have any affect, a gun manufacturer will have to create a manufacturing plant here in Washington State, and then can only sell guns to people in this state. I really don't think this will happen, I'm not sure why the bill has even been considered, I'm sure it'll be dropped at a later point if it hasn't been already.

Does anybody have a response to this...which is the actual topic? We are talking about the bill, and what it does, and if the State of Washington has this power.... We aren't talking about guns and murder rates and how europe thinks they are so much better than the US....

Of course they have the right. But the federal government will simply tie some federal funds to following their direction, and the bill will go bye-bye.

Washington State is looking at setting up a Federal Tax Escrow account. It is in my Resist DC:Federal Tax Fund Act thread. You can view the bill there! Basically saying anything that is unconstitutional, and the feds withholding money from the state, the state takes it out of the escrow account (from how I read it).

isaiah40 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

bedub1 wrote:

bedub1 wrote:The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution:

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.

The federal government is NOT happy with this. They want to control LOTS of things that they aren't supposed to be controlling. So what they use is the "Commerce Clause", which gives them the right to control commerce between states. They say Marijuana falls under this, that gun control falls under it, and many many many many many many other items.

The Washington State Bill that is posted in the first post states that guns made in Washington, sold in Washington, don't ever cross borders between states, and thus the Commerce Clause does not apply to this sale, and thus the Federal Governments gun control does not apply to this sale. The bill is accurate and correct, and should be passed.

Notice that for it to have any affect, a gun manufacturer will have to create a manufacturing plant here in Washington State, and then can only sell guns to people in this state. I really don't think this will happen, I'm not sure why the bill has even been considered, I'm sure it'll be dropped at a later point if it hasn't been already.

Does anybody have a response to this...which is the actual topic? We are talking about the bill, and what it does, and if the State of Washington has this power.... We aren't talking about guns and murder rates and how europe thinks they are so much better than the US....

Of course they have the right. But the federal government will simply tie some federal funds to following their direction, and the bill will go bye-bye.

Washington State is looking at setting up a Federal Tax Escrow account. It is in my Resist DC:Federal Tax Fund Act thread. You can view the bill there! Basically saying anything that is unconstitutional, and the feds withholding money from the state, the state takes it out of the escrow account (from how I read it).

Yer, good luck with that. Btw, when did we ever have the discussion that Europe is better then the USA? You're making stuff up.

isaiah40 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

bedub1 wrote:

bedub1 wrote:The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution:

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.

The federal government is NOT happy with this. They want to control LOTS of things that they aren't supposed to be controlling. So what they use is the "Commerce Clause", which gives them the right to control commerce between states. They say Marijuana falls under this, that gun control falls under it, and many many many many many many other items.

The Washington State Bill that is posted in the first post states that guns made in Washington, sold in Washington, don't ever cross borders between states, and thus the Commerce Clause does not apply to this sale, and thus the Federal Governments gun control does not apply to this sale. The bill is accurate and correct, and should be passed.

Notice that for it to have any affect, a gun manufacturer will have to create a manufacturing plant here in Washington State, and then can only sell guns to people in this state. I really don't think this will happen, I'm not sure why the bill has even been considered, I'm sure it'll be dropped at a later point if it hasn't been already.

Does anybody have a response to this...which is the actual topic? We are talking about the bill, and what it does, and if the State of Washington has this power.... We aren't talking about guns and murder rates and how europe thinks they are so much better than the US....

Of course they have the right. But the federal government will simply tie some federal funds to following their direction, and the bill will go bye-bye.

Washington State is looking at setting up a Federal Tax Escrow account. It is in my Resist DC:Federal Tax Fund Act thread. You can view the bill there! Basically saying anything that is unconstitutional, and the feds withholding money from the state, the state takes it out of the escrow account (from how I read it).

If they honestly believe that will work, then the inmates really ARE running the asylum in Washington state.