Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, June 15, 2021

Missouri law enforcement officials no longer have to execute federal gun laws. Missouri Gov. Mike Parson signed a bill Saturday that declares all federal gun laws past, present and future must be invalid in the state.This includes taxing, tracking and registration of weapons.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Great. I can't wait for the next bill that bars MO from accepting any and all federal dollars for any purpose.

I'll bet the yokels in Chreestian county would love that.

#1 | Posted by jpw at 2021-06-15 12:09 PM | Reply

Looks like the politicization of law enforcement to me.


#2 | Posted by LampLighter at 2021-06-15 12:12 PM | Reply

Just like all of ameriakkka, just "selectively".

#3 | Posted by fresno500 at 2021-06-15 12:14 PM | Reply

Oh cool I can buy a fully automatic SMG without having to buy some stupid Federal license.

#4 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-06-15 12:18 PM | Reply

"Looks like the politicization of law enforcement to me."

Because it is.

Law enforcement has their own defaced version of the Murican flag now. In case you hadn't noticed that overt act of politicization.

Oh and they hide their nametags with the same colors they used to deface the flag. In case you hadn't noticed that overt act of politicization.

#5 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-06-15 12:22 PM | Reply

-Looks like the politicization of law enforcement to me.

Law enforcement was first politicized by the Federal Government with the war on drugs.

#6 | Posted by eberly at 2021-06-15 12:33 PM | Reply

Oh cool I can buy a fully automatic SMG without having to buy some stupid Federal license.
#4 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

With the wide open opportunities MO is giving you you choose an SMG?

#7 | Posted by jpw at 2021-06-15 12:50 PM | Reply

this has to pass their legislature still and of course the courts haven't weighed in yet. Someone will sue over the constitutionality of a state overriding a federal law.

#8 | Posted by eberly at 2021-06-15 12:52 PM | Reply

"Law enforcement was first politicized by the Federal Government with the war on drugs."

I wouldn't call that the first. Just another in a long line.

The Pinkerton men who were deputized a century ago to bash in the skulls of stiking workers was overly political, for example.

#9 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-06-15 01:31 PM | Reply

Someone will sue over the constitutionality of a state overriding a federal law.

#8 | POSTED BY EBERLY

Parson signed it.

I'm guessing it won't pass a court challenge but we'll have to see.

#10 | Posted by jpw at 2021-06-15 01:39 PM | Reply

The show me state will be shown a lot of mass shootings and cop killing because of this, is my guess.

America gets dumber and more reactionary every year.

We're too stupid to survive.

#11 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2021-06-15 02:41 PM | Reply

The stupid thing is that this is likely irrelevant.

With the feds still being the law of the land everywhere else there isn't really much in the US you can buy that is illegal by federal law.

You're sure as hell not going to be able to import such items. They'll never clear customs.

I don't think this changes the calculus of mass shootings one bit. It's just hollow theater being offered by empty suits.

#12 | Posted by jpw at 2021-06-15 03:08 PM | Reply

Gun nutz gonna nutter, I guess, it's never the guns it always the victims fault for standing in the way of the bullets.

Go fondle your toys.

#13 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2021-06-15 03:13 PM | Reply

It's really sad how abysmally stupid so many people are.

I posted this because of how absurd it is yet I should go "fondle my toys."

What an idiot.

#14 | Posted by jpw at 2021-06-15 03:17 PM | Reply

Oh cool I can buy a fully automatic SMG without having to buy some stupid Federal license.
#4 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2021-06-15 12:18 PM | FLAG:

$200 saved!

#15 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2021-06-15 03:17 PM | Reply

Funny that Republicans would create a Sanctuary State where the locals don't bother enforcing Fed laws. I wonder whom gave them that idea.

#16 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2021-06-15 03:18 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Funny that Republicans would create a Sanctuary State where the locals don't bother enforcing Fed laws. I wonder whom gave them that idea."

So...do you find the Republicans to be hypocrites? Against Sanctuaries...except when they're for them?

#17 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-06-15 03:21 PM | Reply

"Funny that Republicans would create a Sanctuary State where the locals don't bother enforcing Fed laws. I wonder whom gave them that idea."

Jim Crow?

#18 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-06-15 03:25 PM | Reply

Unwad your panties. The "anti-commondeering doctrine" has been around since the founding. tenthamendmentcenter.com

Funny that Republicans would create a Sanctuary State where the locals don't bother enforcing Fed laws. I wonder whom gave them that idea.

Madison.

"Should an unwarrantable measure of the federal government be unpopular in particular States, which would seldom fail to be the case, or even a warrantable measure be so, which may sometimes be the case, the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand. The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union, the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State; the embarrassment created by legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions, would oppose, in any State, very serious impediments; and were the sentiments of several adjoining States happen to be in Union, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter."
Bottom line,
In effect, the federal government is constitutionally prohibited from requiring states to use their personnel or resources to enforce federal laws or implement federal programs. State and local governments cannot directly block federal agents from enforcing federal laws or implementing federal programs, but they do not have to cooperate with the feds in any way. For instance, a local sheriff cannot block ATF agents from enforcing a federal gun law, but the ATF cannot force the sheriff's office to participate in the enforcement effort.

#19 | Posted by et_al at 2021-06-15 04:14 PM | Reply

Fun Fact: The Second Amendment is a Federal gun law.

#20 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-06-15 06:10 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

So...do you find the Republicans to be hypocrites? Against Sanctuaries...except when they're for them?

#17 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2021-06-15 03:21 PM | FLAG:

I do. I find it as hypocritical as Democrats that are taking the same position. Still, I can't help but applaud Missouri in this case.

#21 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2021-06-15 06:57 PM | Reply

"Still, I can't help but applaud Missouri in this case."

For declaring the Second Amendment and all other Federal gun laws invalid?

Hmmm. I think I'm okay with that too. California should do the same.

#22 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-06-15 07:35 PM | Reply

Law enforcement was first politicized by the Federal Government with the war on drugs.

#6 | Posted by eberly

...by conservatives who admit they were just trying to lock up people who tend to vote for liberal politicians.

Even in the 60s they knew they had to cheat to win.

#23 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2021-06-15 07:53 PM | Reply

As long as missouri puts checkpoints on every road into and out of the state and thoroughly searches every vehicle exiting the state for weapons that are illegal in other states, I'm fine with this.

They wont though, and as always, conservative stupidity will do damage to nearby innocent victims.

#24 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2021-06-15 07:56 PM | Reply

Trump cut federal funds for sanctuary cities. Biden can cut funds to a state.

#25 | Posted by bored at 2021-06-15 08:01 PM | Reply

"Fun Fact: The Second Amendment is a Federal gun law."

Fun Fact: The Second Amendment applies to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment. www.oyez.org

#26 | Posted by et_al at 2021-06-15 08:17 PM | Reply

#26 Not if Missouri can help it!

(And yes I'm aware of the doctrine of Incorporation, even though it doesn't apply to everything.)

#27 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-06-15 08:22 PM | Reply

"Trump cut federal funds for sanctuary cities."

An attempt that failed. www.politifact.com

#28 | Posted by et_al at 2021-06-15 08:22 PM | Reply

St Louis BLM has a gofundme page up looking for donations to buy 50 cal brownings to bring to their marches in case the cops show up.

#29 | Posted by bored at 2021-06-15 09:02 PM | Reply

...50 cal brownings to bring to their marches in case the cops show up.

They've not heard of a sniper rifle?

#30 | Posted by REDIAL at 2021-06-15 09:22 PM | Reply

Does that mean that they can't transport their guns out of State?

#31 | Posted by mikebank at 2021-06-15 09:28 PM | Reply

Missouri, outside of St. Louis and Kansas City is a hole anyways... Go Huskers! :D

#32 | Posted by earthmuse at 2021-06-15 09:34 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

" I do. I find it as hypocritical as Democrats that are taking the same position. Still, I can't help but applaud Missouri in this case."

So did you applaud all the Sanctuary cities at the time? Or is this your first mention?

#33 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-06-15 10:53 PM | Reply

Article 6 section 2

Article VI
Clause 2
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

#34 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2021-06-15 10:56 PM | Reply

#34

Irrelevant in this context. See the "anti-commandeering doctrine" article linked at 19.

#35 | Posted by et_al at 2021-06-16 12:10 AM | Reply

#34
Irrelevant in this context. See the "anti-commandeering doctrine" article linked at 19.

POSTED BY ET_AL AT 2021-06-16 12:10 AM | REPLY

You're full of Bullocks.

www.scotusblog.com

The anti-commandeering doctrine says that the federal government cannot require states or state officials to adopt or enforce federal law. The Supreme Court created the doctrine out of the 10th Amendment and related federalism principles in two cases, New York v. United States in 1992, and Printz v. United States in 1997. But outside the court's rulings in those cases, the doctrine has no basis in constitutional law.

First, the doctrine has no basis in the text and structure of the Constitution. If anything, the text and structure point in the other direction. For example, the supremacy clause makes the Constitution and federal laws supreme over state constitutions and state laws; it also binds state judges to the Constitution and federal law. The oath clause requires state legislators and state executive officers to swear an oath to support the federal Constitution, but doesn't reciprocally require federal officers to swear an oath to support the states.

Other parts of the text specifically commandeer the states in various ways that cut to the heart of their independent sovereignty. For example, the Constitution requires state legislatures to provide for the election of federal representatives in Congress; it requires state executives to deliver fugitives from justice; it requires states to grant full faith and credit to the laws of other states; and it reserves to the states "the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." The federal Constitution also imposes important restrictions on independent state sovereignty, most notably in Article I, Section 10; the privileges and immunities clause of Article IV; and, of course, the Reconstruction Amendments and other civil-rights amendments (all of which succeeded the 10th Amendment).

#36 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2021-06-16 01:02 AM | Reply

Governor HeeHaw doesn't get his name in the national news as much as some others but he just might be the worst governor in the country.

#37 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2021-06-16 01:26 AM | Reply

#36

That opinion fails. www.scotusblog.com

As it has for a long time.

Unwad your panties.

#38 | Posted by et_al at 2021-06-16 04:31 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

Meanwhile... 1/2 of the jobs in the state do not offer insurance. Have all the guns you want! Pay attention to the guns and babies. Ignore the rest.

#39 | Posted by Brennnn at 2021-06-16 08:08 AM | Reply

So did you applaud all the Sanctuary cities at the time?

#33 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2021-06-15 10:53 PM | FLAG:

I'm for Sanctuary States on immigration and drugs. It's a waste of any state and their cities time and resources.

It's also why I laughed at Biden appointing a Houston PD chief for immigration. HPD doesn't enforce that, and the illegals are such a tiny amount of crime they don't see police very often.

#40 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2021-06-16 08:38 AM | Reply

" I'm for Sanctuary States on immigration and drugs. It's a waste of any state and their cities time and resources."

I don't recall your support for Sanctuary cities when a Dem was behind it. Not at all. Have you any links to any support, or is this your first mention?

#41 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-06-16 10:13 AM | Reply

Et_al,

What are the practical effects of this?

Is it simply that state/local LEO won't cooperate with federal agencies? Being in the midwest there's no way this will increase the breadth of available firearms, no? Because they have to go through federally controlled ports to get here?

So is this really just hollow theater?

#42 | Posted by jpw at 2021-06-16 10:38 AM | Reply

So is this really just hollow theater?

Political theater for fund raising purposes. Most political maneuvers are calculated as such.

#43 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2021-06-16 12:29 PM | Reply

I don't want a registry of guns. The way things are headed everyone should start stockpiling ammo. The right wants to force their own version of sharia law on us.

#44 | Posted by byrdman at 2021-06-16 12:59 PM | Reply

I don't recall

#41 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2021-06-16 10:13 AM | FLAG:

If my immigration views are that much on your mind you should get off the Internet.

#45 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2021-06-16 01:08 PM | Reply

Because they have to go through federally controlled ports to get here?

#42 | POSTED BY JPW AT 2021-06-16 10:38 AM | FLAG:

What do you mean by this one? There are hundreds of domestic manufacturers you can buy from. Many of those make "controlled" items like sound suppressors, short barreled rifles, etc, and they can sell direct to an NFA trust you setup.

As for what it means, no idea. One would hope it's something ideal, like not arresting people for Trump's illegal bump stock ban.

#46 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2021-06-16 01:16 PM | Reply

The good news is that more Missourians will be killed by guns, mostly the household that owns them.

#47 | Posted by bored at 2021-06-16 01:43 PM | Reply

What do you mean by this one? There are hundreds of domestic manufacturers you can buy from. Many of those make "controlled" items like sound suppressors, short barreled rifles, etc, and they can sell direct to an NFA trust you setup.

But unless it's made in MO wouldn't it run into problems?

I read this as basically meaning if you're in possession of a class III item without a stamp the local cops won't do anything.

If your house gets raided it will be by federal agents only.

But will a resident of MO be able to import a weapon into the US that's banned? Nope. Won't pass through customs. Will a dealer in MO not run a check and do their due diligence? Probably not, or else they'll lose their license and, likely, business.

#48 | Posted by jpw at 2021-06-16 01:46 PM | Reply

It's like the Governor has never heard of the Supremacy clause. A state can't invalidate ANYTHING federal. Such an empty gesture.

#5 And snoofy, show us on the doll where the thin blue line flag ... . that has been in use for 7 decades ... hurt you.

en.m.wikipedia.org

#49 | Posted by ABH at 2021-06-16 03:03 PM | Reply

#42

What are the practical effects of this?

I don't know. I'm sure there will be some but not much. Missouri firearms law, like most other states, largely mirrors federal firearms law. law.justia.com

Is it simply that state/local LEO won't cooperate with federal agencies?

Pretty much. Imagine the conversation between field level MO state police and ATF officials when a state official that refused to assist ATF last week but this week requests assistance from that ATF official.

#49

Read the thread so you don't look like an idiot.

#50 | Posted by et_al at 2021-06-16 04:28 PM | Reply

#50 I don't know what you think I'm missing. I'm not. Federal agents can enforce federal laws. Local police can NOT. Will they cease cooperating, meh. It's not as often as anyone thinks they are working hand in hand. Unless it's on a task force where the locals have been federally deputized. They can pull all of those guys out, and have very little impact on the enforcement of federal law.

In terms of "invalidating" any federal law? He can't.

#51 | Posted by ABH at 2021-06-16 04:42 PM | Reply

51 | POSTED BY ABH

Maybe they had to say invalidating cos saying that local police won't assist in enforcing federal firearm laws because it sounds like something they've already demonized.

#52 | Posted by Lohocla at 2021-06-16 04:57 PM | Reply

No matter the reason this is a hollow and stupid gesture.

#53 | Posted by ABH at 2021-06-16 05:12 PM | Reply

But unless it's made in MO wouldn't it run into problems?

#48 | POSTED BY JPW AT 2021-06-16 01:46 PM | FLAG:

Most likely. When you buy out of state, you buy from somebody with an FFL and they ship it via UPS to somebody in your state with an FFL.

I think on the Class 3, for most items you would be okay with the locals but not a Destructive Device, those are still illegal. I would not be willing to put that to the test.

#54 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2021-06-16 05:19 PM | Reply

The requirement to ship to an FFL has ZERO stipulation that it applies only for those shipped as interstate commerce. That is a federal law that has ATF jurisdiction regardless of local cooperation or not. Even if it is dropped in the mail from the north end of the state to the southern end, or even across town, ATF can arrest and prosecute for violations. Who cares if the locals cooperate or not, except to save fed man hours?

#55 | Posted by ABH at 2021-06-16 05:35 PM | Reply

"And snoofy, show us on the doll where the thin blue line flag ... . that has been in use for 7 decades ... hurt you."

January 6 showed the world that the Thin Blue Line flag is a traitor's flag.

#56 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-06-16 05:55 PM | Reply

Just because some jerk insurrectionist steals a perfectly good and acceptable symbol, doesn't make it a traitors symbol. The American flag has been held by traitors and used as a shield by the worst offenders. But that doesn't change its meaning.

The thin blue line is a 7 decade old symbol of unity of police. No different than any other professions symbols.

#57 | Posted by ABH at 2021-06-16 05:58 PM | Reply

>The thin blue line is a 7 decade old symbol of unity of police.

Unity of Police?
Why so many people flying it who aren't police then?

Maybe it's been co-opted as a symbol for more than just 'Unity of Police'?

#58 | Posted by schifferbrains at 2021-06-16 06:19 PM | Reply

I'm selling Thin Taupe Line flags if anyone is interested.
It's a symbol of solidarity among drywall installers.
The Sheetrock guys are the thin line separating society from looking at bare studs* and insulation.
Where We Patch One, We Patch All!

*Someone take this.

#59 | Posted by schifferbrains at 2021-06-16 06:28 PM | Reply

"Just because some jerk insurrectionist steals a perfectly good and acceptable symbol, doesn't make it a traitors symbol. The American flag has been held by traitors and used as a shield by the worst offenders. But that doesn't change its meaning."

Dude.

Defacing the flag is in and of itself a symbolic act against the Unites States of America.

Figure out which side you're on. Or are you telling us the American flag no longer stands for your beliefs?

#60 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-06-16 07:33 PM | Reply

The phrase "thin blue line" has been around since 1911 and popularized in 1922.

The flag has been around since 2014.

en.wikipedia.org

#61 | Posted by horstngraben at 2021-06-16 07:55 PM | Reply

I could tolerate the backwards American flag that the Army Rangers or whoever wore. It was dumb, but at least it was still the way an American flag looks when the wind is blowing from left to right.

The thin blue line flag can never be confused with the American flag. It's not supposed to be an American flag. It means something else.

If you choose that flag over the American flag, you're in the wrong country.

You have abandoned your oath.

#62 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-06-16 08:05 PM | Reply

"The flag has been around since 2014."

White Nationalists invented their own version of the American flag, in response to America's first black President.

To make clear President Obama's America is not their America.

#63 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-06-16 08:08 PM | Reply

They're co-opting the American flag.
They are trying to say the true patriots wave a desecrated American flag, along with the battle flag of the Confederate States Of America, who didn't want to be a part of the United States of America.

fk them.

#64 | Posted by schifferbrains at 2021-06-16 08:33 PM | Reply

#63 Yup. The try to mask it with support for LEO, but they proved they really don't care at all about LEO on and after Jan 6.

Its exactly like their disregard for Jesus Christ and masking their hatred and bigotry with Christian religion.

#65 | Posted by horstngraben at 2021-06-16 08:34 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#65
Spot. On.

#66 | Posted by schifferbrains at 2021-06-16 08:38 PM | Reply

Oh no! A guy wearing a greenpeace t short is a serial murderer. Greenpeace and its symbol are completely ruined and it's totally evil!!!

It's ridiculous. The thin blue line, and it's application to a Flag are totally innocuous and symbol of law enforcement unity.

These losers that carry them don't get to define what the symbol means.

#67 | Posted by ABH at 2021-06-16 09:22 PM | Reply

What's ridiculous is claiming you believe in America and then defacing the American flag.

#68 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-06-16 09:34 PM | Reply

"These losers that carry them don't get to define what the symbol means."

They attacked The Capitol while flying that flag.

Own it.

#69 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-06-16 09:35 PM | Reply

Oh please. Quit being such a wuss. The flag can withstand being abrogated into a similar symbol to a different purpose without being the end of the world.

#70 | Posted by ABH at 2021-06-16 09:37 PM | Reply

What's wrong with the American flag?

You tell us.

#71 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-06-16 09:49 PM | Reply

Absolutely nothing.

Just like there isn't anything wrong with the thin blue line putting a blue line on an American flag and using it to spread solidarity among cops.

Or firefighters using a red line for their own purposes, or yellow for medics? Or green for military members ... . And etc ...

I mean you tell me what's the big deal. You tell me why the fringe idiots get to have so much power that they get to be the sole definition of what symbols mean. Why are you giving them the power they crave? They are losers and have no power to change anything.

#72 | Posted by ABH at 2021-06-16 09:53 PM | Reply

I'm willing to grant special dispensation if you just can't march in your Pride Parade without your Rainbow Edition of the American flag. You're proving a point. I get it.

But at the end of the day, police are civil servants of the United States, and they ought to act like it.

Since cops are always "on the job" as it were, they should always be flying their true colors.

And what I'm saying is, they are.

If this if your daily driver flag, you are telling us that you are first and foremost something other than American.

#73 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-06-16 10:01 PM | Reply

I could tolerate the backwards American flag that the Army Rangers or whoever wore.

I think almost every uniform uses that on the right sleeve so it doesn't look like it's "retreating".

I may well be wrong on that.

#74 | Posted by REDIAL at 2021-06-16 10:09 PM | Reply

I don't know a single cop that flies the thin blue line flag over the American flag. Its not an in lieu of, it'sa separate deal. Unity, pride, and camaraderie in their profession. Most professional organizations have a symbol. Electricians, plumbers, etc ... all have a coat of arms, often affixed to a flag and flown at meetings in conjunction with the US flag. Just because the thin blue line is easily recognizable And widespread in its support among non members of law enforcement, doesn't immediately make it evil.

And the traitors from January 6? The ones that beat cops with thin blue line flags? I will never cede them any authority or power over defining a roll of toilet paper. They only get the power we allow them to have. Eff them.

#75 | Posted by ABH at 2021-06-16 10:11 PM | Reply

Is your only quibble that it is an altered American flag? Would it bother you if the flag was only a black background with the?

If so? I can see that. I think it's minor. But I can see it.

#76 | Posted by ABH at 2021-06-16 10:19 PM | Reply

... .,Black background with the line?

#77 | Posted by ABH at 2021-06-16 10:20 PM | Reply

Personally, I don't care much about modifying the American flag, if its respectful. Wearing the flag t-shirt like kid rock is tacky and disrespectful. Some people take it more

If the thin blue line crowd doesn't want their flag or group associated with sedition, white supremacy, and otherwise working to undermine our democracy, they need to renounce these ideals overwhelmingly. Few are, because most believe those ideals more or less.

#78 | Posted by horstngraben at 2021-06-16 11:11 PM | Reply

78. You are assuming facts not in evidence.

What do you think should happen? Every cop on the country that doesn't agree with them should be totally vocal about their politics and their lack of support for what happened? Have you monitored every cops Facebook or other social media pages to see if they haven't done exactly that? Secondly, wouldn't that be a weird issue to single out even if they did speak out? Specifically addressing a few of them carrying police support flags is such a minor issue compared to what they did, I don't think they even need to address it as being stupid. The traitors proved that they held no support of law enforcement by attacking cops ... . That should be obvious to everyone.

#79 | Posted by ABH at 2021-06-17 06:56 AM | Reply

"Unity"

Yeah. Unity with "the traitors from January 6. The ones that beat cops with thin blue line flags."

You really just don't get it.

#80 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-06-17 10:05 AM | Reply

I am in complete agreement with Missouri.

Now lets strip all federal funding from the state.

#81 | Posted by Sycophant at 2021-06-17 10:58 AM | Reply

Sounds like Missouri does not wish to be a part of America.

Good luck on your succession.

#82 | Posted by donnerboy at 2021-06-17 11:51 AM | Reply

Replace guns with pot and most of you would be throwing a party.

#83 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2021-06-17 11:59 AM | Reply

Replace guns with illegal immigrants and it's the Progressives and Libertarians throwing the party.

#84 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2021-06-17 12:00 PM | Reply

Replace guns with pot and most of you would be throwing a party.

#83 | Posted by sitzkrieg

Ever compared the death toll of those two things dum dum?

#85 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2021-06-17 12:12 PM | Reply

"Replace guns with pot and most of you would be throwing a party."

So, wait...

Now you're AGAINST Sanctuary situations?!? Just yesterday, you were for them, supposedly even before a Republican had done it.

Now, it sounds like you were faking prior support, and your reaction changes based on the letter after the name/action.

#86 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-06-17 12:17 PM | Reply

Snoofy. I'm the only one that does get it. That flag is about pride in their chosen profession. Period. Full stop.

Traitors don't get to define what it means.

#87 | Posted by ABH at 2021-06-17 12:33 PM | Reply

I declare Missouri invalid...

See, anyone can do it! :D

#88 | Posted by earthmuse at 2021-06-17 01:21 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

ABH have you considered a career as a Swastika Rehabilitator? Because you're doing the work, right here in this thread. I'm sure they would love to have you onboard.

"That flag is about pride in their chosen profession. Period. Full stop."

No. That's obviously false.

That flag says something about America. Or they wouldn't have chosen to take the American flag, make it black and blue, and then claim it has nothing to do with America.

That flag is for Americans who think they are better than other Americans. It's divisive, on purpose. Just like Trump and Putin.

#89 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-06-17 01:41 PM | Reply

Unlike Florida, it is difficult to come up with a good analogy for Missouri. Missouri, the Myanmar of America. Or Missouri, the New York Jets of the mid-west? Missouri, the Ultima Thule of asteroids? Missouri, the Ralph among Simpsons characters?

#90 | Posted by moder8 at 2021-06-17 01:59 PM | Reply

"Missouri, the Ralph among Simpsons characters"

All boogers taste good, but my boogers taste best!

#91 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-06-17 03:58 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2021 World Readable

Drudge Retort