If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   Colorado sheriff announces that he will no longer enforce laws he doesn't like   (foxnews.com) divider line 462
    More: Dumbass, Colorado, Weld County, John Hickenlooper, Colorado sheriff, El Paso County, undue burden, gun laws, Columbine High School  
•       •       •

15275 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Mar 2013 at 5:40 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



462 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-03-17 03:06:28 PM
No; he said he couldn't enforce this particular law if he wanted to. And he's right. All five of the gun bills are knee-jerk feel-good laws that can't be enforced and wouldn't do any good if they could.
 
2013-03-17 03:12:38 PM
I bet the gun nuts who applaud this would call for him to go to jail if he said "You know, I think I'm just not going to arrest people for possessing pot anymore."
 
2013-03-17 03:15:59 PM
I believe lawmen are supposed to swear to uphold the laws and constitution of the state.

How exactly does one negotiate which conflicts with which?
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-03-17 03:19:43 PM
I want to see him try to interfere with the ATF or FBI if they arrest someone.  I'll bet his cell mates will like his purdy mouth.
 
2013-03-17 03:22:03 PM

Sensei Can You See: No; he said he couldn't enforce this particular law if he wanted to. And he's right. All five of the gun bills are knee-jerk feel-good laws that can't be enforced and wouldn't do any good if they could.


I wonder if Subby read the same article we did?
 
2013-03-17 03:22:14 PM

Sensei Can You See: No; he said he couldn't enforce this particular law if he wanted to. And he's right. All five of the gun bills are knee-jerk feel-good laws that can't be enforced and wouldn't do any good if they could.


How, exactly, is it impossible to enforce background checks and magazine restrictions? We appear to do it just fine in New York State. A guy was arrested last week for knowingly attempting to sell a banned rifle.
 
2013-03-17 03:23:48 PM
A lawman who doesn't follow the law. Well that's ... not so unusual is it.
 
2013-03-17 03:25:36 PM

cman: How exactly does one negotiate which conflicts with which?


They usually let the courts that have proper jurisdiction decide instead of making up whatever shiat they want
 
2013-03-17 03:36:29 PM
Somewhat related to this was a speech I saw on the Colorado version of CSPAN.

The ban on magazines holding more than 15 rounds also (allegedly) includes wording which says something to the effect of "or could easily be converted to hold more than 15 rounds".

The guy pulls a 10-round clip out of his pocket and then pulls out a plastic extender magazine which slid right into it.

If he's right and that language was included in the final version it sounds like that particular law is a bunch of farking bullshiat.

I'm actually tempted to go buy a gun (along with accessories) while I still can. Then again, I suppose I could always drive down to Texas and get one if/when I ever really want/need one.

Or if such laws are passed nationwide, I could always seek out the black market.
 
2013-03-17 03:38:30 PM
Oh, and about Weld County.

WTF do you expect from them?

I believe they already passed legislation banning recreational marijuana sales - and it's a fairly large (geographically speaking) chunk of Colorado.

And it smells like shiat there (literally...lots of feed lots for cattle standing in their own shiat)
 
2013-03-17 03:40:08 PM

edmo: A lawman who doesn't follow the law. Well that's ... not so unusual is it.


I was going to ask, since when do they ever enforce laws which they dont like?
Has a LEO ever written himself a speeding ticket? rolling stop? illegal U-turn? Drunk driving? Arrest themselves for domestic abuse?

bah....
 
2013-03-17 03:40:35 PM
I like it when local officials suddenly decide they get to pick and choose what is right and wrong and what they enforce.

Your job as sheriff is to serve the people, not serve your own politics.
 
2013-03-17 03:47:02 PM

GAT_00: I like it when local officials suddenly decide they get to pick and choose what is right and wrong and what they enforce.

Your job as sheriff is to serve the people, not serve your own politics.


could you citizen arrest the sheriff for not doing his job? you would assume that his oath of office would make it illegal to not do his job, right?
LOL
 
2013-03-17 03:51:02 PM
Meh, law enforcement has always had wide latitude as to how and when then they enforce. Speeding laws for instance how often are they rigidly enforced?
 
2013-03-17 03:53:05 PM

EvilEgg: Meh, law enforcement has always had wide latitude as to how and when then they enforce. Speeding laws for instance how often are they rigidly enforced?


This isn't the same thing as a speeding law.
 
2013-03-17 04:06:23 PM

Happy Hours: Somewhat related to this was a speech I saw on the Colorado version of CSPAN.

The ban on magazines holding more than 15 rounds also (allegedly) includes wording which says something to the effect of "or could easily be converted to hold more than 15 rounds".

The guy pulls a 10-round clip out of his pocket and then pulls out a plastic extender magazine which slid right into it.

If he's right and that language was included in the final version it sounds like that particular law is a bunch of farking bullshiat.

I'm actually tempted to go buy a gun (along with accessories) while I still can. Then again, I suppose I could always drive down to Texas and get one if/when I ever really want/need one.

Or if such laws are passed nationwide, I could always seek out the black market.




The idea of the law is to limit the amount of ammunition. Thus outlawing the extenders makes sense to me.

Why you feel this is unenforcible is beyond me.
 
2013-03-17 04:10:58 PM

cameroncrazy1984: EvilEgg: Meh, law enforcement has always had wide latitude as to how and when then they enforce. Speeding laws for instance how often are they rigidly enforced?

This isn't the same thing as a speeding law.


Because nobody ever dies from traffic accidents?
 
2013-03-17 04:11:07 PM

cameroncrazy1984: EvilEgg: Meh, law enforcement has always had wide latitude as to how and when then they enforce. Speeding laws for instance how often are they rigidly enforced?

This isn't the same thing as a speeding law.


How is this NOT exactly the same thing as not enforcing a speeding law?
Are you actually ok with cops deciding which laws to enforce? With cops playing judge and legislator?
I am not.

This same mind set allows cops to decide who to selectively pull over to enforce minor traffic violations.
Unless you are ok with DWB.
 
2013-03-17 04:16:20 PM

namatad: Are you actually ok with cops deciding which laws to enforce? With cops playing judge and legislator?
I am not.


No, I'm not. But there's a difference between having the discretion to allow someone 5 mph over the speed limit and looking the other way when someone has a 30 round mag when 10 is the limit.
 
2013-03-17 04:36:16 PM

EvilEgg: Meh, law enforcement has always had wide latitude as to how and when then they enforce. Speeding laws for instance how often are they rigidly enforced?


On a practical level, I agree. Police make decisions all the time on what they are going to prioritize busting people for or not. However, given that the Sheriff decided to air his disagreement publicly means he's playing politics, not grumbling about BS from the legislature behind closed doors, like I'm sure he does about ticketing quotas and pot busts.

"Don't ever take sides with anyone against the Family." The cop can yell behind closed doors all he wants about how the law is unenforceable, a waste of resources, etc. but his job is to publicly uphold the laws passed by the legislature, and his public statements undermine the authority of the legislature, which is entirely unacceptable for a man in his position.
 
2013-03-17 05:31:43 PM

Darth_Lukecash: The idea of the law is to limit the amount of ammunition. Thus outlawing the extenders makes sense to me.

Why you feel this is unenforcible is beyond me.


First of all, the law - at least as explained by one guy speaking in the Colorado legislature (sorry, I missed his name) - not only outlaws extenders, but it ALSO outlaws clips which could easily be extended.

Thus that 10-round magazine is also illegal under this law. Perhaps I didn't explain it very well.

I'm no expert on guns and he didn't say it explicitly but he hinted that as a result, the gun it fit in would still be legal but you would never be able to fire it because none of the magazines that fit it would be legal.

Secondly, I'm NOT the one who said this was unenforceable. In fact, if you re-read my post you should be able to detect a slight bias on my part against all things related to Weld County.

I do hope you realize though, that it is pretty much unenforceable until someone gets caught with an illegal magazine and by then it's probably going to be too late. Do any of the states bordering Colorado have a similar limit? Are they even considering it? It would take me about an hour to get to Wyoming and last time I crossed the state line into Wyoming I don't remember seeing any border guards.
 
2013-03-17 05:42:44 PM
So they passed gun legislation AND created a job.
 
2013-03-17 05:43:40 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Sensei Can You See: No; he said he couldn't enforce this particular law if he wanted to. And he's right. All five of the gun bills are knee-jerk feel-good laws that can't be enforced and wouldn't do any good if they could.

How, exactly, is it impossible to enforce background checks and magazine restrictions? We appear to do it just fine in New York State. A guy was arrested last week for knowingly attempting to sell a banned rifle.


A guy, singular.
 
2013-03-17 05:43:43 PM
Colorado is ignoring federal law with its pot laws. It gives precident. Also, he said he couldn't enforce it if he wanted to.
 
2013-03-17 05:45:19 PM

doglover: cameroncrazy1984: Sensei Can You See: No; he said he couldn't enforce this particular law if he wanted to. And he's right. All five of the gun bills are knee-jerk feel-good laws that can't be enforced and wouldn't do any good if they could.

How, exactly, is it impossible to enforce background checks and magazine restrictions? We appear to do it just fine in New York State. A guy was arrested last week for knowingly attempting to sell a banned rifle.

A guy, singular.


Yes. The law was enforced. Which pretty much means the law is not unenforceable, right?
 
2013-03-17 05:45:31 PM
The law has several major issues
1. It is written in such a way as to make 95% of magazines that meet the capacity illegal since they can "easily be converted" this is vague and arbitrary

2. It is a taking, it makes magazines already lawfully purchased illegal thereby reducing their value to zero

Both are Constitutional and practical issues
 
2013-03-17 05:45:59 PM
I fought the law and the law was indifferent
 
2013-03-17 05:46:15 PM
Approves
images.wikia.com
 
2013-03-17 05:46:23 PM
Assuming he is sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution, then this is a no-brainer, cut-and-dried case of where he has an obligation to take the more difficult path and uphold the rights of his fellow citizens over the whims of the totalitarian crackpots in congress.
 
2013-03-17 05:47:38 PM
The law is as effective as any other law in that it will be enforced when evidence permits.
 
2013-03-17 05:47:41 PM

WhoopAssWayne: Assuming he is sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution, then this is a no-brainer, cut-and-dried case of where he has an obligation to take the more difficult path and uphold the rights of his fellow citizens over the whims of the totalitarian crackpots in congress.


Yeah, no it's not. The rights of citizens do not extend to breaking a Constitutional law.
 
2013-03-17 05:49:51 PM
I agree with the sheriff.

People should read whatever's magazines they want!
 
2013-03-17 05:50:01 PM

Happy Hours: Somewhat related to this was a speech I saw on the Colorado version of CSPAN.

The ban on magazines holding more than 15 rounds also (allegedly) includes wording which says something to the effect of "or could easily be converted to hold more than 15 rounds".


Don't go complaining about what is "allegedly" in a bill. Laws are public. It's not a secret. Look it up.

/ This is why we can't have nice things
 
2013-03-17 05:50:23 PM

WhoopAssWayne: Assuming he is sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution, then this is a no-brainer, cut-and-dried case of where he has an obligation to take the more difficult path and uphold the rights of his fellow citizens over the whims of the totalitarian crackpots in congress.


Watch out, we got a badass constitutional law expert over here.
 
2013-03-17 05:51:05 PM

jake_lex: I bet the gun nuts who applaud this would call for him to go to jail if he said "You know, I think I'm just not going to arrest people for possessing pot anymore."


Pot is legal in Colorado idiot.
 
2013-03-17 05:51:22 PM
I like how everyone continues to dodge the obvious issue, mental illness. The reason is because there's not a damn thing anyone can actually do about it, logistically speaking. People will always be farked in the head, you just won't hear that, because it would scare you too much. So instead we have feel-good measures that don't actually solve anything.
 
2013-03-17 05:51:41 PM
I want to be mad at about this...but damn, the moustache on that guy behind him is incredible

a57.foxnews.com
 
2013-03-17 05:52:15 PM
What about being in this country ILLEGALLY is so hard for you to understand! It is against the LAW for them to be here! Look, I don't have a problem with immigrants who follow the law and get here legally. But the law is the law and it should be enforced.
 
2013-03-17 05:52:16 PM

Darth_Lukecash: The idea of the law is to limit the amount of ammunition. Thus outlawing the extenders makes sense to me.


It outlaws magazines that can use the extenders, that means 95% of magazines are illegal, since the can all take extenders and thus they are "easily Converted"

I have +5 extenders for my Glock for use in competition, it takes me about 30 seconds to make a 15 rounder a 20 rounder, this also makes a large number of factory 9mm magazines illegal since they take 17 rounds
 
2013-03-17 05:52:56 PM

Azlefty: 1. It is written in such a way as to make 95% of magazines that meet the capacity illegal since they can "easily be converted" this is vague and arbitrary


Say you have 15-round magazine in a 9mm pistol. How do you "easily" convert that to a larger magazine?
 
2013-03-17 05:53:03 PM

GoSurfing: The reason is because there's not a damn thing anyone can actually do about it, logistically speaking.


Really? Because New York state actually just did something about it, logistically speaking, in the SAFE act.
 
2013-03-17 05:53:28 PM

dukwbutter: jake_lex: I bet the gun nuts who applaud this would call for him to go to jail if he said "You know, I think I'm just not going to arrest people for possessing pot anymore."

Pot is legal in Colorado idiot.


In violation of federal law. Federal law > State law. States nullifying laws led to the civil war.
 
2013-03-17 05:53:36 PM

LarryDan43: What about being in this country ILLEGALLY is so hard for you to understand! It is against the LAW for them to be here! Look, I don't have a problem with immigrants who follow the law and get here legally. But the law is the law and it should be enforced.


Crap, sorry, thought this was about Mexicans.  Anyway, good for him, stupid laws shouldn't be enforced.
 
2013-03-17 05:54:01 PM

LarryDan43: What about being in this country ILLEGALLY is so hard for you to understand! It is against the LAW for them to be here! Look, I don't have a problem with immigrants who follow the law and get here legally. But the law is the law and it should be enforced.


Uhh. What?
 
2013-03-17 05:54:07 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Yeah, no it's not. The rights of citizens do not extend to breaking a Constitutional law.


...okay, I approve of the law, and condemn the dumbass cop who's doing this, but this was the most idiotic thing I've seen yet on this thread, and the trolls have already been threadshiatting on it for a half hour.

/There was a whole group of people that thought the rights of citizens do extend to breaking laws if need be.
//They wrote a document about it that began "WHEN, in the course of human events..."
 
2013-03-17 05:54:24 PM
This sheriff swore to uphold the constitution. There are hundreds of Sheriffs across the nation that are taking the same stand. Gun control is the knee jerk emotional reaction of people that fear their own shadow. These same people are the ones that allowed the TSA to become the monstrosity it is. I personally believe a child is safer with an armed presence than a child that is left in a 'Gun Free (kill) Zone'.

In response to the Feds coming in and taking a sheriff away - It ain't gonna happen. Sheriffs are the ultimate authority in their jurisdiction. It would be the feds that  would get locked up.
 
2013-03-17 05:54:37 PM

LarryDan43: stupid laws shouldn't be enforced.


Unconstitutional laws. This isn't one of them.
 
2013-03-17 05:54:56 PM

jake_lex: I bet the gun nuts who applaud this would call for him to go to jail if he said "You know, I think I'm just not going to arrest people for possessing pot anymore."



Actually, he did just that. A coworker of mine is married to one of his employees.
 
2013-03-17 05:55:10 PM

cameroncrazy1984: GoSurfing: The reason is because there's not a damn thing anyone can actually do about it, logistically speaking.

Really? Because New York state actually just did something about it, logistically speaking, in the SAFE act.


Again dipshiat, all the LAWS in the world, don't solve someone from being mentally ill.
 
2013-03-17 05:55:17 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Yeah, no it's not. The rights of citizens do not extend to breaking a Constitutional law


"Just following orders" because some totalitarian crackpots in the Congress and White House signed off on them is not an excuse for throwing out our basic rights, and that's what the Sheriff here is standing up for. Unlike a lot of other contemporary issues, there's just not a lot of grey area here, and to protest an unconstitutional law, and no doubt paying the price for that disobedience, is a true sign of courage in my view.

And again, separate note, but with a username like that did you attend or graduate Duke or is it something altogether different, just curious.
 
2013-03-17 05:55:50 PM

IlGreven: ..okay, I approve of the law, and condemn the dumbass cop who's doing this, but this was the most idiotic thing I've seen yet on this thread


What part of that was idiotic? Do the rights of citizens extend to breaking laws judged to be Constitutional or not?
 
2013-03-17 05:55:55 PM
Hey, Subby ...

Upholding the Constitution is Job #1 for a Sheriff. Not standing aside to let the citizens of his County get it up the back hole from Libtards who claim to be writing them some laws.

www.glennbeck.com

It must suck to be a flaming marxist in a free nation, but you can always fix that by moving to North Korea.
 
2013-03-17 05:56:19 PM

cameroncrazy1984: GoSurfing: The reason is because there's not a damn thing anyone can actually do about it, logistically speaking.

Really? Because New York state actually just did something about it, logistically speaking, in the SAFE act.


New York != Colorado

Due to bears and mountain lions; Coloradans actually need firearms. Giant mountain kitties think people are pretty tasty.
 
2013-03-17 05:56:43 PM

najay1: Gun control is the knee jerk emotional reaction of people that fear their own shadow


The guys in the suburbs who "need" a gun to drive to the 7-11 for a Slurpee are the frightened emotional ones.
 
2013-03-17 05:56:48 PM

GoSurfing: cameroncrazy1984: GoSurfing: The reason is because there's not a damn thing anyone can actually do about it, logistically speaking.

Really? Because New York state actually just did something about it, logistically speaking, in the SAFE act.

Again dipshiat, all the LAWS in the world, don't solve someone from being mentally ill.


Ooh namecalling really lends strength to your argument. Are you aware that laws can provide funding for the treatment that mentally ill people need? I mean, really, have you thought for more than 3 seconds about the issue and how government works?
 
2013-03-17 05:57:15 PM

Happy Hours: Somewhat related to this was a speech I saw on the Colorado version of CSPAN.

The ban on magazines holding more than 15 rounds also (allegedly) includes wording which says something to the effect of "or could easily be converted to hold more than 15 rounds".

The guy pulls a 10-round clip out of his pocket and then pulls out a plastic extender magazine which slid right into it.

If he's right and that language was included in the final version it sounds like that particular law is a bunch of farking bullshiat.

I'm actually tempted to go buy a gun (along with accessories) while I still can. Then again, I suppose I could always drive down to Texas and get one if/when I ever really want/need one.

Or if such laws are passed nationwide, I could always seek out the black market.


You sound Soft on Crime and a no-good commie hippie!
 
2013-03-17 05:57:51 PM

iheartscotch: cameroncrazy1984: GoSurfing: The reason is because there's not a damn thing anyone can actually do about it, logistically speaking.

Really? Because New York state actually just did something about it, logistically speaking, in the SAFE act.

New York != Colorado

Due to bears and mountain lions; Coloradans actually need firearms. Giant mountain kitties think people are pretty tasty.


Fun fact: The SAFE act has nothing to do with hunting rifles, unless you somehow think that mountain lions are easier to hunt with an AR-15 with a 30 round mag than a Winchester .303.
 
2013-03-17 05:59:14 PM

Clemkadidlefark: Hey, Subby ...

Upholding the Constitution is Job #1 for a Sheriff. Not standing aside to let the citizens of his County get it up the back hole from Libtards who claim to be writing them some laws.

[www.glennbeck.com image 296x300]

It must suck to be a flaming marxist in a free nation, but you can always fix that by moving to North Korea.


No, upholding state and county law is Job #1 for a sherriff.  Are you retarded?
 
2013-03-17 05:59:42 PM

jaytkay: Azlefty: 1. It is written in such a way as to make 95% of magazines that meet the capacity illegal since they can "easily be converted" this is vague and arbitrary

Say you have 15-round magazine in a 9mm pistol. How do you "easily" convert that to a larger magazine?


depending on the style of magazine and pistol, some black (or your choice of color) electrical tape or duct tape would work, with a second magazine.
 
2013-03-17 06:00:17 PM

Happy Hours: Oh, and about Weld County.

WTF do you expect from them?

I believe they already passed legislation banning recreational marijuana sales -


As each county can under the law. Get over it hippie.
 
2013-03-17 06:00:25 PM

cameroncrazy1984: GoSurfing: cameroncrazy1984: GoSurfing: The reason is because there's not a damn thing anyone can actually do about it, logistically speaking.

Really? Because New York state actually just did something about it, logistically speaking, in the SAFE act.

Again dipshiat, all the LAWS in the world, don't solve someone from being mentally ill.

Ooh namecalling really lends strength to your argument. Are you aware that laws can provide funding for the treatment that mentally ill people need? I mean, really, have you thought for more than 3 seconds about the issue and how government works?


My "argument" isn't so much an argument, as it is common sense. Are you aware that some people don't respond to treatment when mentally ill? Are you aware that some people don't SEEK treatment when mentally ill? Are you aware that these people will continue to exist in society, barring some sort of thought crime technology? Are you aware that with the removal of all guns, these mentally ill people can/will act out with other weapons?
 
2013-03-17 06:00:38 PM

cman: I believe lawmen are supposed to swear to uphold the laws and constitution of the state.

How exactly does one negotiate which conflicts with which?


There's this thing called discretion.  An officer doesn't have to pull over everyone that he sees roll through a stop sign, for example.  There are certain exceptions, like family violence, where he must act...but there are many things, including this situation, where discretion is applicable.  Sort of a nullification of the stupidity of the legislature.
 
2013-03-17 06:00:48 PM

iheartscotch: Due to bears and mountain lions; Coloradans actually need firearms. Giant mountain kitties think people are pretty tasty.


Totally just protecting himself against bears and mountain lions:
static.ow.ly

These guys, too. Bears and mountains lions threatened them on a daily basis:
trueslant.com
 
2013-03-17 06:01:19 PM

graeylin: jaytkay: Azlefty: 1. It is written in such a way as to make 95% of magazines that meet the capacity illegal since they can "easily be converted" this is vague and arbitrary

Say you have 15-round magazine in a 9mm pistol. How do you "easily" convert that to a larger magazine?

depending on the style of magazine and pistol, some black (or your choice of color) electrical tape or duct tape would work, with a second magazine.


So about as effective as making sawed off shotguns illegal for the general public.
 
2013-03-17 06:01:43 PM

GoSurfing: My "argument" isn't so much an argument, as it is common sense


Your "common sense" isn't medical science, nor does it take into account that the government can pay for mental health treatments.
 
2013-03-17 06:02:36 PM

GAT_00: I like it when local officials suddenly decide they get to pick and choose what is right and wrong and what they enforce.

Your job as sheriff is to serve the people, not serve your own politics.


You didn't realize that law enforcement has wide discretion?  Do you think that they stop every jay walker or stop sign roller or litterer etc?  They pick and choose what is worth their time on a daily basis.
 
2013-03-17 06:03:24 PM

Silly Jesus: GAT_00: I like it when local officials suddenly decide they get to pick and choose what is right and wrong and what they enforce.

Your job as sheriff is to serve the people, not serve your own politics.

You didn't realize that law enforcement has wide discretion?  Do you think that they stop every jay walker or stop sign roller or litterer etc?  They pick and choose what is worth their time on a daily basis.


That's completely different from "not at all"
 
2013-03-17 06:03:41 PM

namatad: cameroncrazy1984: EvilEgg: Meh, law enforcement has always had wide latitude as to how and when then they enforce. Speeding laws for instance how often are they rigidly enforced?

This isn't the same thing as a speeding law.

How is this NOT exactly the same thing as not enforcing a speeding law?
Are you actually ok with cops deciding which laws to enforce? With cops playing judge and legislator?
I am not.

This same mind set allows cops to decide who to selectively pull over to enforce minor traffic violations.
Unless you are ok with DWB.


You think that cops act on every crime that they see all day long?  They'd never get more than 10 feet from the station.
 
2013-03-17 06:03:52 PM

fusillade762: Watch out, we got a badass constitutional law expert over here.


I'm guessing your con-law experts only come out in the pot threads :-)
 
2013-03-17 06:03:54 PM

cameroncrazy1984: GoSurfing: My "argument" isn't so much an argument, as it is common sense

Your "common sense" isn't medical science, nor does it take into account that the government can pay for mental health treatments.


Let me revisit my post for you, the one you just edited:

Are you aware that some people don't respond to treatment when mentally ill? Are you aware that some people don't SEEK treatment when mentally ill? Are you aware that these people will continue to exist in society, barring some sort of thought crime technology? Are you aware that with the removal of all guns, these mentally ill people can/will act out with other weapons?
 
2013-03-17 06:04:26 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Fun fact: The SAFE act has nothing to do with hunting rifles,


The second amendment has nothing to do with hunting rifles either.
 
2013-03-17 06:04:41 PM
It won't be long until gun owners will have their very own sanctuary cities!
 
2013-03-17 06:04:46 PM

LarryDan43: LarryDan43: What about being in this country ILLEGALLY is so hard for you to understand! It is against the LAW for them to be here! Look, I don't have a problem with immigrants who follow the law and get here legally. But the law is the law and it should be enforced.

Crap, sorry, thought this was about Mexicans.  Anyway, good for him, stupid laws shouldn't be enforced.


You should be ridiculed for your kneejerk reaction.
 
2013-03-17 06:05:31 PM
Weld County Sheriff John Cooke won't enforce new state gun measures expected to be signed into law by Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper, arguing the proposed firearms restrictions give a "false sense of security."

Lawmakers in Colorado on Friday approved a landmark expansion of background checks on firearm purchases. Earlier in the week, Colorado lawmakers approved a 15-round limit on ammunition magazines.


/Good for him. This is a retarded knee jerk response to a semi auto firing douche bag killing a bunch of kids. This new law is pointless, ineffective, and a huge waste of taxpayers money. If a guy is going to go bugshiat and start killing people, what is the difference between a 15 round mag and a 30? You would just carry more 15 round mags and reload more often. This is another stupid ass law that does nothing to address the real problem, which is not fixable. That being spotting someone with mental health issues that might go full retard at any second. Good luck with that. There is NO way to tell this will happen. Some people are farking full bore crazy, and you can't tell until they open fire. Changing a mag limit is like pissing into the wind to put out a 100 acre wildfire. Your pants will just get wet, and you'll look like an idiot.
 
2013-03-17 06:05:54 PM
Nobody would ever need more than 15 rounds for protection?  Right?  I wonder why law enforcement was given an exemption then...oh, wait, this just in, sometimes more than 15 rounds might be needed.
 
2013-03-17 06:06:12 PM

LarryDan43: LarryDan43: What about being in this country ILLEGALLY is so hard for you to understand! It is against the LAW for them to be here! Look, I don't have a problem with immigrants who follow the law and get here legally. But the law is the law and it should be enforced.

Crap, sorry, thought this was about Mexicans.  Anyway, good for him, stupid laws shouldn't be enforced.


Also hypocrisy.
 
2013-03-17 06:06:18 PM

cameroncrazy1984: iheartscotch: cameroncrazy1984: GoSurfing: The reason is because there's not a damn thing anyone can actually do about it, logistically speaking.

Really? Because New York state actually just did something about it, logistically speaking, in the SAFE act.

New York != Colorado

Due to bears and mountain lions; Coloradans actually need firearms. Giant mountain kitties think people are pretty tasty.

Fun fact: The SAFE act has nothing to do with hunting rifles, unless you somehow think that mountain lions are easier to hunt with an AR-15 with a 30 round mag than a Winchester .303.


Funny thing; charging mountain lions are easier to hit if you have a 30 round magazine. Are you hunting mountain lions with a Winchester model 1895 .303 made for the Russian army? Better sell that quickly; as it was made for a military!

/ besides, that has too many rounds the maximum for hunting mountain lions is 4 or 5, I forget which
 
2013-03-17 06:06:28 PM

GoSurfing: re you aware that some people don't SEEK treatment when mentally ill? Are you aware that these people will continue to exist in society, barring some sort of thought crime technology? Are you aware that with the removal of all guns, these mentally ill people can/will act out with other weapons?


Are you aware that there are ways to reduce such events? Jesus, it's like if it can't be 100% stopped you don't want to try.
 
2013-03-17 06:07:04 PM

iheartscotch: Funny thing; charging mountain lions are easier to hit if you have a 30 round magazine.


No they're not. Muzzle climb tends to mess with your aim.
 
2013-03-17 06:07:48 PM

Silly Jesus: Nobody would ever need more than 15 rounds for protection?  Right?  I wonder why law enforcement was given an exemption then...oh, wait, this just in, sometimes more than 15 rounds might be needed.


Since when do law-enforcement officers use firearms for protection only?
 
2013-03-17 06:07:52 PM

jaytkay: iheartscotch: Due to bears and mountain lions; Coloradans actually need firearms. Giant mountain kitties think people are pretty tasty.

Totally just protecting himself against bears and mountain lions:
[static.ow.ly image 286x358]

These guys, too. Bears and mountains lions threatened them on a daily basis:
[trueslant.com image 286x275]


So three mass murderers completely outweigh the 99% of law abiding gun owners in Colorado that need guns to defend themselves?

Your world is a weird one.
 
2013-03-17 06:08:34 PM
Cooke said the proposed firearms transfer requirement would not keep guns out of the hands of criminals, according to the GreeleyTribune.com report.
The sheriff told the news outlet that he and other county sheriffs "won't bother enforcing" the laws


Well, that's a self-fulfilling prophecy if I've ever heard one.
 
2013-03-17 06:08:39 PM

WhoopAssWayne: cameroncrazy1984: Yeah, no it's not. The rights of citizens do not extend to breaking a Constitutional law

"Just following orders" because some totalitarian crackpots in the Congress and White House signed off on them is not an excuse for throwing out our basic rights, and that's what the Sheriff here is standing up for. Unlike a lot of other contemporary issues, there's just not a lot of grey area here, and to protest an unconstitutional law, and no doubt paying the price for that disobedience, is a true sign of courage in my view.

And again, separate note, but with a username like that did you attend or graduate Duke or is it something altogether different, just curious.


You sound like a hippie! No respect for law and order! Back in my day we'd whip you whippersnappers and teach you respect!
 
2013-03-17 06:08:58 PM
Unconstitutional laws should not be enforced.

Every single day that the armed forces do not march on D.C. is another day they are ignoring their oaths.
 
2013-03-17 06:09:02 PM

cameroncrazy1984: iheartscotch: Funny thing; charging mountain lions are easier to hit if you have a 30 round magazine.

No they're not. Muzzle climb tends to mess with your aim.


You obviously know nothing about guns. You don't have to shoot all 30 rounds at <i> once</i>
 
2013-03-17 06:09:38 PM

jaytkay: najay1: Gun control is the knee jerk emotional reaction of people that fear their own shadow

The guys in the suburbs who "need" a gun to drive to the 7-11 for a Slurpee are the frightened emotional ones.


What about the guys who piss their pants in fear that someone headed to 7-Eleven might be exercising his Constitutional rights?
 
2013-03-17 06:10:03 PM

Silly Jesus: Nobody would ever need more than 15 rounds for protection?  Right?  I wonder why law enforcement was given an exemption then...oh, wait, this just in, sometimes more than 15 rounds might be needed.


You must get into a lot of combat situations. That sounds exciting. Tell us all about your experiences.
 
2013-03-17 06:10:09 PM

cman: I believe lawmen are supposed to swear to uphold the laws and constitution of the state.

How exactly does one negotiate which conflicts with which?


Police get to use discretion all the time.  You see this whenever friends and family are let off the hook for whatever they did.
 
2013-03-17 06:10:10 PM

jaytkay: iheartscotch: Due to bears and mountain lions; Coloradans actually need firearms. Giant mountain kitties think people are pretty tasty.

Totally just protecting himself against bears and mountain lions:
[static.ow.ly image 286x358]

These guys, too. Bears and mountains lions threatened them on a daily basis:
[trueslant.com image 286x275]


This guy used fertilizer. Want to ban that too?
encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com
 
2013-03-17 06:10:11 PM
Weld County Sheriff John Cooke won't enforce new state gun measures expected to be signed into law by Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper, arguing the proposed firearms restrictions give a "false sense of security."
I think Sheriff John Cook gives a "false sense of security".
 
2013-03-17 06:10:19 PM
I wonder if the people who think these gun restrictions would do anything constructive have ever been to a free country without gun ownership. I have- and many of them aren't safe. Oh, sure, they'll pull out Britain and try to say Britain is safe. No, it fracking isn't.
Sure, you're unlikely to get shot, but you're likely to be mugged and beaten.  And Britain is a gem compared to most places.
 
2013-03-17 06:10:41 PM

GoSurfing: cameroncrazy1984: iheartscotch: Funny thing; charging mountain lions are easier to hit if you have a 30 round magazine.

No they're not. Muzzle climb tends to mess with your aim.

You obviously know nothing about guns. You don't have to shoot all 30 rounds at <i> once</i>


Then why do you need 30 rounds to "defend against" charging mountain lions?
 
2013-03-17 06:11:16 PM

Happy Hours: Darth_Lukecash: The idea of the law is to limit the amount of ammunition. Thus outlawing the extenders makes sense to me.

Why you feel this is unenforcible is beyond me.

First of all, the law - at least as explained by one guy speaking in the Colorado legislature (sorry, I missed his name) - not only outlaws extenders, but it ALSO outlaws clips which could easily be extended.

Thus that 10-round magazine is also illegal under this law. Perhaps I didn't explain it very well.

I'm no expert on guns and he didn't say it explicitly but he hinted that as a result, the gun it fit in would still be legal but you would never be able to fire it because none of the magazines that fit it would be legal.

Secondly, I'm NOT the one who said this was unenforceable. In fact, if you re-read my post you should be able to detect a slight bias on my part against all things related to Weld County.

I do hope you realize though, that it is pretty much unenforceable until someone gets caught with an illegal magazine and by then it's probably going to be too late. Do any of the states bordering Colorado have a similar limit? Are they even considering it? It would take me about an hour to get to Wyoming and last time I crossed the state line into Wyoming I don't remember seeing any border guards.


The shiatty wording in the laguage of the bill includes "readily converted". It was demonstrated how easily the floorplate of a magazine could be removed and an extender added, thereby making just about every magazine illegal. Mags commonly have removable floorplates to facilitate cleaning. During discussion of the bill, co-author Rhonda Fields said that the question of extenders never came up. If their true goal was to limit the amount of ammunition a magazine can hold, they could have specifically called out extenders. This means that the bill authors are either devastatingly incompetent or actually trying to backdoor some extremely strict gun control. When informed that her bill was poorly written and managed to ban just about every magazine on the state, Fields said ""I'm not envisioning changing that because of a little plate that you can pull out," she said. "I'm hoping that people will just comply with the law."

I don't want to sound like a right-wing gun-clinging nutjob, but seriously folks- this is the sort of due diligence and care that lawmakers are giving an enumerated right? New York rushed so fast to ban everything in sight, they forgot to put in exclusion in for their own mounting-EOTech-optics-backwards police force.
 
2013-03-17 06:11:27 PM

Princess Ryans Knickers: You sound like a hippie! No respect for law and order! Back in my day we'd whip you whippersnappers and teach you respect!


All the hippies rolled up their anti-war, anti-gitmo, and anti-illegal-wiretapping banners and went home the day Obama was sworn in.
 
2013-03-17 06:11:36 PM

jaytkay: Silly Jesus: Nobody would ever need more than 15 rounds for protection?  Right?  I wonder why law enforcement was given an exemption then...oh, wait, this just in, sometimes more than 15 rounds might be needed.

You must get into a lot of combat situations. That sounds exciting. Tell us all about your experiences.


So only those who have needed a gun in the past should be allowed to have one?  You must get into a lot of grueling intellectual contests with 3rd graders.  That sounds exciting.  Tell us about your experiences.
 
2013-03-17 06:12:04 PM

Happy Hours: I'm actually tempted to go buy a gun


The NRA applauds your contribution to their masters' record profits.
 
2013-03-17 06:12:14 PM

jaytkay: Say you have 15-round magazine in a 9mm pistol. How do you "easily" convert that to a larger magazine?


You snap on an extender, which is readily available. Takes a few seconds.

See this video. Around 0:54 the news shows a guy who does it.
 
2013-03-17 06:13:17 PM

ChaoticLimbs: I have- and many of them aren't safe. Oh, sure, they'll pull out Britain and try to say Britain is safe. No, it fracking isn't.
Sure, you're unlikely to get shot, but you're likely to be mugged and beaten.  And Britain is a gem compared to most places.


Oh, really? I guess muggings and beatings don't occur in the US? At all?

I spent a year in England and you have zero idea what you're talking about.
 
2013-03-17 06:13:20 PM

cameroncrazy1984: GoSurfing: re you aware that some people don't SEEK treatment when mentally ill? Are you aware that these people will continue to exist in society, barring some sort of thought crime technology? Are you aware that with the removal of all guns, these mentally ill people can/will act out with other weapons?

Are you aware that there are ways to reduce such events? Jesus, it's like if it can't be 100% stopped you don't want to try.


Point being gun control legislation DOES NOT EQUAL mental health legislation. If it is nutjobs that are committing mass shootings...why don't we try to deal with NUTJOBS FIRST, not legislation that would effect completely sane, law abiding people?

Oh that's right, because it is logistically impossible. It's also impossible to achieve this without violating someone's inalienable rights.
 
2013-03-17 06:13:28 PM

cameroncrazy1984: GoSurfing: re you aware that some people don't SEEK treatment when mentally ill? Are you aware that these people will continue to exist in society, barring some sort of thought crime technology? Are you aware that with the removal of all guns, these mentally ill people can/will act out with other weapons?

Are you aware that there are ways to reduce such events? Jesus, it's like if it can't be 100% stopped you don't want to try.


Ummm, you are making a pretty much identical assertion by going after the minority of gun owners that commit crimes.
 
2013-03-17 06:13:53 PM

GoSurfing: these mentally ill people can/will act out with other weapons?


Like bath tubs. And video games.
 
2013-03-17 06:14:02 PM

WhoopAssWayne: Princess Ryans Knickers: You sound like a hippie! No respect for law and order! Back in my day we'd whip you whippersnappers and teach you respect!

All the hippies rolled up their anti-war, anti-gitmo, and anti-illegal-wiretapping banners and went home the day Obama was sworn in.


You are aware that Code Pink is still active, right?

Oh no wait, of course you aren't.
 
2013-03-17 06:14:07 PM

LarryDan43: LarryDan43: What about being in this country ILLEGALLY is so hard for you to understand! It is against the LAW for them to be here! Look, I don't have a problem with immigrants who follow the law and get here legally. But the law is the law and it should be enforced.

Crap, sorry, thought this was about Mexicans.  Anyway, good for him, stupid laws shouldn't be enforced.


You do know that Obama is the most deportating-est president in history, don't you?  And not by a hair either, he's already deported twice as many people as Bush in half the time.
 
2013-03-17 06:15:23 PM

cameroncrazy1984: GoSurfing: cameroncrazy1984: iheartscotch: Funny thing; charging mountain lions are easier to hit if you have a 30 round magazine.

No they're not. Muzzle climb tends to mess with your aim.

You obviously know nothing about guns. You don't have to shoot all 30 rounds at <i> once</i>

Then why do you need 30 rounds to "defend against" charging mountain lions?


Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean you should ridicule it.
 
2013-03-17 06:15:29 PM

GoSurfing: Point being gun control legislation DOES NOT EQUAL mental health legislation. If it is nutjobs that are committing mass shootings...why don't we try to deal with NUTJOBS FIRST


Why can't we do both? My ENTIRE POINT is that the SAFE act did both. Jesus, do you even know about the gun legislation you are entirely against?
 
2013-03-17 06:16:16 PM

machodonkeywrestler: cameroncrazy1984: GoSurfing: re you aware that some people don't SEEK treatment when mentally ill? Are you aware that these people will continue to exist in society, barring some sort of thought crime technology? Are you aware that with the removal of all guns, these mentally ill people can/will act out with other weapons?

Are you aware that there are ways to reduce such events? Jesus, it's like if it can't be 100% stopped you don't want to try.

Ummm, you are making a pretty much identical assertion by going after the minority of gun owners that commit crimes.


I'm not sure I follow.
 
2013-03-17 06:16:49 PM

Doktor_Zhivago: Clemkadidlefark: Hey, Subby ...

Upholding the Constitution is Job #1 for a Sheriff. Not standing aside to let the citizens of his County get it up the back hole from Libtards who claim to be writing them some laws.

[www.glennbeck.com image 296x300]

It must suck to be a flaming marxist in a free nation, but you can always fix that by moving to North Korea.

No, upholding state and county law is Job #1 for a sherriff.  Are you retarded?


Actually, no. They are an elected police force. Hint: They are often called peace officers. Their job #1 is to keep the peace.
 
2013-03-17 06:17:01 PM

machodonkeywrestler: cameroncrazy1984: GoSurfing: cameroncrazy1984: iheartscotch: Funny thing; charging mountain lions are easier to hit if you have a 30 round magazine.

No they're not. Muzzle climb tends to mess with your aim.

You obviously know nothing about guns. You don't have to shoot all 30 rounds at <i> once</i>

Then why do you need 30 rounds to "defend against" charging mountain lions?

Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean you should ridicule it.


Oh, I understand completely. You haven't explained where I'm incorrect.
 
2013-03-17 06:17:41 PM

brerrabbit: Doktor_Zhivago: Clemkadidlefark: Hey, Subby ...

Upholding the Constitution is Job #1 for a Sheriff. Not standing aside to let the citizens of his County get it up the back hole from Libtards who claim to be writing them some laws.

[www.glennbeck.com image 296x300]

It must suck to be a flaming marxist in a free nation, but you can always fix that by moving to North Korea.

No, upholding state and county law is Job #1 for a sherriff.  Are you retarded?

Actually, no. They are an elected police force. Hint: They are often called peace officers. Their job #1 is to keep the peace.


Why do you think Sheriffs are called "law enforcement officers"?
 
2013-03-17 06:18:02 PM

cameroncrazy1984: GoSurfing: Point being gun control legislation DOES NOT EQUAL mental health legislation. If it is nutjobs that are committing mass shootings...why don't we try to deal with NUTJOBS FIRST

Why can't we do both? My ENTIRE POINT is that the SAFE act did both. Jesus, do you even know about the gun legislation you are entirely against?


Because the former (gun control legislation) effects completely law abiding citizens, with the 2nd amendment of our constitution protecting them, and the latter effects the mentally ill- the group generally blamed for mass shootings and psychotic events.

The problem is, the gun control folks don't have the balls to admit that, because they can't stir up and stigmatize the mentally ill community, and make them out to be scapegoats.
 
2013-03-17 06:18:08 PM

jaytkay: iheartscotch: Due to bears and mountain lions; Coloradans actually need firearms. Giant mountain kitties think people are pretty tasty.

Totally just protecting himself against bears and mountain lions:


These guys, too. Bears and mountains lions threatened them on a daily basis:


Hey, the second two got their guns during the first assault weapons ban; really worked then, huh?

Remember our orange haired friend's dastardly 100 round magazines? They probably saved lives, as they are notoriously unreliable.

On a less snarky note; I feel that the right to choose for yourself is what makes American great. Everything from cheeseburgers to guns. You can choose what is best for you and your family. I feel that every American should own a gun; not because of some paranoid delusion, but, because we have that freedom.

/ I don't have a police record, not even jaywalking; should my rights be infringed apon because some nut job decided to shoot someone? Kind of sounds like punishing everyone for the crimes of a few to me.
 
2013-03-17 06:18:41 PM
How is it impossible to enforce a background check requirement.

You arrest a guy, he's got a gun he shouldn't be able to buy.  You ask him where he got it, he gives you a name.  You send in a deputy with a fake ID that can't pass the check and see if the source of the gun will sell another one.

If this is too complicated for the sheriff, he can just ask the local alcohol control board, since it's pretty damn much the exact thing they do to bust people serving liqour to minors.
 
2013-03-17 06:19:01 PM

GoSurfing: Because the former (gun control legislation) effects completely law abiding citizens,


If there's a constitutional law passed and they violate it, are they law-abiding citizens?
 
2013-03-17 06:19:38 PM

cameroncrazy1984: iheartscotch: Funny thing; charging mountain lions are easier to hit if you have a 30 round magazine.

No they're not. Muzzle climb tends to mess with your aim.


Yeah but that also assumes you're going hunting when attacked. Colorado has plenty of hunters. It also has a lot of people who are hiking in the wilderness. A pistol is a lot lighter than a rifle when you're hiking 10 miles a mile up.
 
2013-03-17 06:19:40 PM

Karac: You arrest a guy, he's got a gun he shouldn't be able to buy.  You ask him where he got it, he gives you a name.  You send in a deputy with a fake ID that can't pass the check and see if the source of the gun will sell another one.


As I showed earlier, this has already happened in NYS under the SAFE law.
 
2013-03-17 06:19:52 PM

vpb: I want to see him try to interfere with the ATF or FBI if they arrest someone.  I'll bet his cell mates will like his purdy mouth.


If the ATF or FBI are enforcing state laws... I hope a lot of people take issue with that.
 
2013-03-17 06:20:24 PM

redmid17: cameroncrazy1984: iheartscotch: Funny thing; charging mountain lions are easier to hit if you have a 30 round magazine.

No they're not. Muzzle climb tends to mess with your aim.

Yeah but that also assumes you're going hunting when attacked. Colorado has plenty of hunters. It also has a lot of people who are hiking in the wilderness. A pistol is a lot lighter than a rifle when you're hiking 10 miles a mile up.


If you need a 30 round mag to hit something at pistol range then you have bigger problems.
 
2013-03-17 06:20:29 PM

heypete: jaytkay: Say you have 15-round magazine in a 9mm pistol. How do you "easily" convert that to a larger magazine?

You snap on an extender, which is readily available. Takes a few seconds.

See this video. Around 0:54 the news shows a guy who does it.


OK, I see, thanks. I did not know about magazine extenders.
 
2013-03-17 06:21:18 PM
fark him, its the cops' job to enforce laws even if they don't like it.

Unless it's immigration or pot laws that I don't like, then they have an obligation to ignore it.
 
2013-03-17 06:21:55 PM

Silly Jesus: jaytkay: Silly Jesus: Nobody would ever need more than 15 rounds for protection?  Right?  I wonder why law enforcement was given an exemption then...oh, wait, this just in, sometimes more than 15 rounds might be needed.

You must get into a lot of combat situations. That sounds exciting. Tell us all about your experiences.

So only those who have needed a gun in the past should be allowed to have one?  You must get into a lot of grueling intellectual contests with 3rd graders.  That sounds exciting.  Tell us about your experiences.


So you have not, but you are likely to get into a lot combat situations.

Tell us all about that. It sounds exciting.
 
2013-03-17 06:23:33 PM

cameroncrazy1984: iheartscotch: Funny thing; charging mountain lions are easier to hit if you have a 30 round magazine.

No they're not. Muzzle climb tends to mess with your aim.


Muzzle climb? In an Ar-15? Have you ever fired a Ar-15? Yes it has some; but, it is very easily controlled in a semi-auto application. Full auto, I might agree about; but that's too expensive for most people.

/ 5.56 really isn't that powerful; it's a really big .22; and the rifle is designed to minimize muzzle climb
 
2013-03-17 06:24:26 PM

iheartscotch: jaytkay: iheartscotch: Due to bears and mountain lions; Coloradans actually need firearms. Giant mountain kitties think people are pretty tasty.

Totally just protecting himself against bears and mountain lions:


These guys, too. Bears and mountains lions threatened them on a daily basis:

Hey, the second two got their guns during the first assault weapons ban; really worked then, huh?

Remember our orange haired friend's dastardly 100 round magazines? They probably saved lives, as they are notoriously unreliable.

On a less snarky note; I feel that the right to choose for yourself is what makes American great. Everything from cheeseburgers to guns. You can choose what is best for you and your family. I feel that every American should own a gun; not because of some paranoid delusion, but, because we have that freedom.

/ I don't have a police record, not even jaywalking; should my rights be infringed apon because some nut job decided to shoot someone? Kind of sounds like punishing everyone for the crimes of a few to me.


As a gun nut, it's your duty to at least ameliorate the damage caused by gun nuts gone (more) crazy. What is your plan? What do you propose? If you guys can't clean up your own mess, others will do it for you.
 
2013-03-17 06:24:38 PM

cameroncrazy1984: You are aware that Code Pink is still active, right?

Oh no wait, of course you aren't.


Code Pink? Yeah, but you forgot about Poland! Hahahah. LoL!

On a side note, I fully support these anti-war efforts, even by the Code Pink, but the fact remains, U.S. liberals pulled up stakes, packed up camp, and went home the minute Obama was elected. They put their ideals and principles aside for a party that doesn't even half-ass represent them anymore, and in doing so, they traded their integrity and lost a lot of credibility in the process. I mean, damn.

So again, what's the big deal, were you accepted or did you attend Duke? I don't want to embarrass you, I won't ask again, just curious given that username.
 
2013-03-17 06:24:40 PM

iheartscotch: Muzzle climb? In an Ar-15? Have you ever fired a Ar-15? Yes it has some;


You know what doesn't have a problem with muzzle climb? A Winchester .303 bolt-action. Accurate out to a longer range, too. And you're more likely to hit what you're shooting at. And drop it on the first shot.
 
2013-03-17 06:25:24 PM

WhoopAssWayne: Code Pink? Yeah, but you forgot about Poland! Hahahah. LoL!


I thought you said "anti-war liberals" packed up and went home. Are you now moving off that point? "Moving the goalposts" as it were?
 
2013-03-17 06:26:28 PM

iheartscotch: dukwbutter: jake_lex: I bet the gun nuts who applaud this would call for him to go to jail if he said "You know, I think I'm just not going to arrest people for possessing pot anymore."

Pot is legal in Colorado idiot.

In violation of federal law. Federal law > State law. States nullifying laws led to the civil war.


Local law enforcement cannot be forced to enforce federal law. There's case law behind this and everything.
 
2013-03-17 06:26:38 PM
I applaud the sheriff for standing up for the Bill of Rights particularly the 2ND Amendment.  What part of "Shall NOT not be infringed" can't the demoshiats (with their globalist agendas) not understand?
 
2013-03-17 06:27:19 PM

GoldenEggs: I applaud the sheriff for standing up for the Bill of Rights particularly the 2ND Amendment.  What part of "Shall NOT not be infringed" can't the demoshiats (with their globalist agendas) not understand?


The part where there are such things as "reasonable restrictions."
 
2013-03-17 06:28:38 PM

cameroncrazy1984: redmid17: cameroncrazy1984: iheartscotch: Funny thing; charging mountain lions are easier to hit if you have a 30 round magazine.

No they're not. Muzzle climb tends to mess with your aim.

Yeah but that also assumes you're going hunting when attacked. Colorado has plenty of hunters. It also has a lot of people who are hiking in the wilderness. A pistol is a lot lighter than a rifle when you're hiking 10 miles a mile up.

If you need a 30 round mag to hit something at pistol range then you have bigger problems.


I wouldn't use a 30 round mag in a pistol since they aren't really too reliable (for my taste). I would appreciate it if they didn't arbitrarily outlaw plenty of guns with a standard magazine capacity higher than 15 (ie Glock 17). Frankly given the accuracy of police under duress and that we're talking about shooting 400 lb bears or 200 lb mountain lions, I'd like as many bullets as I can carry. The problem with magazine size limits is that they are often arbitrary and outlawed by people who don't know what they are writing laws about, as evidenced by the earlier post where the bill's author wasn't aware that her ban could be enforced against every magazine in the state.
 
2013-03-17 06:30:21 PM

cameroncrazy1984: iheartscotch: Muzzle climb? In an Ar-15? Have you ever fired a Ar-15? Yes it has some;

You know what doesn't have a problem with muzzle climb? A Winchester .303 bolt-action. Accurate out to a longer range, too. And you're more likely to hit what you're shooting at. And drop it on the first shot.


You don't really have to worry about long ranges if a bear or mountain is trying to attack you. Just an FYI
 
2013-03-17 06:31:06 PM

cameroncrazy1984: iheartscotch: Muzzle climb? In an Ar-15? Have you ever fired a Ar-15? Yes it has some;

You know what doesn't have a problem with muzzle climb? A Winchester .303 bolt-action. Accurate out to a longer range, too. And you're more likely to hit what you're shooting at. And drop it on the first shot.


This is why cops always carry a large hunting rifles on patrol instead of a pistol that they can grab and shoot immediately.

Having a small, light firearm that is quick on the draw is the most useless thing when you need to react quickly to being physically attacked.

And don't even get me on a higher capacity derp, you have to be an absolute moron if you can't get a killshot on the first squeeze of the trigger. Wild predators move extremely slowly and never hunt in a group larger than one.
 
2013-03-17 06:31:19 PM
Why can't they decide to not enforce the weed laws
 
2013-03-17 06:31:39 PM

redmid17: Frankly given the accuracy of police under duress and that we're talking about shooting 400 lb bears or 200 lb mountain lions, I'd like as many bullets as I can carry.


Why can't you have as many bullets as you can carry in multiple magazines? Why are you carrying a pistol when you are in reasonable danger of seeing a 400 lb bear that probably wouldn't stop when hit by multiple .45 ACP rounds at pistol engagement range?
 
2013-03-17 06:32:00 PM

cameroncrazy1984: machodonkeywrestler: cameroncrazy1984: GoSurfing: cameroncrazy1984: iheartscotch: Funny thing; charging mountain lions are easier to hit if you have a 30 round magazine.

No they're not. Muzzle climb tends to mess with your aim.

You obviously know nothing about guns. You don't have to shoot all 30 rounds at <i> once</i>

Then why do you need 30 rounds to "defend against" charging mountain lions?

Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean you should ridicule it.

Oh, I understand completely. You haven't explained where I'm incorrect.


You haven't explained what basis you have for assuming you know what goes on in the Colorado Mtns, so I guess we're even.
 
2013-03-17 06:32:21 PM

super_grass: This is why cops always carry a large hunting rifles on patrol instead of a pistol that they can grab and shoot immediately.


Cops on patrol are usually attacked by bears in the mountains?
 
2013-03-17 06:33:24 PM

machodonkeywrestler: You haven't explained what basis you have for assuming you know what goes on in the Colorado Mtns, so I guess we're even


I'll take that as you telling me that I'm correct.

I grew up going to Vermont every summer with my grandad. He never took a pistol or an AR-15 out to the mountains with him
 
2013-03-17 06:33:52 PM
FTHL : sheriff announces that he will no longer enforce laws he doesn't like

Please be sodomy laws... Please be sodomy laws... Please be sodomy laws...

*reads TFA*

/ damn
 
2013-03-17 06:36:20 PM

cameroncrazy1984: thought you said "anti-war liberals" packed up and went home.


Yep, rolled up the old tie-dyed banners, scooped up the ashes from the burnt Bush effigies (those peaceful souls), lit some patchouli incense and hit the road. That's exactly what I'm saying. How many of them do you think attended Obama's 40K a plate dinners? That's a lot of patchouli you know.
 
2013-03-17 06:36:38 PM

cameroncrazy1984: machodonkeywrestler: You haven't explained what basis you have for assuming you know what goes on in the Colorado Mtns, so I guess we're even

I'll take that as you telling me that I'm correct.

I grew up going to Vermont every summer with my grandad. He never took a pistol or an AR-15 out to the mountains with him


No, I'm just pointing out that the sphere of occurrences expands beyond your small realm of your experiences. Try not to take a condescending tone with those around you and actually listen to those who know better than you about certain experiences, don't dismiss them offhand like you did upstream.
 
2013-03-17 06:37:18 PM

WhoopAssWayne: cameroncrazy1984: thought you said "anti-war liberals" packed up and went home.

Yep, rolled up the old tie-dyed banners, scooped up the ashes from the burnt Bush effigies (those peaceful souls), lit some patchouli incense and hit the road. That's exactly what I'm saying. How many of them do you think attended Obama's 40K a plate dinners? That's a lot of patchouli you know.


So by "packing up and went home" you actually meant "are still actively protesting"?

That's some weird form of English you're writing, there.
 
2013-03-17 06:37:29 PM
15-round magazine limit and some people are griping about that? Come out to California where people soil themselves with fear at the thought of anything holding more than 10. Or even better, go to New York, where they think you only need 7.
 
2013-03-17 06:37:55 PM

machodonkeywrestler: No, I'm just pointing out that the sphere of occurrences expands beyond your small realm of your experiences. Try not to take a condescending tone with those around you and actually listen to those who know better than you about certain experiences, don't dismiss them offhand like you did upstream.


Oh so now I'm not "wrong," I'm just condescending. I tend to be that way when people make assumptions about me when I'm correct.
 
2013-03-17 06:38:17 PM

cameroncrazy1984: iheartscotch: Muzzle climb? In an Ar-15? Have you ever fired a Ar-15? Yes it has some;

You know what doesn't have a problem with muzzle climb? A Winchester .303 bolt-action. Accurate out to a longer range, too. And you're more likely to hit what you're shooting at. And drop it on the first shot.


It's still a rifle designed for a military; and as such, it's a super baby/puppy killer.

I agree, big bolt action rifles are more accurate and more likely to drop a wild animal on the first shot; but, most (especially .303) were designed for one military or another.

/ My 76 year old mosin could be considered a military assault weapon because it came with a bayonet.
 
2013-03-17 06:38:32 PM

cameroncrazy1984: GoldenEggs: I applaud the sheriff for standing up for the Bill of Rights particularly the 2ND Amendment.  What part of "Shall NOT not be infringed" can't the demoshiats (with their globalist agendas) not understand?

The part where there are such things as "reasonable restrictions."


Reasonable infringements, you mean?
 
2013-03-17 06:38:57 PM

hundreddollarman: 15-round magazine limit and some people are griping about that? Come out to California where people soil themselves with fear at the thought of anything holding more than 10. Or even better, go to New York, where they think you only need 7.


Since the SAFE act, I have not heard 1 store of someone being killed because they only had 7 rounds in the magazine.
 
2013-03-17 06:38:58 PM

jaytkay: OK, I see, thanks. I did not know about magazine extenders.


Yet you came in and calling people "frightened emotional" as if there isn't a legitimate concern over the wording of that law and its implications.

At this point, I just ignore cameroncrazy1984, because he's made his thoughtlessness apparent. You, however, might have a chance to educate yourself on why many of us think laws like this are both unenforceable or overbroad. The background checks is another case - it turns presumption of innocence on its head, as any firearm you own from a private transfer predating the enactment of this law invites scrutiny where you have to prove your innocence. That is, you can be presumed to have illegally acquired it in a transfer until you can somehow prove that the firearm was acquired prior to the enactment of the bill.
 
2013-03-17 06:39:29 PM

GoldenEggs: globalist agendas


How are the black helicopters today? Pretty thick?
 
2013-03-17 06:39:46 PM

cameroncrazy1984: redmid17: Frankly given the accuracy of police under duress and that we're talking about shooting 400 lb bears or 200 lb mountain lions, I'd like as many bullets as I can carry.

Why can't you have as many bullets as you can carry in multiple magazines? Why are you carrying a pistol when you are in reasonable danger of seeing a 400 lb bear that probably wouldn't stop when hit by multiple .45 ACP rounds at pistol engagement range?


If I have to explain this to you, you either have never been hiking, don't own any guns, or are mentally deficient. It's the variability of the situation and, more to the point, there is a very likely possibility that you'd be taken for a poacher if you were carrying around a rifle. Also if humans can survive multiple gun shots wounds and at best you're hoping for a 30% hit rate (like the police), it'd be nice to get more than 3-4 meaningful shots in. Human can cover 21 ft in 1.5 seconds. Pardon me if I find animals with meat hooks for claws and flesh-rending jaws just a bit more dangerous than an unarmed human.
 
2013-03-17 06:40:07 PM

Happy Hours: Somewhat related to this was a speech I saw on the Colorado version of CSPAN.

The ban on magazines holding more than 15 rounds also (allegedly) includes wording which says something to the effect of "or could easily be converted to hold more than 15 rounds".

The guy pulls a 10-round clip out of his pocket and then pulls out a plastic extender magazine which slid right into it.

If he's right and that language was included in the final version it sounds like that particular law is a bunch of farking bullshiat.

I'm actually tempted to go buy a gun (along with accessories) while I still can. Then again, I suppose I could always drive down to Texas and get one if/when I ever really want/need one.

Or if such laws are passed nationwide, I could always seek out the black market.


Nice of you to go rogue just for the sake of being a dick.
 
2013-03-17 06:40:19 PM

cameroncrazy1984: machodonkeywrestler: No, I'm just pointing out that the sphere of occurrences expands beyond your small realm of your experiences. Try not to take a condescending tone with those around you and actually listen to those who know better than you about certain experiences, don't dismiss them offhand like you did upstream.

Oh so now I'm not "wrong," I'm just condescending. I tend to be that way when people make assumptions about me when I'm correct.


I never called you wrong, I just pointed out that you were being condescending. Your second sentence, however, tells me you're just a dick and I am wasting my time.
 
2013-03-17 06:40:35 PM

jigger: cameroncrazy1984: GoldenEggs: I applaud the sheriff for standing up for the Bill of Rights particularly the 2ND Amendment.  What part of "Shall NOT not be infringed" can't the demoshiats (with their globalist agendas) not understand?

The part where there are such things as "reasonable restrictions."

Reasonable infringements, you mean?


Yes. On every amendment. Or nearly so.
 
2013-03-17 06:41:04 PM

Nickster79: I want to be mad at about this...but damn, the moustache on that guy behind him is incredible

[a57.foxnews.com image 660x371]


Is the guy on his left wearing a hat?
 
2013-03-17 06:41:11 PM

jaytkay: Silly Jesus: jaytkay: Silly Jesus: Nobody would ever need more than 15 rounds for protection?  Right?  I wonder why law enforcement was given an exemption then...oh, wait, this just in, sometimes more than 15 rounds might be needed.

You must get into a lot of combat situations. That sounds exciting. Tell us all about your experiences.

So only those who have needed a gun in the past should be allowed to have one?  You must get into a lot of grueling intellectual contests with 3rd graders.  That sounds exciting.  Tell us about your experiences.

So you have not, but you are likely to get into a lot combat situations.

Tell us all about that. It sounds exciting.


How many severe car accidents have you been in?  Do you wear a seat belt?  Did you seek out a vehicle without airbags?  Why is the standard of whether I can have something that you don't like my odds of having to use it in self defense?
 
2013-03-17 06:41:25 PM

redmid17: If I have to explain this to you, you either have never been hiking, don't own any guns, or are mentally deficient.


Oh great, now I'm retarded? Nice argument.
 
2013-03-17 06:41:41 PM

cameroncrazy1984: super_grass: This is why cops always carry a large hunting rifles on patrol instead of a pistol that they can grab and shoot immediately.

Cops on patrol are usually attacked by bears in the mountains?


Naw, mountain lions are much, much slower than human criminals and much easier to shoot.

You have to remember that a wild apex predator does not have the stealth and speed seen in your average city criminal.

They announce their presence loudly, operate in wide open areas free of shrubbery, always during the middle of the day, and only in places where you're guaranteed to be refreshed and alert, never in some backwoods or a hike trail.

That is why speed and portability is not something you need in a firearm used to defend yourself from wild animals. You need a largest heaviest firearm with  low capacity.  It wouldn't make sense otherwise.
 
2013-03-17 06:42:08 PM

GAT_00: I like it when local officials suddenly decide they get to pick and choose what is right and wrong and what they enforce.

Your job as sheriff is to serve the people, not serve your own politics.


Tell us how you feel about Jim Crow laws and all those slavery era laws allowing runaway slaves to be executed.
 
2013-03-17 06:42:12 PM

machodonkeywrestler: cameroncrazy1984: machodonkeywrestler: No, I'm just pointing out that the sphere of occurrences expands beyond your small realm of your experiences. Try not to take a condescending tone with those around you and actually listen to those who know better than you about certain experiences, don't dismiss them offhand like you did upstream.

Oh so now I'm not "wrong," I'm just condescending. I tend to be that way when people make assumptions about me when I'm correct.

I never called you wrong, I just pointed out that you were being condescending. Your second sentence, however, tells me you're just a dick and I am wasting my time.


That's too bad, you could've had a constructive criticism rather than attacking me.
 
2013-03-17 06:42:33 PM
Shall not be infringed... The Sherriff understands correctly... as does the businesses (Magpul for certain) that will be leaving Colorado.
 
2013-03-17 06:43:00 PM

Crewmannumber6: Why can't they decide to not enforce the weed laws


Because there's no right to smoke pot in the Constitution? Not that I disagree with what you're saying, but gun ownership is a far more fundamental right for Americans (as it should be).
 
2013-03-17 06:43:08 PM

cameroncrazy1984: WhoopAssWayne: Assuming he is sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution, then this is a no-brainer, cut-and-dried case of where he has an obligation to take the more difficult path and uphold the rights of his fellow citizens over the whims of the totalitarian crackpots in congress.

Yeah, no it's not. The rights of citizens do not extend to breaking a Constitutional law.


You'd have a point if the law was constitutional.
 
2013-03-17 06:43:10 PM

cameroncrazy1984: redmid17: If I have to explain this to you, you either have never been hiking, don't own any guns, or are mentally deficient.

Oh great, now I'm retarded? Nice argument.


No it could be the other two, and retarded is your word, not mine. You can be an idiot and not be retarded. You don't seem to have much experience with guns or wild animals, so apparently those trips to Vermont didn't do much for you.
 
2013-03-17 06:43:33 PM

Pockafrusta: Shall not be infringed... The Sherriff understands correctly... as does the businesses (Magpul for certain) that will be leaving Colorado.


Oh god, how will they ever cope?
 
2013-03-17 06:43:50 PM

cameroncrazy1984: namatad: Are you actually ok with cops deciding which laws to enforce? With cops playing judge and legislator?
I am not.

No, I'm not. But there's a difference between having the discretion to allow someone 5 mph over the speed limit and looking the other way when someone has a 30 round mag when 10 is the limit.


The difference seems to be just a matter of degree. If they make 11 round mags, just to piss off LEOs, would police look the other way? Probably wouldn't even notice it. However, a 30 round mag looks quite a bit different than a 10 round magazine, much like a person speeding 30 mph over the limit looks quite a bit different than someone going 5 mph over the limit.
 
2013-03-17 06:44:17 PM

pedrop357: cameroncrazy1984: WhoopAssWayne: Assuming he is sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution, then this is a no-brainer, cut-and-dried case of where he has an obligation to take the more difficult path and uphold the rights of his fellow citizens over the whims of the totalitarian crackpots in congress.

Yeah, no it's not. The rights of citizens do not extend to breaking a Constitutional law.

You'd have a point if the law was constitutional.


It is constitutional. Unless you have prior caselaw proving that it isn't. Do you?
 
2013-03-17 06:45:10 PM

Darth_Lukecash: Happy Hours: Somewhat related to this was a speech I saw on the Colorado version of CSPAN.

The ban on magazines holding more than 15 rounds also (allegedly) includes wording which says something to the effect of "or could easily be converted to hold more than 15 rounds".

The guy pulls a 10-round clip out of his pocket and then pulls out a plastic extender magazine which slid right into it.

If he's right and that language was included in the final version it sounds like that particular law is a bunch of farking bullshiat.

I'm actually tempted to go buy a gun (along with accessories) while I still can. Then again, I suppose I could always drive down to Texas and get one if/when I ever really want/need one.

Or if such laws are passed nationwide, I could always seek out the black market.

The idea of the law is to limit the amount of ammunition. Thus outlawing the extenders makes sense to me.

Why you feel this is unenforcible is beyond me.


Um...did you read it? Universal background checks. So, if Joe Snuffy wants to privately sell his .22 long to Jim Snuffy--his cousin who he knows is not a felon, is not mentally instable, and who he knows does not have a RO or any other factor preventing him from owning or having access to firearms, they have to go to the Sheriff and get a background check done (at least as I understand it--could be wrong). I think that may be part of the "unenforceable" issue. Because the sheriff is right: it simply is not possible to ensure that every gun owner wishing to sell every gun marches on down to the sheriff's office with the buyer and does the paperwork, then waits for the check to come back.

Personally, in that situation, I'd ignore the law and sell the gun anyway. "Shall not be infringed" means, literally, "shall not be acted on so as to limit or undermine." Go look up what the word militia meant in 1787--it did not mean "military," as many try to claim it does (important because you need to understand the language of the Constitution as meant and as understood when it was written, not as we use the word today):

 Militia refers to an army or other fighting force that is composed of non-professional fighters; citizens of a nation... as opposed to a professional force of regular soldiers...  In colonial era Anglo-American usage, militia service was distinguished from military service in that the latter was normally a commitment for a fixed period of time of at least a year, for a salary, whereas militia was only to meet a threat, or prepare to meet a threat, for periods of time expected to be short. Militia persons were normally expected to provide their own weapons, equipment, or supplies, although they may later be compensated for losses or expenditures. (wikipedia)

Regulated, in 1787, meant equipped. Not governed.

So yes, this law does violate the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution, which supersedes Colorado's Constitution. So the sheriff and anyone who chooses not to obey it has not done anything illegal--Colorado's Legislature has written and passed an illegal law that should neither be obeyed nor enforced.

If you think it is possible to enforce and get 100% compliance, I've got a really nice property, right on the ocean I'd like to sell you... in North Dakota.
 
2013-03-17 06:45:12 PM

cameroncrazy1984: GoldenEggs: I applaud the sheriff for standing up for the Bill of Rights particularly the 2ND Amendment.  What part of "Shall NOT not be infringed" can't the demoshiats (with their globalist agendas) not understand?

The part where there are such things as "reasonable restrictions."


Of which these are not.
 
2013-03-17 06:45:14 PM

Evil High Priest: iheartscotch: jaytkay: iheartscotch: Due to bears and mountain lions; Coloradans actually need firearms. Giant mountain kitties think people are pretty tasty.

Totally just protecting himself against bears and mountain lions:


These guys, too. Bears and mountains lions threatened them on a daily basis:

Hey, the second two got their guns during the first assault weapons ban; really worked then, huh?

Remember our orange haired friend's dastardly 100 round magazines? They probably saved lives, as they are notoriously unreliable.

On a less snarky note; I feel that the right to choose for yourself is what makes American great. Everything from cheeseburgers to guns. You can choose what is best for you and your family. I feel that every American should own a gun; not because of some paranoid delusion, but, because we have that freedom.

/ I don't have a police record, not even jaywalking; should my rights be infringed apon because some nut job decided to shoot someone? Kind of sounds like punishing everyone for the crimes of a few to me.

As a gun nut, it's your duty to at least ameliorate the damage caused by gun nuts gone (more) crazy. What is your plan? What do you propose? If you guys can't clean up your own mess, others will do it for you.


Ameliorate the damages caused by criminals? Surely! Just as soon as I get a check from the DNC reimbursing me for all the increased expenses acquiring guns and ammo that they caused.
 
2013-03-17 06:46:10 PM

pedrop357: cameroncrazy1984: GoldenEggs: I applaud the sheriff for standing up for the Bill of Rights particularly the 2ND Amendment.  What part of "Shall NOT not be infringed" can't the demoshiats (with their globalist agendas) not understand?

The part where there are such things as "reasonable restrictions."

Of which these are not.


Based on what? New York and California have both had magazine restrictions for years and they have not been shown to be unconstitutional.
 
2013-03-17 06:46:38 PM

LarryDan43: LarryDan43: What about being in this country ILLEGALLY is so hard for you to understand! It is against the LAW for them to be here! Look, I don't have a problem with immigrants who follow the law and get here legally. But the law is the law and it should be enforced.

Crap, sorry, thought this was about Mexicans.  Anyway, good for him, stupid laws shouldn't be enforced.


ohyou.jpg
 
2013-03-17 06:47:10 PM

cameroncrazy1984: machodonkeywrestler: cameroncrazy1984: machodonkeywrestler: No, I'm just pointing out that the sphere of occurrences expands beyond your small realm of your experiences. Try not to take a condescending tone with those around you and actually listen to those who know better than you about certain experiences, don't dismiss them offhand like you did upstream.

Oh so now I'm not "wrong," I'm just condescending. I tend to be that way when people make assumptions about me when I'm correct.

I never called you wrong, I just pointed out that you were being condescending. Your second sentence, however, tells me you're just a dick and I am wasting my time.

That's too bad, you could've had a constructive criticism rather than attacking me.


You're kidding, right? That's what you've been doing this entire thread.
 
2013-03-17 06:48:25 PM

cameroncrazy1984: redmid17: If I have to explain this to you, you either have never been hiking, don't own any guns, or are mentally deficient.

Oh great, now I'm retarded? Nice argument.


Also feel free to rebut the points I brought up.
 
2013-03-17 06:49:02 PM

Azlefty: Darth_Lukecash: The idea of the law is to limit the amount of ammunition. Thus outlawing the extenders makes sense to me.

It outlaws magazines that can use the extenders, that means 95% of magazines are illegal, since the can all take extenders and thus they are "easily Converted"

I have +5 extenders for my Glock for use in competition, it takes me about 30 seconds to make a 15 rounder a 20 rounder, this also makes a large number of factory 9mm magazines illegal since they take 17 rounds


So they all become illegal magazines. Buy or construct your own magazines that are not easily extendible to greater than 15 rounds. There should be a market for them now, right?
 
2013-03-17 06:49:38 PM

cameroncrazy1984: pedrop357: cameroncrazy1984: GoldenEggs: I applaud the sheriff for standing up for the Bill of Rights particularly the 2ND Amendment.  What part of "Shall NOT not be infringed" can't the demoshiats (with their globalist agendas) not understand?

The part where there are such things as "reasonable restrictions."

Of which these are not.

Based on what? New York and California have both had magazine restrictions for years and they have not been shown to be unconstitutional.


THIS

You need to prove something to be unconstitutional before making wild claims.  Wire tapping? Domestic eavesdropping? Extraordinary rendition? All perfectly legal and constitutional because no court has ruled on them yet.
 
2013-03-17 06:49:41 PM

machodonkeywrestler: cameroncrazy1984: machodonkeywrestler: cameroncrazy1984: machodonkeywrestler: No, I'm just pointing out that the sphere of occurrences expands beyond your small realm of your experiences. Try not to take a condescending tone with those around you and actually listen to those who know better than you about certain experiences, don't dismiss them offhand like you did upstream.

Oh so now I'm not "wrong," I'm just condescending. I tend to be that way when people make assumptions about me when I'm correct.

I never called you wrong, I just pointed out that you were being condescending. Your second sentence, however, tells me you're just a dick and I am wasting my time.

That's too bad, you could've had a constructive criticism rather than attacking me.

You're kidding, right? That's what you've been doing this entire thread.


No, I've brought up other alternative ways to bring down a 400lb grizzly than a pistol with a 30 round magazine.
 
2013-03-17 06:50:12 PM

cameroncrazy1984: machodonkeywrestler: cameroncrazy1984: machodonkeywrestler: No, I'm just pointing out that the sphere of occurrences expands beyond your small realm of your experiences. Try not to take a condescending tone with those around you and actually listen to those who know better than you about certain experiences, don't dismiss them offhand like you did upstream.

Oh so now I'm not "wrong," I'm just condescending. I tend to be that way when people make assumptions about me when I'm correct.

I never called you wrong, I just pointed out that you were being condescending. Your second sentence, however, tells me you're just a dick and I am wasting my time.

That's too bad, you could've had a constructive criticism rather than attacking me.


This sentence also tells me you are lying about accepting constructive criticism. You should really take a look at your actions vs what you claim, and find out why you are motivated to act contrarily.
 
2013-03-17 06:50:20 PM

redmid17: cameroncrazy1984: redmid17: If I have to explain this to you, you either have never been hiking, don't own any guns, or are mentally deficient.

Oh great, now I'm retarded? Nice argument.

Also feel free to rebut the points I brought up.


Nah, once you call me retarded because I have a different opinion, it's not worth it. You lost any credibility you had.
 
2013-03-17 06:50:54 PM
Enjoy your term Democrats, I see a lot fewer D's in the list come 2014.
 
2013-03-17 06:51:08 PM

machodonkeywrestler: This sentence also tells me you are lying about accepting constructive criticism. You should really take a look at your actions vs what you claim, and find out why you are motivated to act contrarily.


I'm motivated to act contrarily because it's fun to be when you are so brittle.
 
2013-03-17 06:51:29 PM

cameroncrazy1984: machodonkeywrestler: cameroncrazy1984: machodonkeywrestler: cameroncrazy1984: machodonkeywrestler: No, I'm just pointing out that the sphere of occurrences expands beyond your small realm of your experiences. Try not to take a condescending tone with those around you and actually listen to those who know better than you about certain experiences, don't dismiss them offhand like you did upstream.

Oh so now I'm not "wrong," I'm just condescending. I tend to be that way when people make assumptions about me when I'm correct.

I never called you wrong, I just pointed out that you were being condescending. Your second sentence, however, tells me you're just a dick and I am wasting my time.

That's too bad, you could've had a constructive criticism rather than attacking me.

You're kidding, right? That's what you've been doing this entire thread.

No, I've brought up other alternative ways to bring down a 400lb grizzly than a pistol with a 30 round magazine.


You mentioned a couple of guns, which is in no way describing how to take down a Grizzly.
 
2013-03-17 06:51:44 PM

pedrop357: Enjoy your term Democrats, I see a lot fewer D's in the list come 2014.


Oh, really? Because a majority of Americans support universal background checks. I'm not seeing how this could lead to Democrats losing seats.
 
2013-03-17 06:51:46 PM

GoSurfing: cameroncrazy1984: GoSurfing: The reason is because there's not a damn thing anyone can actually do about it, logistically speaking.

Really? Because New York state actually just did something about it, logistically speaking, in the SAFE act.

Again dipshiat, all the LAWS in the world, don't solve someone from being mentally ill.


So what about someone being mentally ill? Are you claiming that all cases of mass murderers that use guns are done by mentally ill people? I doubt that to be the case.
 
2013-03-17 06:51:47 PM

cameroncrazy1984: namatad: Are you actually ok with cops deciding which laws to enforce? With cops playing judge and legislator?
I am not.

No, I'm not. But there's a difference between having the discretion to allow someone 5 mph over the speed limit and looking the other way when someone has a 30 round mag when 10 is the limit.


What's the big deal? Get 3 10 round mags.
 
2013-03-17 06:52:10 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Based on what? New York and California have both had magazine restrictions for years and they have not been shown to be unconstitutional.


Just because they haven't been shown to be unconstitutional doesn't mean they're reasonable, a good idea, or good public policy.
 
2013-03-17 06:52:32 PM

machodonkeywrestler: You mentioned a couple of guns, which is in no way describing how to take down a Grizzly.


You're telling me that a Winchester .303 is not an alternative method of taking down a grizzly (or mountain lion) that doesn't require a 30 round magazine?
 
2013-03-17 06:52:45 PM

cameroncrazy1984: machodonkeywrestler: cameroncrazy1984: machodonkeywrestler: cameroncrazy1984: machodonkeywrestler: No, I'm just pointing out that the sphere of occurrences expands beyond your small realm of your experiences. Try not to take a condescending tone with those around you and actually listen to those who know better than you about certain experiences, don't dismiss them offhand like you did upstream.

Oh so now I'm not "wrong," I'm just condescending. I tend to be that way when people make assumptions about me when I'm correct.

I never called you wrong, I just pointed out that you were being condescending. Your second sentence, however, tells me you're just a dick and I am wasting my time.

That's too bad, you could've had a constructive criticism rather than attacking me.

You're kidding, right? That's what you've been doing this entire thread.

No, I've brought up other alternative ways to bring down a 400lb grizzly than a pistol with a 30 round magazine.


Which is exactly what people were arguing: there are only 400lb bears out there, and the ONLY way to off them is with a 30 round assault clip.
 
2013-03-17 06:52:56 PM

cameroncrazy1984: So by "packing up and went home" you actually meant "are still actively protesting"?


No, I mean packing up, toeing the party line, and sacrificing their integrity. When Obama was elected, liberals stopped protesting. They proved all of their previous protests were just hatred for one man, not any kind of concern about war, the people affected overseas, or our own troops. When the possibility of embarrassing the other side went away, so did they. They cared only about making a political point - same as with this Gun Rights grab.

(here is at least one empirical measurement, independent of my individual observations and opinions at least - not like you're capable of change.jpg or anything, but here it is)

Google Trends - War Protests, US - 2004-Present
 
2013-03-17 06:53:10 PM

cameroncrazy1984: machodonkeywrestler: This sentence also tells me you are lying about accepting constructive criticism. You should really take a look at your actions vs what you claim, and find out why you are motivated to act contrarily.

I'm motivated to act contrarily because it's fun to be when you are so brittle.


Not brittle, just doing this for your sake. You've got to be a miserable person to get off on your "perceived" angst you have caused for others.
 
2013-03-17 06:53:24 PM

heypete: cameroncrazy1984: Based on what? New York and California have both had magazine restrictions for years and they have not been shown to be unconstitutional.

Just because they haven't been shown to be unconstitutional doesn't mean they're reasonable, a good idea, or good public policy.


And yet, many legislatures have made it into the law and polls have shown support for it so...yeah, I kind of think it does.
 
2013-03-17 06:53:33 PM

cameroncrazy1984: machodonkeywrestler: cameroncrazy1984: machodonkeywrestler: cameroncrazy1984: machodonkeywrestler: No, I'm just pointing out that the sphere of occurrences expands beyond your small realm of your experiences. Try not to take a condescending tone with those around you and actually listen to those who know better than you about certain experiences, don't dismiss them offhand like you did upstream.

Oh so now I'm not "wrong," I'm just condescending. I tend to be that way when people make assumptions about me when I'm correct.

I never called you wrong, I just pointed out that you were being condescending. Your second sentence, however, tells me you're just a dick and I am wasting my time.

That's too bad, you could've had a constructive criticism rather than attacking me.

You're kidding, right? That's what you've been doing this entire thread.

No, I've brought up other alternative ways to bring down a 400lb grizzly than a pistol with a 30 round magazine.


a lever action hunting rifle - impractical to hike around with (weight, length), likely to have you taken as a poacher, impractical to defend from a charging wild animal (slower reload). The only advantages to a hunting rifle are the long range accuracy and stopping power. Long range accuracy means shiat all when the animal is close and charging. Stopping power is great but considering accuracy in high stress situations is around 30% for police and getting off 3 shots is a dicey proposition (tueller drill), it's a pretty dumb piece of advice you're giving.
 
2013-03-17 06:53:59 PM

Silly Jesus: jaytkay: Silly Jesus: jaytkay: Silly Jesus: Nobody would ever need more than 15 rounds for protection?  Right?  I wonder why law enforcement was given an exemption then...oh, wait, this just in, sometimes more than 15 rounds might be needed.

You must get into a lot of combat situations. That sounds exciting. Tell us all about your experiences.

So only those who have needed a gun in the past should be allowed to have one?  You must get into a lot of grueling intellectual contests with 3rd graders.  That sounds exciting.  Tell us about your experiences.

So you have not, but you are likely to get into a lot combat situations.

Tell us all about that. It sounds exciting.

How many severe car accidents have you been in?  Do you wear a seat belt?  Did you seek out a vehicle without airbags?  Why is the standard of whether I can have something that you don't like my odds of having to use it in self defense?


Why are you so shy about your combat training and the dangerous circles you move in?

You really should tell us all about those things. I never get exposed to manly feats and skills the way you do.
 
2013-03-17 06:54:00 PM

super_grass: Which is exactly what people were arguing: there are only 400lb bears out there, and the ONLY way to off them is with a 30 round assault clip.


No, they were saying it was a  better way. Which it quite obviously isn't.
 
2013-03-17 06:54:43 PM

machodonkeywrestler: cameroncrazy1984: machodonkeywrestler: This sentence also tells me you are lying about accepting constructive criticism. You should really take a look at your actions vs what you claim, and find out why you are motivated to act contrarily.

I'm motivated to act contrarily because it's fun to be when you are so brittle.

Not brittle, just doing this for your sake. You've got to be a miserable person to get off on your "perceived" angst you have caused for others.


You've never heard of tweaking brittle people for fun? It's a great time. I don't know why you think it must be miserable. Plus it helps when I'm making good points.
 
2013-03-17 06:55:31 PM

cameroncrazy1984: redmid17: cameroncrazy1984: redmid17: If I have to explain this to you, you either have never been hiking, don't own any guns, or are mentally deficient.

Oh great, now I'm retarded? Nice argument.

Also feel free to rebut the points I brought up.

Nah, once you call me retarded because I have a different opinion, it's not worth it. You lost any credibility you had.


You have zero and I didn't call you a retard. Once again, that was your word. I opined that it was a possibility you were an idiot. Keep farking that chicken though.
 
2013-03-17 06:56:07 PM

cameroncrazy1984: machodonkeywrestler: cameroncrazy1984: machodonkeywrestler: This sentence also tells me you are lying about accepting constructive criticism. You should really take a look at your actions vs what you claim, and find out why you are motivated to act contrarily.

I'm motivated to act contrarily because it's fun to be when you are so brittle.

Not brittle, just doing this for your sake. You've got to be a miserable person to get off on your "perceived" angst you have caused for others.

You've never heard of tweaking brittle people for fun? It's a great time. I don't know why you think it must be miserable. Plus it helps when I'm making good points.


You have yet to actually make a good point.
 
2013-03-17 06:56:39 PM

redmid17: impractical to hike around with (weight, length),


Really? You've never hiked with a rifle on your back? It's not bad. 

r

redmid17:
likely to have you taken as a poacher


If the area you are in has a high likelihood of an animal attack, why would the first assumption be poaching?

redmid17: The only advantages to a hunting rifle are the long range accuracy and stopping power.


And how would this not help against a large-animal?
 
2013-03-17 06:57:14 PM

redmid17: I opined that it was a possibility you were an idiot


And you thought this was a good idea...why?
 
2013-03-17 06:57:24 PM

redmid17: cameroncrazy1984: machodonkeywrestler: cameroncrazy1984: machodonkeywrestler: cameroncrazy1984: machodonkeywrestler: No, I'm just pointing out that the sphere of occurrences expands beyond your small realm of your experiences. Try not to take a condescending tone with those around you and actually listen to those who know better than you about certain experiences, don't dismiss them offhand like you did upstream.

Oh so now I'm not "wrong," I'm just condescending. I tend to be that way when people make assumptions about me when I'm correct.

I never called you wrong, I just pointed out that you were being condescending. Your second sentence, however, tells me you're just a dick and I am wasting my time.

That's too bad, you could've had a constructive criticism rather than attacking me.

You're kidding, right? That's what you've been doing this entire thread.

No, I've brought up other alternative ways to bring down a 400lb grizzly than a pistol with a 30 round magazine.

a lever action hunting rifle - impractical to hike around with (weight, length), likely to have you taken as a poacher, impractical to defend from a charging wild animal (slower reload). The only advantages to a hunting rifle are the long range accuracy and stopping power. Long range accuracy means shiat all when the animal is close and charging. Stopping power is great but considering accuracy in high stress situations is around 30% for police and getting off 3 shots is a dicey proposition (tueller drill), it's a pretty dumb piece of advice you're giving.


This.

One is a hunting rifle, one is a self-defense pistol.

Gun grabbers keep saying that gun owners like to act out on rambo fantasies where they use guns in unrealistic fashion.  Well guess what, thinking that a hunting rifle should be used for self-defense in a pinch is exactly that.

Rifles are heavy and slow, but they compensate with long-range accuracy.  That's not something that you'd want when a bobcat is jumping at you. That shiat works in CAWADOODY, not in real life.
 
2013-03-17 06:57:30 PM
Although I disagree with these assholes' methods, I do have to agree that these bills sound hastily cobbled together to "protect the children" and are really nothing more than a bandaid on a festering gangrenous wound. That does not mean refusing to obey they law you are sworn to enforce is a good thing.
 
2013-03-17 06:57:54 PM

redmid17: You have yet to actually make a good point.


I have, you just have a different opinion of what a "good point" is. I.e. no point that I make will be good enough because you already believe that I'm an idiot.
 
2013-03-17 06:58:29 PM

cameroncrazy1984: namatad: Are you actually ok with cops deciding which laws to enforce? With cops playing judge and legislator?
I am not.

No, I'm not. But there's a difference between having the discretion to allow someone 5 mph over the speed limit and looking the other way when someone has a 30 round mag when 10 is the limit.


no there isnt
none at all

because that same discretion is used to pull the black guy over when he is 5 miles over the limit and let that sweet little white lady go at 10 miles over the limit.
LEOs have proven continuously that when they are allowed to use their discretion, that they are biased and corrupt about it.

hey buddy, for $20 I wont enforce this law ...
 
2013-03-17 06:58:37 PM

super_grass: That's not something that you'd want when a bobcat is jumping at you. That shiat works in CAWADOODY, not in real life.


I've never used a hunting rifle in Call of Duty, but I have used one in the mountains of Vermont.
 
2013-03-17 07:00:08 PM

cameroncrazy1984: redmid17: impractical to hike around with (weight, length),

Really? You've never hiked with a rifle on your back? It's not bad.  r

redmid17: likely to have you taken as a poacher

If the area you are in has a high likelihood of an animal attack, why would the first assumption be poaching?

redmid17: The only advantages to a hunting rifle are the long range accuracy and stopping power.

And how would this not help against a large-animal?


1) Yes I have hiked with a rifle on my back. However I was going hunting at a fairly remote area. People who are going hiking try not to carry more than they have to.
2) Because hikers don't carry rifles. They carry bear mace or a handgun.
3) It would, but you keep conveniently ignoring the additional points I'm bringing up. Even trained police officers only hit their target 30% of the time with a semi-auto handgun. Animals will close the distance between you and the much more quickly than a human, which can cover 21 ft in 1.5 seconds (for the 9th time). Getting off 3 accurate shots with a lever action rifle in 2-3 seconds is pretty much an impossibility, especially if it's slung over your back.
 
2013-03-17 07:00:41 PM
Don't live there so why have I heard of this county prior  .  .  .  seems they did something like this that grabbed attention previously.

This is brilliantly stupid.
The problem is even bigger than this is stupid
 
2013-03-17 07:00:52 PM

cameroncrazy1984: redmid17: I opined that it was a possibility you were an idiot

And you thought this was a good idea...why?


Because you keep typing when it's clear you have no demonstrable knowledge of the topic at hand, particularly hiking, hunting, or guns for self-defense usage.
 
2013-03-17 07:01:31 PM

cameroncrazy1984: super_grass: Which is exactly what people were arguing: there are only 400lb bears out there, and the ONLY way to off them is with a 30 round assault clip.

No, they were saying it was a  better way. Which it quite obviously isn't.


Well then, Mr. Firearm expert.  Would you care to explain why a pistol with quick shots, a small profile, and low weight is somehow less useful than a large, clumsy rifle for fending off speedy predators at close range?
 
2013-03-17 07:01:36 PM

cameroncrazy1984: redmid17: You have yet to actually make a good point.

I have, you just have a different opinion of what a "good point" is. I.e. no point that I make will be good enough because you already believe that I'm an idiot.


No there was a 33% chance you were an idiot. It's just as likely you have no idea what it's like to actually be outdoors or how to use guns, your summers in Vermont aside.
 
2013-03-17 07:02:59 PM

redmid17: cameroncrazy1984: redmid17: I opined that it was a possibility you were an idiot

And you thought this was a good idea...why?

Because you keep typing when it's clear you have no demonstrable knowledge of the topic at hand, particularly hiking, hunting, or guns for self-defense usage.


No, you just want to think I don't, because it makes it easier for you to disagree with me when I'm correct.
 
2013-03-17 07:03:01 PM

super_grass: Gun grabbers keep saying


People are taking guns from you? That sounds terrible! When? Who?
 
2013-03-17 07:03:34 PM
I'm a gun nut's worst enemy: A gun-owning, gun-using liberal.
 
2013-03-17 07:04:00 PM

cameroncrazy1984: And yet, many legislatures have made it into the law and polls have shown support for it so...yeah, I kind of think it does.


There's a lot of things that legislatures have enacted and polls have shown support for over the years. That doesn't necessarily mean that they're good ideas, good public policy, or reasonable. There's quite a few examples of really bad things that have been popular and enshrined in law.

Of course, not everything that's enacted into law and popular is a bad thing. I'm simply saying that just because something's the law and popular doesn't necessarily imply it's a good thing.
 
2013-03-17 07:04:34 PM

cameroncrazy1984: redmid17: cameroncrazy1984: redmid17: I opined that it was a possibility you were an idiot

And you thought this was a good idea...why?

Because you keep typing when it's clear you have no demonstrable knowledge of the topic at hand, particularly hiking, hunting, or guns for self-defense usage.

No, you just want to think I don't, because it makes it easier for you to disagree with me when I'm correct.


Then *please* actually come up with a rebuttal. You have barely typed out anything to dispute anything I'm saying. You just keep trumpeting that you're right.
 
2013-03-17 07:04:57 PM

redmid17: It's just as likely you have no idea what it's like to actually be outdoors or how to use guns,


Given that I have both A) been hunting and B) own a gun, it's just as likely that I'm not the idiot here. Because I'm not the one making the assumptions about my opponent.
 
2013-03-17 07:05:25 PM

cameroncrazy1984: super_grass: That's not something that you'd want when a bobcat is jumping at you. That shiat works in CAWADOODY, not in real life.

I've never used a hunting rifle in Call of Duty, but I have used one in the mountains of Vermont.


Clearly, your hunting trips in northern New England makes you an authority in defending yourself against animal attacks in Colorado.

Aside from the location and circumstance of your experiences, they are completely applicable and analogous to what we're talking about.
 
2013-03-17 07:05:32 PM

redmid17: Then *please* actually come up with a rebuttal. You have barely typed out anything to dispute anything I'm saying. You just keep trumpeting that you're right


Look, if you're not going to read or believe my responses to you, that's fine. I'm not going to repeat them for you.
 
2013-03-17 07:05:54 PM

cameroncrazy1984: redmid17: It's just as likely you have no idea what it's like to actually be outdoors or how to use guns,

Given that I have both A) been hunting and B) own a gun, it's just as likely that I'm not the idiot here. Because I'm not the one making the assumptions about my opponent.


Well you haven't learned much then. You asked why someone would be taken for a poacher in an area which might be dangerous because of wildlife while carrying a hunting rifle. Seriously that is a dumb comment.
 
2013-03-17 07:06:14 PM

cameroncrazy1984: I'm a gun nut's worst enemy: A gun-owning, gun-using liberal.


No, you're just a farking moron.
 
2013-03-17 07:06:24 PM

EvilRacistNaziFascist: Crewmannumber6: Why can't they decide to not enforce the weed laws

Because there's no right to smoke pot in the Constitution? Not that I disagree with what you're saying, but gun ownership is a far more fundamental right for Americans (as it should be).


um actually the right to smoke pot IS in the constitution

9th The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

see right there
just because it does not SAY "it is legal to smoke pot", does not make illegal to smoke pot

better yet,

10th The Tenth Amendment states the Constitution's principle of federalism by providing that powers not granted to the federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States or the people.

the right to smoke pot is retained by the people
unless the states ban it ...


HOW do we know this? well the feds had to amend the constitution to ban alcohol.
THEY should have had to amend it to ban pot, but they weaseled their way around the constitution by abusing the commerce clause.

this same weaseling makes it illegal for farmers to grow wheat for home use.
insane but true
 
2013-03-17 07:06:28 PM

WhoopAssWayne: cameroncrazy1984: So by "packing up and went home" you actually meant "are still actively protesting"?

No, I mean packing up, toeing the party line, and sacrificing their integrity. When Obama was elected, liberals stopped protesting. They proved all of their previous protests were just hatred for one man, not any kind of concern about war, the people affected overseas, or our own troops. When the possibility of embarrassing the other side went away, so did they. They cared only about making a political point - same as with this Gun Rights grab.

(here is at least one empirical measurement, independent of my individual observations and opinions at least - not like you're capable of change.jpg or anything, but here it is)

Google Trends - War Protests, US - 2004-Present


We aren't stopping our protests against wars. Of the two wars, one against Afghanistan and one against Iraq, the Iraq War is the more egregious of the two because it really was against a peaceful country with no ties to 9/11 or Al Qaeda or the Taliban. Afghanistan, one could argue, was where Bin Laden was hiding out, at least for a while, so a war against Afghanistan in the attempt to capture or kill Bin Laden could be massaged into a reasonable rationale.  But almost all of us anti-war people opposed the Iraq war stringently and the Afghanistan war less so.

But make no mistake: we oppose all wars, even now with the drone strikes, the sustaining of the fighting in Afghanistan and any other incursions into any other countries. We were happy that the US was not militarily involved in the wars in Libya or the Arab Spring in Egypt, Yemen and other ME countries. We're not thrilled that we may have supplied arms or advisors (hints of Vietnam there) to those hot spots, but we're happy that we did not put US soldiers in harms way in those theaters of operation.

So no, it's not about the man (Bush). It's all about the policy. We're not happy that we still have a military presence in Afghanistan. But we do see it winding down and we were glad when we pulled out of Iraq. If you read various left wing sites, you will note a large number of posts opposing the use of drones and any sort of military action anywhere around the world. Very few liberals cheer what Obama is doing, militarily.
 
2013-03-17 07:06:38 PM

cameroncrazy1984: redmid17: Then *please* actually come up with a rebuttal. You have barely typed out anything to dispute anything I'm saying. You just keep trumpeting that you're right

Look, if you're not going to read or believe my responses to you, that's fine. I'm not going to repeat them for you.


I've read them. They make little sense and have no bearing on my points. You're not bringing up anything relevant.
 
2013-03-17 07:06:40 PM

super_grass: Clearly, your hunting trips in northern New England makes you an authority in defending yourself against animal attacks in Colorado.


Because there are no animals in Vermont at all.
 
2013-03-17 07:06:49 PM

cameroncrazy1984: I'm a gun nut's worst enemy: A gun-owning, gun-using liberal.


Maybe you've already said it in this thread or other threads, but why do you own a gun? What type of gun?
 
2013-03-17 07:07:08 PM

jaytkay: super_grass: Gun grabbers keep saying

People are taking guns from you? That sounds terrible! When? Who?


Do you not follow the news?
 
2013-03-17 07:07:20 PM

redmid17: You asked why someone would be taken for a poacher in an area which might be dangerous because of wildlife while carrying a hunting rifle. Seriously that is a dumb comment.


Do you really believe that a game warden is going to cite you for being a poacher just for carrying a hunting rifle out in the wilderness?
 
2013-03-17 07:07:31 PM

cameroncrazy1984: super_grass: Clearly, your hunting trips in northern New England makes you an authority in defending yourself against animal attacks in Colorado.

Because there are no animals in Vermont at all.


It's moments like this that I love.  Two trolls turning on each other.
 
2013-03-17 07:07:38 PM

iheartscotch: Colorado is ignoring federal law with its pot laws. It gives precident. Also, he said he couldn't enforce it if he wanted to.


How is Colorado "ignoring federal law with its pot laws"? (or more correctly its lack of laws making possession of small amounts illegal )

I don't think you quite understand how laws work. It is NOT illegal under Colorado law to possess small amounts of pot. So what? It's still illegal under federal law. If the feds want to come bust me for a half ounce of pot, let them. The city police, the county sheriff and the state police aren't going to give a shiat though.

Have at it feds! Come bust me. I'm an end user, not a grower or a distributor. What's that? I'm not worth your time? You expected local law enforcement to arrest me? Ha Ha!

For as long as I can remember, pot laws have been used as a means to bust people cops didn't like. I remember being pulled over in farking Texas one time for a broken headlight. I didn't even know the headlight was out and by the time I realized I hadn't closed the ashtray where I had a pipe in plain view I was talking to a cop through my driver's side window while another cop was shining his flashlight all over my car on the passenger side. I don't think the cops were blind. I'm sure they saw the pipe and I did have pot in the car. They didn't say a word about the paraphernalia, They didn't even write me a ticket for the headlight. They did run my license, saw I had no record and IGNORED state law.

Now, if I had been black with a criminal history, things might have been different.

It's a tool for them to selectively enforce laws to harass certain people.
 
2013-03-17 07:08:07 PM

WhoopAssWayne: cameroncrazy1984: I'm a gun nut's worst enemy: A gun-owning, gun-using liberal.

Maybe you've already said it in this thread or other threads, but why do you own a gun? What type of gun?


I own a gun because my grandfather got me into shooting his Colt .45 when I was 11.
 
2013-03-17 07:08:09 PM

jaytkay: People are taking guns from you? That sounds terrible! When? Who?


While I admit that there's no real proposals to physically come and take guns from people, several laws that have been proposed or enacted by some states would have that effect eventually.

For example, the Colorado proposal about magazines prohibits the transfer of such magazines, even after the death of the owner. They would have to be turned in and destroyed. Same thing with restrictions on certain types of firearms: sure, you can keep what you own but as soon as you die the gun has to be destroyed as it cannot be legally transferred.

Not even privately-owned machine guns, which are extremely tightly regulated, have such provisions.
 
2013-03-17 07:09:20 PM

ThisIsntMe: What's the big deal? Get 3 10 round mags.


Even better, since it apparently isn't a "big deal" either way, just keep your 30 round magazine and ignore a foolish law.

I think many people need to be reminded that, in the absence of tyranny, rights are granted by the people to their government rather than vice-versa; this includes the right to use defensive force, which originates with the people and is delegated by them to the police, military, etc. Since the right to self- defence originates with the people -- and is really one of the most basic human rights there is, being vital to the continuity of an individual's existence -- civilian gun ownership is the hallmark of a free people; and this is especially the case since the government cannot or will not protect individuals in every situation.
 
2013-03-17 07:09:52 PM

heypete: For example, the Colorado proposal about magazines prohibits the transfer of such magazines, even after the death of the owner. They would have to be turned in and destroyed. Same thing with restrictions on certain types of firearms: sure, you can keep what you own but as soon as you die the gun has to be destroyed as it cannot be legally transferred.


So the dead guy should keep his gun? Why does he need it? He's dead. He's not having anything confiscated.
 
2013-03-17 07:10:04 PM
www.determinismsucks.net
 
2013-03-17 07:10:57 PM

cameroncrazy1984: redmid17: You asked why someone would be taken for a poacher in an area which might be dangerous because of wildlife while carrying a hunting rifle. Seriously that is a dumb comment.

Do you really believe that a game warden is going to cite you for being a poacher just for carrying a hunting rifle out in the wilderness?


No but why bring up the chance at all. At best, he's going to roll his eyes and tell you to put it back in your car. At worst, yes he is going to take you back to the station to try and vet your story. No game warden is going to do the same for someone with a pistol.

Also here's a great story about shooting a bear in the Denali national park. Note he used a pistol, not a rifle.

http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2010/05/grizzly-bear-shot-and-k il led-hikers-denali-national-park-and-preserve5943
 
2013-03-17 07:10:59 PM
So before I go, I want to say that what I've learned from this thread is that bears in Colorado have a superpower that requires a 30 round magazine to take down while bears in Vermont are just regular old bears.
 
2013-03-17 07:11:04 PM

cameroncrazy1984: I'm a gun nut's worst enemy: A gun-owning, gun-using liberal.


Kindly define "gun nut" in a way that is more meaningful than "someone who is more interested in guns and/or the rights of gun owners than I am".
 
2013-03-17 07:11:12 PM

cameroncrazy1984: super_grass: Clearly, your hunting trips in northern New England makes you an authority in defending yourself against animal attacks in Colorado.

Because there are no animals in Vermont at all.


I understand your point.

As a shark attack survival expert, I can attest to your feelings of frustration whenever people try to dismiss my expertise when I tell them that I gained my expertise from that one time when I went bass fishing.
 
2013-03-17 07:11:14 PM

cameroncrazy1984: heypete: For example, the Colorado proposal about magazines prohibits the transfer of such magazines, even after the death of the owner. They would have to be turned in and destroyed. Same thing with restrictions on certain types of firearms: sure, you can keep what you own but as soon as you die the gun has to be destroyed as it cannot be legally transferred.

So the dead guy should keep his gun? Why does he need it? He's dead. He's not having anything confiscated.


His heirs are though.

What other property are you in favor of reverting to the state upon a person's a death?
 
2013-03-17 07:12:25 PM

cameroncrazy1984: pedrop357: Enjoy your term Democrats, I see a lot fewer D's in the list come 2014.

Oh, really? Because a majority of Americans support universal background checks. I'm not seeing how this could lead to Democrats losing seats.


Actually, I believe that statistic is incorrect because those reporting it do not understand the term. Universal background checks means every sale, all the time, even private sales and inheritances. For instance--when my father died, I was given his old .22 revolver. Under Universal background checks, even though I already possess a concealed carry license, I would have to march down to the police station, pay them, and submit to yet another background check because he lived in a state that did not reciprocate with the state that my concealed carry license was issued in. If I wished to sell my .40 pistol to my roommate, who has passed as many background checks as I--if not more--we would have to march down to the police station, pay the fee, and wait for the check to come back before I could sell her the pistol.

What 91% of Americans support is mandatory background checks on gun show sales. I support that as well--it's been a loophole for years that I feel should be closed. Any idiot, even a mentally ill person or felon can walk into gun shows in all but about 6 states and purchase a rifle or shotgun (and in some states, a handgun). 82% support making the illegal sale of guns a federal crime (the statistics are 85% and 73%, respectively, for gun control opponents, so guess what? We so-called "gun nuts" agree that criminals, mentally ill, and others who fall under those guidelines should not have access to firearms!).  http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/03/some-gun-measures-broadl y -backed-but-the-politics-show-an-even-split/

The 90% support universal background checks statistic you quote is misleading, and I won't give the source I suspect, but I will state that it is one of the main anti-gun publications leading the charge. Just today they published a story about how a concealed carry holder acted exactly as a responsible gun owner and concealed carry holder should...then posted gallery slide show of 'gun vigilantes' starting with George Zimmerman immediately below that as if they couldn't stand the idea that gun owners could be responsible non-mass murderers.
 
2013-03-17 07:12:27 PM

redmid17: cameroncrazy1984: redmid17: You asked why someone would be taken for a poacher in an area which might be dangerous because of wildlife while carrying a hunting rifle. Seriously that is a dumb comment.

Do you really believe that a game warden is going to cite you for being a poacher just for carrying a hunting rifle out in the wilderness?

No but why bring up the chance at all. At best, he's going to roll his eyes and tell you to put it back in your car. At worst, yes he is going to take you back to the station to try and vet your story. No game warden is going to do the same for someone with a pistol.

Also here's a great story about shooting a bear in the Denali national park. Note he used a pistol, not a rifle.

http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2010/05/grizzly-bear-shot-and-k il led-hikers-denali-national-park-and-preserve5943


FTFA:

"he fired approximately nine rounds in its general direction"

Clearly he needed more than a 10 round magazine.
 
2013-03-17 07:13:02 PM

super_grass: cameroncrazy1984: super_grass: Clearly, your hunting trips in northern New England makes you an authority in defending yourself against animal attacks in Colorado.

Because there are no animals in Vermont at all.

I understand your point.

As a shark attack survival expert, I can attest to your feelings of frustration whenever people try to dismiss my expertise when I tell them that I gained my expertise from that one time when I went bass fishing.


Is it your position that there are no bears at all in Vermont?
 
2013-03-17 07:13:31 PM

Darth_Lukecash: Happy Hours: Somewhat related to this was a speech I saw on the Colorado version of CSPAN.

The ban on magazines holding more than 15 rounds also (allegedly) includes wording which says something to the effect of "or could easily be converted to hold more than 15 rounds".

The guy pulls a 10-round clip out of his pocket and then pulls out a plastic extender magazine which slid right into it.

If he's right and that language was included in the final version it sounds like that particular law is a bunch of farking bullshiat.

I'm actually tempted to go buy a gun (along with accessories) while I still can. Then again, I suppose I could always drive down to Texas and get one if/when I ever really want/need one.

Or if such laws are passed nationwide, I could always seek out the black market.

The idea of the law is to limit the amount of ammunition. Thus outlawing the extenders makes sense to me.

Why you feel this is unenforcible is beyond me.


It outlaws all mags with removable butt plates.  Basically all handgun magazines.

But go ahead with your uneducated gun hate.
 
2013-03-17 07:13:57 PM

super_grass: cameroncrazy1984: super_grass: That's not something that you'd want when a bobcat is jumping at you. That shiat works in CAWADOODY, not in real life.

I've never used a hunting rifle in Call of Duty, but I have used one in the mountains of Vermont.

Clearly, your hunting trips in northern New England makes you an authority in defending yourself against animal attacks in Colorado.

Aside from the location and circumstance of your experiences, they are completely applicable and analogous to what we're talking about.


Well I've spent time in Colorado. Every summer as a kid, I lived in a mountain town of 700 people, and spent my days hiking alone around the mountains. For the past 20 years, I usually spend a week every fall camping and fishing around the state.

I've never felt a need to carry a gun. But I'm not a frightened bedwetter by nature.

You may be different.
 
2013-03-17 07:14:03 PM

cameroncrazy1984: I own a gun because my grandfather got me into shooting his Colt .45 when I was 11.


Whoah, that's a quite a gun for an 11 year old, he obviously trusted you quite a bit. Good times I'm sure.
 
2013-03-17 07:15:53 PM

jaytkay: super_grass: cameroncrazy1984: super_grass: That's not something that you'd want when a bobcat is jumping at you. That shiat works in CAWADOODY, not in real life.

I've never used a hunting rifle in Call of Duty, but I have used one in the mountains of Vermont.

Clearly, your hunting trips in northern New England makes you an authority in defending yourself against animal attacks in Colorado.

Aside from the location and circumstance of your experiences, they are completely applicable and analogous to what we're talking about.

Well I've spent time in Colorado. Every summer as a kid, I lived in a mountain town of 700 people, and spent my days hiking alone around the mountains. For the past 20 years, I usually spend a week every fall camping and fishing around the state.

I've never felt a need to carry a gun. But I'm not a frightened bedwetter by nature.

You may be different.


Holy crap.  A troll dogpile.
 
2013-03-17 07:16:37 PM
Sheriff needs to be removed from office right now. Sheriffs do not make law, they enforce the law as the state says.  If he cannot do his job remove him. I am tired of sheriffs thinking they make the law.
 
2013-03-17 07:16:53 PM

jaytkay: super_grass: Gun grabbers keep saying

People are taking guns from you? That sounds terrible! When? Who?


Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the currently tabled federal firearms legislation (and some the similar legislation pending in states such as New York and California) outlaw a large number of currently legal weapons without a provision for grandfathering? This does amount to one's guns being "grabbed", as the only alternatives are to surrender the weapon in question or be magically transformed overnight into a horrible criminal deserving several years in PMITA prison.
 
2013-03-17 07:18:03 PM

cameroncrazy1984: redmid17: cameroncrazy1984: redmid17: You asked why someone would be taken for a poacher in an area which might be dangerous because of wildlife while carrying a hunting rifle. Seriously that is a dumb comment.

Do you really believe that a game warden is going to cite you for being a poacher just for carrying a hunting rifle out in the wilderness?

No but why bring up the chance at all. At best, he's going to roll his eyes and tell you to put it back in your car. At worst, yes he is going to take you back to the station to try and vet your story. No game warden is going to do the same for someone with a pistol.

Also here's a great story about shooting a bear in the Denali national park. Note he used a pistol, not a rifle.

http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2010/05/grizzly-bear-shot-and-k il led-hikers-denali-national-park-and-preserve5943

FTFA:

"he fired approximately nine rounds in its general direction"

Clearly he needed more than a 10 round magazine.


Yeah and it could have kept charging. Your own SAFE law in NY would have prevented a magazine with that much capacity. Also the gun he was carrying only holds 8 rounds plus the one in the chamber, maybe one more. There's a very good chance he emptied the magazine into it. He'd have emptied it with a larger one too I'm sure.
 
2013-03-17 07:18:10 PM

jaytkay: Happy Hours: Somewhat related to this was a speech I saw on the Colorado version of CSPAN.

The ban on magazines holding more than 15 rounds also (allegedly) includes wording which says something to the effect of "or could easily be converted to hold more than 15 rounds".

Don't go complaining about what is "allegedly" in a bill. Laws are public. It's not a secret. Look it up.

/ This is why we can't have nice things


I could make a full time job of reading bills which are being debated in the legislature. it's not worth my time. This law hasn't even been signed into law yet although I suspect it will be. How do I even know the law might limit magazine size? After all, I've only heard about it in the press. Maybe it's all bullshiat and they're actually mandating that all magazines hold a minimum of 15 rounds.

The devil is always in the details and TV coverage loves to sum it up in phrases, not even complete sentences. I'm probably more aware of what's going on just by watching Colorado's version of CSPAN than 90% of the other residents of this state.

What should I do? Should I have sent desperate e-mails and snail mail letters (via next day delivery)? Should I have called their offices and maybe tried to show up in person? Should I do that for every piece of legislation that comes up for debate?

Well, maybe I should.

But why don't you look up the law and show me that I'm wrong? Oh, you can't be bothered to do that either, can you? Why not? You don't live in Colorado?

Okay. I'll accept that as an answer. Will you do it when it comes to your state? They'll bring up Aurora and Columbine and point out that Colorado already passed such a law, so why shouldn't we?
 
2013-03-17 07:18:23 PM

cameroncrazy1984: super_grass: cameroncrazy1984: super_grass: Clearly, your hunting trips in northern New England makes you an authority in defending yourself against animal attacks in Colorado.

Because there are no animals in Vermont at all.

I understand your point.

As a shark attack survival expert, I can attest to your feelings of frustration whenever people try to dismiss my expertise when I tell them that I gained my expertise from that one time when I went bass fishing.

Is it your position that there are no bears at all in Vermont?


That's what I tried to tell them too - that there are sharks in the water, so having been near the water with fishing equipment makes me a shark defense expert.

But then they tell me some bullshiat about how fishing/hunting is different from defending yourself from a wild animal and I just start calling them names and putting words in their mouths from there.
 
2013-03-17 07:18:23 PM

WhoopAssWayne: cameroncrazy1984: I own a gun because my grandfather got me into shooting his Colt .45 when I was 11.

Whoah, that's a quite a gun for an 11 year old, he obviously trusted you quite a bit. Good times I'm sure.


He worked me up from a Ruger .22 to a couple of 9mms (he has a beautiful Australian SAS Browning and Walther P38). He has some great historical pieces including a broom-handle Mauser 96. Basically, my grandfather has a weakness for WWII pistols.
 
2013-03-17 07:19:55 PM

cameroncrazy1984: WhoopAssWayne: cameroncrazy1984: I own a gun because my grandfather got me into shooting his Colt .45 when I was 11.

Whoah, that's a quite a gun for an 11 year old, he obviously trusted you quite a bit. Good times I'm sure.

He worked me up from a Ruger .22 to a couple of 9mms (he has a beautiful Australian SAS Browning and Walther P38). He has some great historical pieces including a broom-handle Mauser 96. Basically, my grandfather has a weakness for WWII pistols.


That's not a weakness. That's awesome.
 
2013-03-17 07:20:13 PM

redmid17: There's a very good chance he emptied the magazine into it.


No, there's a very good chance he emptied the magazine into "its general direction" according to the article.
 
2013-03-17 07:20:46 PM

namatad: cameroncrazy1984: EvilEgg: Meh, law enforcement has always had wide latitude as to how and when then they enforce. Speeding laws for instance how often are they rigidly enforced?

This isn't the same thing as a speeding law.

How is this NOT exactly the same thing as not enforcing a speeding law?
Are you actually ok with cops deciding which laws to enforce? With cops playing judge and legislator?
I am not.

This same mind set allows cops to decide who to selectively pull over to enforce minor traffic violations.
Unless you are ok with DWB.


Just to clarify, I expect you to vocally attack all the people who go off on 'just following orders' hyperbole in other cop threads, right?

So when a fed enforces a pot law you will support the individual LEOs and only complain about voters and legislators.
 
2013-03-17 07:23:15 PM

jaytkay: super_grass: cameroncrazy1984: super_grass: That's not something that you'd want when a bobcat is jumping at you. That shiat works in CAWADOODY, not in real life.

I've never used a hunting rifle in Call of Duty, but I have used one in the mountains of Vermont.

Clearly, your hunting trips in northern New England makes you an authority in defending yourself against animal attacks in Colorado.

Aside from the location and circumstance of your experiences, they are completely applicable and analogous to what we're talking about.

Well I've spent time in Colorado. Every summer as a kid, I lived in a mountain town of 700 people, and spent my days hiking alone around the mountains. For the past 20 years, I usually spend a week every fall camping and fishing around the state.

I've never felt a need to carry a gun. But I'm not a frightened bedwetter by nature.

You may be different.


No, no, I get what you're talking about.  I lived indoors all my life and never felt the need once to carry a fire extinguisher on my person. To be honest, I think these fire extinguishers are just a nuisance because people tend to misuse them so much.

I'm not afraid of fire, nor have I encountered one burning in my kitchen  and I look down on those cowards who do feel the need to get so called 'fire protection'. The same can be said about vaccinations, but that's for another thread.
 
2013-03-17 07:24:42 PM

cameroncrazy1984: redmid17: There's a very good chance he emptied the magazine into it.

No, there's a very good chance he emptied the magazine into "its general direction" according to the article.


Into it/in its general direction actually supports my point. You can't rely on awesome accuracy and frankly it's a pretty useful application for a "high capacity" magazine. When my friends or one's dad have gone bear hunting (either muzzle loader or rifle), they've carried a handgun with them as back up in case their first shot doesn't kill and it charges.

I perfectly understand people questioning the need or desire to carry a gun whilst hiking when a can of bear mace and walking stick can and often work. I just don't think it's particularly consistent to allow for people to carry guns for self-defense in the wilderness and then question why they'd want to carry the best type of weapon for the job.
 
2013-03-17 07:25:13 PM

redmid17: cameroncrazy1984: WhoopAssWayne: cameroncrazy1984: I own a gun because my grandfather got me into shooting his Colt .45 when I was 11.

Whoah, that's a quite a gun for an 11 year old, he obviously trusted you quite a bit. Good times I'm sure.

He worked me up from a Ruger .22 to a couple of 9mms (he has a beautiful Australian SAS Browning and Walther P38). He has some great historical pieces including a broom-handle Mauser 96. Basically, my grandfather has a weakness for WWII pistols.

That's not a weakness. That's awesome.


Unfortunately he's in his late 80s now and we don't go shooting anymore. I am trying to convince him that he shouldn't sell off all of his collection.
 
2013-03-17 07:27:01 PM

jake_lex: I bet the gun nuts who applaud this would call for him to go to jail if he said "You know, I think I'm just not going to arrest people for possessing pot anymore."


The local sheriff in San Antonio said he didn't want to arrest people for pot any more.  They may just start writing tickets.
 
2013-03-17 07:28:55 PM

cameroncrazy1984: redmid17: cameroncrazy1984: WhoopAssWayne: cameroncrazy1984: I own a gun because my grandfather got me into shooting his Colt .45 when I was 11.

Whoah, that's a quite a gun for an 11 year old, he obviously trusted you quite a bit. Good times I'm sure.

He worked me up from a Ruger .22 to a couple of 9mms (he has a beautiful Australian SAS Browning and Walther P38). He has some great historical pieces including a broom-handle Mauser 96. Basically, my grandfather has a weakness for WWII pistols.

That's not a weakness. That's awesome.

Unfortunately he's in his late 80s now and we don't go shooting anymore. I am trying to convince him that he shouldn't sell off all of his collection.


He should sell and/or gift it. My grandpa had a 7 mm Mauser he used to hunt with back in the day. He lost his taste for hunting but kept it for decades until he sold it because no one else in the family liked guns very much. Well then my dad (grew up on a farm) married my mom and I came along a few years later. My dad and I both love target shooting and I like to go hunting. He said it's one of the things he regrets doing and he'd have given it to me in a heartbeat.
 
2013-03-17 07:29:23 PM

cameroncrazy1984: iheartscotch: Funny thing; charging mountain lions are easier to hit if you have a 30 round magazine.

No they're not. Muzzle climb tends to mess with your aim.


FYI one can fire a fully auto m-4 at 15 yards and get all thirty in the five ring.

You just use a relaxed grip.

There is no issue with muzzle climb on 3 round burst or semi-auto.
 
2013-03-17 07:29:30 PM
"Maketa said his office keeps records of every concealed carry permit holder in the county as required by law, but he would never share it.

He said he would destroy the database if anyone tried to get their hands on it and would intervene if government agents started arresting county residents for exercising their constitutional rights."



The guy is making the right stand, and is willing to pay the price for it.
 
2013-03-17 07:35:55 PM

duenor: "Maketa said his office keeps records of every concealed carry permit holder in the county as required by law, but he would never share it.

He said he would destroy the database if anyone tried to get their hands on it and would intervene if government agents started arresting county residents for exercising their constitutional rights."


The guy is making the right stand, and is willing to pay the price for it.


What price? Support this guy.

ALL the rights exist to fark with the government. They're OUR servants, not vice versa. G-men are supposed to be lackies, not bosses. If the government says "Jump." you say "You're fired."
 
2013-03-17 07:36:14 PM

cameroncrazy1984: iheartscotch: Muzzle climb? In an Ar-15? Have you ever fired a Ar-15? Yes it has some;

You know what doesn't have a problem with muzzle climb? A Winchester .303 bolt-action. Accurate out to a longer range, too. And you're more likely to hit what you're shooting at. And drop it on the first shot.


I thought we were talking about 'charging mountain lions', not picking off a kitty at 150 yards?

And fyi, non shooter, contrary to your belief no one should miss at pistol range: it is easy to miss things charging at you full speed. Plinking a target is completely different than shooting a moving target under pressure.
 
2013-03-17 07:39:00 PM

GAT_00: I like it when local officials suddenly decide they get to pick and choose what is right and wrong and what they enforce.


You don't think they do that on a daily basis?
 
2013-03-17 07:42:16 PM

machodonkeywrestler: This guy used fertilizer. Want to ban that too?


Nope, but I'm confident that if I went down to Home Depot with a Ryder truck and tried to buy 3 tons of fertilizer they would probably contact law enforcement. It might even be required by law although I'm not sure about that.
 
2013-03-17 07:42:53 PM

cameroncrazy1984: redmid17: It's just as likely you have no idea what it's like to actually be outdoors or how to use guns,

Given that I have both A) been hunting and B) own a gun, it's just as likely that I'm not the idiot here. Because I'm not the one making the assumptions about my opponent.


Given your posts in the thread I call bullshiat on this claim.

If I am wrong then you have spent the thread trolling the 2nd amendment folks with a combination of goalpost/scenario changing and deliberate posting of incorrect things.
 
2013-03-17 07:47:54 PM

Happy Hours: machodonkeywrestler: This guy used fertilizer. Want to ban that too?

Nope, but I'm confident that if I went down to Home Depot with a Ryder truck and tried to buy 3 tons of fertilizer they would probably contact law enforcement. It might even be required by law although I'm not sure about that.


They're only required to report it if it's above 25 lbs per purchase. McVeigh himself spent a while accumulating the ammonium nitrate he used. Even today no one is going to know you're buying that much if you buy 20 lb bags using cash only at a bunch of stores around the city.
 
2013-03-17 07:49:00 PM
So, I recently moved from Colorado to Virginia.  I took my AR-15 (among other things) with me, along with a pile of 30-round magazines (which I had purchased in CO).... Question is, if I ever move back home, can I take my mags with me?
 
2013-03-17 07:49:56 PM
sooo can someone explain to me what's so horrible about background checks?
 
2013-03-17 07:52:31 PM

jcadam: So, I recently moved from Colorado to Virginia.  I took my AR-15 (among other things) with me, along with a pile of 30-round magazines (which I had purchased in CO).... Question is, if I ever move back home, can I take my mags with me?


Unless the law allows for grandfathering, I would guess no.
 
2013-03-17 07:53:06 PM

WhyteRaven74: sooo can someone explain to me what's so horrible about background checks?


Nothing.
 
2013-03-17 07:55:19 PM

WhyteRaven74: sooo can someone explain to me what's so horrible about background checks?


It prevents poor people and minorities for exercising their right because of the money, time, and travel required.

It discourages voting too.
 
2013-03-17 07:56:08 PM

WhyteRaven74: sooo can someone explain to me what's so horrible about background checks?




Nothing wrong with a background check.

Its when we get to doing an absurd number of background checks which have no additional value that it becomes more of a problem than a benefit.
Intentionally harassing gun owners is not about safety, its about pushing political agendas.
 
2013-03-17 07:58:38 PM
It encourages me to see people in positions of public trust who actually take their jobs and oaths of office seriously, and not just some ceremonial words they parrot back with their hand on a book.
 
2013-03-17 08:00:11 PM
The only thing more dangerous than a judge crafting legislation from the bench is a sheriff doing it.
 
2013-03-17 08:04:05 PM

cman: I believe lawmen are supposed to swear to uphold the laws and constitution of the state.

How exactly does one negotiate which conflicts with which?


Exactly - don't the citizens have every right to find a sheriff that they can entrust to enforce the laws? They should throw the bum out of office. I'm sure it the law was a right-wing knee-jerk reaction about banning homosexual activity, he'd be all over it with an immediate glory hole stake-out at his favorite leather bar.
 
2013-03-17 08:04:58 PM

jake_lex: I bet the gun nuts who applaud this would call for him to go to jail if he said "You know, I think I'm just not going to arrest people for possessing pot anymore."


lol, it's colorado... what's he gonna charge em with?

Seriously though, before prop 64, there were some departments that took a whole lot of heat for ticketing people for simple possession instead of dragging them to jail. Helll, who are we kidding, these are the same people who think that EOs telling the ATF or ICE their enforcement priorities are so terrible that Obama should be impeached for them. They are ok with people getting a DUI going dying from prison violence because if you don't wanna pay, you shouldn't break the law, but they don't give a fark about the law. They're just hateful dicks.
 
2013-03-17 08:05:41 PM

WhyteRaven74: sooo can someone explain to me what's so horrible about background checks?


background check in and of itself: nothing.
background check with gun registration: bad - it allows a registry of gun ownership to be kept. A list like this is currently being used in california to confiscate guns from people they don't think should have them (like vets that may have sought counselling to help recover after a tour of duty).
 
2013-03-17 08:06:28 PM

way south: WhyteRaven74: sooo can someone explain to me what's so horrible about background checks?

Nothing wrong with a background check.

Its when we get to doing an absurd number of background checks which have no additional value that it becomes more of a problem than a benefit.
Intentionally harassing gun owners is not about safety, its about pushing political agendas.


Define 'absurd'.  Because in my mind, the only non-absurdable number of background checks would be some value other than 100% of all purchases.

And there's not some insurmountable level of technology to be surpassed here.  The feds and the states have a list, make up a website where you insert the name, DOB, and address off someone's driver's license and have it spit back a go if he's good to sell to, or a no go if he ain't of if the info doesn't all match.
 
2013-03-17 08:07:11 PM

Happy Hours: I'm actually tempted to go buy a gun (along with accessories) while I still can.


To me, this attitude right here is the most terrifying thing about the times we are currently living in.  I've heard the same thing from multiple people in the past 4 months.

When we have reached the point that average, intelligent Americans living safely in Middle-class lifestyles has to think "I'm afraid of what my government is going to do" we've reached a pretty low point.
 
2013-03-17 08:08:00 PM

najay1: WhyteRaven74: sooo can someone explain to me what's so horrible about background checks?

background check in and of itself: nothing.
background check with gun registration: bad - it allows a registry of gun ownership to be kept. A list like this is currently being used in california to confiscate guns from people they don't think should have them (like vets that may have sought counselling to help recover after a tour of duty).


That and there are entire cities (ie Chicago) which have banned gun stores and gun ranges within the city limits. I couldn't get an NICS check inside the city limits if it were the only thing that'd keep me alive.
 
2013-03-17 08:09:08 PM
There is fairly easy to fix. The legislature can make it a felony to refuse to enforce state law. If a local sheriff still refuses, send in the state police and arrest them.
 
2013-03-17 08:11:16 PM

jaytkay: Azlefty: 1. It is written in such a way as to make 95% of magazines that meet the capacity illegal since they can "easily be converted" this is vague and arbitrary

Say you have 15-round magazine in a 9mm pistol. How do you "easily" convert that to a larger magazine?


+2  Mag extension for $3.49
 
2013-03-17 08:12:11 PM

WhyteRaven74: sooo can someone explain to me what's so horrible about background checks?


Nothing. It would be great if all states reported adjudications of mental defect to NICs and the feds opened up NICs for any private person to call in a background check on a prospective buyer.

Unfortunately, without very strict controls which have been oddly left out of the proposed laws, you end up with a de facto registry of everyone who owns a gun, which has been expressly forbidden as prone to governmental abuse. In addition, most states fear non-compliance with HIPAA medical records privacy laws, so they do not report to NICs.

In short, it COULD be a positive measure, but it would have to be more carefully crafted than in its present form.

And not tacked on with all the other random bans and restrictions on the most commonly used rifle and magazines in the US which the Dept of Justice has already told us with several reports and studies did not and will not affect crime.
 
2013-03-17 08:12:23 PM

GAT_00: I like it when local officials suddenly decide they get to pick and choose what is right and wrong and what they enforce.

Your job as sheriff is to serve the people, not serve your own politics.



You have a problem with sanctuary cities too?
 
2013-03-17 08:13:40 PM

Cheviot: There is fairly easy to fix. The legislature can make it a felony to refuse to enforce state law. If a local sheriff still refuses, send in the state police and arrest them.


Prove he's not enforcing it.
 
2013-03-17 08:15:48 PM

Cheviot: There is fairly easy to fix. The legislature can make it a felony to refuse to enforce state law. If a local sheriff still refuses, send in the state police and arrest them.


That would be the start of a civil war. I'm on the sheriffs side. Lets get it over with.
 
2013-03-17 08:16:00 PM

jaytkay: Silly Jesus: jaytkay: Silly Jesus: jaytkay: Silly Jesus: Nobody would ever need more than 15 rounds for protection?  Right?  I wonder why law enforcement was given an exemption then...oh, wait, this just in, sometimes more than 15 rounds might be needed.

You must get into a lot of combat situations. That sounds exciting. Tell us all about your experiences.

So only those who have needed a gun in the past should be allowed to have one?  You must get into a lot of grueling intellectual contests with 3rd graders.  That sounds exciting.  Tell us about your experiences.

So you have not, but you are likely to get into a lot combat situations.

Tell us all about that. It sounds exciting.

How many severe car accidents have you been in?  Do you wear a seat belt?  Did you seek out a vehicle without airbags?  Why is the standard of whether I can have something that you don't like my odds of having to use it in self defense?

Why are you so shy about your combat training and the dangerous circles you move in?

You really should tell us all about those things. I never get exposed to manly feats and skills the way you do.


Farkied:  Potato
 
2013-03-17 08:16:23 PM

cameroncrazy1984: If there's a constitutional law passed and they violate it, are they law-abiding citizens?


How and when are you determining that a law "is constitutional"?  Are you in the camp that a law is constitutional the instant that the people writing the law say it is?
 
2013-03-17 08:17:05 PM

special20: cman: I believe lawmen are supposed to swear to uphold the laws and constitution of the state.

How exactly does one negotiate which conflicts with which?

Exactly - don't the citizens have every right to find a sheriff that they can entrust to enforce the laws? They should throw the bum out of office. I'm sure it the law was a right-wing knee-jerk reaction about banning homosexual activity, he'd be all over it with an immediate glory hole stake-out at his favorite leather bar.


It would seem he is banking on the assumption that most of the people who elected him expect him place his oath to uphold a fundamental right of all people above enforcing state law.
 
2013-03-17 08:17:53 PM

Cheviot: There is fairly easy to fix. The legislature can make it a felony to refuse to enforce state law. If a local sheriff still refuses, send in the state police and arrest them.


So it would be a felony if an officer didn't stop every jaywalker?  You seem to think things through well.  You'd make an excellent legislator.
 
2013-03-17 08:20:02 PM
At the rate the right wing is degenerating, it's only a matter of time before some Sheriff puts out a press release saying "And we'll lynch any n*gger that we catch trying to be uppity!"
 
2013-03-17 08:21:36 PM

cameroncrazy1984: super_grass: This is why cops always carry a large hunting rifles on patrol instead of a pistol that they can grab and shoot immediately.

Cops on patrol are usually attacked by bears in the mountains?



Police officers have a lower rate of dying on the job than everyone else. Which is wierd considering that the police officers job is to get into dangerous situations and shootouts and whatnot....it's almost as if their use of high cap magazines and body armor increases their rate of survival and decreases their chance of death.

ie...guns make people more safe.
 
2013-03-17 08:21:41 PM

TV's Vinnie: At the rate the right wing is degenerating, it's only a matter of time before some Sheriff puts out a press release saying "And we'll lynch any n*gger that we catch trying to be uppity!"


Make sure they bring a shiatload of dimes with them.
 
2013-03-17 08:21:56 PM

WhyteRaven74: sooo can someone explain to me what's so horrible about background checks?


It'll end up like a TSA list - you'll get on there for a) political free speech, b) mistakes, c) vendettas, d) bureaucratic incompetence, and at worst, because maybe you needed some kind of help in your life. 1) ADHD prescriptions? on the list, 2) Smoking cessation? (with wellbutrin) Yep, 3) Mom died last week (xanax), yep. 4) Combat stress (anti-anxiety), yep, 5)  teen anxiety, yep. Once on, you're not getting off. Hell, Ted Kennedy made it on the TSA list, and was only able to get off because of his position - the rest of us won't have that luxury.

Make this database applicable for violent video games and the liberals will come around - they will see the light once their own interests are threatened.
 
2013-03-17 08:22:49 PM

Cheviot: There is fairly easy to fix. The legislature can make it a felony to refuse to enforce state law. If a local sheriff still refuses, send in the state police and arrest them.


Uh, no. They can't. In most jurisdictions with elected sheriff's, he/she is the only recognized law enforcement authority in that district and any other agency be it state or federal may only act with his permission.
 
2013-03-17 08:23:44 PM
At the rate the right wing is degenerating, it's only a matter of time before some Sheriff puts out a press release saying "And we'll lynch any n*gger that we catch trying to be uppity!"

Actually the Dems have already done that, you should study history
 
2013-03-17 08:25:36 PM

kellyclan: Cheviot: There is fairly easy to fix. The legislature can make it a felony to refuse to enforce state law. If a local sheriff still refuses, send in the state police and arrest them.

Uh, no. They can't. In most jurisdictions with elected sheriff's, he/she is the only recognized law enforcement authority in that district and any other agency be it state or federal may only act with his permission.


You'd be surprised. In some states the coroner can arrest the sheriff.
 
2013-03-17 08:26:12 PM

super_grass: WhyteRaven74: sooo can someone explain to me what's so horrible about background checks?

It prevents poor people and minorities for exercising their right because of the money, time, and travel required.

It discourages voting too.


You conservatives are always concerned about the rights of poor people and minorities.

Always very, very concerned.

Yes, you are.
 
2013-03-17 08:28:26 PM
"I am well regulated. I not only pass a background check with every firearm I buy, I maintain my proficiency in marksmanship to military standards, maintain my equipment to ensure that it is well functioning, ensuring they can accept ammunition from local law enforcement or military in times of emergency civilian mobilization, keep myself informed of current firearms law, both in ROE and ownership, and keep them secured against theft. How much more regulated would you like me to be?"

A gun should never be the first choice for self defense. It should be the last. And the majority of law abiding gun owners understand that.

I totally respect your choice to not own a firearm. However I strongly disagree with anyone telling me that I shouldn't. Having been the target of assault, mugging, robbery, and attempted murder, (south phoenix is a rough place) I can confidently state that I wouldn't be here today without my pistol. The felon that decided to shoot up the club I was working at didn't care that it was illegal for him to 1: posses a firearm 2: that was stolen 3: to shoot from his car 4: at me, while I was checking wristbands at the side door. Predators prefer unarmed victims, proven by the point that when I drew my own legally purchased and carried weapon to return fire he and his buddy hauled ass as quick as their freshly ventilated clunker could go. The man that tried to rob me thought that I looked an easy target as a well dressed white kid in a run down neighborhood. The 2 punks that tried to mug me in a rest stop bathroom. The guy that pulled a knife after I stopped him from trying to beat a female friend. They all went from thug to running away in the time it took to draw.

As for automatic weapons, they are some of the most tightly regulated items in the country. Without a lengthy background check run by the ATF it's a felony to posses one, and it cannot have been manufactured after 198(6?). The price of a fully automatic M16 on the legal market is around 20,000 dollars last time I checked. Not something a legal buyer is going to use in the commission of a crime.

As for my beloved AR-15, I encourage you to look at this page:http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime -in-th e-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8
Look at the rifle deaths. That includes hunting and sporting rifles along with "assault" rifles. But lets put all the blame on the AR-15 just for the purpose of discussion. There are over 3,000,000 million AR-15 variant rifles currently in circulation. Of those lets just say they cause 400 deaths a year in criminal hands. Now we divide 400 by 3000000 and get .013~ % if one person uses one rifle to kill one person. The rifle is obviously not the cause of the problem or there would be dead bodies everywhere. We don't have a gun problem, we have a lack of respect for life by psychopaths problem.

I'm all for tougher enforcement of current laws forbidding felons, violent offenders, and the mentally adjudicated from owning weapons. I'm OK with tougher punishment for using a weapon in the commission of a crime. Rob someone with a gun? 20 years no parole. Shoot someone during the commission of a crime? life, with the possibility of parole in 20 years. No Less. But I take issue with the whittling away of MY second amendment rights guaranteed in our nations charter and repeatedly upheld by the supreme court over the last century. If you don't want to exercise your right that's fine, but I ask that you not support people that would take away MY right, as my ability to fight off an attacker physically ain't quite what it used to be.
 
2013-03-17 08:28:29 PM

jaytkay: super_grass: WhyteRaven74: sooo can someone explain to me what's so horrible about background checks?

It prevents poor people and minorities for exercising their right because of the money, time, and travel required.

It discourages voting too.

You conservatives are always concerned about the rights of poor people and minorities.

Always very, very concerned.

Yes, you are.


Fun fact: a lot of us who like guns are not conservatives. I know I'm not. I find it amusing when people I know try to call me a Republican despite my leftish views (eg anti Patriot Act, pro gay-marriage) and then turn around and support organizations like the TSA and a ban on gay marriage
 
2013-03-17 08:29:24 PM
The administration chooses which laws it wants to enforce as well.  It's apparently a common practice.
 
2013-03-17 08:29:50 PM

kellyclan: In most jurisdictions with elected sheriff's, he/she is the only recognized law enforcement authority in that district and any other agency be it state or federal may only act with his permission.


Protip: Your favorite sovereign citizen web site is not a reliable source for legal advice
 
2013-03-17 08:30:05 PM

CthulhuCalling: During discussion of the bill, co-author Rhonda Fields said that the question of extenders never came up. If their true goal was to limit the amount of ammunition a magazine can hold, they could have specifically called out extenders. This means that the bill authors are either devastatingly incompetent or actually trying to backdoor some extremely strict gun control.

When informed that her bill was poorly written and managed to ban just about every magazine on the state, Fields said "I'm not envisions changing that because of a little plate that you can pull out, she said.  "I'm hoping that people will just comply with the law."

[emphasis mine]

Oh yes that discussion did come up: behind closed doors with the lawyers who wrote the law.  Everyone here would be a complete idiot to think that the gun-grabbers in legislatures across the USA don't have standard tactics that they employ, and one of those in the bag of tricks is writing back-door bans into laws.  It was almost certainly brought to lawyers hired just for the task, and the people in power asked "How can we ban as many magazines as possible while appearing that we're not doing exactly that?"

Gun control via bans and confiscation is a LONG game.  You have to incrementally ban things and wait for them to wear out in time (or be confiscated at some point) when they can't be replaced.
 
2013-03-17 08:30:59 PM

TV's Vinnie: At the rate the right wing is degenerating, it's only a matter of time before some Sheriff puts out a press release saying "And we'll lynch any n*gger that we catch trying to be uppity!"


It's really funny that the left wing wants to make it so expensive to own a gun, that only rich white people will be able to!

jcadam: So, I recently moved from Colorado to Virginia.  I took my AR-15 (among other things) with me, along with a pile of 30-round magazines (which I had purchased in CO).... Question is, if I ever move back home, can I take my mags with me?


Last time I looked at the proposed CO law, it grandfathered mags already owned. It would probably be up to you to prove that you owned them prior to the cut off date if you ran across LE who arrested you for possession of contraband mags.
 
2013-03-17 08:31:07 PM

pedrop357: Cheviot: There is fairly easy to fix. The legislature can make it a felony to refuse to enforce state law. If a local sheriff still refuses, send in the state police and arrest them.

Prove he's not enforcing it.


Easy, just ask him. He's already incriminated himself. He seems very proud that he's not enforcing the law. His own public statements would be enough to get him arrested and then later convicted when he can't demonstrate in court that his public statements were false.
 
2013-03-17 08:31:35 PM

Karac: Because in my mind, the only non-absurdable number of background checks would be some value other than 100% of all purchases.


Colorado does not have a gun show loophole. All gun purchases require a background check.

This law creates a redundant background check and gun registry that does nothing but lay the groundwork for future seizures. If they didn't have that in mind the current background checks are perfectly sufficient.
 
2013-03-17 08:31:48 PM

jaytkay: super_grass: WhyteRaven74: sooo can someone explain to me what's so horrible about background checks?

It prevents poor people and minorities for exercising their right because of the money, time, and travel required.

It discourages voting too.

You conservatives are always concerned about the rights of poor people and minorities.

Always very, very concerned.

Yes, you are.


Rednecks are poor, and they're a minority.

QED
 
2013-03-17 08:31:52 PM

fknra: my beloved AR-15


dl.dropbox.com
 
2013-03-17 08:32:08 PM
Don't worry, the anti-gunners will do citizens arrests.

They'll form their own version of the Minute Men. They'll call it the "Lucky If they Survive a Minute, Man".
 
2013-03-17 08:32:14 PM

Deep Contact: Cheviot: There is fairly easy to fix. The legislature can make it a felony to refuse to enforce state law. If a local sheriff still refuses, send in the state police and arrest them.

That would be the start of a civil war. I'm on the sheriffs side. Lets get it over with.


Fine. I'm all for watching people like you going to prison.
 
Rat
2013-03-17 08:32:48 PM
Why are there so many people that don't like guns?

© don't answer that, it was rhetorical
 
2013-03-17 08:34:05 PM

WhyteRaven74: sooo can someone explain to me what's so horrible about background checks?


Background checks are not the issue. Most of us that own guns support them. At least I do. Universal background checks, however, are a problem. What universal background checks are, as the term implies and is often bandied about, are checks on everyone--regardless of permit status, etc.

What most people mean when they say universal checks is closing the gun show loophole... that I have no problem with and fully support.

What ends up being written into law as universal checks is something else entirely, and because the term has come to mean only gun show checks, it slides under the radar. As I said before, if my mother wanted to give me my father's revolver as an inheritance, we'd have to go do a background check because my concealed carry license isn't reciprocated by the state in which my father lived when he died. If I wanted to sell my pistol to my roommate--who has already passed numerous background checks--it wouldn't matter that she has already passed several checks, we'd have to do another for the private sale between two private citizens of a gun that is already in our home.

If I know damn good and well that the person I wish to sell a weapon to is not a felon, does not have any ROs on them, has no mental health issues or any other valid reason prohibiting them from having access to firearms, the 2nd Amendment is very clear--shall not be infringed means just that. The government may not limit (see my above post explaining that) my right or the right of another sane non-felon to do with our firearms as we wish.
 
2013-03-17 08:35:20 PM

cameroncrazy1984: He has some great historical pieces including a broom-handle Mauser 96


Does he have a tax stamp for the NFA item?
 
2013-03-17 08:35:23 PM

CruJones: jake_lex: I bet the gun nuts who applaud this would call for him to go to jail if he said "You know, I think I'm just not going to arrest people for possessing pot anymore."

The local sheriff in San Antonio said he didn't want to arrest people for pot any more.  They may just start writing tickets.


Last election, the Flint police put a proposal on the ballot to officially allow them to not arrest folks for pot possession if they didn't have a medical pot card.  The measure was put down, but that doesn't mean they don't unofficially still let folks off.  With pot it is simple, they have pot and no card then they should not have pot.

I do agree with the sheriff, he makes a point about the difficulty of enforcing those laws.  If they have a gun, how much resources would be spent proving that a background check was done.  Imagine how annoying it would be if they took the time to count the bullets every time they came across someone with a mag.

/cops choosing what they enforce is nothing new
//if the folks in his county don't like it, he is an elected official
 
2013-03-17 08:35:30 PM

super_grass: Rednecks are poor, and they're a minority.


So you are fighting for the oppressed white people in the US.

The terribly, terribly oppressed white people.
 
2013-03-17 08:35:37 PM

Cheviot: pedrop357: Cheviot: There is fairly easy to fix. The legislature can make it a felony to refuse to enforce state law. If a local sheriff still refuses, send in the state police and arrest them.

Prove he's not enforcing it.

Easy, just ask him. He's already incriminated himself. He seems very proud that he's not enforcing the law. His own public statements would be enough to get him arrested and then later convicted when he can't demonstrate in court that his public statements were false.


"I tried enforcing the law, but with no records requirement the law relied entirely on the word of the participants. We've had a few cases where it could have been successful, but the lack  of evidence did it in."

Do you seriously think that anyone could prosecute these sheriffs?
 
2013-03-17 08:35:47 PM

Cheviot: pedrop357: Cheviot: There is fairly easy to fix. The legislature can make it a felony to refuse to enforce state law. If a local sheriff still refuses, send in the state police and arrest them.

Prove he's not enforcing it.

Easy, just ask him. He's already incriminated himself. He seems very proud that he's not enforcing the law. His own public statements would be enough to get him arrested and then later convicted when he can't demonstrate in court that his public statements were false.


Are you intentionally being completely ignorant of the law?  I really can't tell.  You're so far off base that it's both laughable and sad.
 
2013-03-17 08:36:09 PM

kellyclan: Cheviot: There is fairly easy to fix. The legislature can make it a felony to refuse to enforce state law. If a local sheriff still refuses, send in the state police and arrest them.

Uh, no. They can't. In most jurisdictions with elected sheriff's, he/she is the only recognized law enforcement authority in that district and any other agency be it state or federal may only act with his permission.


This is straight out not true. Regardless of what the locals believe, the FBI can and will come in and arrest people for violation of federal law. The local jurisdiction has little to no say over the matter. Likewise, state police can and do arrest people anywhere in their state for violation of state laws. The local jurisdiction again has little to no say over the matter. Even if this was not true at the state level, it would be a simple matter of state law to change the situation. State law trumps local law. Federal law trumps state.
 
2013-03-17 08:37:08 PM

TsukasaK: GAT_00: I like it when local officials suddenly decide they get to pick and choose what is right and wrong and what they enforce.

You don't think they do that on a daily basis?



White house tours cost 20k per week which is too much money......Obamas gonna go golfing and cost taxpayers 3 million dollars in security expenses instead.
 
2013-03-17 08:37:28 PM

Giltric: cameroncrazy1984: He has some great historical pieces including a broom-handle Mauser 96

Does he have a tax stamp for the NFA item?


I thought Mausers 96s were semi-auto
 
2013-03-17 08:37:37 PM

jaytkay: super_grass: Rednecks are poor, and they're a minority.

So you are fighting for the oppressed white people in the US.

The terribly, terribly oppressed white people.


I'm being sarcastic.

Everyone knows that white people cannot experience hardship or racism.
 
2013-03-17 08:38:06 PM

jaytkay: fknra: my beloved AR-15

[dl.dropbox.com image 179x281]


I'm a shooting enthusiast. Sure I like a gun thread. But this isn't a gun thread. This is a constitutional rights being supported by sheriffs thread. (is there a gif for that?)
 
2013-03-17 08:38:24 PM
It is the duty of the constitution officer (otherwise known as a sheriff) to not violate the constitutional rights of the citizens. If the legislature passes a law that the constitution officer thinks violates the constitutional rights of citizens it is not only his right to refuse to enforce that law, it is his duty not to enforce it until the SCOTUS has ruled on the new law.
 
2013-03-17 08:43:50 PM

fknra: jaytkay: fknra: my beloved AR-15

[dl.dropbox.com image 179x281]

I'm a shooting enthusiast. Sure I like a gun thread. But this isn't a gun thread. This is a constitutional rights being supported by sheriffs thread. (is there a gif for that?)


I dunno, Google it,

But we know the long hard shaft of your AR-15 pleases you, and you love it.
 
2013-03-17 08:44:17 PM

super_grass: cameroncrazy1984: super_grass: Clearly, your hunting trips in northern New England makes you an authority in defending yourself against animal attacks in Colorado.

Because there are no animals in Vermont at all.

I understand your point.

As a shark attack survival expert, I can attest to your feelings of frustration whenever people try to dismiss my expertise when I tell them that I gained my expertise from that one time when I went bass fishing.


Sending you the bill for my new keyboard. Just as soon as I clean all the coffee off my monitor. Holy shiat that was awesome.
 
2013-03-17 08:44:45 PM
Aigoo:

If I know damn good and well that the person I wish to sell a weapon to is not a felon, does not have any ROs on them, has no mental health issues or any other valid reason prohibiting them from having access to firearms, the 2nd Amendment is very clear--shall not be infringed means just that. The government may not limit (see my above post explaining that) my right or the right of another sane non-felon to do with our firearms as we wish.

Not true under the law now. Not true in the past. Both the law and Supreme Court are against you. Comply with the law or go to prison. Your choice.
 
2013-03-17 08:45:36 PM

Cheviot: kellyclan: Cheviot: There is fairly easy to fix. The legislature can make it a felony to refuse to enforce state law. If a local sheriff still refuses, send in the state police and arrest them.

Uh, no. They can't. In most jurisdictions with elected sheriff's, he/she is the only recognized law enforcement authority in that district and any other agency be it state or federal may only act with his permission.

This is straight out not true. Regardless of what the locals believe, the FBI can and will come in and arrest people for violation of federal law. The local jurisdiction has little to no say over the matter. Likewise, state police can and do arrest people anywhere in their state for violation of state laws. The local jurisdiction again has little to no say over the matter. Even if this was not true at the state level, it would be a simple matter of state law to change the situation. State law trumps local law. Federal law trumps state.


However, who will arrest the state officers that don't always enforce the state laws?  Is it not every time a cop gives you a warning for a traffic violation, it is that officer's choice to not enforce the law?  You act like this sheriff is the only law official that has chosen to not enforce a law.  Cops are judge and jury when they deem enforcement not necessary, but sometimes non-enforcement does makes sense.  Get over your outrage.
 
2013-03-17 08:45:50 PM

jaytkay: fknra: jaytkay: fknra: my beloved AR-15

[dl.dropbox.com image 179x281]

I'm a shooting enthusiast. Sure I like a gun thread. But this isn't a gun thread. This is a constitutional rights being supported by sheriffs thread. (is there a gif for that?)

I dunno, Google it,

But we know the long hard shaft of your AR-15 pleases you, and you love it.


Not all of us own AR-15s. Hell I'd bet most people who are against the new AWB and its similar  bills in state legislatures do not own such a weapon. I do not.
 
2013-03-17 08:47:08 PM
I guess I'll just start picking and choosing which laws I'm going to abide by.

Fark Colorado.
 
2013-03-17 08:47:49 PM

redmid17: Giltric: cameroncrazy1984: He has some great historical pieces including a broom-handle Mauser 96

Does he have a tax stamp for the NFA item?

I thought Mausers 96s were semi-auto


Actually they removed it from the NFA list. It used to be that you needed a stamp to own the pistol and shoulder stock pre 81.

If he aquired it pre 81 he would have needed a stamp....if he aquired it after 81 he would need a ffl03 for collector items.

Possibly a felony depending on how and when he aquired it.
 
2013-03-17 08:49:01 PM

Giltric: redmid17: Giltric: cameroncrazy1984: He has some great historical pieces including a broom-handle Mauser 96

Does he have a tax stamp for the NFA item?

I thought Mausers 96s were semi-auto

Actually they removed it from the NFA list. It used to be that you needed a stamp to own the pistol and shoulder stock pre 81.

If he aquired it pre 81 he would have needed a stamp....if he aquired it after 81 he would need a ffl03 for collector items.

Possibly a felony depending on how and when he aquired it.


Preferably off a dead Nazi, though I can't imagine any German solider carrying that gun except in desperation.
 
2013-03-17 08:49:40 PM
Lots of CO dems facing recall elections/petitions over the proposed legislation.


Bill Clinton warned them though, so they have nobody to blame but themselves.
 
2013-03-17 08:51:10 PM

redmid17: Not all of us own AR-15s. Hell I'd bet most people who are against the new AWB and its similar bills in state legislatures do not own such a weapon. I do not.


So maybe you are not the one in this thread who wrote about "my beloved AR-15".'

But I'm not sure. Maybe this is all about you. Did you write that in this thread? Can you check for me?

Let me know. Get back to me ASAP. Thanks.
 
2013-03-17 08:51:53 PM

cman: I believe lawmen are supposed to swear to uphold the laws and constitution of the state.

How exactly does one negotiate which conflicts with which?



Isn't the President of the United States supposed to uphold the laws of the Nation as well?  Shoe fits, etc, etc, etc
 
2013-03-17 08:52:39 PM

namatad: EvilRacistNaziFascist: Crewmannumber6: Why can't they decide to not enforce the weed laws

Because there's no right to smoke pot in the Constitution? Not that I disagree with what you're saying, but gun ownership is a far more fundamental right for Americans (as it should be).

um actually the right to smoke pot IS in the constitution

9th The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

see right there
just because it does not SAY "it is legal to smoke pot", does not make illegal to smoke pot

better yet,

10th The Tenth Amendment states the Constitution's principle of federalism by providing that powers not granted to the federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States or the people.

the right to smoke pot is retained by the people
unless the states ban it ...


HOW do we know this? well the feds had to amend the constitution to ban alcohol.
THEY should have had to amend it to ban pot, but they weaseled their way around the constitution by abusing the commerce clause.

this same weaseling makes it illegal for farmers to grow wheat for home use.
insane but true


Thankk you Namatad!

Additionally, around the end of the 19th century there was a big push by anti-smokers to outlaw tobacco. In fact, some cities and states did enact laws against it. The anti-smokers even went to Congress and a Senate committee actually told them that it wasn't within their authority to do that. They told them to get the states to ban it.

Wickard v. Filburn was a travesty IMO (if anyone is not familiar with it, basically it ruled that a farmer could not grow his own wheat to feed his own family because even though he never sold that wheat it affected interstate commerce because it meant he was not buying wheat that might cross state lines).

By the same reasoning that marijuana is illegal under federal law, alcohol could be made illegal again, but this time without an amendment to the Constitution. I don't think alcohol should be illegal and I don't think anyone (outside of a few lunatics) wants it to be, but just because someone might buy a drink in one state ad walk across a state line does not mean the interstate commerce clause allows the federal government to regulate it.

Note, that this is just like my opinion man and the Supreme Court apparently disagrees with me
 
2013-03-17 08:53:08 PM

jaytkay: redmid17: Not all of us own AR-15s. Hell I'd bet most people who are against the new AWB and its similar bills in state legislatures do not own such a weapon. I do not.

So maybe you are not the one in this thread who wrote about "my beloved AR-15".'

But I'm not sure. Maybe this is all about you. Did you write that in this thread? Can you check for me?

Let me know. Get back to me ASAP. Thanks.


1) I am not
2) You apparently don't understand context or sarcasm
3) The things you've been writing in this thread have generally been underdeveloped and poorly supported
 
2013-03-17 08:53:43 PM
I think we are all aware that this kind of thing happens - there are plenty of places where cops don't bother to enforce pot laws, and so forth. I have some serious doubts about announcing it publicly, though - that might not have been a good idea.
 
2013-03-17 08:53:58 PM
So let me get this straight, some of the very folks who cheered various municipalities and law enforcement officials who refused to uphold immigration and drug laws, but there is somehow a difference when it comes to the 2nd amendment?

While I do agree with his opinion, I cannot agree or support his decision not to uphold the law he was sworn to uphold.  Society cannot function when laws and standards are not upheld, or treated like going through a buffet line (I'll have this, but pass on that...)

If you don't like the law, you work to overturn it and if the people at the capitol are using their ears, change the faces.,
 
2013-03-17 08:55:21 PM

Z1P2: It is the duty of the constitution officer (otherwise known as a sheriff) to not violate the constitutional rights of the citizens. If the legislature passes a law that the constitution officer thinks violates the constitutional rights of citizens it is not only his right to refuse to enforce that law, it is his duty not to enforce it until the SCOTUS has ruled on the new law.


Untrue. The sheriff is obligated to enforce the law until the Supreme Court finds it unconstitutional. More to the point, however, the Supreme Court has already found that both registration of and background checks being required to obtain automatic weapons is constitutional. As the constitution makes no distinction between automatic and non-automatic weapons it would be a a very hard argument to win that what is constitutional for automatic weapons in unconstitutional for non-automatics.
 
2013-03-17 08:56:26 PM

heypete: While I admit that there's no real proposals to physically come and take guns from people

 
2013-03-17 08:57:33 PM
super_grass:

I get what you're talking about.  I lived indoors all my life and never felt the need once to carry a fire extinguisher on my person. To be honest, I think these fire extinguishers are just a nuisance because people tend to misuse them so much.

I'm not afraid of fire, nor have I encountered one burning in my kitchen  and I look down on those cowards who do feel the need to get so called 'fire protection'. The same can be said about vaccinations, but that's for another thread.


Hammer, don't hurt 'em.
 
2013-03-17 09:00:58 PM

kellyclan: special20: cman: I believe lawmen are supposed to swear to uphold the laws and constitution of the state.

How exactly does one negotiate which conflicts with which?

Exactly - don't the citizens have every right to find a sheriff that they can entrust to enforce the laws? They should throw the bum out of office. I'm sure it the law was a right-wing knee-jerk reaction about banning homosexual activity, he'd be all over it with an immediate glory hole stake-out at his favorite leather bar.

It would seem he is banking on the assumption that most of the people who elected him expect him place his oath to uphold a fundamental right of all people above enforcing state law.


And he is the ultimate authority on what all people want. Got it. That makes him an even bigger nob.
 
2013-03-17 09:01:02 PM

redmid17: Cheviot: pedrop357: Cheviot: There is fairly easy to fix. The legislature can make it a felony to refuse to enforce state law. If a local sheriff still refuses, send in the state police and arrest them.

Prove he's not enforcing it.

Easy, just ask him. He's already incriminated himself. He seems very proud that he's not enforcing the law. His own public statements would be enough to get him arrested and then later convicted when he can't demonstrate in court that his public statements were false.

"I tried enforcing the law, but with no records requirement the law relied entirely on the word of the participants. We've had a few cases where it could have been successful, but the lack  of evidence did it in."

Do you seriously think that anyone could prosecute these sheriffs?


So you're saying the sheriff would commit perjury to avoid conviction? Do we really want people who would commit perjury to be sheriffs? Do you?

Why wouldn't the state prosecute a sheriff that refused to enforce the law?  And yes, the sheriff could say the things you suggest. Then the prosecution would ask about his public statements with regards to refusing to enforce the law. Then they would ask for any and all records for the cases he claimed to have investigated but dropped for lack of evidence.  The sheriff, of course, would have no records, as he's not enforcing the law. He'd be toast and you know it.
 
2013-03-17 09:01:10 PM

Aigoo: I would have to march down to the police station, pay them, and submit to yet another background check because he lived in a state that did not reciprocate with the state that my concealed carry license was issued in. If I wished to sell my .40 pistol to my roommate, who has passed as many background checks as I--if not more--we would have to march down to the police station, pay the fee, and wait for the check to come back before I could sell her the pistol.


Good!
 
2013-03-17 09:03:33 PM

Cheviot: Z1P2: It is the duty of the constitution officer (otherwise known as a sheriff) to not violate the constitutional rights of the citizens. If the legislature passes a law that the constitution officer thinks violates the constitutional rights of citizens it is not only his right to refuse to enforce that law, it is his duty not to enforce it until the SCOTUS has ruled on the new law.

Untrue. The sheriff is obligated to enforce the law until the Supreme Court finds it unconstitutional. More to the point, however, the Supreme Court has already found that both registration of and background checks being required to obtain automatic weapons is constitutional. As the constitution makes no distinction between automatic and non-automatic weapons it would be a a very hard argument to win that what is constitutional for automatic weapons in unconstitutional for non-automatics.


Existing case law makes a distinction between the two as NFA weapons (automatic in your parlance) are not in common use. Semi-automatic rifles and handguns are definitely in common use.
 
2013-03-17 09:04:50 PM

Giltric: redmid17: Giltric: cameroncrazy1984: He has some great historical pieces including a broom-handle Mauser 96

Does he have a tax stamp for the NFA item?

I thought Mausers 96s were semi-auto

Actually they removed it from the NFA list. It used to be that you needed a stamp to own the pistol and shoulder stock pre 81.

If he aquired it pre 81 he would have needed a stamp....if he aquired it after 81 he would need a ffl03 for collector items.

Possibly a felony depending on how and when he aquired it.


A) It's not full-auto and B) It doesn't have the shoulder stock. Maybe you played too much Day of Defeat back in the day.
 
2013-03-17 09:06:42 PM

jpo2269: If you don't like the law, you work to overturn it and if the people at the capitol are using their ears, change the faces.,


This is the main point, the sheriff is an elected official.  Pay attention to what your elected officials do and if you don't like it, vote for the other person.

 Society cannot function when laws and standards are not upheld, or treated like going through a buffet line (I'll have this, but pass on that...)

I agree, however those standards are determined by those we elected and those hired by the elected.

/vote
//complain when things go wrong with the guy you didn't vote for,OR shut up when things go wrong with the guy you did vote for
///rinse and repeat
////captain obvious away!
 
2013-03-17 09:07:52 PM

Silly Jesus: Cheviot: pedrop357: Cheviot: There is fairly easy to fix. The legislature can make it a felony to refuse to enforce state law. If a local sheriff still refuses, send in the state police and arrest them.

Prove he's not enforcing it.

Easy, just ask him. He's already incriminated himself. He seems very proud that he's not enforcing the law. His own public statements would be enough to get him arrested and then later convicted when he can't demonstrate in court that his public statements were false.

Are you intentionally being completely ignorant of the law?  I really can't tell.  You're so far off base that it's both laughable and sad.


The man is proud he's refusing to enforce the law. He's more than likely to admit it again, and if not he would need a defense against the evidence he failed to enforce the law. A defense he already shot in the foot by publicly stating he wouldn't enforce the law. Now, if he could prove he was enforcing the law, he'd be in good shape... But then next election, who will vote for the lying sheriff.

But let's get to the nitty gritty here. This is the sheriff making a dog and pony show out of nothing. Did you bother reading the law in question? I did. There's no provision requiring the sheriffs to do anything. At all. Nothing. There is literally nothing for the sheriff to enforce. This sheriff wanted to sound like a big tough guy telling the state where to stick their law without ever having to do anything.
 
2013-03-17 09:08:07 PM
A few comments to the trolls, gun nuts, and crazy people.
The law is short sited and could be improved, something the Republicans should have concentrated on instead of trying to find a way to sneakily sink it.

If the Sheriff thinks the law is unconstitutional, he or the county should challenge it in court.  It's not up to him to decide.

Now, it's legal / all right for a sheriff to prioritize enforcement based on resources.  That happens all the time.  He can safely say "I only have 400 man hours available per week due to current staffing and budget and based on the current crime levels here these won't be my top enforcement effort."   He can't just say "Derrrr, I now lawyer and think these laws are dumb and won't enforce them."
 
2013-03-17 09:13:01 PM

super_grass: It prevents poor people and minorities for exercising their right because of the money, time, and travel required.


Abortion is still legal, dammit! It's just waaaaaay over there, on every 7th tuesday. After the rape-o-sound. And the other rape-o-sound. Which you have to pay for.

Fair's fair.
 
2013-03-17 09:13:10 PM
lack of warmth:

However, who will arrest the state officers that don't always enforce the state laws?  Is it not every time a cop gives you a warning for a traffic violation, it is that officer's choice to not enforce the law?  You act like this sheriff is the only law official that has chosen to not enforce a law.  Cops are judge and jury when they deem enforcement not necessary, but sometimes non-enforcement does makes sense.  Get over your outrage.

Straw man. No one is arguing police shouldn't be able to exercise judgement in individual cases while still, in most cases, enforcing the law.

Imagine if you had a police officer that decided he wouldn't enforce speed limits on roads because he decided personally it was against his beliefs. What if the sheriff decided anti-prostitution laws should never be enforced.

These are not decisions that the police get to make. Their job is to enforce the law, like it or not.
 
2013-03-17 09:15:52 PM

WhyteRaven74: sooo can someone explain to me what's so horrible about background checks?


GUBERMINT!
WHARGHLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

no really
that is the only "problem"

of course, I wonder how many of these same "people" also think that gambling, prostitution and drugs should be illegal. How can you be for 1 freedom and not for all freedoms?
 
2013-03-17 09:16:02 PM

Cheviot: redmid17: Cheviot: pedrop357: Cheviot: There is fairly easy to fix. The legislature can make it a felony to refuse to enforce state law. If a local sheriff still refuses, send in the state police and arrest them.

Prove he's not enforcing it.

Easy, just ask him. He's already incriminated himself. He seems very proud that he's not enforcing the law. His own public statements would be enough to get him arrested and then later convicted when he can't demonstrate in court that his public statements were false.

"I tried enforcing the law, but with no records requirement the law relied entirely on the word of the participants. We've had a few cases where it could have been successful, but the lack  of evidence did it in."

Do you seriously think that anyone could prosecute these sheriffs?

So you're saying the sheriff would commit perjury to avoid conviction? Do we really want people who would commit perjury to be sheriffs? Do you?

Why wouldn't the state prosecute a sheriff that refused to enforce the law?  And yes, the sheriff could say the things you suggest. Then the prosecution would ask about his public statements with regards to refusing to enforce the law. Then they would ask for any and all records for the cases he claimed to have investigated but dropped for lack of evidence.  The sheriff, of course, would have no records, as he's not enforcing the law. He'd be toast and you know it.


There's a paperwork requirement for all private sales going forward. How do they prove who owned what gun as of now? Like I said, they'd be relying almost exclusively on statements from the seller and buyer. Since either buying or selling the gun without the background check is illegal, neither of them is going to say a god damn word unless they're idiots. Without those statements or possibly a third party, they will have no evidence to go on. This isn't rocket science.
 
2013-03-17 09:17:16 PM

iheartscotch: dukwbutter: jake_lex: I bet the gun nuts who applaud this would call for him to go to jail if he said "You know, I think I'm just not going to arrest people for possessing pot anymore."

Pot is legal in Colorado idiot.

In violation of federal law. Federal law > State law. States nullifying laws led to the civil war.


The feds have no jurisdiction over purely in-state commerce.  The feds have the authority to regulate interstate not intra state commerce.
 
2013-03-17 09:18:13 PM

Cheviot: Imagine if you had a police officer that decided he wouldn't enforce speed limits on roads because he decided personally it was against his beliefs. What if the sheriff decided anti-prostitution laws should never be enforced.


I guess he'd spend more time on non-victimless crimes. Sounds good!
 
2013-03-17 09:18:56 PM

Satanic_Hamster: A few comments to the trolls, gun nuts, and crazy people.
The law is short sited and could be improved, something the Republicans should have concentrated on instead of trying to find a way to sneakily sink it.

If the Sheriff thinks the law is unconstitutional, he or the county should challenge it in court.  It's not up to him to decide.

Now, it's legal / all right for a sheriff to prioritize enforcement based on resources.  That happens all the time.He can safely say "I only have 400 man hours available per week due to current staffing and budget and based on the current crime levels here these won't be my top enforcement effort."   He can't just say "Derrrr, I now lawyer and think these laws are dumb and won't enforce them."


see
If he had JUST said that.
"This is an unfunded mandate. I am putting it in the pile of other unfunded mandates sitting over there. And will prioritize right after I spend my funding on important things. Like parking tickets and murder."

But instead he got all derpy about it.
 
2013-03-17 09:20:06 PM

Satanic_Hamster: A few comments to the trolls, gun nuts, and crazy people.
The law is short sited and could be improved, something the Republicans should have concentrated on instead of trying to find a way to sneakily sink it.

If the Sheriff thinks the law is unconstitutional, he or the county should challenge it in court.  It's not up to him to decide.

Now, it's legal / all right for a sheriff to prioritize enforcement based on resources.  That happens all the time.  He can safely say "I only have 400 man hours available per week due to current staffing and budget and based on the current crime levels here these won't be my top enforcement effort."   He can't just say "Derrrr, I now lawyer and think these laws are dumb and won't enforce them."


sighted, of course :-P
 
2013-03-17 09:20:15 PM

Bucky Katt: The feds have no jurisdiction over purely in-state commerce.  The feds have the authority to regulate interstate not intra state commerce.


Try to explain that to the feds who are using the Commerce Clause to justify everything from "drugs are illegal" to "you cant grow wheat for home usage".

farkem
 
2013-03-17 09:22:20 PM

Bucky Katt: iheartscotch: dukwbutter: jake_lex: I bet the gun nuts who applaud this would call for him to go to jail if he said "You know, I think I'm just not going to arrest people for possessing pot anymore."

Pot is legal in Colorado idiot.

In violation of federal law. Federal law > State law. States nullifying laws led to the civil war.

The feds have no jurisdiction over purely in-state commerce.  The feds have the authority to regulate interstate not intra state commerce.


Theoretically they don't but they've made plenty of regulatory decisions that were about in-state commerce. You can't grow crops beyond a maximum threshold because it would affect the price of feed for other farmers. ATF busted a former felon who was building his own machine guns for his own personal use (prior crime was not registering NFA weapons or something similar, aka nonviolent). Regardless of the fact that he was prohibited from buying or selling his weapons anyway (no serial # and felon status), federal court said his building of non-sellable guns he couldn't legally acquire somehow affected interstate commerce.
 
2013-03-17 09:22:29 PM

Silly Jesus: Cheviot: pedrop357: Cheviot: There is fairly easy to fix. The legislature can make it a felony to refuse to enforce state law. If a local sheriff still refuses, send in the state police and arrest them.

Prove he's not enforcing it.

Easy, just ask him. He's already incriminated himself. He seems very proud that he's not enforcing the law. His own public statements would be enough to get him arrested and then later convicted when he can't demonstrate in court that his public statements were false.

Are you intentionally being completely ignorant of the law?  I really can't tell.  You're so far off base that it's both laughable and sad.


I think something getting lost in the shuffle here is that a number of state reps and senators also said publicly they would neither obey nor enforce this law.
 
2013-03-17 09:23:16 PM

namatad: Satanic_Hamster: A few comments to the trolls, gun nuts, and crazy people.
The law is short sited and could be improved, something the Republicans should have concentrated on instead of trying to find a way to sneakily sink it.

If the Sheriff thinks the law is unconstitutional, he or the county should challenge it in court.  It's not up to him to decide.

Now, it's legal / all right for a sheriff to prioritize enforcement based on resources.  That happens all the time.He can safely say "I only have 400 man hours available per week due to current staffing and budget and based on the current crime levels here these won't be my top enforcement effort."   He can't just say "Derrrr, I now lawyer and think these laws are dumb and won't enforce them."

see
If he had JUST said that.
"This is an unfunded mandate. I am putting it in the pile of other unfunded mandates sitting over there. And will prioritize right after I spend my funding on important things. Like parking tickets and murder."

But instead he got all derpy about it.


You want even more fun? Go read the law. Then write down all the things the sheriff actually has to do under the law. Don't worry, your pencil won't get much of a workout. There is NO requirement for the sheriff to enforce anything. Seriously. None. Go read the law. This sheriff is trolling us.
 
2013-03-17 09:24:20 PM

WhoopAssWayne: WhyteRaven74: sooo can someone explain to me what's so horrible about background checks?

It'll end up like a TSA list - you'll get on there for a) political free speech, b) mistakes, c) vendettas, d) bureaucratic incompetence, and at worst, because maybe you needed some kind of help in your life. 1) ADHD prescriptions? on the list, 2) Smoking cessation? (with wellbutrin) Yep, 3) Mom died last week (xanax), yep. 4) Combat stress (anti-anxiety), yep, 5)  teen anxiety, yep. Once on, you're not getting off. Hell, Ted Kennedy made it on the TSA list, and was only able to get off because of his position - the rest of us won't have that luxury.

Make this database applicable for violent video games and the liberals will come around - they will see the light once their own interests are threatened.


At that point, every Congresscritter would be on the list and they would obviously.. do the right thi..

Sorry, no. Of course they would continue to collect their paychecks.
 
2013-03-17 09:24:51 PM

kellyclan: It's really funny that the left wing wants to make it so expensive to own a gun, that only rich white people will be able to


Aw, did someone get their latest BULLSH*T from this year's CPAC?
 
2013-03-17 09:25:23 PM

Cheviot: What if the sheriff decided anti-prostitution laws should never be enforced.


Include anti-drug laws and anti-gambling laws and you have a true american hero!!
Esp if he spent all his time trying to reduce crimes with actual victims!!
"I spend most of my resources on trying to put rapists and murderers behind bars. I dont waste my time with victimless crimes."

/FFS, I would move to that county in a heartbeat. well maybe more, given the whole selling my house thing.
 
2013-03-17 09:25:27 PM

Cheviot: namatad: Satanic_Hamster: A few comments to the trolls, gun nuts, and crazy people.
The law is short sited and could be improved, something the Republicans should have concentrated on instead of trying to find a way to sneakily sink it.

If the Sheriff thinks the law is unconstitutional, he or the county should challenge it in court.  It's not up to him to decide.

Now, it's legal / all right for a sheriff to prioritize enforcement based on resources.  That happens all the time.He can safely say "I only have 400 man hours available per week due to current staffing and budget and based on the current crime levels here these won't be my top enforcement effort."   He can't just say "Derrrr, I now lawyer and think these laws are dumb and won't enforce them."

see
If he had JUST said that.
"This is an unfunded mandate. I am putting it in the pile of other unfunded mandates sitting over there. And will prioritize right after I spend my funding on important things. Like parking tickets and murder."

But instead he got all derpy about it.

You want even more fun? Go read the law. Then write down all the things the sheriff actually has to do under the law. Don't worry, your pencil won't get much of a workout. There is NO requirement for the sheriff to enforce anything. Seriously. None. Go read the law. This sheriff is trolling us.


He has to arrest people who don't adhere to that state law in his county, so he clearly has some requirement to enforce the law.
 
2013-03-17 09:26:26 PM

mrmopar5287: Happy Hours: I'm actually tempted to go buy a gun (along with accessories) while I still can.

To me, this attitude right here is the most terrifying thing about the times we are currently living in.  I've heard the same thing from multiple people in the past 4 months.

When we have reached the point that average, intelligent Americans living safely in Middle-class lifestyles has to think "I'm afraid of what my government is going to do" we've reached a pretty low point.


So, ban AM radio?
 
2013-03-17 09:27:38 PM

Your Average Witty Fark User: I guess I'll just start picking and choosing which laws I'm going to abide by.

Fark Colorado.



"I am free, no matter what rules surround me.
If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them;
if I find them too obnoxious, I break them.
I am free because I know that I alone am
morally responsible for everything I do."

R. A. Heinlein
 
2013-03-17 09:35:21 PM
This reminds me of the piss poor enforcement by the federal government to enforce illegal immigration laws... Libtards pass gun laws and get outraged when someone takes a rule from their play book on illegal immigration... Oh wait, I apologize - libs don't like that word 'illegal', so sorry if I offended anyone.
 
2013-03-17 09:37:20 PM

Cheviot: Imagine if you had a police officer that decided he wouldn't enforce speed limits on roads because he decided personally it was against his beliefs. What if the sheriff decided anti-prostitution laws should never be enforced.

These are not decisions that the police get to make. Their job is to enforce the law, like it or not.


You're funny, either that or you actually believe there are sheriffs that don't already do this.  A classmate of mine was allowed to drive drunk every weekend in HS, because grandpa was sheriff.  They also never wrote speeding tickets.  It may be their job, but there is no way of forcing them to enforce every law.  Go ahead, try.

All this is just silly, since his announcement is only for political reasons.  If he simply disagreed with the laws, he would just simply not enforce them and move on SOP.

/you are funny, I think I'll get some ice cream
 
2013-03-17 09:43:48 PM

jaytkay: kellyclan: In most jurisdictions with elected sheriff's, he/she is the only recognized law enforcement authority in that district and any other agency be it state or federal may only act with his permission.

Protip: Your favorite sovereign citizen web site is not a reliable source for legal advice


Neither is watching CNN or Fox News.

/just sayin'
 
2013-03-17 09:45:56 PM

redmid17: He has to arrest people who don't adhere to that state law in his county, so he clearly has some requirement to enforce the law.


Auto insurance is required in your state.

Does the sheriff go door-to-door demanding auto insurance papers?

No.

But overly-emotional conservatives think every law regarding guns portends "the government" physically confiscating weapons.

It's comical. I have lived through several cycles of this. 20 years ago conservatives were freaked out about the same imaginary threat.

You are impressionable, gullible, ill-informed, paranoid, and ignorant assholes.

The NRA is laughing at you. Gun and ammo sellers are laughing at you for hoarding their products at inflated prices.
 
2013-03-17 09:47:39 PM

cameroncrazy1984: EvilEgg: Meh, law enforcement has always had wide latitude as to how and when then they enforce. Speeding laws for instance how often are they rigidly enforced?

This isn't the same thing as a speeding law.


You're right for once.

Speeding laws are actually somewhat effective.
 
2013-03-17 09:48:51 PM

Cheviot: More to the point, however, the Supreme Court has already found that both registration of and background checks being required to obtain automatic weapons is constitutional.


Citation needed.
 
2013-03-17 09:53:30 PM
Obama knows laws he won't ever ask to be enforced.  This is nothing new, a law enforcement entity that chooses not  uphold certain laws, and the only reason it might be "news" is because this time it might be considered a conservative stance when it is truly a liberal idea.

Ever hear of sanctuary cities?
 
2013-03-17 09:57:40 PM

jaytkay: redmid17: He has to arrest people who don't adhere to that state law in his county, so he clearly has some requirement to enforce the law.

Auto insurance is required in your state.

Does the sheriff go door-to-door demanding auto insurance papers?

No.

But overly-emotional conservatives think every law regarding guns portends "the government" physically confiscating weapons.

It's comical. I have lived through several cycles of this. 20 years ago conservatives were freaked out about the same imaginary threat.

You are impressionable, gullible, ill-informed, paranoid, and ignorant assholes.

The NRA is laughing at you. Gun and ammo sellers are laughing at you for hoarding their products at inflated prices.


No but when someone is pulled over they are asked for their license, registration, and proof of insurance. When there is a suspected gun crime and the DA wants proof of ownership of the weapon, guess who is going to be responsible for investigating that if the owner doesn't say a word to prevent self-incrimination?

Hint: It's most likely going to be the sheriff's department unless it's within the city limits. Plenty of crime occurs outside of it.

/not an NRA member
//actually understands the ramifications of somethings, unlike yourself
 
2013-03-17 10:03:09 PM

jaytkay: super_grass: Rednecks are poor, and they're a minority.

So you are fighting for the oppressed white people in the US.

The terribly, terribly oppressed white people.


There are PLENTY of oppressed white people in the united states. Discrimination (negative) is not just skin color, but age, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, and social class.
I know plenty of white folks who feel pretty sore because they see their "minority" neighbors getting all sorts of breaks while they get nothing. I know why those programs are the way they are but I still understand why those white folks feel that way.
No, I'm not white. But I learned early on not to keep drinking the "white people are the bad oppressors of the minority" juice.
 
2013-03-17 10:06:18 PM

redmid17: Giltric: redmid17: Giltric: cameroncrazy1984: He has some great historical pieces including a broom-handle Mauser 96

Does he have a tax stamp for the NFA item?

I thought Mausers 96s were semi-auto

Actually they removed it from the NFA list. It used to be that you needed a stamp to own the pistol and shoulder stock pre 81.

If he aquired it pre 81 he would have needed a stamp....if he aquired it after 81 he would need a ffl03 for collector items.

Possibly a felony depending on how and when he aquired it.

Preferably off a dead Nazi, though I can't imagine any German solider carrying that gun except in desperation.


This is correct. the BH Mauser is in a special class all of its own. It is one of the few guns for which the big laws don't apply... possibly (my secret belief) because of Star Wars.... (look closely at Han Solo's gun...)

The BH Mauser was a VERY good gun for its time. I don't know why you'd say that about it.
 
2013-03-17 10:07:55 PM

cameroncrazy1984: A) It's not full-auto and


There is more to the NFA than an item being full auto.......smooth bore pistols for instance.
 
2013-03-17 10:09:13 PM

duenor: redmid17: Giltric: redmid17: Giltric: cameroncrazy1984: He has some great historical pieces including a broom-handle Mauser 96

Does he have a tax stamp for the NFA item?

I thought Mausers 96s were semi-auto

Actually they removed it from the NFA list. It used to be that you needed a stamp to own the pistol and shoulder stock pre 81.

If he aquired it pre 81 he would have needed a stamp....if he aquired it after 81 he would need a ffl03 for collector items.

Possibly a felony depending on how and when he aquired it.

Preferably off a dead Nazi, though I can't imagine any German solider carrying that gun except in desperation.

This is correct. the BH Mauser is in a special class all of its own. It is one of the few guns for which the big laws don't apply... possibly (my secret belief) because of Star Wars.... (look closely at Han Solo's gun...)

The BH Mauser was a VERY good gun for its time. I don't know why you'd say that about it.


I can say this, for as ungainly as it looks, and for being nearly 90 years old when I shot it, it's surprisingly accurate and fun to shoot.
 
2013-03-17 10:12:11 PM

jaytkay: The NRA is laughing at you. Gun and ammo sellers are laughing at you for hoarding their products at inflated prices.


Manufacturers have not increased prices one bit....if they have do you have citations?
 
2013-03-17 10:12:41 PM

Giltric: cameroncrazy1984: A) It's not full-auto and

There is more to the NFA than an item being full auto.......smooth bore pistols for instance.


The C96 ain't smoothbore either.
 
2013-03-17 10:14:54 PM

duenor: redmid17: Giltric: redmid17: Giltric: cameroncrazy1984: He has some great historical pieces including a broom-handle Mauser 96

Does he have a tax stamp for the NFA item?

I thought Mausers 96s were semi-auto

Actually they removed it from the NFA list. It used to be that you needed a stamp to own the pistol and shoulder stock pre 81.

If he aquired it pre 81 he would have needed a stamp....if he aquired it after 81 he would need a ffl03 for collector items.

Possibly a felony depending on how and when he aquired it.

Preferably off a dead Nazi, though I can't imagine any German solider carrying that gun except in desperation.

This is correct. the BH Mauser is in a special class all of its own. It is one of the few guns for which the big laws don't apply... possibly (my secret belief) because of Star Wars.... (look closely at Han Solo's gun...)

The BH Mauser was a VERY good gun for its time. I don't know why you'd say that about it.


It's production run ended in 1937 and only a few were issued to Luftwaffe soldiers in WW2. My comment had less to do with their efficacy and more to due with their general availability. They weren't a standard sidearm or weapon, and the only real reason to use one would be if there were any normal sidearms left.
 
2013-03-17 10:18:55 PM
catflag.files.wordpress.com

This thread just keeps...
 
2013-03-17 10:19:46 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Giltric: cameroncrazy1984: A) It's not full-auto and

There is more to the NFA than an item being full auto.......smooth bore pistols for instance.

The C96 ain't smoothbore either.



No shiat sherlock......

Point was that there are different things covered by the NFA...that it does not just regulate full auto weapons.

But like many anti gunners you have no idea what laws or criteria already exist.
 
2013-03-17 10:22:11 PM

Giltric: cameroncrazy1984: Giltric: cameroncrazy1984: A) It's not full-auto and

There is more to the NFA than an item being full auto.......smooth bore pistols for instance.

The C96 ain't smoothbore either.


No shiat sherlock......

Point was that there are different things covered by the NFA...that it does not just regulate full auto weapons.

But like many anti gunners you have no idea what laws or criteria already exist.


Note handle. Reasonable / intelligent conversation not possible.
 
2013-03-17 10:25:33 PM

Giltric: cameroncrazy1984: Giltric: cameroncrazy1984: A) It's not full-auto and

There is more to the NFA than an item being full auto.......smooth bore pistols for instance.

The C96 ain't smoothbore either.


No shiat sherlock......

Point was that there are different things covered by the NFA...that it does not just regulate full auto weapons.

But like many anti gunners you have no idea what laws or criteria already exist.


I'm not the one who automatically assumed that a Mauser C96 fell under the NFA.
 
2013-03-17 10:25:59 PM

Giltric: jaytkay: The NRA is laughing at you. Gun and ammo sellers are laughing at you for hoarding their products at inflated prices.

Manufacturers have not increased prices one bit....if they have do you have citations?


Impressive dishonesty there, changing the subject from "sellers" to "manufacturers".

Wow
 
2013-03-17 10:27:56 PM

Silly Jesus: Nobody would ever need more than 15 rounds for protection?  Right?  I wonder why law enforcement was given an exemption then...oh, wait, this just in, sometimes more than 15 rounds might be needed.


Well they do routinely fire 200 rounds and not hit a damn thing.
 
2013-03-17 10:29:11 PM
lack of warmth:
 A classmate of mine was allowed to drive drunk every weekend in HS, because grandpa was sheriff.

All it would have taken was a state prosecutor with an axe to grind and that sheriff would have been toast.  Hell, a  local news reporter would have been enough. And that's just some local yokel protecting his grandson.

Now imagine he was protecting random criminals. This wouldn't end well.
 
2013-03-17 10:31:43 PM

jaytkay: The NRA is laughing at you. Gun and ammo sellers are laughing at you for hoarding their products at inflated prices.


Serious question: how is this "nobody is going to ban your guns" still a talking point?

I mean, in the very article is in reference to gun bans, and most of the anti-gunners posts all stem around a desire to actively ban and possibly confiscate firearms.
 
2013-03-17 10:33:58 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Giltric: cameroncrazy1984: Giltric: cameroncrazy1984: A) It's not full-auto and

There is more to the NFA than an item being full auto.......smooth bore pistols for instance.

The C96 ain't smoothbore either.


No shiat sherlock......

Point was that there are different things covered by the NFA...that it does not just regulate full auto weapons.

But like many anti gunners you have no idea what laws or criteria already exist.

I'm not the one who automatically assumed that a Mauser C96 fell under the NFA.


It was an NFA item. A pistol having a shoulder stock is defniately part of the criteria. It is considered a short barelled rifle. They removed it from the registry and put it on the curio and relic or collectors registry where you would still need a FFL to aquire it and keep it....just not a tax stamp.
I would not let a cop catch a glimpse of a pistol with a shoulder stock though......they might not know a specific weapon has been removed from the list of NFA items and it is hard to get a firearm back after confiscation even if you prove to be in the right for owning it.
 
2013-03-17 10:34:45 PM

kellyclan: uphold a fundamental right of all people above enforcing state law.


a right which it should be noted is in no way being infringed funny enough. Also given what happened in Colorado, and why, a psychologist had no one to tell he had someone who was cuckoo for cocoa puffs as a patient, a patient who then had no problem shooting up a theater, I'd expect a sane ration sheriff to find the new laws something to make such occurances a bit less likely.
 
2013-03-17 10:36:43 PM

ChuDogg: most of the anti-gunners posts all stem around a desire to actively ban and possibly confiscate firearms.


This is a great case of people not smacking down idiots on their own side. Granted when those idiots have a well funded lobby, eh, yeah, kinda hard to slap down the NRA. Instead of whining about some mythical gun grabbers, perhaps you should be more worried about what certain people who you think on your side are advocating and saying.
 
2013-03-17 10:37:23 PM

jake_lex: I bet the gun nuts who applaud this would call for him to go to jail if he said "You know, I think I'm just not going to arrest people for possessing pot anymore."


I bet all of the anti-gun nuts who decry this would be call for the use of the hero tag if he said," You know, I don't think I'm going to arrest people for possessing pot anymore."

Yes, different people have different priorities. Welcome to the planet and species.
 
2013-03-17 10:37:47 PM

Giltric: It was an NFA item


It's not my fault you got all righteous before you realized that it was removed before I was born.
 
2013-03-17 10:38:39 PM

jaytkay: Giltric: jaytkay: The NRA is laughing at you. Gun and ammo sellers are laughing at you for hoarding their products at inflated prices.

Manufacturers have not increased prices one bit....if they have do you have citations?

Impressive dishonesty there, changing the subject from "sellers" to "manufacturers".

Wow


You jelly?

Fight fire with fire I say....
 
2013-03-17 10:39:19 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Giltric: It was an NFA item

It's not my fault you got all righteous before you realized that it was removed before I was born.


You still need a ffl 03 to own it.
 
2013-03-17 10:40:16 PM
Defense of Marriage Act?  Obama does it all the time.
 
2013-03-17 10:40:42 PM

WhyteRaven74: ChuDogg: most of the anti-gunners posts all stem around a desire to actively ban and possibly confiscate firearms.

This is a great case of people not smacking down idiots on their own side. Granted when those idiots have a well funded lobby, eh, yeah, kinda hard to slap down the NRA. Instead of whining about some mythical gun grabbers, perhaps you should be more worried about what certain people who you think on your side are advocating and saying.


I have no idea what this post means. But as far as "mythical gun grabbers" comment, proposed and instituted gun prohibitions have been making headlines daily for the last several months.

I mean, maybe it's time to update the talking points rotation from 2 years ago.
 
2013-03-17 10:41:03 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Giltric: cameroncrazy1984: A) It's not full-auto and

There is more to the NFA than an item being full auto.......smooth bore pistols for instance.

The C96 ain't smoothbore either.


Its a short barreled rifle when paired with the original holster/stock, also can qualify as Curio & relic (hence a few legal exemptions).

dl.dropbox.com

If I recall there was also full auto model.

As time marches on and technology delivers terrible new weapons to our streets, I think we'll look back one day and wonder what all the fuss was about.
The NFA only passed muster because so few people had interest in expensive and mechanically troublesome guns.  The Hughes amendment banning new sales was thoroughly pointless since it affected only a minority of gun owners.

But that is the nature of infringements.  You start with the smallest group and keep working to expand it.
They weren't content with obstructing the sale of military hardware.  They want the look-alikes too.

The problem being: what was a small group of AR owners in 94 is now the mainstream.
Democrats stuffed their hand in the cookie jar again, but it turned out to be a monkey trap.
 
2013-03-17 10:42:02 PM

GAT_00: I like it when local officials suddenly decide they get to pick and choose what is right and wrong and what they enforce.

Your job as sheriff is to serve the people, not serve your own politics.


And what if the people of Weld county are in complete agreement with him on this?  (They are.)
 
2013-03-17 10:42:37 PM
Do the cops still use Glock 17s?

Why is called a Glock 17?

Are they going to arrest themselves?

I'm actually going to side with the cops on this one.

<b>NEW RULE</b>: No one is who has never actually fired a gun in their life is allowed to write gun laws.
 
2013-03-17 10:44:09 PM

ChuDogg: Serious question: how is this "nobody is going to ban your guns" still a talking point?


 Tell me how a gun-free America is imminent. Is the UN going to confiscate your weapons soon?
 
2013-03-17 10:45:58 PM

jaytkay: ChuDogg: Serious question: how is this "nobody is going to ban your guns" still a talking point?

 Tell me how a gun-free America is imminent. Is the UN going to confiscate your weapons soon?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
 
2013-03-17 10:46:09 PM

Giltric: cameroncrazy1984: Giltric: It was an NFA item

It's not my fault you got all righteous before you realized that it was removed before I was born.

You still need a ffl 03 to own it.


If you had read the rest of my posts you'd notice that my grandfather has a large collection of C&R pistols.
 
2013-03-17 10:46:24 PM

pciszek: GAT_00: I like it when local officials suddenly decide they get to pick and choose what is right and wrong and what they enforce.

Your job as sheriff is to serve the people, not serve your own politics.

And what if the people of Weld county are in complete agreement with him on this?  (They are.)


It's another case of OMG how can Sheriff Joe get re-elected time and time again when I, someone who lives in NY or CA or wherever does not agree with him.

I'll have to look it up, I don't remember if it was Feinsteins or some other testimony hearing in regards to gun control where they aseked a Sheriff why he opposed the law yet all these chiefs of police agreed with the law.

The Sheriff responded...well the difference is they are appointed as a political favor by the mayor and I am elected by the people..
 
2013-03-17 10:52:33 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Giltric: cameroncrazy1984: Giltric: It was an NFA item

It's not my fault you got all righteous before you realized that it was removed before I was born.

You still need a ffl 03 to own it.

If you had read the rest of my posts you'd notice that my grandfather has a large collection of C&R pistols.


Sorry kiddo but it's not worth the time to keep clicking the show posts from ignored users button.
 
2013-03-17 10:52:50 PM

tjfly: This reminds me of the piss poor enforcement by the federal government to enforce illegal immigration laws...


that neither party has ever done anything to actually enforce?
LOL
 
2013-03-17 10:54:05 PM

ChuDogg: jaytkay: ChuDogg: Serious question: how is this "nobody is going to ban your guns" still a talking point?

 Tell me how a gun-free America is imminent. Is the UN going to confiscate your weapons soon?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum


Well OK, then.

Regale us with your stories of gun confiscation and how Obama's jack-booted thugs have robbed you of your 2nd amendment rights.

Please.

/ Kidding, I've been hearing these paranoid fantasies for 20 years, I know you're just overly emotional
 
2013-03-17 10:59:26 PM

jaytkay: ChuDogg: jaytkay: ChuDogg: Serious question: how is this "nobody is going to ban your guns" still a talking point?

/ Kidding, I've been hearing these paranoid fantasies for 20 years, I know you're just overly emotional


Calling the dude who just applied logic "emotional". classy.

I don't know if you've heard, but there are number of laws that would restrict purchasing the most popular selling rifles (along with shotguns and many handguns).  A long serving member of Congress has a full text available for your reading.  http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons

Cut the jabs for a moment and think about what you're saying.
 
2013-03-17 11:00:57 PM

ChuDogg: jaytkay: ChuDogg: jaytkay: ChuDogg: Serious question: how is this "nobody is going to ban your guns" still a talking point?

/ Kidding, I've been hearing these paranoid fantasies for 20 years, I know you're just overly emotional

Calling the dude who just applied logic "emotional". classy.

I don't know if you've heard, but there are number of laws that would restrict purchasing the most popular selling rifles (along with shotguns and many handguns).  A long serving member of Congress has a full text available for your reading.  http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons

Cut the jabs for a moment and think about what you're saying.


You also can't transfer them after the original owner dies. You have to destroy them or give them up to authorities. I feel like there is a word for that.
 
2013-03-17 11:13:30 PM

ChuDogg: Cut the jabs for a moment and think about what you're saying.


I'm saying if you can own a pistol and a rifle and a shotgun  today, and you don't have a future felony or mental problem, you will be able to own a pistol and a rifle and a shotgun in five years.

Your paranoid fears are nothing new. I have been hearing the same shiat for decades, and it always ramps up after a Democrat is elected President. Like clockwork.

The NRA and gun and ammo sellers count on it. The rubes deliver every time.
 
2013-03-17 11:15:54 PM

redmid17: You also can't transfer them after the original owner dies. You have to destroy them or give them up to authorities. I feel like there is a word for that.


Even if he wants to dwell on a grandfather clause, it ignores several things:

1. My post was in reference to other people's comments.  Not the actual laws being implemented
2. Many of the proposed State level laws have no grandfather clause.
3. The very fact that a grandfather clause is the only option to legally own a firearm is the very incentive driving many people to panic buy arms and ammunition.

My only point is this "heya nobody wants to ban your guns" talking point is so ludicrously stale and absurd, as there are plenty of well-funded lobbying groups, politicians, and media enterprises that are flatly stating that as a desired objective.  And they seem to have plenty of support in forums like this.

I mean, if that's what you want, go ahead and say that. It's OK.  I haven't even made any arguments in this thread on the efficacy of gun bans.  If that's what floats your boat, wear it proudly.
You don't have to hide it under some banner of juvenile snark and weird allusions to the NRA being their driving force.
 
2013-03-17 11:19:36 PM

ChuDogg: weird allusions to the NRA being their driving force


Cuz the NRA isn't whipping up hysteria at all. Nope. Why would anyone think that?

/ I subscribe to the NRA emails
// For laughs
 
2013-03-17 11:19:47 PM

jaytkay: I'm saying if you can own a pistol and a rifle and a shotgun today, and you don't have a future felony or mental problem, you will be able to own a pistol and a rifle and a shotgun in five years.


This sentence is not logically congruent.


I can own a pistol rifle and shotgun today. I don't, however.

Are you saying, that in 5 years I will be able to legally purchase a pistol, rifle, and shotgun with no restrictions, as long as I can pass a felony or mental health background check? Is that the full text of Feinstein's proposed legislation? Because that goes counter to everything I've heard of it, including from Senator Feinstein herself.

Please enlighten me.
 
m00
2013-03-17 11:29:08 PM
Part of our checks and balances is that the Executive has wide powers over enforcement. If legislature makes a bad law, cops don't have to enforce it. If cops enforce a bad law, the judiciary doesn't have to apply a penalty (although, mandatory minimum sentences have weakened this).
 
2013-03-17 11:37:49 PM

ChuDogg: Are you saying blah blah blah


No, I am saying you are fearful and obtuse.

You claim you can own a pistol rifle and shotgun today.

Nobody is taking that away from you. You can own a pistol rifle and shotgun tomorrow. And next year. And the year after that.

Sorry to wreck your paranoid fantasy, but you are not a bedraggled rebel, hiding your contraband weapons from the Evil Empire.
 
2013-03-17 11:41:31 PM

m00: , mandatory minimum sentences have weakened this


Not quite.

The judge can dismiss charges.

Cops: He's guilty of this.
Judge: That's not a crime. Dismissed.
 
2013-03-17 11:46:19 PM

jaytkay: You can own a pistol rifle and shotgun tomorrow. And next year. And the year after that.


Thanks for sharing this.  This is revolutionary and groundbreaking information that literally goes against everything the media and politicians them-self are reporting. So you're saying if Senator Feinsteins law passes, and the Connecticut proposed legislation. I will be able to walk into any gun store and purchase the popular selling AR-15 style rifle?
 
2013-03-18 12:16:52 AM

cameroncrazy1984: Sensei Can You See: No; he said he couldn't enforce this particular law if he wanted to. And he's right. All five of the gun bills are knee-jerk feel-good laws that can't be enforced and wouldn't do any good if they could.

How, exactly, is it impossible to enforce background checks and magazine restrictions? We appear to do it just fine in New York State. A guy was arrested last week for knowingly attempting to sell a banned rifle.




Oh, so we ramp up the vice squad.
 
2013-03-18 12:19:14 AM

Giltric: cameroncrazy1984: Giltric: cameroncrazy1984: Giltric: It was an NFA item

It's not my fault you got all righteous before you realized that it was removed before I was born.

You still need a ffl 03 to own it.

If you had read the rest of my posts you'd notice that my grandfather has a large collection of C&R pistols.

Sorry kiddo but it's not worth the time to keep clicking the show posts from ignored users button.


What the fark are you doing on Fark?

STFU and GBTW.
 
2013-03-18 12:20:26 AM
Federal agents have been ignoring immigration laws for years and you libs all of a sudden have a problem with this concept??  Typical.
 
2013-03-18 12:23:20 AM

garron: Federal agents have been ignoring immigration laws for years and you libs all of a sudden have a problem with this concept?? Typical.


So, care to explain why deportations of illegal immigrants are up over the last four years if no one is enforcing the law?
 
2013-03-18 12:32:17 AM

WhyteRaven74: garron: Federal agents have been ignoring immigration laws for years and you libs all of a sudden have a problem with this concept?? Typical.

So, care to explain why deportations of illegal immigrants are up over the last four years if no one is enforcing the law?


The same reason why the Bush tax cuts made taxes too low even though we had record revenues under it.
 
2013-03-18 12:38:29 AM

iheartscotch: cameroncrazy1984: iheartscotch: Muzzle climb? In an Ar-15? Have you ever fired a Ar-15? Yes it has some;

You know what doesn't have a problem with muzzle climb? A Winchester .303 bolt-action. Accurate out to a longer range, too. And you're more likely to hit what you're shooting at. And drop it on the first shot.

It's still a rifle designed for a military; and as such, it's a super baby/puppy killer.

I agree, big bolt action rifles are more accurate and more likely to drop a wild animal on the first shot; but, most (especially .303) were designed for one military or another.

/ My 76 year old mosin could be considered a military assault weapon because it came with a bayonet.


Just wanted to point out that the Winchester .303 wasn't a bolt-action rifle.  Aside from that technical inaccuracy, the two of you have both made some of the dumbest arguments I've seen on Fark in a long time.
 
2013-03-18 12:46:32 AM

WhyteRaven74: garron: Federal agents have been ignoring immigration laws for years and you libs all of a sudden have a problem with this concept?? Typical.

So, care to explain why deportations of illegal immigrants are up over the last four years if no one is enforcing the law?


Immigrants are voting for tougher enforcement to protect their jobs using fake IDs. Duh.
 
2013-03-18 01:21:25 AM

NephilimNexus: Do the cops still use Glock 17s?  That's pretty rare these days.

9mm isn't being used in law enforcement much anymore.

Why is called a Glock 17?It's a model number. The fact that the factory magazine holds 17 rounds is a coincidence.
 
2013-03-18 02:07:02 AM

Yes this is dog: NephilimNexus: Do the cops still use Glock 17s?  That's pretty rare these days. 9mm isn't being used in law enforcement much anymore.

Why is called a Glock 17?It's a model number. The fact that the factory magazine holds 17 rounds is a coincidence.


I'm betting an "engineered" coincidence.
 
2013-03-18 02:31:56 AM

jaybeezey: jake_lex: I bet the gun nuts who applaud this would call for him to go to jail if he said "You know, I think I'm just not going to arrest people for possessing pot anymore."

I bet all of the anti-gun nuts who decry this would be call for the use of the hero tag if he said," You know, I don't think I'm going to arrest people for possessing pot anymore."

Yes, different people have different priorities. Welcome to the planet and species.


As a libertarian, I believe what you do in the privacy of your home is your business. If you're a responsible adult and you're not harming others with your actions, toke up. If you want to own guns, are a responsible law abiding adult, and treat them with care ie: store them safely, shoot them responsibly, blast away.

And the inverse also applies. if you show propensity to act irresponsibly by acting violently, harming others, or are deemed a mentally adjudicated as a risk to yourself or others, no guns for you. If you cannot hold down a job due to drug abuse, no unemployment or welfare for you.

The idea that the government can legislate us into a perfect safe society is laughable IMNSHO. Teaching children to compete, take personal responsibility, self discipline, respect for the life of their fellow man, and how to safely deal with dangerous things, and that an oath is something not taken lightly, will prepare them far better for life, and do far more for our society, than instilling them with the idea that the government will take care of them every time they fail or something dangerous comes their way.

Good on these sheriffs for upholding the constitutional principals that they swear to defend upon entry into office. If the people in their districts disagree with their actions, they won't be re-elected next time round. The process of nullification by state and local government is societys way of saying enough is enough to the bloated, over centralized federal government.

If the gun grabbers want to ban guns in a legal constitutional way, all it would take is getting 37 states to ratify a 28th amendment stating that the 2nd is no longer valid. But the numbers just aren't there. Until that happens these sheriffs will receive my full support. I swore an oath to uphold and defend the constitution when I was younger. It didn't have an expiration. And if the supreme law of the land, the constitutional process, is followed, I will respect the decisions of the citizens of this nation. But the current legislation is not following that process. So it will get my vocal opposition.
 
2013-03-18 02:37:13 AM

fknra: jaybeezey: jake_lex: I bet the gun nuts who applaud this would call for him to go to jail if he said "You know, I think I'm just not going to arrest people for possessing pot anymore."

I bet all of the anti-gun nuts who decry this would be call for the use of the hero tag if he said," You know, I don't think I'm going to arrest people for possessing pot anymore."

Yes, different people have different priorities. Welcome to the planet and species.

As a libertarian, I believe what you do in the privacy of your home is your business. If you're a responsible adult and you're not harming others with your actions, toke up. If you want to own guns, are a responsible law abiding adult, and treat them with care ie: store them safely, shoot them responsibly, blast away.

And the inverse also applies. if you show propensity to act irresponsibly by acting violently, harming others, or are deemed a mentally adjudicated as a risk to yourself or others, no guns for you. If you cannot hold down a job due to drug abuse, no unemployment or welfare for you.

The idea that the government can legislate us into a perfect safe society is laughable IMNSHO. Teaching children to compete, take personal responsibility, self discipline, respect for the life of their fellow man, and how to safely deal with dangerous things, and that an oath is something not taken lightly, will prepare them far better for life, and do far more for our society, than instilling them with the idea that the government will take care of them every time they fail or something dangerous comes their way.

Good on these sheriffs for upholding the constitutional principals that they swear to defend upon entry into office. If the people in their districts disagree with their actions, they won't be re-elected next time round. The process of nullification by state and local government is societys way of saying enough is enough to the bloated, over centralized federal government.

If the gun grabbers want to ban guns in a le ...


It was the 17th patent held by the company.
 
2013-03-18 02:46:44 AM

fknra: And the inverse also applies. if you show propensity to act irresponsibly by acting violently, harming others, or are deemed a mentally adjudicated as a risk to yourself or others, no guns for you.


This scares old people. The point at which they most need a tool to defend themselves they will be deprived of it. It's easy to think you can always run away and call the cops when you are young but that's not reality for the elderly. shiat, just one punch can destroy thousands of dollars of dental work in a split second.

Oh, and old people vote.
 
2013-03-18 02:47:01 AM

jaytkay: ChuDogg: Cut the jabs for a moment and think about what you're saying.

I'm saying if you can own a pistol and a rifle and a shotgun  today, and you don't have a future felony or mental problem, you will be able to own a pistol and a rifle and a shotgun in five years.

Your paranoid fears are nothing new. I have been hearing the same shiat for decades, and it always ramps up after a Democrat is elected President. Like clockwork.

The NRA and gun and ammo sellers count on it. The rubes deliver every time.


What kind of rifle, pistol, and shotgun?
He's not paranoid. The way it works is like this

1. you can have a rifle, but it can't be an ar15 or ak47.
2. you can have a rifle, but it can't have a pistol grip, detachable magazine, or collaspsible stock
3. you can have a rifle, but you can't have magazines over 10 rounds
4. you can have a rifle, but you can't have detachable magazines
5. you can have a rifle, but you can only have 10 rounds in your non detachable magazine.
6. you now cannot have any of this list of 700 rifles.
7. any new rifle coming into the state must be on a list of approved rifles. we call it the "safe rifle list" so we all feel better.
8. getting on the safe rifle list requires an $8000 "fee" to the state gov't. for each configuration. oh, are you a small manufacturer? can't pay? sorry, can't sell in this state.
9. we no longer accept applications for the safe rifle list.
10. when a rifle owner dies, the rifle must be turned into to the police, or rendered inoperable.
11. no more than one box of rifle ammunition may be purchased every month.
12. the Bureau of Land Management now revokes the lease for every outdoor shooting range.

think I'm paranoid and making stuff up? Try to figure out which ones of have already come true for the state of California. then figure out which ones are in the latest legislation.
 
2013-03-18 02:55:14 AM

fknra: If the gun grabbers want to ban guns in a le ...


very well said. if i could buy you a beer I would.
what is being done is  erosion of our rights. if they'd repeal the 2nd, I'd give up my guns. but this back door kind of nickle and diming makes a mockery of the values we ostensibly hold dear.
 
2013-03-18 03:43:05 AM

cameroncrazy1984: IlGreven: ..okay, I approve of the law, and condemn the dumbass cop who's doing this, but this was the most idiotic thing I've seen yet on this thread

What part of that was idiotic? Do the rights of citizens extend to breaking laws judged to be Constitutional or not?


...if you hadn't cut off the rest of my post, you'd've had your answer.  Yes, civil disobedience is a necessary check. Too bad the only people with the courage to actually use it in the past 50 years are dumbasses like this cop.
 
2013-03-18 03:59:32 AM
I'm thankful for the sheriff's standing by the citizens and the constitution on this one.

These laws Make it a shady legal area to even own some guns.

I travel for work, by this new law if I travel for over 72 hours I must "gift" my guns to my wife. (or perform a $10 background check on each one to transfer them to her).  I must take any magazine that is 15+ rounds OR easily converted to more than 15 rounds with me, as there is no transfer of possession of magazines allowed once this law is enacted.

I have a friend who leaves a pistol at my house so he doesn't have to fly with it when he comes to visit.  If it's at my house past July 1 I can't give it back to him without a background check, and I can't give him his magazines legally.

It's not enforceable because old mags are grandfathered in.  Prove that I bought it after the ban date without a receipt....


Farkers should stand together for freedom, not a police state.
 
2013-03-18 05:01:15 AM
Fire his ass.  In case he's forgotten, he works for the people, and in our form of government here in the USA, the people elect their representatives.  I am completely against any "assault weapons" ban, but I even more against people that have guns and don't obey the law.
 
2013-03-18 05:04:19 AM

cameroncrazy1984: GoldenEggs: I applaud the sheriff for standing up for the Bill of Rights particularly the 2ND Amendment.  What part of "Shall NOT not be infringed" can't the demoshiats (with their globalist agendas) not understand?

The part where there are such things as "reasonable restrictions."


Weird. I can't find "reasonable restrictions" anywhere in the Bill of Rights.
 
2013-03-18 05:24:07 AM

Cheviot: Silly Jesus: Cheviot: pedrop357: Cheviot: There is fairly easy to fix. The legislature can make it a felony to refuse to enforce state law. If a local sheriff still refuses, send in the state police and arrest them.

Prove he's not enforcing it.

Easy, just ask him. He's already incriminated himself. He seems very proud that he's not enforcing the law. His own public statements would be enough to get him arrested and then later convicted when he can't demonstrate in court that his public statements were false.

Are you intentionally being completely ignorant of the law?  I really can't tell.  You're so far off base that it's both laughable and sad.

The man is proud he's refusing to enforce the law. He's more than likely to admit it again, and if not he would need a defense against the evidence he failed to enforce the law. A defense he already shot in the foot by publicly stating he wouldn't enforce the law. Now, if he could prove he was enforcing the law, he'd be in good shape... But then next election, who will vote for the lying sheriff.

But let's get to the nitty gritty here. This is the sheriff making a dog and pony show out of nothing. Did you bother reading the law in question? I did. There's no provision requiring the sheriffs to do anything. At all. Nothing. There is literally nothing for the sheriff to enforce. This sheriff wanted to sound like a big tough guy telling the state where to stick their law without ever having to do anything.


You seem to be under the false impression that law enforcement officials are under some sort of obligation to enforce all laws on the books at all times otherwise they are breaking the law.  That was my main concern, because that is extremely far from the truth.
 
2013-03-18 05:56:22 AM

StoPPeRmobile: fknra: And the inverse also applies. if you show propensity to act irresponsibly by acting violently, harming others, or are deemed a mentally adjudicated as a risk to yourself or others, no guns for you.

This scares old people. The point at which they most need a tool to defend themselves they will be deprived of it. It's easy to think you can always run away and call the cops when you are young but that's not reality for the elderly. shiat, just one punch can destroy thousands of dollars of dental work in a split second.

Oh, and old people vote.


I'm very confused by this response. What does being old have to do with being mentally competent? I do not and would not even consider age a factor in being a violent offender/ danger to self or others. I know plenty of competent 80+ year olds that I would better trust with guns than most 20 year olds. If a senior citizen can pass a background check and doesn't have advanced dementia or Alzheimer's I see no reason to prohibit them from buying anything currently available on the market.

And I totally get the whole not being able to run. It's one of the reasons I'm a supporter of firearms ownership. I wrecked a motorcycle 9 years ago and am confined to a wheelchair. I simply do not have the option of running and hiding. (not that it would be my first choice anyway) I'm a firm believer in that if if someone uses violence or the threat of violence to take from or harm an innocent, any high velocity lead poisoning they receive in the process is their own damn fault.
 
2013-03-18 06:34:05 AM
Silly Jesus:
You seem to be under the false impression that law enforcement officials are under some sort of obligation to enforce all laws on the books at all times otherwise they are breaking the law.  That was my main concern, because that is extremely far from the truth.

This was part of a long discussion regarding whether the state legislature could force the issue with this sheriff by criminalizing refusing to enforce the law.
 
2013-03-18 07:55:05 AM

jake_lex: I bet the gun nuts who applaud this would call for him to go to jail if he said "You know, I think I'm just not going to arrest people for possessing pot anymore."


My state publicly flaunts immigration law. big hearing at the statehouse where illegal aliens, speaking Spanish, were biatching because they don't get drivers' licenses. Liberals always choose to not enforce laws when it suits them. This guy won't enforce because it actually violates the Constitution. Who is the bigger ass?

You want Americans to be punished, but illegal aliens to have rights. Farking liberals.
 
2013-03-18 10:04:15 AM

fknra: If the gun grabbers want to ban guns in a legal constitutional way, all it would take is getting 37 states to ratify a 28th amendment stating that the 2nd is no longer valid.


The 2nd Amendment cannot be repealed.  Unless an Amendment specifically creates a right, voiding that amendment does nothing.  The 2nd Amendment, like the 1st, does not create any rights: they state naturally existing rights that individuals have merely by their existence.
 
2013-03-18 10:41:26 AM

mrmopar5287: fknra: If the gun grabbers want to ban guns in a legal constitutional way, all it would take is getting 37 states to ratify a 28th amendment stating that the 2nd is no longer valid.

The 2nd Amendment cannot be repealed.  Unless an Amendment specifically creates a right, voiding that amendment does nothing.  The 2nd Amendment, like the 1st, does not create any rights: they state naturally existing rights that individuals have merely by their existence.


I agree with you in principal and spirit. However according to constitutional law the only way to properly change the bill of rights is with an additional amendment. which is why when prohibition (the 18th amendment) was ended, they didn't simply strike it out, they had to pass the 21st. So according to constitutional precedent, the only legal way to change the second would be to add another, either nullifying it or replacing it.

I agree with the idea that the right to self defense and security through armed citizenry is innate, and will actively support and defend the peoples right to do so, I'm simply stating that the only possible legal way to effect the laws and bans that are being proposed would be through the constitutional law process.

I also believe that the federal government has no business regulating firearms at all. The 10th amendment states that the federal government has no other powers than those specifically dictated to it by the constitution and that all other powers are to be retained by the states or the people. If states want to pass their own local laws they are free to do so as long as they are the will of the people in that state and do not violate the constitution. people to often forget that the country was designed as group of individual entities bound together in trade and mutual defense. That way if you wanted to live in a state with more regulations regarding firearms you were free to do so, but if you didn't you moved to a state that better suited your ideals.
 
2013-03-18 11:09:10 AM

TerminalEchoes: cameroncrazy1984: GoldenEggs: I applaud the sheriff for standing up for the Bill of Rights particularly the 2ND Amendment.  What part of "Shall NOT not be infringed" can't the demoshiats (with their globalist agendas) not understand?

The part where there are such things as "reasonable restrictions."

Weird. I can't find "reasonable restrictions" anywhere in the Bill of Rights.


When reasonable restrictions are called for several times in the BIll of Rights. For example, the 4th Amd does not say you are free from ALL search and seizure. Just unreasonable search and seizure. This grants the judiciary authority to define reasonable for the 4th Amd.

The 3rd Amd does not say you can NEVER be compelled to house a soldier. It says that you cannot be forced to do so during a time of peace, and if there is a war on, laws must be enacted to govern such forced housing.

The 8th Amd does not say you are free from ALL punishment or bail, just "cruel and unusual" and "excessive". Again, language for a judge to interpret what defines cruel and unusual or excessive given a particular circumstance.

The 2nd Amd says "the right of the People to keep and bear reasonable arms for hunting shall not be infringed too much".

Wait..no.
 
2013-03-18 11:20:37 AM

fknra: mrmopar5287: fknra: If the gun grabbers want to ban guns in a legal constitutional way, all it would take is getting 37 states to ratify a 28th amendment stating that the 2nd is no longer valid.

The 2nd Amendment cannot be repealed.  Unless an Amendment specifically creates a right, voiding that amendment does nothing.  The 2nd Amendment, like the 1st, does not create any rights: they state naturally existing rights that individuals have merely by their existence.

I agree with you in principal and spirit. However according to constitutional law the only way to properly change the bill of rights is with an additional amendment. which is why when prohibition (the 18th amendment) was ended, they didn't simply strike it out, they had to pass the 21st. So according to constitutional precedent, the only legal way to change the second would be to add another, either nullifying it or replacing it.

I agree with the idea that the right to self defense and security through armed citizenry is innate, and will actively support and defend the peoples right to do so, I'm simply stating that the only possible legal way to effect the laws and bans that are being proposed would be through the constitutional law process.

I also believe that the federal government has no business regulating firearms at all. The 10th amendment states that the federal government has no other powers than those specifically dictated to it by the constitution and that all other powers are to be retained by the states or the people. If states want to pass their own local laws they are free to do so as long as they are the will of the people in that state and do not violate the constitution. people to often forget that the country was designed as group of individual entities bound together in trade and mutual defense. That way if you wanted to live in a state with more regulations regarding firearms you were free to do so, but if you didn't you moved to a state that better suited your ideals.


Commerce Clause.
 
2013-03-18 11:26:51 AM
StoPPeRmobile:
Commerce Clause.

only if you sell them across state lines
 
2013-03-18 11:37:18 AM

Bucky Katt: iheartscotch: dukwbutter: jake_lex: I bet the gun nuts who applaud this would call for him to go to jail if he said "You know, I think I'm just not going to arrest people for possessing pot anymore."

Pot is legal in Colorado idiot.

In violation of federal law. Federal law > State law. States nullifying laws led to the civil war.

The feds have no jurisdiction over purely in-state commerce.  The feds have the authority to regulate interstate not intra state commerce.


That was before an FDR court decided Wickard.
 
2013-03-18 12:04:28 PM

fknra: StoPPeRmobile:
Commerce Clause.

only if you sell them across state lines


Wrong. Wickard vs. Filburn. First case to test your assumption. SCOTUS held that "Congress may regulate any activity that has a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce.
 
2013-03-18 12:05:07 PM

Big_Fat_Liar: Bucky Katt: iheartscotch: dukwbutter: jake_lex: I bet the gun nuts who applaud this would call for him to go to jail if he said "You know, I think I'm just not going to arrest people for possessing pot anymore."

Pot is legal in Colorado idiot.

In violation of federal law. Federal law > State law. States nullifying laws led to the civil war.

The feds have no jurisdiction over purely in-state commerce.  The feds have the authority to regulate interstate not intra state commerce.

That was before an FDR court decided Wickard.


*Shakes tiny fist*
 
2013-03-18 12:25:10 PM

cameroncrazy1984: brerrabbit: Doktor_Zhivago: Clemkadidlefark: Hey, Subby ...

Upholding the Constitution is Job #1 for a Sheriff. Not standing aside to let the citizens of his County get it up the back hole from Libtards who claim to be writing them some laws.

[www.glennbeck.com image 296x300]

It must suck to be a flaming marxist in a free nation, but you can always fix that by moving to North Korea.

No, upholding state and county law is Job #1 for a sherriff.  Are you retarded?

Actually, no. They are an elected police force. Hint: They are often called peace officers. Their job #1 is to keep the peace.

Why do you think Sheriffs are called "law enforcement officers"?


I see the night train passed you by.
First there were sheriffs. Then there were deputies. Then Marshalls. (see any kind of  word-progression, here?) Then Police, then Peace Officers.  Then law-enforcement ...

A technocrat term invented by the same "law-writing" dickheads who took peace officers off their beat, reduced the number of men in blue and put them in cars to be the last guy on scene when trouble began.

A Peace Officer's charge was to  keep the Peace. Now all they're charged with is enforcing laws.

Big difference, sir. Big effing difference. Which you will discover as the ObamaNation continues to move towards a dictatorship.

But the night-train failing to pick you up at the Obvious Whistle Stop means you haven't understood that just because a bunch of elected knuckleheads voted themselves some "laws" ... that doesn't make it Law. It's Law if it's Constitutional and stands up to court challenges all the way to the Supreme Court.

Or, if you bow down and say meekly, yes yes. I'll be a good little boy and obey.

Is that you? The good little boy who meekly kneels down and says Uncle?

Is that you?

PS - gun control was settled in 1791.
 
2013-03-18 12:31:39 PM

Clemkadidlefark: cameroncrazy1984: brerrabbit: Doktor_Zhivago: Clemkadidlefark: Hey, Subby ...

Upholding the Constitution is Job #1 for a Sheriff. Not standing aside to let the citizens of his County get it up the back hole from Libtards who claim to be writing them some laws.

[www.glennbeck.com image 296x300]

It must suck to be a flaming marxist in a free nation, but you can always fix that by moving to North Korea.

No, upholding state and county law is Job #1 for a sherriff.  Are you retarded?

Actually, no. They are an elected police force. Hint: They are often called peace officers. Their job #1 is to keep the peace.

Why do you think Sheriffs are called "law enforcement officers"?

I see the night train passed you by.
First there were sheriffs. Then there were deputies. Then Marshalls. (see any kind of  word-progression, here?) Then Police, then Peace Officers.  Then law-enforcement ...

A technocrat term invented by the same "law-writing" dickheads who took peace officers off their beat, reduced the number of men in blue and put them in cars to be the last guy on scene when trouble began.

A Peace Officer's charge was to  keep the Peace. Now all they're charged with is enforcing laws.

Big difference, sir. Big effing difference. Which you will discover as the ObamaNation continues to move towards a dictatorship.

But the night-train failing to pick you up at the Obvious Whistle Stop means you haven't understood that just because a bunch of elected knuckleheads voted themselves some "laws" ... that doesn't make it Law. It's Law if it's Constitutional and stands up to court challenges all the way to the Supreme Court.

Or, if you bow down and say meekly, yes yes. I'll be a good little boy and obey.

Is that you? The good little boy who meekly kneels down and says Uncle?

Is that you?

PS - gun control was settled in 1791.


Just like The Romans and every other "democratic rebuplic" government has eventually failed the next step is to choose an Emporer as our savor.
 
2013-03-18 01:42:09 PM

StoPPeRmobile: fknra: StoPPeRmobile:
Commerce Clause.

only if you sell them across state lines

Wrong. Wickard vs. Filburn. First case to test your assumption. SCOTUS held that "Congress may regulate any activity that has a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce.


The feds have authority over intERstate commerce. (across state lines)

The feds do not have authority over intRAstate commerce (within state lines)

and there are just a couple states that agree with me...

http://firearmsfreedomact.com/state-by-state
 
2013-03-18 01:46:30 PM

kellyclan: Wait..no.


Ahh, the constitutional scholar who ignores supreme court decisions they don't like. Every word in the constitution only means what the scholar interprets them to mean, and the interpretations of the supreme court don't count.  How amusing.
 
2013-03-18 01:53:49 PM

fknra: StoPPeRmobile: fknra: StoPPeRmobile:
Commerce Clause.

only if you sell them across state lines

Wrong. Wickard vs. Filburn. First case to test your assumption. SCOTUS held that "Congress may regulate any activity that has a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce.

The feds have authority over intERstate commerce. (across state lines)

The feds do not have authority over intRAstate commerce (within state lines)

and there are just a couple states that agree with me...

http://firearmsfreedomact.com/state-by-state


Not that I disagree with your position, but there's enough case law outside of Wickard v. Filburn to make this a very contentious point that I don't know if the states can win. United States v. Stewart was a 9th circuit court decision for the defendant regarding homemade automatic weapons and interstate vs intrastate commerce. SCOTUS told them to revisit the decision after Gonzales v Raich (med marijiana decision) and they reversed their decision because apparently a felon who cannot own firearms making his own automatic weapons somehow affects interstate commerce of automatic weapons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Stewart_(2003)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich
 
2013-03-18 02:05:48 PM

fknra: StoPPeRmobile: fknra: StoPPeRmobile:
Commerce Clause.

only if you sell them across state lines

Wrong. Wickard vs. Filburn. First case to test your assumption. SCOTUS held that "Congress may regulate any activity that has a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce.

The feds have authority over intERstate commerce. (across state lines)

The feds do not have authority over intRAstate commerce (within state lines)

and there are just a couple states that agree with me...

http://firearmsfreedomact.com/state-by-state


Look, we all want this to be true.  We all want things to function like they're supposed to.  But Wickard took that away.  Please do what you can to bring it back to sanity.  That includes acknowledging the problem.
 
2013-03-18 02:56:24 PM

jaytkay: ChuDogg: Are you saying blah blah blah

No, I am saying you are fearful and obtuse.

You claim you can own a pistol rifle and shotgun today.

Nobody is taking that away from you. You can own a pistol rifle and shotgun tomorrow. And next year. And the year after that.

Sorry to wreck your paranoid fantasy, but you are not a bedraggled rebel, hiding your contraband weapons from the Evil Empire.


Colorado resident here. I can buy certain rifles and types of magazines today.

Next year I won't be able to buy them.

You were saying?
 
2013-03-18 03:37:21 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Sensei Can You See: No; he said he couldn't enforce this particular law if he wanted to. And he's right. All five of the gun bills are knee-jerk feel-good laws that can't be enforced and wouldn't do any good if they could.

How, exactly, is it impossible to enforce background checks and magazine restrictions? We appear to do it just fine in New York State. A guy was arrested last week for knowingly attempting to sell a banned rifle.


Hypothetically, how many guns do I have?  How many have I sold?  What magazines do I have?  Which ones are legal and how would you ever know?

Not hypothetically, I have several firearms that do not have serial numbers, because they either predate serial numbers, come from places that don't like tracking, or were made at home.  How do you propose to enforce the laws that have recently passed?  I assure you, you can not enter my home and inspect my arsenal.  (well, you can't, the cops can if they send someone with a warrant, but they have no legal grounds for that)

Can you catch someone, once in a while and make headlines?  Oh hell yes.  Can you enforce the law evenly and fully?  No farking way.
 
2013-03-18 04:04:26 PM

Smackledorfer: kellyclan: Wait..no.

Ahh, the constitutional scholar who ignores supreme court decisions they don't like. Every word in the constitution only means what the scholar interprets them to mean, and the interpretations of the supreme court don't count.  How amusing.


So you would posit that the Bill of Rights would explicitly grant authority for judicial interpretation in regards to some rights and for those it does not, we just assume authority is implied?
 
2013-03-18 04:30:03 PM

kellyclan: Smackledorfer: kellyclan: Wait..no.

Ahh, the constitutional scholar who ignores supreme court decisions they don't like. Every word in the constitution only means what the scholar interprets them to mean, and the interpretations of the supreme court don't count.  How amusing.

So you would posit that the Bill of Rights would explicitly grant authority for judicial interpretation in regards to some rights and for those it does not, we just assume authority is implied?


The Constitution limits government.
 
2013-03-18 05:21:04 PM

jaytkay: najay1: Gun control is the knee jerk emotional reaction of people that fear their own shadow

The guys in the suburbs who "need" a gun to drive to the 7-11 for a Slurpee are the frightened emotional ones.


Hate to break this to you, but bad things sometimes happen at the 7-11
 
2013-03-18 05:25:58 PM

knobmaker: jaytkay: najay1: Gun control is the knee jerk emotional reaction of people that fear their own shadow

The guys in the suburbs who "need" a gun to drive to the 7-11 for a Slurpee are the frightened emotional ones.

Hate to break this to you, but bad things sometimes happen at the 7-11


Like this weekend:  http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=9030309">http: //abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=9030309
 
2013-03-18 05:53:22 PM

Giltric: it is hard to get a firearm back after confiscation even if you prove to be in the right for owning it.


True story.  I had my EDC confiscated pending outcome of a trial where the university/state tried to prosecute me for violation of pistol free areas.  Even after the case was dismissed with extreme prejudice, the police couldn't give it back  because it was at the state lab, the state lab couldn't give it back because they don't deal with people, and nobody cared to get me my property back... It took a judge's order (judge was shocked they didn't rush to give me my gun back) demanding the police to go retrieve it from the state lab and give it back to me before i got to have it back.  If the state wasn't so busy handling priority Detroit crime stuff, my gun would have been profiled and destroyed looong before that letter came.
 
2013-03-19 11:52:15 AM

Cheviot: Silly Jesus:
You seem to be under the false impression that law enforcement officials are under some sort of obligation to enforce all laws on the books at all times otherwise they are breaking the law.  That was my main concern, because that is extremely far from the truth.

This was part of a long discussion regarding whether the state legislature could force the issue with this sheriff by criminalizing refusing to enforce the law.


No, they can't, because every time that the sheriff let a jaywalker slide he would be criminally liable.
 
2013-03-19 12:51:09 PM

Silly Jesus: Cheviot:

This was part of a long discussion regarding whether the state legislature could force the issue with this sheriff by criminalizing refusing to enforce the law.

No, they can't, because every time that the sheriff let a jaywalker slide he would be criminally liable.


Oh please, no slippery slope arguments. It's certainly possible to craft a law that would still allow law enforcement discretion while still requiring investigation of crimes. The state wouldn't put up with a sheriff that refused to enforce the law against murder or drunk driving, especially after a public statement to that effect. It's just a question of phrasing the law correctly.
 
Displayed 462 of 462 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report