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.

(CNSNews)   Remember that Colorado sheriff who announced that he will no longer enforce laws he doesn't like? Yeah...about that   (cnsnews.com) divider line 658
    More: Followup, Colorado, Weld County, gun controls, sheriffs  
•       •       •

28463 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Mar 2013 at 3:08 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-19 03:46:33 PM

ShadowKamui: You do realize every single sheriff in Colorado is already violating federal law about weed possession.


Sheriffs don't enforce any federal laws. From time to time the feds might ask them for help, but that's always optional. These guys are talking about ignoring STATE laws, which it IS their job to enforce.

This would be easily solved in the next budget bill, by earmarking a certain (slightly painful) percentage of the state money that goes to sheriffs for enforcement of this law. But I doubt these guys are in any way serious about the principle involved, now that they've had a chance to blow smoke up the asses of a few voters in the next low-turnout sheriff's election.
 
2013-03-19 03:46:38 PM

Infernalist: They'll talk a big game until a team from the FBI shows up and sits them down to take depositions on whether or not they'll enforce signed state law.

Then they'll meekly agree to enforce the laws, understanding that the FBI will be testing them on the issue rather quietly.


I think it is a bunch of empty talk, like you say.  In fact, has anyone ever been arrested solely for having a magazine that held too many bullets?  It's not something that would ever even come up.  If you committed another crime and they confiscated your gun as evidence only then would they cause to ever asses the magazine capacity.
 
2013-03-19 03:47:17 PM
I guess most people don't understand that sheriffs are elected, at least in Colorado. The Weld County sheriff and others are just responding to their constituents. They will get fired if they enforce the magazine ban in Colorado. The more you know....
 
2013-03-19 03:47:28 PM

Dixon Cider: I live near this asshole and hope he gets fired soon!


Well, hoping is easier than mounting a recall election.

Oh, you thought he was employee?  Sorry.
 
2013-03-19 03:47:33 PM

umad: EdNortonsTwin: Maybe they shouldn't be bothered to swear to uphold the Constitution either.  Yea, about that old document.

The same one that says "shall not be infringed?" Maybe he is.





Clip limit does not infringe on an ownership of a weapon. You an Scalia can ignore the "Well Regulated Militia" part.
 
2013-03-19 03:47:33 PM

Animatronik: Infernalist: They'll talk a big game until a team from the FBI shows up and sits them down to take depositions on whether or not they'll enforce signed state law.

Then they'll meekly agree to enforce the laws, understanding that the FBI will be testing them on the issue rather quietly.

You do understand that the letter "F" in FBI stands federal, and that this is not a federal matter?

He can only be forced to enforce those laws by an order from a state court. Even then, he might still get away with little to no enforcement.

I seem to recall something about Federal agents choosing not
to enforce immigration laws.

Laws that require existing gun owners to take lengthy classes and pay high registration fees are pretty odious, but I'm not sure what he thinks is unconstitutional here. I suppose you could argue that multiple background checks is unduly burdensome and violates the 2nd amendment. A bit dubious.


The Supreme Court has already said you cannot prohibit guns in "common usage". These CO laws would not only prohibit "high capacity magazines" which come as standard with virtually every handgun produced, but also "readily convertible" magazines, which is quite literally 99% of removable magazines ever made. Banning an essential functional part of a item is a de facto ban on that item. Moreover, the laws would ban guns that can ACCEPT such magazines which is every magazine-fed firearm made.

That would probably fall under the definition of in "common usage".
 
2013-03-19 03:47:56 PM

redmid17: thenumber5: odinsposse: tom baker's scarf: here's the thing. no one is expecting sheriff wiggam and officer lou to go door-to-door making inspections but if while in the course of legal search of a home or car or business they find illegal guns and/or illegal gun paraphernalia then he is required to act and report.

I don't understand what is so "unenforceable" or why he "doesn't have the manpower."  10:1 he has a bunch of whatever is being banned and doesn't want to give up his toys.

The language of the law sets a magazine limit and also bans any magazine that could be modified to accept more than the limit. Most any magazine can be modified so the law essentially means this sheriff would have to investigate every gun owner they come across. That would take a lot of manpower.

the Ban is on the sale of the magazines in question, like every other new law if you already own it your grandfathered in

Great now how do you prove piece of stamped metal with no serial # was manufactured before the ban went into place?


you dont

its about transfer of ownership

someone giving one to there buddy wont get you tagged

someone actively selling them to the general public will

just like the AWB, the people who got in trouble where the ones openly violating the ban
 
2013-03-19 03:48:26 PM
Based on the comments at the bottom of the article... I look forward to watching the Second American Civil War in HD in the near future,
 
2013-03-19 03:48:31 PM
I agree that the laws are passing as feel good, knee jerk, and worthless.
I know just because a bunch of weepy eyed libs sway their lawmaker into passing a hasty bandaid law and hold hands an sing kumbayah it isn't going to stop bad people from stealing guns, trading them for drugs, and generally creating mayhem and gunsmoke.
That being said. When you are a cop, you enforce the law.
/Only time I looked the other way when I was a cop was for roaches in the ashtray.
//lots of folks roll their own and I don't need to bother people who aren't breaking the law right in front of me.
///quit because my coworkers were racist, homophobic assholes.
 
2013-03-19 03:48:36 PM

Giltric: lilplatinum: Giltric: How do you feel about the legalities of sanctuary cities? Should they fire the politicians and law enforcement officals who refuse to enforce immigration laws?

Immigration law is a civil, not a criminal matter.

So is the right to bear arms.

The NRA is the oldest civil rights group in the United States.


While I agree the right to bear arms is a civil right, that does not change your lack of understanding of the distinction between civil law and criminal law.    Civil law does not mean "law pertaining to civil rights."

For the record, hillbilly sheriffs, just like the president, can choose not to enforce laws and do it all the time.  But your analogy was bad and you should feel bad.
 
2013-03-19 03:48:58 PM

Giltric: You need someone to be charged under a law to challenge the law. I think it is called "standing"....but IANAL.


In some cases, yes.  But for laws that you may reasonably be affected by you can sue to block them from taking effect pending court review.  Happens all the time, for example, with all the abortion laws Republicans have been pushing through.
 
2013-03-19 03:48:58 PM

Caffandtranqs: Here we go again with this shiat.  It's unconstitutional because the Consitution has not been updated with an ammendment pertinent to this farking century.  You could make a case for having a damn cannon to be at your house with the way the way the Constitution is written out about this.  These farking idiots can't seem to get past the year 1791 when it comes to this issue.


A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
 What has changed in that time frame as relating to this text?


Are you saying people shouldn't be allowed to own cannons?  I know a few people that have them and fire them (charge only) on random holidays.  Is that wrong, legally?  I'm sure a few people might argue the noise is a bit much, but not any louder than fireworks typically being launched around the same time.
 
2013-03-19 03:49:43 PM

redmid17: thenumber5: odinsposse: tom baker's scarf: here's the thing. no one is expecting sheriff wiggam and officer lou to go door-to-door making inspections but if while in the course of legal search of a home or car or business they find illegal guns and/or illegal gun paraphernalia then he is required to act and report.

I don't understand what is so "unenforceable" or why he "doesn't have the manpower."  10:1 he has a bunch of whatever is being banned and doesn't want to give up his toys.

The language of the law sets a magazine limit and also bans any magazine that could be modified to accept more than the limit. Most any magazine can be modified so the law essentially means this sheriff would have to investigate every gun owner they come across. That would take a lot of manpower.

the Ban is on the sale of the magazines in question, like every other new law if you already own it your grandfathered in

Great now how do you prove piece of stamped metal with no serial # was manufactured before the ban went into place?


YOU don't prove that.  The cops would have to prove that it was manufactured or bought after the ban.
You know, the same exact way that any law with a grandfather clause is enforced.
 
2013-03-19 03:50:17 PM

aerojockey: So all of you people who say the sheriffs who won't enforce gun laws are assholes, you would have exactly the same opinion of them if they said they aren't going to enforce marajuana laws. AMIRITE????


Yeah, pretty much. In much the same way that I don't want sanitation workers deciding which environmental laws they think are reasonable and fair.
 
2013-03-19 03:50:45 PM

umad: EdNortonsTwin: Maybe they shouldn't be bothered to swear to uphold the Constitution either.  Yea, about that old document.

The same one that says "shall not be infringed?" Maybe he is.


1st amendment is freedom of speech.  Are you allowed to say anything you want, anytime you want, anywhere you want, without restriction?   No, you're not.   There are limits/restrictions.   Same with the 2nd amendment.   Constitutionally, what's the difference between a 30-round magazine and a 10-round magazine?
 
2013-03-19 03:50:49 PM
img692.imageshack.us
 
2013-03-19 03:51:09 PM

odinsposse: thenumber5: the Ban is on the sale of the magazines in question, like every other new law if you already own it your grandfathered in

1) That doesn't change the fact that the law is worded so poorly it is unenforceable and 2) it makes it even harder to tell if a magazine is legally owned since even magazines that are of illegal size might still be legal

tom baker's scarf: Only if they have said gun or mag in plain sight or there is a reasonable suspicion the person in question has said guns or mags, outside of a search warrant that is.

It's not like a traffic cop field stops your car looking for dope when you get pulled over for speeding.

It isn't "said magazines" because as I said all magazines are, under the wording of this law, probably illegal. So any indication that someone is a gun owner makes it likely they are in violation of this new law.


likely manufactures will just start selling magazines like the California type that need to tool to remove the magazine
 
2013-03-19 03:51:13 PM

lilplatinum: Giltric: How do you feel about the legalities of sanctuary cities? Should they fire the politicians and law enforcement officals who refuse to enforce immigration laws?

Immigration law is a civil, not a criminal matter.


Nope.  There are criminal penalties for illegal entry.
 
2013-03-19 03:51:28 PM

Caffandtranqs: Here we go again with this shiat.  It's unconstitutional because the Consitution has not been updated with an ammendment pertinent to this farking century.  You could make a case for having a damn cannon to be at your house with the way the way the Constitution is written out about this.  These farking idiots can't seem to get past the year 1791 when it comes to this issue.


It is actually perfectly legal to have a cannon at your house and NONE of these proposed laws would change that.

Please write your reps and encourage them to ban the assault cannons that gangbangers and crazy people have been using to gun down innocent cops and children.
 
2013-03-19 03:51:42 PM

Karac: Ow! That was my feelings!: Dog Welder: I'm trying to figure out how a limit on magazine size is "unenforceable."  Does the magazine hold more than 15 bullets?  It's illegal.  If you can count to 16, it's enforceable.

Likewise, it wouldn't be up to the sheriff's to enforce the gun buyer paying for the background check.  I figured Republicans would be okay with this because it helps businesses.

Also...CNSNews...your blog sucks.

Because the law says that those magazines that have been in "continuous" ownership are still legal.  So, if I, as a Colorado resident have a stack of 30 round magazines today, they are still legal after the law goes into effect.    There is no way to prove "in continuous possession".

Well, that's why you're considered innocent until proven guilty.  If the sheriff finds those magazines in your trunk, he can't arrest you.  If he sees you buy them at the local swap meet, then he can because he's now proven that you didn't have them when the law went into effect.

If the reason that the sheriff says this is unenforceable is because he has to have evidence that a crime has been committed then he must spend a lot more time at the donut shop than we all suspected.


But there is no way to determine if a magazine is brought into the state after the ban goes into effect. It will be virtually impossible to ever prosecute anyone for it. This law is a perfect example of 'feel good, do nothing' legislation.
 
2013-03-19 03:51:56 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: Caffandtranqs: cman: Dixon Cider: I live near this asshole and hope he gets fired soon!

Farking conservatives thinks it's OK to break the law, if it is something they want. But ask for Equal Rights for Brown or Gay people and HOLY shiat, your asking fro crimes against humanity!!

Sherifs are elected officials. I dont know how they do it in Colorado, so maybe you can answer me this. Can the state remove a Sherif from power? The only ways that I could think of that the state could fire him is if the sherif were convicted of a crime

Considering that these bills will be state law, and that counties of a state must abide by state laws; the sheriff is committing a crime by not enforcing state law.

Wrong.


Interesting......Yet, one not in an elected position would themselves be committing a crime.  That's nice.
 
2013-03-19 03:52:04 PM
Seems like he was only following the lead of the justice dept.
 
2013-03-19 03:52:30 PM

umad: EdNortonsTwin: Maybe they shouldn't be bothered to swear to uphold the Constitution either.  Yea, about that old document.

The same one that says "shall not be infringed?" Maybe he is.


Thank you for an excellent example of just how much you have to cherry-pick the text of that amendment in order to arrive at the level of derp the NRA's reading relies on.

We've had an assault weapons ban before and did not slip into the sixth level of hell, and it's wildly irresponsible for organizations like the NRA and various Tea Party groups to suggest that we're approaching the End Times just because someone might have to reload more often. There are limits on every other amendment, yet they seem to think this one is somehow magical and includes magic words. Time to let go of the logic of an eight year-old and grow up.
 
2013-03-19 03:52:39 PM

Darth_Lukecash: Clip limit does not infringe on an ownership of a weapon.


Limits are ok on rights. We can limit free speech to 160 characters. We can search your house unreasonably, but only with less than 6 people. Ya know, we're going to ok marijuana use, you just can't use it in conjunction with any heat source or flame.
 
2013-03-19 03:52:50 PM

Satanic_Hamster: example, with all the abortion laws Republicans have been pushing through.


Those are already in direct contradiction to standing legislation. You are comparing apples to fetuses.
 
2013-03-19 03:53:22 PM

Caffandtranqs: Considering that these bills will be state law, and that counties of a state must abide by state laws; the sheriff is committing a crime by not enforcing state law.


Where did you get a dumb idea like that?
 
2013-03-19 03:53:28 PM

EViLTeW: Is that wrong, legally?


Not on a federal level, but since a cannon is considered a firearm, shooting it off in town may be an issue.
 
2013-03-19 03:53:34 PM

Tom_Slick: Caffandtranqs: You could make a case for having a damn cannon to be at your house with the way the way the Constitution is written out about this.

Actually a Cannon is considered a Muzzle Loading Firearm and falls under those rules so no special license or permit is required on a federal level.


Yes, that's why I used it as an example.  Do you know many people with cannons?  Do you know many people who think people having cannons is a good idea?
 
2013-03-19 03:53:49 PM

Dixon Cider: I live near this asshole and hope he gets fired soon!

Farking conservatives thinks it's OK to break the law, if it is something they want. But ask for Equal Rights for Brown or Gay people and HOLY shiat, your asking fro crimes against humanity!!


Its already against the law to discriminate.
 
2013-03-19 03:54:15 PM

pudding7: umad: EdNortonsTwin: Maybe they shouldn't be bothered to swear to uphold the Constitution either.  Yea, about that old document.

The same one that says "shall not be infringed?" Maybe he is.

1st amendment is freedom of speech.  Are you allowed to say anything you want, anytime you want, anywhere you want, without restriction?   No, you're not.   There are limits/restrictions.   Same with the 2nd amendment.   Constitutionally, what's the difference between a 30-round magazine and a 10-round magazine?


Yes, you are. If you say something that causes harm to someone else, you might get punished for it, but you have the right and the ability to do so.

If we're going to start pre-cognitively punishing people, let's start cutting all newborn's vocal cords so they can never grow up to shout fire in a theater.
 
2013-03-19 03:54:20 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Well, I guess we can disband the Supreme Court now. This brilliant legal scholar has it all under control


Yeah, no shiat!

"Including Sheriff John Cooke of Weld County, Colorado, 340 sheriffs have publicly stated they  will not enforce gun laws they believe are unconstitutional."

That's not your farking job. Your farking job is to uphold laws, as passed. You don't get to pick and choose. Do your farking job, or quit.
 
2013-03-19 03:54:35 PM

spmkk: Dixon Cider: "Farking conservatives thinks it's OK to break the law, if it is something they want."


So...choosing to selectively enforce federal drug laws in Colorado is good, while choosing to selectively enforce state gun laws in Colorado is bad. Because....because "farking conservatives", that's why. Got it.


This sums up this thread 1,000%.

And for everyone complaining about selective enforcement on this thread I hope next time you're caught dead to rights doing something illegal...say, speeding, on your cell phone, and the cop says "I'm going to let you off with a warning this time." I hope tell that officer that you want his badge number and you're going to report him for dereliction of duty, you're going to the press, and you won't rest until you see that man fired and on the street living in a cardboard box!

/also I'm shocked no one has brought up illegal immigration yet.
 
2013-03-19 03:54:36 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: Karac: Ow! That was my feelings!: Dog Welder: I'm trying to figure out how a limit on magazine size is "unenforceable."  Does the magazine hold more than 15 bullets?  It's illegal.  If you can count to 16, it's enforceable.

Likewise, it wouldn't be up to the sheriff's to enforce the gun buyer paying for the background check.  I figured Republicans would be okay with this because it helps businesses.

Also...CNSNews...your blog sucks.

Because the law says that those magazines that have been in "continuous" ownership are still legal.  So, if I, as a Colorado resident have a stack of 30 round magazines today, they are still legal after the law goes into effect.    There is no way to prove "in continuous possession".

Well, that's why you're considered innocent until proven guilty.  If the sheriff finds those magazines in your trunk, he can't arrest you.  If he sees you buy them at the local swap meet, then he can because he's now proven that you didn't have them when the law went into effect.

If the reason that the sheriff says this is unenforceable is because he has to have evidence that a crime has been committed then he must spend a lot more time at the donut shop than we all suspected.

But there is no way to determine if a magazine is brought into the state after the ban goes into effect. It will be virtually impossible to ever prosecute anyone for it. This law is a perfect example of 'feel good, do nothing' legislation.


It's very easy for a cop to prove you broke the law if, as I said, he sees you do it.
 
2013-03-19 03:54:45 PM
Fire all these douche nozzles..!!! Just do your farking job, no one cares about your opinions...
 
2013-03-19 03:54:47 PM

Chariset: CNSNews.comrelies on individuals like you to help us report the news the liberal media distort and ignore.Please make a tax-deductible gift to CNSNews.com today.Your continued support will ensure that CNSNews.com is here reporting THE TRUTH, for a long time to come.

Your blog sucks.


Lets see your blog.
 
2013-03-19 03:54:57 PM

Dixon Cider: I live near this asshole and hope he gets fired soon!

Farking conservatives thinks it's OK to break the law, if it is something they want. But ask for Equal Rights for Brown or Gay people and HOLY shiat, your asking fro crimes against humanity!!


So... it is ok to break the rules you don't like, like who is allowed to have the government recognize their marriage, but it is NOT ok to break the rules you do like, like gun control, and then you call those people names for selectively enforcing laws.

Got it.  Not hypocritical at all.
 
2013-03-19 03:55:16 PM

manimal2878: Infernalist: They'll talk a big game until a team from the FBI shows up and sits them down to take depositions on whether or not they'll enforce signed state law.

Then they'll meekly agree to enforce the laws, understanding that the FBI will be testing them on the issue rather quietly.

I think it is a bunch of empty talk, like you say.  In fact, has anyone ever been arrested solely for having a magazine that held too many bullets?  It's not something that would ever even come up.  If you committed another crime and they confiscated your gun as evidence only then would they cause to ever asses the magazine capacity.


I have had a DNR officer ask to see my firearm, while I was hunting, to confirm I had a plug in to limit the rounds in my shotgun as long as he was bugging me for my license and other shiat.
Was it annoying?  Yes.  Did he have the right to do so?  Yes.  Did I have my plug in?  Yes.  Why?  Because I don't need 50 rounds to hit something like pussies like Ted Nugent and the limitation is reasonable.
 
2013-03-19 03:55:24 PM

Harmania: There are limits on every other amendment,


and you don't think there aren't already a ton of limits on this one? Ya know, those national acts are just nusiances. Import laws? Pashaw...
 
2013-03-19 03:55:38 PM

MichiganFTL: Ya know, we're going to ok marijuana use, you just can't use it in conjunction with any heat source or flame.


Somebody pass the brownies.
 
2013-03-19 03:55:55 PM

Caffandtranqs: Tom_Slick: Caffandtranqs: You could make a case for having a damn cannon to be at your house with the way the way the Constitution is written out about this.

Actually a Cannon is considered a Muzzle Loading Firearm and falls under those rules so no special license or permit is required on a federal level.

Yes, that's why I used it as an example.  Do you know many people with cannons?  Do you know many people who think people having cannons is a good idea?


ive know a few people who have old navy Cannons as lawn art

it not uncommon in areas with a long naval history
 
2013-03-19 03:56:15 PM

Fano: Would they go sans sherif?


It's the way of the futura.
 
2013-03-19 03:56:44 PM

potterydove: lilplatinum: Giltric: How do you feel about the legalities of sanctuary cities? Should they fire the politicians and law enforcement officals who refuse to enforce immigration laws?

Immigration law is a civil, not a criminal matter.

Nope.  There are criminal penalties for illegal entry.


Illegal entry is a misdemeanor offense (and not one all people referred to as "illegals" are guilty of - i.e. those who overstay their visas or were brought here as kids), but immigration law is not criminal law.  Deportation is not a criminal matter and the punishment for illegal entry is not deportation.
 
2013-03-19 03:56:47 PM

vernonFL: Prostitution laws are stupid and unenforceable. So we won't bother.

Drug laws are stupid and unenforceable. So we won't bother.

Traffic laws are stupid and unenforceable. So we won't bother.


THIS

Someone please point out in the constitution where it says that I cannot do what I want with my own body for money. Where does it say in the constitution that I cannot grow and smoke dried plants in the privacy of my home? Where in the constitution does it say that I cannot drive my car 100 miles per hour on an empty west Texas road? These laws are stupid and unconstitutional.
 
2013-03-19 03:57:06 PM

Godscrack: [img692.imageshack.us image 630x454]


Maybe we should just institute a mustache tax on sheriffs. If you solve the debt crisis, who cares about guns?
 
2013-03-19 03:57:10 PM

GoldSpider: Caffandtranqs: Considering that these bills will be state law, and that counties of a state must abide by state laws; the sheriff is committing a crime by not enforcing state law.

Where did you get a dumb idea like that?


I used to work in law enforcement, but in TX.
 
2013-03-19 03:57:17 PM

GoldSpider: Caffandtranqs: Considering that these bills will be state law, and that counties of a state must abide by state laws; the sheriff is committing a crime by not enforcing state law.

Where did you get a dumb idea like that?


Did you know that a Sheriff is sworn to uphold the law of the land?


So then... I think we are done here.
 
2013-03-19 03:57:47 PM

Evil High Priest: That's not your farking job. Your farking job is to uphold laws, as passed. You don't get to pick and choose. Do your farking job, or quit.


Were you saying this when Obama and Holder decided to stop enforcing DOMA?
 
2013-03-19 03:57:57 PM

Karac: Ow! That was my feelings!: Karac: Ow! That was my feelings!: Dog Welder: I'm trying to figure out how a limit on magazine size is "unenforceable."  Does the magazine hold more than 15 bullets?  It's illegal.  If you can count to 16, it's enforceable.

Likewise, it wouldn't be up to the sheriff's to enforce the gun buyer paying for the background check.  I figured Republicans would be okay with this because it helps businesses.

Also...CNSNews...your blog sucks.

Because the law says that those magazines that have been in "continuous" ownership are still legal.  So, if I, as a Colorado resident have a stack of 30 round magazines today, they are still legal after the law goes into effect.    There is no way to prove "in continuous possession".

Well, that's why you're considered innocent until proven guilty.  If the sheriff finds those magazines in your trunk, he can't arrest you.  If he sees you buy them at the local swap meet, then he can because he's now proven that you didn't have them when the law went into effect.

If the reason that the sheriff says this is unenforceable is because he has to have evidence that a crime has been committed then he must spend a lot more time at the donut shop than we all suspected.

But there is no way to determine if a magazine is brought into the state after the ban goes into effect. It will be virtually impossible to ever prosecute anyone for it. This law is a perfect example of 'feel good, do nothing' legislation.

It's very easy for a cop to prove you broke the law if, as I said, he sees you do it.


But they would be illegal to sell in the state, so your example would rarely ever happen.  Why not just buy them in Wyoming, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, etc, etc.   Again, just feel good, do nothing but get Democrats fired legislation.
 
2013-03-19 03:58:04 PM

Darth_Lukecash: Sheriffs have a right to prioritize wich laws they will enforce. I seem to remember us liberal cheering when police officers were refusing Arizonas Paper Please laws.


Which has nothing whatsoever to do with this particular story. Thanks for trying, though.
 
2013-03-19 03:58:11 PM

WippitGuud: Somebody pass the brownies.


You don't get it, an oven, the sun, Easy Bake Oven, even a chubby breathing heavy counts as a heat source. You're stuck with oils, marinol and maybe some no-bakes... mmm... no-bakes...
 
Displayed 50 of 658 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report