OT: Roger Wicker
- Thread starter MSU_Beas_GIS
- Start date
- Status
Are you really that ignorant to think that is the only thing on the bill? My apologies, let me get back in line with the rest of the heard, 17er.
Principled legislators can and sometime should vote to end cloture even on legislation they will ultimately oppose.
At first I thought this was against the bill itself. But it was only against a fillibuster. Either way, there are some ticked off people and he better come up with answers for them or he will be nailed to the wall.
And then you will not be able to loan a gun to a buddy, much less pass them on to your children or family if you die. It falls in line with the inheritance tax, which is bs as well. I guess OUR families really didn't buy that land, someone else's did**
Talk about the gun debate. For some reason I'm gonna let it go. Leave your snide remarks and opinions on other issues out of it. PM me if you want to complain. - Seshomoru
Last edited by a moderator:
It's jsut a vote to debate a bill, not a vote on a bill..
I have no problem with background checks, as long as there is no national or even state registry created.
They can even have a mandatory waiting period to check into peoples' mental health records if they want.
My fear is that they will change the current system and be forced to report what gun you bought to the Federal Government.
Currently, they run the FBI background check, and you are either cleared or not.
Even if you are cleared, you can still decide not purchase the gun. As it is now there is no documentation of you actually purchasing the gun.
I don't have a concealed carry permit because I don't want the government to know I have a gun, it's none of their business.
(removed a line and it had no relevance to the thread... just not gonna fly if I'm signed on and see it. PM if you want to complain - seshomoru.
I have no problem with background checks, as long as there is no national or even state registry created.
They can even have a mandatory waiting period to check into peoples' mental health records if they want.
My fear is that they will change the current system and be forced to report what gun you bought to the Federal Government.
Currently, they run the FBI background check, and you are either cleared or not.
Even if you are cleared, you can still decide not purchase the gun. As it is now there is no documentation of you actually purchasing the gun.
I don't have a concealed carry permit because I don't want the government to know I have a gun, it's none of their business.
(removed a line and it had no relevance to the thread... just not gonna fly if I'm signed on and see it. PM if you want to complain - seshomoru.
Last edited by a moderator:
Majority of the issue ...
with me, is that they are changing the US Constitution without going through the process outlined in the Constitutional. This logically could lead to the rest of the Bill of Rights or other amendments be changed by a simple majority in Congress. Our founding fathers made the process 'hard' on purpose so we would maintain or basic rights. The right to free speech, religion and yes ... the right to own firearms.
While reasonable restrictions are understandable, the problem lies in ones interpretation of 'reasonable restrictions.' So, do background checks 'infringe' on my ability to keep and bear arms? Not really, but only "IF" the records are keep like the law requires. BUT, Missouri just found out that the entire list of CC permit holders has been released (maybe twice) to the Federal Govt which is totally against their State law. That scares a lot of folks, including me, into not supporting background checks.
Now, you should be less ignorant.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. <!--/gc-->
with me, is that they are changing the US Constitution without going through the process outlined in the Constitutional. This logically could lead to the rest of the Bill of Rights or other amendments be changed by a simple majority in Congress. Our founding fathers made the process 'hard' on purpose so we would maintain or basic rights. The right to free speech, religion and yes ... the right to own firearms.
While reasonable restrictions are understandable, the problem lies in ones interpretation of 'reasonable restrictions.' So, do background checks 'infringe' on my ability to keep and bear arms? Not really, but only "IF" the records are keep like the law requires. BUT, Missouri just found out that the entire list of CC permit holders has been released (maybe twice) to the Federal Govt which is totally against their State law. That scares a lot of folks, including me, into not supporting background checks.
Now, you should be less ignorant.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. <!--/gc-->
Yep, a Hugh group of pissed off people. He's playing with fire, and our rights.
I want no chance of the Govt knowing about my weapons, but I'm more pissed off that he's changing his stance since the first of the year:
TUPELO, MISS. – U.S. Senator Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), on Wednesday, issued the following statement regarding President Obama’s proposals regarding gun ownership:
"The President's proposals would violate the Constitution and have been proven not to be effective in preventing gun violence,” said Wicker. “I will be part of a bipartisan coalition opposing this legislation and looking for real solutions such as school safety guards, mental health care, and addressing the culture of violence in the media. The Second Amendment rights of Americans must be preserved."
This is crazy, you already have to pass a background check to own a firearm. This is why I don't understand what the uproar is about. I had to get one when I bought my first shotgun shortly after my 18th birthday and it was at a second rate pawn shop where my grandfather who bought the gun for me KNEW the guy. Still had to get one.
Maybe you oppose the 90's bill making that a requirement, but the debate now is to close loopholes which in the past year alone have been milked by crazies.
Will criminals and lunatics still get their hands on guns? Absolutely, but it might help prevent things like Aurora from happening and it might stop guys like the guy they busted in Manhattan this summer who had bought like 30 assault rifles at gun shows and online wholesale websites and was planning something crazy. It won't stop any of you who can legally buy a gun according to the law (those of you without assault charges) already from buying a gun.
Stop trying to act like a constitution written by a bunch of rich old white slave owning men 250 years ago is black and white. The 1st amendment allows me to say whatever the hell I want but I can't run in an airport and yell "BOMB!"... Along with 1000 other examples (i.e. FCC). Guns will be readily available to every eligible adult for the rest of time in the US, but I seriously doubt the guys who wrote the constitution ever envisioned 20 round clips and AR-15's and ****. Technically CONSTITUTIONALLY an 18 year old should be able to buy a handgun... Yet they can't.
This is why I think the "this will change other constitution and stuff" argument is out the door. I respect all of your opinions, I just don't think you're taking everything into perspective. Anybody who's ever taken a 3000 level political science class at MSU taught by any of the 98% conservative staff knows that nearly every aspect of federal government is unconstitutional, as is Mississippi's Alcoholic Beverage Control and most any agency you can think off without written jurisdiction.
Maybe you oppose the 90's bill making that a requirement, but the debate now is to close loopholes which in the past year alone have been milked by crazies.
Will criminals and lunatics still get their hands on guns? Absolutely, but it might help prevent things like Aurora from happening and it might stop guys like the guy they busted in Manhattan this summer who had bought like 30 assault rifles at gun shows and online wholesale websites and was planning something crazy. It won't stop any of you who can legally buy a gun according to the law (those of you without assault charges) already from buying a gun.
Stop trying to act like a constitution written by a bunch of rich old white slave owning men 250 years ago is black and white. The 1st amendment allows me to say whatever the hell I want but I can't run in an airport and yell "BOMB!"... Along with 1000 other examples (i.e. FCC). Guns will be readily available to every eligible adult for the rest of time in the US, but I seriously doubt the guys who wrote the constitution ever envisioned 20 round clips and AR-15's and ****. Technically CONSTITUTIONALLY an 18 year old should be able to buy a handgun... Yet they can't.
This is why I think the "this will change other constitution and stuff" argument is out the door. I respect all of your opinions, I just don't think you're taking everything into perspective. Anybody who's ever taken a 3000 level political science class at MSU taught by any of the 98% conservative staff knows that nearly every aspect of federal government is unconstitutional, as is Mississippi's Alcoholic Beverage Control and most any agency you can think off without written jurisdiction.
Last edited:
Again, it was a vote on the filibuster, not the actual bill. I guarantee he won't vote for the actual bill.
The bill being presented is extremely different from Obama's proposals. This bill is being proposed by Toomey and Manchin.
Read the definition of "well regulated Militia." What the founders had in mind is the National Guard should be well regulated and well armed. I belong to the NRA, I have several weapons in my house, including a .30-06, two 12 gauge shotguns, and a .222 Hornet rifle. I have never felt threatened by anyone or anything. That included being in Danang, Vietnam. It is amazing what politics of fear has done to our country. A quarter of our country is scared of our own government because it has been demonized by right wing radicals. I'll be glad to register my weapons if asked.
**Yeah its a good thing that Left wingers never demonized the government like all those ultra right wing hippys and protesters in the 60's.**
The question comes down to the meaning of "infringed." ...............................................
Does a background check constitute infringement? Yeah, in some fashion it does, but the degree is the question. So, the Supreme Court will get a chance to decide whether the Framers intended for there to be "zero tolerance" on any infringement, no matter how insignificant, or whether the Framers' intention allows for some level of interference that falls short of thwarting the stated right. Either way, it will be a Constitutional question decided by the Court.
At the end of the day, for those who don't like the 2nd Amendment, there is a process for having the 2nd Amendment, you know, amended. The process is spelled out right there in the Constitution itself. Go read the MFer, why don't you? Hell, that same process would let you abolish that MFer. Instead of passing **** laws that clearly F with history, how about going through the process of amending the Constitution? Come on. What's the hold up? Don't think you can get 75%? Then STFU.
Does a background check constitute infringement? Yeah, in some fashion it does, but the degree is the question. So, the Supreme Court will get a chance to decide whether the Framers intended for there to be "zero tolerance" on any infringement, no matter how insignificant, or whether the Framers' intention allows for some level of interference that falls short of thwarting the stated right. Either way, it will be a Constitutional question decided by the Court.
At the end of the day, for those who don't like the 2nd Amendment, there is a process for having the 2nd Amendment, you know, amended. The process is spelled out right there in the Constitution itself. Go read the MFer, why don't you? Hell, that same process would let you abolish that MFer. Instead of passing **** laws that clearly F with history, how about going through the process of amending the Constitution? Come on. What's the hold up? Don't think you can get 75%? Then STFU.
Hey, Backer, answer this ....................................................................................
Who is it that is "regulating" the "militia" [as you define it] under the 2nd Amendment. Who does the regulating?
And then, after you figure out "who" it is that is doing the regulating, explain to me then why the Framers made sure it was "the people" who maintained the right to keep and bear arms. Be sure and think that all the way through, Sgt. Osiris.
Who is it that is "regulating" the "militia" [as you define it] under the 2nd Amendment. Who does the regulating?
And then, after you figure out "who" it is that is doing the regulating, explain to me then why the Framers made sure it was "the people" who maintained the right to keep and bear arms. Be sure and think that all the way through, Sgt. Osiris.
Last edited:
Doesn't matter how much weaponry you have. Sarah Palin will still kick your *** before you even come close to raping her.
Despite their reputation, Mississippi politicians who make it to WAshington much prefer being loved by the cool crowd Inside the Beltway rather than stand on principle. This is just an incremental grab at the gun rights of Americans, and Roger Wicker really really REALLY wants to get invited to Soirees' with Ben Bradlee and Sally Quinn.
Under Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, which set forth the enumerated powers of Congress, you find the following:
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Think of thie implications of that for a minute.
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Think of thie implications of that for a minute.
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Thomas Jefferson
"The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not be Infringed"
The Second Amendment begins by acknowledging that the need for a "well regulated militia" made it necessary for the Founders to give Congress power over the militia in Article 1 Section 8, and then balances that shift of power by simultaneously guaranteeing that the government will have no authority to disarm the citizenry.
"The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not be Infringed"
The Second Amendment begins by acknowledging that the need for a "well regulated militia" made it necessary for the Founders to give Congress power over the militia in Article 1 Section 8, and then balances that shift of power by simultaneously guaranteeing that the government will have no authority to disarm the citizenry.
Winner winner, Chicken Dinner. He is a nice guy, but
he is not very smart. He has always run on a "I am a conservative" platform. Not knocking that per say, just saying it is all style and no substance. Regardless of his politics, he is no John Stennis/Jim Eastland or even Trent Lott.
PS...Thanks Chip Pickering for totally 17ing up your political career, as you would be here instead of Wicker!@##########
he is not very smart. He has always run on a "I am a conservative" platform. Not knocking that per say, just saying it is all style and no substance. Regardless of his politics, he is no John Stennis/Jim Eastland or even Trent Lott.
PS...Thanks Chip Pickering for totally 17ing up your political career, as you would be here instead of Wicker!@##########
you are a 17ing idiot if you think liberals don't want your .30-06, 12 gauges, and .222 fudd guns. They aren't going after them right now, but they have wet dreams of a world without any kind of guns. Hell, they get on television and admit they want much much more when it comes to taking our gun rights than they are able to get right now. They are in it for the long haul. We can't give an inch.
- Status