News That Will Drive You To Drink

Happy Hour News Briefs

Greetings from Possum Hollar!

Missouri state Representative Andrew McDaniel (R) filed a bill that would require everyone in Missourah to own an AR-15, the preferred mass-murder weapon of domestic terrorists everywhere.

“A proposed bill introduced by Missouri Representative Andrew McDaniel would require all Missouri state residents to own an AR-15 rifle.

“House Bill 1108, or the McDaniel Militia Act, proposes that every resident of the state of Missouri “shall own at least one AR-15 rifle.”

“A resident, the language in the proposed bill states, is someone who is “18 years of age or older and under 35 years of age” who is not prohibited by law from possessing a firearm.

“Any person who qualifies as a resident on August 28, 2019, and who does not own an AR-15 shall have one year to purchase an AR-15. Any resident qualifies as a resident after August 28, 2019, and does not own an AR-15 shall purchase an AR-15 no later than one year after qualifying as a resident,” language in the bill states.

So, you know, Possum Hollar’s got that workin’ for it.

This entry was posted in Gundamentalists, Guns! Guns! Guns!. Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to News That Will Drive You To Drink

  1. katty wompus says:

    Missouri. The Shoot-Me State.

    The Tourism Board will love it!

    Liked by 1 person

  2. does he realize that this includes the liberals in the state?

    Probably not.


  3. Lsamsa says:

    This is a joke right?


  4. Jim says:

    Needless to say, this proposed law, if passed, would be overturned instantly even by a conservative state judge.


  5. julesmomcat says:

    How much $$$ has the NRA stuffed into his pockets, to make this happen???


  6. 9thousandfeet says:

    This guy is a fucking whacko, and even if the proposed legislation passes, it will be struck down almost at once. But lunacy like this does highlight something that Dems generally don’t want to talk about realistically.

    It’s gonna be a loooong time before the Dems can take meaningful control of the US Senate if they adopt a national plank which hammers away at the gun control policy thing. And a failure to take back control of the Senate will allow the continued logjamming of almost all desperately needed legislation, regulatory oversight and critically necessary sane Judicial appointments.

    I know progressives and liberals don’t want to hear this shit, but winning the US House and the Presidency is not going to be enough prevent disaster, and the chances of taking control of the Senate with a national plank of gun control proposals which are anything but milquetoast are very very low indeed. Sparsely populated rural states like Idaho and Wyoming have as much throw-weight in the Senate as California and New York, and many rural voters in those places are persuadable with quite a lot of progressive policy proposals. As an example; a neighboring County here in rural Colorado goes 3 to 1 for the GOP every election and hasn’t had a Dem elected official since WW2 at least, but they have built a non-profit hospital and put together what amounts to a single payer healthcare plan for all county residents with a levy on the property taxes—ergo free treatment as needed if you don’t have insurance.
    These people are not morons, nor are they assholes, but gun control is a single issue dealbreaker for them. It shouldn’t be of course, because nobody’s talking about taking anyone’s deer rifle or the pistol you carry in case a bear comes in your tent in a bad mood or when you go to the big city where the crazies live, but the agitprop is strong with this stuff.
    Dems are going to have to make a strategic choice, and choosing wrong will continue to logjam progress.

    Liked by 2 people

    • The problem here, is yeah for a bunch of them, gun control is their dealbreaker, for others it’s abortion, for others it’s gay marriage, for others it’s welfare. Hear that familiar kaThump, kaThump,kaThump? it’s the sound of the D’s bus running over their base again, jettisoning every principle that they think prevents some mythological “single issue conservatives” from magically crossing over and vote for them.

      “Vote for us, we’re Republican-Lite! Less spine, More pander!”

      You’ll note that the GOP never reaches out to our side like that…

      I get that we need to run conservative Dems in conservative places (BELIEVE ME, I do, I live in AZ-2.) and we run the “Big Tent” party versus the “White Bedsheet” party, but this is the tack we’ve taken since I’ve been able to fucking vote and it’s not working, because in modern American politics, one side believes in compromise, the other in conquest.

      Liked by 1 person

  7. Big Bad Bald Bastard says:

    Does he propose buying guns for people who can’t afford them, or will he sell their cars at auction to pay for the guns?

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Pyed says:

    Since many people don’t hunt and few that do wish to hunt with an AR-15, what does Andrew McDaniel (Batshit R Missouri) suggest it be used for — voting?


  9. revzafod says:

    I was a U.S Army officer for 6.5 years, June ’62to Oct ’66 with the 101st Airborne; 2.5 years in the 8th Inf Div in Germany, and a year in Vietnam with the 25th Inf Div. and carried an unloaded .45 pistol. I had to qualify with my weapon every year. The only year I never fired a shot was from May 1967 thru May 1968, while I was in Vietnam.

    Just in case anyone is looking for a definition of irony.


  10. Buttermilk Sky says:

    What about people over 35? They’re supposed to walk around unarmed?


    • tengrain says:

      We’re lumps in the kitty litter, Buttermilk Sky. — TG


    • suedoise2 says:

      Think that could be a typo? If this loon is doing this to maintain or curry favor with the Remington Co. (makers of the AR-15), they wouldn’t be happy to see a huge market chunk thus excluded from his definition of “resident”, would they?


  11. Sirius Lunacy says:

    “A resident, the language in the proposed bill states, is someone who is “18 years of age or older and under 35 years of age” who is not prohibited by law from possessing a firearm.

    I’m just guessing, but is there a law on the books already in Missouri that prohibits Ni… um, African Americans from owning guns?


    • Sirius Lunacy says:

      It just occurred to me that that might be the plan. Once ‘those people’ all have guns it will give the police justification to shoot them.


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: