Skip to main content

Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon
Gov. Jay Nixon vetoed it last year, so they're trying again.
Dear far right, if you folks want to reinvent the Confederacy that badly, just pipe up and let's talk about it. I think many of us would be quite open to sending you folks on your way.
The Missouri Senate’s General Laws Committee voted 5-1 last week in favor of a bill that purports to make it a crime for federal law enforcement agents to enforce the nation’s gun laws. Under the bill’s terms, these agents could be imprisoned for up to a year and be fined up to $1,000.
So we're going to start jailing federal law enforcement officers if the state doesn't like the laws they've been sent to enforce, now? Oh, what a fine plan. I can certainly see why that would get a 5-to-1 vote in a Missouri Senate committee in the year two thousand and fourteen. It is not at all the fever dream of backwater morons newly woken after 15 or 20 decades of slumber, no sir.

And mind you, this is a bill that passed the Senate last year, only to be vetoed by the Missouri governor for being Obviously and Demonstrably Insane. Christ, people, please tell me our American schools at least try to educate our fine sons and daughters as to the American system of governance and/or history and/or just the history of America's Worst Ideas.

That brings me to my question to the Missouri Senate. You clearly want to secede, in that you do not want to hold yourselves to American law just because it is, to use the first word of that two word phrase, American. Fine. Pass a bill saying so, and let's talk terms. I'm not saying you will get to keep Missouri, mind you, but we ought to be able to section off a nice coastal spot of land somewhere that all the new Confederates of the nation can call their own. You can have your new flag, and each of your hundred peculiar gun-related fetishists, and you have my promise that the rest of us will work very, very hard to build that new border wall you folks keep going on about.

Originally posted to Hunter on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 11:42 AM PST.

Also republished by Firearms Law and Policy, Repeal or Amend the Second Amendment (RASA), Shut Down the NRA, Kansas & Missouri Kossacks, and Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Imagine if some state passed a similar law (7+ / 0-)

    Making it a crime for federal law enforcement agents to enforce a federal anti-marijuana law.

    •  This could come sooner rather than later (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MyMy

      Especially if the DOJ goes back to actively interfering with voter-approved schemes.  

      "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

      by lgmcp on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 02:43:24 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  CO is not far from it (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      unclebucky, tikkun, jefecuatro

      Bottom line is CO is thumbing their noses at the Feds and the Constitution with the recreational use of pot.  I can see why Misery would think they can do the same.

      Sorry but these two issues are identical.  We either have and respect federal supremacy or we dont.  Cant be a little pregnant.

      It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

      by ksuwildkat on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 02:50:13 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Blurry vision (7+ / 0-)

        You must have blurry vision (tokin' up a little more than you're letting on, maybe?) not to see the huge difference between the Feds NOT arresting someone for a minor offense soon to be no offense at all(it's called prosecutorial discretion), and a State ARRESTING a Federal official just doing their job.

        The two issues are far, far from identical. Start with the rights of the arrested Federal official. Finish with the fact that 10s of thousands of Americans are killed with guns every year, whereas no one has ever died from a marijuana high.

        •  Issue vs case (0+ / 0-)

          As I type this I can hear Professor Lindford…..the cases may be different but the issue is the same - Is Federal Law supreme or not?  Article 6 says they are:

          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.

          The two cases share the same issue and it is one that is easy to decide because the Constitution is quite clear.  Missouri attempting to prevent the enforcement of a federal law is no different than Colorado usurping a federal law.  

          And for the record, I voted against recreational pot in Colorado.  LOTS of people have been killed from being stoned/involved with drugs.  Lots more, far more, are killed by guns but that should come as no surprise since guns are made for killing.  Guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people.  Im a gun owner and I find most other gun owners to be complete idiots.  Wasn't always that way.  20 years ago the idiots were 10% and mocked by the other 90%.  Today the idiots are at least 75% and they mock the rest of us.

          It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

          by ksuwildkat on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 06:25:08 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I agree with you on (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            NXNW, Brown Butter

            of the issue of Federal supremacy, but I take issue with your statement:

            LOTS of people have been killed from being stoned/involved with drugs.
            There is a lot of other drugs being conflated with marijuana in that sentence (for the record I have never used, nor do I intend to use marijuana). The evidence is pretty convincing that marijuana is less harmful than alcohol, and I have yet to meet a cop who would prefer to deal with a drunk as opposed to some one baked on weed.

            Legalizing marijuana, like the legalization of alcohol, will result in less crime and corruption.  

            The whole issue over the conflict between federal drug law and state legalization can be solved with the stroke of a pen. All that is required is removing marijuana from the list of Schedule I drugs.

            Schedule 1 drugs must meet three criteria:

            1) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.

            2) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.

            3) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.

            Marijuana pretty much fails all of these criteria, so moving it Schedule V reduces a LOT of friction between the state and Fed.

            •  Colorado Springs PD might have (0+ / 0-)

              a different opinion.

              Because of the ease of getting a "prescription" for pot in Colorado (I can call a number and have one in under an hour for $50, call another number and have legal, "medical" joints delivered) we have an abundance of "medical" pot stores in Colorado Springs.  And by abundance I mean more than we have Starbucks.  We have almost as many as we have gas stations.  Crime radiates around these locations.  Mostly property crime and low level muggings but still crime.  

              Marijuana might not have the physical addictive properties of heroin but it certainly has the mental/emotional addictive properties that alcohol has.  I have been around plenty of "marijuana dependent" people.  They become conditioned to and need the  psychoactive/depressant effects of pot just like some people need the depressant effects of alcohol.  Both are used to alter the users perceptions of the world around them.

              It is probably true that there are more angry drunks than angry stoners but cops would much rather deal with sober anyone than drunk/high anyone.  

              I ski.  I have yet to go skiing in Colorado and NOT see some stoned snowboarder wipe out one or more people on the slopes.  The lucky ones dust off and continue on with "fucking stoner."  The unlucky ones get carted off by ski patrol.  I have seen broken arms, broken legs and concussions.  In 30+ years of skiing I have seen maybe 5 drunk skiers have incidents.  I saw three stoned snowboarders wipe others out on one trip up a lift once.  I have no doubt a stoned skier/snowboarder has killed someone THIS YEAR.

              I get that some people like to get stoned.  But don't pretend it is safe or somehow better than drinking.  Dont pretend that people don't die because of stupid decisions they make while stoned.  Dont pretend that pot ADDICTS don't commit the same property crimes that other addicts do.  

              It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

              by ksuwildkat on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 07:54:58 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  ... (0+ / 0-)

                How about you back up your statements with something besides hypothesis and anectdotes (which are quite vague and lacking in specifics)?  If you are going to argue your point, do it effectively with some quantitative data or at the least a qualitative study.

              •  In response (0+ / 0-)
                Marijuana might not have the physical addictive properties of heroin but it certainly has the mental/emotional addictive properties that alcohol has.  I have been around plenty of "marijuana dependent" people.  They become conditioned to and need the  psychoactive/depressant effects of pot just like some people need the depressant effects of alcohol.  Both are used to alter the users perceptions of the world around them.
                So, at worst, you are saying that marijuana is no worse than alcohol, a substance legal for over 200 years, barring a brief prohibition (which laid the foundation for organized crime and police corruption).

                People with addictive personalities/genetics become addicts. So? Again, the damage done by alcohol is WAY worse than marijuana. I've spent my life around medical professionals, mostly ER nurses and EMTs and they are unanimous in their view that they would prefer to deal with stoners than drunks. Also, the list of medical ailments caused by even moderate alcohol abuse is much worse than your chronic stoner.

                It is probably true that there are more angry drunks than angry stoners but cops would much rather deal with sober anyone than drunk/high anyone.
                But that would be a perfect world, and such a world doesn't exist. The policeman I have spoken to were, again, unanimous in their desire to deal with stoners over drunks.

                Yeah, people do dumb stuff while impaired, but again, stoners tend to hurt themselves, drunks tend to hurt themselves AND other people.

                In 30+ years of skiing I have seen maybe 5 drunk skiers have incidents.
                Define "drunk".

                A skier well beyond the legal limit will have problems with the fine motor skills needed to simply stand up in a pair of skis, never mind ski. How did you determine the various people you saw injured who were not obviously drunk, had not been impaired via the usual "I had a couple of beers"?

                I get that some people like to get stoned.  But don't pretend it is safe or somehow better than drinking.
                I don't "pretend" anything. The evidence in the text books is pretty compelling.
                Dont pretend that people don't die because of stupid decisions they make while stoned.
                People die from stupid decisions everyday who are perfectly sober. People speed, jaywalk, smoke, text while driving, refuse to use safety gear, climb rickety ladders, feed bears, stick their junk in vacuum cleaners for thrills, fail to wash their hands after using the restroom and stick Q-tips in their ears despite the warning on the package, and all while not the slightest bit impaired by any intoxicant. Stupidity is FAR more lethal than booze/drugs, especially since stupidity is the prime requisite for abusing such substances in the first place.

                So again, I "pretend" nothing.

                Dont pretend that pot ADDICTS don't commit the same property crimes that other addicts do.
                I have "pretended" no such thing. What I pointed out was pot "addicts" committed far less VIOLENT crime than alcoholics.

                I have been beaten, stabbed and had guns pointed at me in my life time. I have also had people steal things from me. If it is all the same to you,  I would much prefer to deal with property crime than violent crime.

          •  State laws differ greatly (0+ / 0-)

            What CO is saying is that pot is not against the state law. If the feds came into CO to arrest the dealers, they could do it without problems (except for the huge numbers that it would take),

            What the MO bill says is that they will arrest any Fed trying to enforce federal law.

          •  Federal law controls in the event of a conflict. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            SaltyDogBarking

            But there is no conflict between Colorado law and federal law.  The following would be examples of a conflict:

            (1) Colorado required its citizens to grow or possess marijuana;

            (2) Colorado purported to grant its citizens immunity from federal prosecution;

            (3) Colorado made it a crime to assist in a federal investigation/prosecution of violations of federal drug laws; and,

            (4) Colorado forbade access to its courts for federal prosecution of violations of federal drug laws (this one is hypothetical because Congress has created federal trial courts with jurisdiction over federal crimes).    

            To the contrary, Colorado has simply not made it a crime under its own laws.  And the Supreme Court has made it quite that the Supremacy Clause does not allow Congress to commandeer state executive branch officials (e.g., police, sheriffs, district attorneys) to enforce federal laws. Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997).  Nor can it compel state legislatures  to enact legislation to implement federal law.  New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992).  

  •  I'd love to see Massachusetts pass something (12+ / 0-)

    nullifying a Republican law while a Republican is in the White House.

    See what happens then.

    "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --M. L. King "You can't fix stupid" --Ron White -6.00, -5.18

    by zenbassoon on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 11:58:39 AM PST

  •  I hate living in dumbfuckistan... sigh.... (14+ / 0-)

    "It is horrifying that we have to fight our own government to save the environment." *Ansel Adams* ."Even if you are on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there."*Will Rogers*

    by Statusquomustgo on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 12:19:49 PM PST

  •  Try this nullification on for size, Missouri. (9+ / 0-)
    The Missouri Senate’s General Laws Committee voted 5-1 last week in favor of a bill that purports to make it a crime for federal law enforcement agents to enforce the nation’s religious freedom laws. Under the bill’s terms, these agents could be imprisoned for up to a year and be fined up to $1,000.
    How would that make you feel? I thought so.


    Life is all about the margin of error. Your personal confidence interval is just an estimate of your happiness potentiality.

    by glb3 on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 12:29:44 PM PST

  •  No. (14+ / 0-)

    No.

    They do NOT get any coastal spots.  None, whatsoever.  Somewhere in the desert with no utilities.

    The most violent element in society is ignorance.

    by Mr MadAsHell on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 02:34:08 PM PST

  •  Not My Nice Coastal Spot. (3+ / 0-)
    ...we ought to be able to section off a nice coastal spot of land somewhere...
    Stick them ins some religion infested box canyon in Utah.

    Nuclear Reactor = Dirty Bomb

    by olo on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 02:39:33 PM PST

  •  Here in Maryland, back in 1920 (9+ / 0-)

    Our Governor, Albert Ritchie announced that Maryland authorities would not enforce Prohibition.  If Federal agents wanted to enforce it, fine, but they would get no help from the state and local police and other state authorities.  But Governor Ritchie never tried to arrest a federal agent for trying to enforce federal law, the 18th Amendment.

    "Corporations exist not for themselves, but for the people." Ida Tarbell 1908.

    by Navy Vet Terp on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 02:47:27 PM PST

    •  Pres. Jackson: "[SCOTUS Justice] John Marshall ... (0+ / 0-)

      ... has made his decision. Now let him enforce it."

      Same theme: "I refuse to follow the settled law because I don't like it. So there!"
      In MO and CO, I think it's kids stamping their foots.

      The best response in these situations - ignore 'em. Go on with adults' important business. Use "prosecutorial discretion" to sidestep confrontation where possible.

      Another possibility in MO. Find a good case on the facts in a county congenial to settled law and sue in state court. Yes, state court, so a trial-level judge who is well qualified and has potential to rise higher can issue the kind of ruling that makes sense. As/if such a case goes up on appeal, judges will be less and less likely to toady to state laws like this.

      Still, it would be too bad to use any resources on this kind of thing!

      2014 is HERE. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

      by TRPChicago on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 06:25:04 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Can't we make them "self-deport"? n/t (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TofG, asindc, Matt Z, MyMy, ichibon, Thinking Fella

    It is every person's obligation to put back into the world at least the equivalent of what they takes out of it. - Albert Einstein (edited for modern times to include everyone by me!)

    by LeftieIndie on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 02:47:32 PM PST

  •  Are you Crazy? A coastal spot? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RakDaddy, Sue B, Brown Butter

    That has to be one of the dumbest ideas ever.

    Can you imagine what will happen when they create their totally unregulated economy and start allowing corporations to set up waste disposal facilities, oil refineries, chemical plants, etc. on one of our coasts?

    Whatever they dump/spill into the ocean will not just stay on their own bit of coast.

    They need to kept in an asylum, not turned loose in the backyard next door.

    The nine most terrifying words in the english language . . . "I'm George Bush, we're here to liberate your country"

    by TiredOfGOPLies on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 02:51:52 PM PST

    •  On the other hand.... (0+ / 0-)

      ....choose the right coastal spot and they might develop a lively interest in global warming and sea level rise.

      "They bash your face in, and say you were always ugly." (Solzhenitsyn, Gulag Archipelago volume 3)

      by sagesource on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 09:20:02 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Poor Gov. Nixon doesn't deserve to have his face (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dem Beans, ssnbbr

    up there at the top.  He's the dude who vetoed this stupid bill the first time around!

    Halitosigone® can lead to rare, but serious, side effects such as spontaneous combustion and moderate to severe pit stains.

    by bherner on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 02:53:24 PM PST

  •  On the plus side--this might keep them busy (0+ / 0-)

    and not passing something more egregious.

    Nothing in the world is more dangerous than a sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity. Martin Luther King, Jr.

    by maybeeso in michigan on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 02:54:28 PM PST

  •  Give them Guam. (0+ / 0-)

    It's big enough to hold 200,000 people.
    It's got a moat big enough for both of us. With sharks.
    The major source of jobs is the local U.S. Navy base.
    They'll like that.
    We can monitor the progress of their society from a distance.
    We'll like that.

    Hate Speech must remain legal. It reminds us that the hate is still out there.

    by SmallTownHick on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 02:56:09 PM PST

  •  they do NOT get frikkin MO--I live in STL... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    yg17, jefecuatro, ssnbbr

    Btw, it's especially disheartening that this is a state senate committee action--the GOP has huge majorities in both houses, so usually the fight is between the full-on crazees of the House and the somewhat-more-moderate Senate (with Gov Nixon, nominal D, only vetoing when necessary).  It was the house that passed out of committee a bill to criminalize even the discussion of gun control laws by other state legislators.   I'm serious.  

    Anyway, I nominate southern Utah for Secessionstan.

    •  southern utah is probably the most beautiful (0+ / 0-)

      part of the US (your opinion may vary)

      •  I agree it's very beautiful--driven thru several (0+ / 0-)

        times.   But, just like nuclear waste, we have to put the seceshes somewhere, and Yucca Flats is taken.  I'd give them Death Valley but someone is going to pipe up about the natural beauty around there as well.  Others in this thread have already rejected the 'bama Gulf Islands and other southern pockets.  The Dakotas are not only too far north, they're too damn wealthy now--we don't want to end up with a Teahadhi petro-state.  So I'm open to suggestions.  But MO stays in the Union, just like last time...

  •  Hunter, you or some other DK diarists need... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Hohenzollern, Railfan

    to write an extension or an answer for 2014 to James Loewen's "Confederate and Neo-Confederate Reader".

    I think your point is very well taken that these nuts REALLY DO WANT the OLD SOUTH  to rise again.

    Something Has Gone Very Wrong
    Home page of James W. Loewen
    http://sundown.afro.illinois.edu/

    I agree with him and with you and with many other writers, that we have a problem in this Nation AGAIN.

    And we need to daylight and understand well their strawmen of "First Amendment" and "Freedom" and every other bit of red herring that masquerades a desire to renew the Confederacy and all it stood for.

    I never thought as a student we would get to this shore AGAIN. Dammit!

    Ugh. --UB.

    "Daddy, every time a bell rings, a Randian Libertaria­n picks up his Pan Am tickets for the Libertaria­n Paradise of West Dakota!"

    by unclebucky on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 02:57:18 PM PST

  •  the time (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sue B

    effort and money wasted dealing with the immature gop is beyond stupid.

    somehow pols of conscience should find a way to punish these actions or at least put those responsible for attempting to pass similar bills in a position where they will be held accountable for their frivolous and ridiculous endeavors.

    the right are attempting to grind govt to a halt in and out of wash and the dems that oppose this agenda need to be proactive, when they have the votes rather than sitting on their hands they need to act and pass legislation that will make actions like this illegal and punishable in some way.

    the cons are running the country into a ditch and the dems are sitting by and largely doing nothing but giving lip service to any attempt at opposition.

    save america defeat all republicans and conservatives

  •  USA, USA, USA (0+ / 0-)

    OK, why don't we just admit the reality that the USA would really be better off without the Confederate States!  We are going to have to have a realignment someday.  The lines as drawn simply do not work.  

    Does anybody really think that Massachusetts, Vermont and Connecticut have that much in common with Mississippi and Alabama?

    We don't need another bloody civil war, and we don't need to allow people who think that the world is 6,000 years old to design a natural science curriculum.  Common sense, intelligence and logic can combine to allow for states, counties and people to seek a more natural alignment of political interests.

    My wife, daughter and granddaughters should have more privacy in their doctor's office than I have buying another rifle or shotgun.

    by NM Ray on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 03:07:25 PM PST

  •  So (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ksuwildkat, gshenaut, Hangpilot

    Nullification (see pot laws in Colorado) is all good when it's not your ox being gored? Check.

    Granted the making it a crime to enforce federal gun laws is a bridge too far, but you guys would be fine with just "Our law enforcement is not going to help in any way to enforce federal gun laws"

    •  "breaking: stoner kills innocent shoppers with a (0+ / 0-)

      semi-automatic bag of weed"

      i'm so sick of that headline

    •  The States don't have to enforce federal law. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      FogCityJohn, Glen The Plumber

      Federalism does not allow the Federal Government to deputize the states in order to enforce Federal law. If the Feds want to enforce federal statutes, then it is on them to hire the staff to go out and do the enforcement. Alternatively, the Feds can condition the receipt of federal funds on compliance with some federal policy (setting the legal drinking age to 21 for example). The States may end up enforcing laws that they don't like in order to get the funds, but that is ultimately their choice.

      States trying to interfere with the enforcement of Federal law by Federal officials is a completely different matter. Federal law supersedes state law. Trying to interfere with federal law enforcement due to a contrary state law is unconstitutional. It also happens to be illegal, with penalties of up to 20 years if done with a deadly weapon (and presumably the police that would be trying to arrest federal officials would be carrying their guns). http://www.law.cornell.edu/...

    •  This is true, I think (0+ / 0-)

      If the political tide turned and we elected a different kind of president, who then appointed a different kind of Attorney General, I think that the states that have “legalized” marijuana would find themselves in deep yogurt.

    •  I would argue that the Federal govt (0+ / 0-)

      Has no business making either gun control or marijuana laws as I prefer a more strict reading of the Constitution and believe that the powers of the Federal govt should be limited to those expressly granted.  In that regard, the feds have no business attempting to regulating activity within the states.  The role that the federal govt does have is when it comes to activity amongst the states or in relations with other nations.

      Federal supremacy is at issue because they have meddled in areas that they should not have.

      "It's not surveillance, it's data collection to keep you safe"

      by blackhand on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 11:49:22 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I'm going to go all 1970's (0+ / 0-)

    and tell these unpatriotic excrescences:

    "America!  Love it or leave it!"

  •  My letter to the editor in November, 2013 (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Zwenkau, Dem Beans

    This letter was prompted by headlines in our local paper, the Warrensburg (Missouri) Star-Journal.  The names I repeat so often are the name of the three Republicans who represent my home town of Warrensburg.

    To the editors:                           

    One of the worst bills passed in the Missouri General Assembly this year was one that made it a crime for any federal agent to enforce federal gun laws. Representatives Dohrman, Hoskins, and Senator Pearce all voted for this gun nullification bill.  Fortunately, Governor Nixon’s veto was sustained.

    The headline story in the Star-Journal on Monday, November 18th, that reported the arrest of eight people in Johnson County on federal charges of illegal drug and illegal firearm possession raises an interesting question with respect to the gun nullification bill.  The story quotes both Sheriff Heiss and Warrensburg’s Police Chief Hovey highlighting the cooperation of local law enforcement agencies with federal agents in these arrests.

    The bill that Dohrman, Hoskins, and Pearce voted for would have prevented such cooperation with respect to arresting people for violation of federal gun laws.  In fact, the bill they supported required local law enforcement agencies to arrest federal agents who attempted to enforce federal gun laws.  

    I look forward to reading the explanation that Dohrman, Hoskin, and Pearce have for why they supported legislation that would have made such cooperation next to impossible and whether they will continue to support gun nullification legislation in the future.

    It may come as a surprise to no one there was no response by any of the people named to my letter.

    [Medicare, and Medicaid, and Social Security] do not make us a nation of takers; they free us to take the risks that make this country great.

    by MoDem on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 03:26:05 PM PST

  •  Time to secede (0+ / 0-)

    Time to secede, dudes of the Confederate persuasion. I say, draw up the boundaries, let 'em go without firing a shot, but then put up a really high wall, keeping them OUT of our lives. Border hardening would be very welcome then.

  •  Well, it's "state's rights," don't you know? And (0+ / 0-)

    once this passes, they can start buying slaves again and saving their state's economy, just like they fought so hard to maintain in that Yankee war of aggression.  This is just the first step toward finally "winning" their sacred "Cause."

    That went well the last time, freaks.  Give.  It.  Up.

    Best. President. Ever.

    by Little Lulu on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 03:39:35 PM PST

  •  Please tell me this veto will stick (0+ / 0-)

    I know the Dem brand has taken a beating in Missouri lately, but I find it hard to believe that the Repubs have enough votes to override this peace of lunacy.

    "Leave us alone!" -Mike Capuano

    by Christian Dem in NC on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 04:05:13 PM PST

  •  Some State that Has Been Executing (0+ / 0-)

    prisoners who have not used up their federal appeals.  The last one was hauled off to be executed while in the midst of a phone call with his lawyer about the progress of his appeal.  these executions have been three in a row.

    Newt 2012. Sociopath, adulterer, hypocrite, Republican.

    by tikkun on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 04:13:54 PM PST

  •  problem solved (0+ / 0-)

    Red states secede, remaining states join Canada and rename themselves the United States of Sanity.  

    There is a time to think and a time to act and this gentlemen, is no time to think! Bud Boomer

    by celtic pride on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 04:15:13 PM PST

  •  They should read the Constitution (0+ / 0-)

    Federal law is supreme.

  •  Missouri like Kentucky and Maryland (fellow (0+ / 0-)

    slave states) was not part of the Confederacy (and not covered by the Emancipation Proclamation).  But by all means let them go.  Imagine a blue-state America, rivalling the best of Europe and Asia...and a red-state America, on par with Nigeria and Bangladesh.

    Armed! I feel like a savage! Barbarella

    by richardvjohnson on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 05:05:59 PM PST

    •  But those of us in the cities in MO (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      richardvjohnson

      which are very, very blue would be trapped behind enemy lines.  

      By the way, Missouri was invaded by the Confederacy numerous times during the Civil War - and Missourians drove them out (with, admittedly, a handful of Kansans and some from Illinois).

      If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich." - John F. Kennedy

      by Dem Beans on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 08:01:47 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I know there are many good people in red states (0+ / 0-)

        and I wouldn't want to see something like India/Pakistan at independence, with millions fleeing on both sides, but it does get frustrating to be held back politically by states which take more than their share of federal revenues while mistreating their own people.  MO is not the worst or the biggest...

        Armed! I feel like a savage! Barbarella

        by richardvjohnson on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 10:32:08 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Nullification didn't work out so good last time. (0+ / 0-)

    You have exactly 10 seconds to change that look of disgusting pity into one of enormous respect!

    by Cartoon Peril on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 05:51:32 PM PST

  •  ... (0+ / 0-)

    Screw That... they shouldn't get awesome costal land.  If we're giving away something, give them North Dakota.

  •  When it was a live option, (0+ / 0-)

    Missouri decided NOT to secede.

    Or, rather, the group that decided not to secede turned out to win in Missouri. (The Confederates recognized them as having seceded. )

  •  After they conquer MO, (0+ / 0-)

    Will they rebuild our roads and schools?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site