Where debating everything under the sun is only the beginning

Yes Jefferson did say that  and may well have meant it SmileyFaze but the trouble with the stand is it is not practiced now.

Until that amendment is struck in it's entirety, & a new Constitutional Amendment is ratified as prescribed in that Constitution (Article V) to replace it

   
• Prompt a congressman to author a replacement;

   
• secure a two-third's majority vote for it, and

   
• get the president to sign it; then,

   
• get three-quarters of the states to adopt it.

what the founders were supposed to be creating  - a democracy

Just this afternoon my local talk show host, Dave Bowman, made the same point: If those who oppose or would limit the 2nd Amendment are serious, their course should be   
  

• Prompt a congressman to author a replacement;

• secure a two-third's majority vote for it, and

• get the president to sign it; then,

• get three-quarters of the states to adopt it

Easy-peasy! But those who'd "reform" American society in so fundamental a way have neither the patience, the means, nor the moral fortitude to accomplish that…

In an attempt to guarantee its citizens’ rights under the Second Amendment, Missouri became the latest of several states in recent years to pass a “nullification” law designed to prevent the enforcement of federal gun control laws within the state’s borders.

The broad-ranging bill passed by the state Senate essentially rejects the federal government’s authority to regulate firearms within the state.

The bill would prohibit state employees from any acts enforcing federal firearms regulations and hold liable for damages any federal employees who attempt to enforce such laws within the state of Missouri.

In addition, the Senate version of the bill refuses future employment by the state of Missouri to any federal employee guilty of contravening the bill’s principles of upholding the Second Amendment............Continued

Is there any reason, anywhere, at any time, why a nine-year-old girl girl should be taught how to use a Uzi?

The bill would prohibit state employees from any acts enforcing federal firearms regulations and hold liable for damages any federal employees who attempt to enforce such laws within the state of Missouri.

So a Federal Marshal arrests a criminal on Federal gun violations, and gets fined or arrested by the state?......

....Missouri’s latest proposal, introduced this past week, would attempt to nullify certain federal gun control regulations from being enforced in the state and subject law enforcement officers to criminal and civil penalties for carrying out such policies......

It's not just with gun laws. With states legalizing marijuana, there's not a real way to keep the Federal prosecutor from doing his job. It's well established by historical and legal precedence that a state cannot really nullify Federal law.

No, Oakdale, it's not advocating "people control" nor stronger Federal government (you must have drunk that night you thought as I was into people control, despite my agitation for increased personal freedom    ) It's just a reality check.

Even with so-called controls a 9-year old girl accidentally kills a gun instructor with a sub-machine gun. You lot will never grow up.

Well, I know why you'd think so: Most of your "preferred outcomes" likely require Federal authority and action

The state of Missouri, which tried to nullify Obamacare, hasn’t had much luck on its own in court.  But it has a new plan: band together with other states to openly defy the feds on gun control.

Well, a preferred outcome is for to actually pay attention to what I'm saying, instead of assigning positions for me. You said I was into "people control" within this very thread, but I have neither the time nor the inclination to read through it again to fill your memory gaps for you

Sanguine, you give the same old song and dance! And, if you're asked where your preferred prescription has been profitably enacted, your perennial reply is: Why, not widely enough! A city, a county, a state are too limiting for sensible regulation. Indeed, a nation may be!
You want control -- both senses apply.

The laws of the land need to be consistent,

[glow=green,2,300]AMENDMENT X[/glow]
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.

Pure form?    You mean like Federalism? The point of subsidiarity is entirely practical…

But pure Federalism would say that a state, let's say California, can indeed outright ban guns and that an otherwise law-abiding citizen can be arrested on the spot for merely having one. Fortunately, this is not the case because states cannot break Federal law.