Do you have adblock enabled?
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  
•       •       •

28474 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Mar 2013 at 3:08 PM (2 years 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 05:50:42 PM  

GUTSU: With universal background checks, if I made a semi-automatic firearm from scratch and transferred it to a friend I'd have to pay for the background check. If I made a motor vehicle and gave it to a friend I wouldn't have to pay diddly

.


You'd still need to register the car.
Do you need to register a firearm?

/honest question, that.
 
2013-03-19 05:50:53 PM  

GUTSU: If I made a motor vehicle and gave it to a friend I wouldn't have to pay diddly.


I get your point but even a home-made car would have to be titled and the title would have to be transferred when sold, and in most states there are fees for that.
 
2013-03-19 05:50:59 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Do they swear to uphold the Constitution and all the duly-passed laws of their state?


Hint: the 'Constitution' part comes first.
 
2013-03-19 05:52:33 PM  

theurge14: muck4doo: theurge14: Well, if we're leaving it to local sheriffs to decide what laws are constitutional or not let's just send the Supreme Court justices home.

When the next Aurora shooting happens in Colorado can we hold the local sheriff who refused to enforce the laws he didn't like that led up to the shooting up on charges as well?  Or if not, can we the citizens decide which laws we want to ignore without consequence?

Make movie theaters gun free zones. Problem solved.

Yes, keep repeating this tired bullshiat right wing snark.  Laws get broken, so let's throw all the laws out because they're absurd and useless!  Shut up.


U MAD
 
2013-03-19 05:52:43 PM  

WippitGuud: GUTSU: With universal background checks, if I made a semi-automatic firearm from scratch and transferred it to a friend I'd have to pay for the background check. If I made a motor vehicle and gave it to a friend I wouldn't have to pay diddly.


You'd still need to register the car.
Do you need to register a firearm?

/honest question, that.


You don't need to register a car if you don't use it on public roads.
 
2013-03-19 05:54:02 PM  

WippitGuud: GUTSU: With universal background checks, if I made a semi-automatic firearm from scratch and transferred it to a friend I'd have to pay for the background check. If I made a motor vehicle and gave it to a friend I wouldn't have to pay diddly.


You'd still need to register the car.
Do you need to register a firearm?

/honest question, that.


R.A.Danny: GUTSU: If I made a motor vehicle and gave it to a friend I wouldn't have to pay diddly.

I get your point but even a home-made car would have to be titled and the title would have to be transferred when sold, and in most states there are fees for that.


Well, if it were a track-only car or for use on private land, it wouldn't need to be registered. Not to take sides, just to make a point.
 
2013-03-19 05:54:16 PM  

R.A.Danny: I am positive that part of their oath of office is to uphold The Constitution. One refusing to enforce a law may be seen as a nutjob. 340 is a mandate.


It's up to the courts to interpret the Constitution. Of course, this guy has the freedom to talk however passionately he wants about what he Imagines The Constitution To Be, but refusing to enforce a law because he's personally deemed it "unconstitutional" is a different matter.

Or, to put it another way, in the years immediately following Brown, how many local sheriffs would have to refuse to comply with integration before it became a "mandate"?
 
2013-03-19 05:54:18 PM  

GUTSU: You don't need to register a car if you don't use it on public roads.


So if I don't use a gun in public....?
 
2013-03-19 05:54:27 PM  

rka: WippitGuud: Don't get me wrong, I'm ok with people owning guns. I don't have any myself (I do have two bows, however). But I read how gun owners want to be outfitted as if they were a light infantryman on deployment to defend their homes... they talk as if they live in a war zone.

Because for some reason people have to constantly, and with ever increasing volume, defend their right to own guns. Year after year.

30 years ago, if you would have asked all the male members of my family why they each needed half a dozen shotguns and rifles they would have said "Because Shut the fark Up, that's why" and the matter would have been dropped because you were too ashamed at having asked such a stupid question in the first place that you would have slunk back to whatever place you crawled out of.

Nowaday's we seemingly have to fight the same fights over and over again. It isn't enough to say "STFU and mind you own business" anymore I guess. Now people have to swaddle the 2nd Amendment in harrowing tales of self-defense, and paint lurid pictures of rape and murder in order to have anyone listen.


This is what I don't get. I own an old rifle, and when I move back to the country, I'll probably take it out of mothballs in case the coyotes come after my chickens or some shiat. But I don't need some lofty f**king superhero bullshiat story to justify it. It's my gun, I own it, and f**k you that's why. I don't need it to feel safe, or to defend America, or to shoot it out with the jackbooted thugs in black helicopters. Actually, I don't want to shoot anybody, and never will. Does everybody think they're f**king Rambo anymore?
 
2013-03-19 05:54:28 PM  

manimal2878: GanjSmokr: 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.

Deputies made the arrest shortly before 7:30 p.m. Sunday on Steinhilber Road in the town of LeRay, where Mr. Haddad is accused of possessing five 30-round AR-15 magazines of ammunition. He is cited under a state penal law statute that prohibits possession of "a large capacity ammunition feeding device." The ammunition was found in his vehicle during a traffic stop, according to the sheriff's office.

Well, looks like I was wrong.  That's farked up.


so the person they focus their new scrutiny is a guy named Haddad

i'm going out on a limb here; is he brown?
 
2013-03-19 05:54:30 PM  

R.A.Danny: theurge14: Law enforcement exists to enforce laws.  The concept of "law enforcement discretion" is wrong.

You really have no idea what you are talking about. Cops have tons of leeway by design.


No, I'm pretty familiar with the concept of law enforcement discretion and I completely disagree with it.  I know everyone loves to tell stories about that nice cop who understood and let them go when they could've gotten a DUI, but it's wrong.  That leeway you speak of leads to inconsistent enforcement of laws which is where discrimination, corruption and racial profile all begin.  For every "that cop was cool he let me go when he could've busted me for DUI" story there's several bad ones.
 
rka
2013-03-19 05:55:01 PM  

R.A.Danny: Evil High Priest: Do you really not see the distinction here?

I am positive that part of their oath of office is to uphold The Constitution. One refusing to enforce a law may be seen as a nutjob. 340 is a mandate.


The Oath of Office for any elected Colorado official is the same.

"I _______ do solemnly swear by the everliving God, that I will 
support the Constitution of the United States and of the State of Colorado, and faithfully perform the duties of 
the office of _____________ that I am about to enter."

Pretty generic.
 
2013-03-19 05:55:18 PM  

muck4doo: theurge14: muck4doo: theurge14: Well, if we're leaving it to local sheriffs to decide what laws are constitutional or not let's just send the Supreme Court justices home.

When the next Aurora shooting happens in Colorado can we hold the local sheriff who refused to enforce the laws he didn't like that led up to the shooting up on charges as well?  Or if not, can we the citizens decide which laws we want to ignore without consequence?

Make movie theaters gun free zones. Problem solved.

Yes, keep repeating this tired bullshiat right wing snark.  Laws get broken, so let's throw all the laws out because they're absurd and useless!  Shut up.

U MAD


And I'm not wrong.  Welcome to my ignore list.
 
rka
2013-03-19 05:56:37 PM  

jso2897: Does everybody think they're f**king Rambo anymore?


And what happens after about 10 years of people trying to take your gun because killing coyotes isn't a good enough reason? Or because target shooting isn't good enough? Wouldn't you start to ratchet up the drama?
 
2013-03-19 05:56:45 PM  
And when Chicago's police superintendent says his department will ignore a federal court ruling that overturns IL's concealed carry ban (effective in June) if the state doesn't come up with concealed carry legislation, and that judges should take into account public opinion when ruling on gun laws, and that his officers will shoot on sight anyone with a gun, he is lauded (or at least ignored) by the gun control crowd.
 
2013-03-19 05:57:04 PM  

theurge14: muck4doo: theurge14: muck4doo: theurge14: Well, if we're leaving it to local sheriffs to decide what laws are constitutional or not let's just send the Supreme Court justices home.

When the next Aurora shooting happens in Colorado can we hold the local sheriff who refused to enforce the laws he didn't like that led up to the shooting up on charges as well?  Or if not, can we the citizens decide which laws we want to ignore without consequence?

Make movie theaters gun free zones. Problem solved.

Yes, keep repeating this tired bullshiat right wing snark.  Laws get broken, so let's throw all the laws out because they're absurd and useless!  Shut up.

U MAD

And I'm not wrong.  Welcome to my ignore list.


Awww, you lost.
 
2013-03-19 05:57:05 PM  

Man On Pink Corner: Dr Dreidel: Do they swear to uphold the Constitution and all the duly-passed laws of their state?

Hint: the 'Constitution' part comes first.


Yeah - but the only thing the Constitution says (especially as far as LEO are concerned) is what the courts say it says. The Constitution, uninterpreted, has no concrete meaning.
 
2013-03-19 05:57:20 PM  
Once someone is willing to commit murder, no firearms law is going to stop them from carrying out that kind of evil.

And  - the 2nd amendment had nothing to do with hunting or self defense - it was trying to prevent the kind of armed vs. unarmed inequality that the british government was trying to use to impose the order of the british empire. So that in vein, trying to ban high-capacity mags or take away elements of equality between the citizens and the military sworn to protect them starts to re-create those sharp divides that have almost always been misused to pursue power by one side or the other.
 
2013-03-19 05:57:59 PM  

R.A.Danny: theurge14: muck4doo: theurge14: muck4doo: theurge14: Well, if we're leaving it to local sheriffs to decide what laws are constitutional or not let's just send the Supreme Court justices home.

When the next Aurora shooting happens in Colorado can we hold the local sheriff who refused to enforce the laws he didn't like that led up to the shooting up on charges as well?  Or if not, can we the citizens decide which laws we want to ignore without consequence?

Make movie theaters gun free zones. Problem solved.

Yes, keep repeating this tired bullshiat right wing snark.  Laws get broken, so let's throw all the laws out because they're absurd and useless!  Shut up.

U MAD

And I'm not wrong.  Welcome to my ignore list.

Awww, you lost.


Because you say so?  What are you, 12?
 
2013-03-19 05:59:13 PM  

rka: jso2897: Does everybody think they're f**king Rambo anymore?

And what happens after about 10 years of people trying to take your gun because killing coyotes isn't a good enough reason? Or because target shooting isn't good enough? Wouldn't you start to ratchet up the drama?


No. In fact, pretending that anyone has ever tried to take my gun away would be drama-queen bullshiat in and of itself. I mean, if you are asking me, and I thought that was who you were asking.
 
2013-03-19 05:59:17 PM  

theurge14: R.A.Danny: theurge14: muck4doo: theurge14: muck4doo: theurge14: Well, if we're leaving it to local sheriffs to decide what laws are constitutional or not let's just send the Supreme Court justices home.

When the next Aurora shooting happens in Colorado can we hold the local sheriff who refused to enforce the laws he didn't like that led up to the shooting up on charges as well?  Or if not, can we the citizens decide which laws we want to ignore without consequence?

Make movie theaters gun free zones. Problem solved.

Yes, keep repeating this tired bullshiat right wing snark.  Laws get broken, so let's throw all the laws out because they're absurd and useless!  Shut up.

U MAD

And I'm not wrong.  Welcome to my ignore list.

Awww, you lost.

Because you say so?  What are you, 12?


You gonna ban me? Waaa
 
2013-03-19 05:59:21 PM  

Giltric: Say that to the families of the Iraq war dead....In their faces even.


That was the DNCs/Obamas platform against McCain though....a vote for him was a vote to kill your child in war.


I knew someone would make this connection, it's pathetic and small minded for you to do so. No one directly votes for people to die. The act of voting kills no one in this country. And trying to pass this connection off on someone else is just immature.

I would venture to guess that many families of soldiers killed in action probably believe that their loved ones died trying to make the world a better place. That perhaps if a peaceful democracy could exist in Iraq or Afghanistan that the citizens of these countries would be more likely to thrive and enjoy the basic human rights that I enjoy. In other words, so their citizens could vote, peacefully. I'll bet they would take that over the right to bear arms, since guns are probably easy to get in Iraq anyway.
 
2013-03-19 05:59:31 PM  

theurge14: R.A.Danny: theurge14: Law enforcement exists to enforce laws.  The concept of "law enforcement discretion" is wrong.

You really have no idea what you are talking about. Cops have tons of leeway by design.

No, I'm pretty familiar with the concept of law enforcement discretion and I completely disagree with it.  I know everyone loves to tell stories about that nice cop who understood and let them go when they could've gotten a DUI, but it's wrong.  That leeway you speak of leads to inconsistent enforcement of laws which is where discrimination, corruption and racial profile all begin.  For every "that cop was cool he let me go when he could've busted me for DUI" story there's several bad ones.


I don't think I'd be comfortable with cops enforcing the letter of every law every single time they witness a violation. Way too many laws in this country for that to work well. And it takes reasonable warnings out of the equation. If someone unknowingly violates a minor local ordinance, law enforcement should rightfully be allowed to warn them of the offense and let them go.

/If you wanted to remove discretion from violent felony enforcement, then I'd be with you
//At one point I'd have said all felonies, but way too many non-violent crimes fit under that umbrella today
 
2013-03-19 05:59:49 PM  
I am happy I moved to the south since it doesn't seem as though too many people around here really believe that feel good laws will actually produce any measurable results unlike the libtards up north. You people really are stupid and so stupid that you don't even realize that you are not seeing the whole picture.
 
2013-03-19 06:01:28 PM  

R.A.Danny: GUTSU: You don't need to register a car if you don't use it on public roads.

So if I don't use a gun in public....?


You don't need to register firearms anyway, at least most firearms, besides using public roads is a privileged not a right.
If you make a firearm you don't have to register it, you don't need to inform the police or any one it's your own personal property. Would you like the government to tell you what you can or can not do with your own property?
 
2013-03-19 06:02:46 PM  

inner ted: manimal2878: GanjSmokr: 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.

Deputies made the arrest shortly before 7:30 p.m. Sunday on Steinhilber Road in the town of LeRay, where Mr. Haddad is accused of possessing five 30-round AR-15 magazines of ammunition. He is cited under a state penal law statute that prohibits possession of "a large capacity ammunition feeding device." The ammunition was found in his vehicle during a traffic stop, according to the sheriff's office.

Well, looks like I was wrong.  That's farked up.

so the person they focus their new scrutiny is a guy named Haddad

i'm going out on a limb here; is he brown?


No.

http://www.gofundme.com/1tkukc
 
2013-03-19 06:03:04 PM  
Wait... Some dude is buying a $1000 assault, sorry, "sporting" rifle, and they're quibbling about having to pay for the background check? How much does a driver's license cost?

However, while I basically agree with magazine capacity limits, they are essentially unenforceable on existing owners. How do you find them, and seize them, without being horribly intrusive?

Of course, aside (possibly) from the entertainment value, what is the need for 30, 50, or 100-round mags? Oh, and don't give me the "its my rights!" stuff. Owning a gun is constitutionally-protected. Owning removable mags at all, let alone enormous ones, is not.
 
2013-03-19 06:03:54 PM  

lilplatinum: way south: lilplatinum: Bravo Two: Background checks aint the problem. The mag restriction legislation does absolutely nothing functionally, and by the wording, basically restricts virtually all magazines.

But yes, let's keep not saying anything as they chip away at our freedoms. After all, if you don't use your right to own a weapon, it doesn't affect you and isn't important, right?

Inoright?  This is just like when it was decided you couldn't shout fire in a crowded theater and then the right to free speech disappeared.

If you had to get a background check before freely speaking then I'd say its an analogy worth considering.

Limits on two fundamentally different things are going to be demonstratively different in effect.  The argument I was responding to was implying that any limit is going to lead to the destruction of that right.  Even Scalia agrees the 2nd amendment can be limited.




They seem pretty similar to me. The difference in this example is between the abuse of something you already own and the ability to own something. To even be a participant in a common experience.
You are, in effect, asking people to petition and pay a fee for their rights to be recognized by the government.
That goes against the grain of our other rights, with a rather convenient exception on the 2nd.
 
2013-03-19 06:05:57 PM  

alberta_beef: How much does a driver's license cost?


Driving isn't a right.

Voting is, and poll taxes are illegal. Use the proper analogy.
 
2013-03-19 06:06:19 PM  

alberta_beef: Wait... Some dude is buying a $1000 assault, sorry, "sporting" rifle, and they're quibbling about having to pay for the background check? How much does a driver's license cost?

However, while I basically agree with magazine capacity limits, they are essentially unenforceable on existing owners. How do you find them, and seize them, without being horribly intrusive?

Of course, aside (possibly) from the entertainment value, what is the need for 30, 50, or 100-round mags? Oh, and don't give me the "its my rights!" stuff. Owning a gun is constitutionally-protected. Owning removable mags at all, let alone enormous ones, is not.


Hey, why not restrict it to one round? Why would have one ever need more than one round? Every one knows bullets go straight through the heart every single time.
 
2013-03-19 06:06:32 PM  

new_york_monty: theurge14: R.A.Danny: theurge14: Law enforcement exists to enforce laws.  The concept of "law enforcement discretion" is wrong.

You really have no idea what you are talking about. Cops have tons of leeway by design.

No, I'm pretty familiar with the concept of law enforcement discretion and I completely disagree with it.  I know everyone loves to tell stories about that nice cop who understood and let them go when they could've gotten a DUI, but it's wrong.  That leeway you speak of leads to inconsistent enforcement of laws which is where discrimination, corruption and racial profile all begin.  For every "that cop was cool he let me go when he could've busted me for DUI" story there's several bad ones.

I don't think I'd be comfortable with cops enforcing the letter of every law every single time they witness a violation. Way too many laws in this country for that to work well. And it takes reasonable warnings out of the equation. If someone unknowingly violates a minor local ordinance, law enforcement should rightfully be allowed to warn them of the offense and let them go.


I understand this position, but I don't agree with the solution.  If the logistics of enforcing the laws are difficult, that's what law enforcement should be there to determine.  If they can't solve that problem then there should be a way within the system to resolve the problem other than saying "nope, won't do it".

/If you wanted to remove discretion from violent felony enforcement, then I'd be with you
//At one point I'd have said all felonies, but way too many non-violent crimes fit under that umbrella today


Perhaps that would be a place to start.
 
2013-03-19 06:07:04 PM  

new_york_monty: WippitGuud: GUTSU: With universal background checks, if I made a semi-automatic firearm from scratch and transferred it to a friend I'd have to pay for the background check. If I made a motor vehicle and gave it to a friend I wouldn't have to pay diddly.


You'd still need to register the car.
Do you need to register a firearm?

/honest question, that.

R.A.Danny: GUTSU: If I made a motor vehicle and gave it to a friend I wouldn't have to pay diddly.

I get your point but even a home-made car would have to be titled and the title would have to be transferred when sold, and in most states there are fees for that.

Well, if it were a track-only car or for use on private land, it wouldn't need to be registered. Not to take sides, just to make a point.


What about insurance?
Up here, off-road vehicles that are not registered still require a minimum $500 liability insurance.
 
2013-03-19 06:07:25 PM  
It should not be whether or not HE likes the laws...it should be whether or not WE like the laws.

He does not work for himself. He does not work for the Federal government.
 
2013-03-19 06:09:02 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.


In some places, you could run for sheriff on that platform and win.
 
2013-03-19 06:09:20 PM  
The sheriff in the county where I'm originally from has said basically the same thing. Thing is, he said it before anyone at the city, county, or state level had even begun to discuss any kind of new firearms regulations. As far as I know, they still haven't proposed or enacted anything. But, I guess whatever it takes to get your rednecks constituents all fired up in the name of defendin' 'Murrica from whoever we're supposed to hate this week.

People were posting it all over Facebook with comments agreeing and cheering him on. If those idiots want their taxes to pay the salary of someone who refuses to do his job, that's their problem. Sometimes I'm so glad I moved away.
 
2013-03-19 06:09:21 PM  
So what exactly is their plan for when the State / DOJ pulls all their funding support?
 
2013-03-19 06:09:25 PM  

way south: They seem pretty similar to me. The difference in this example is between the abuse of something you already own and the ability to own something. To even be a participant in a common experience.
You are, in effect, asking people to petition and pay a fee for their rights to be recognized by the government.
That goes against the grain of our other rights, with a rather convenient exception on the 2nd.


This is the kind of silliness that results when a "right" is defined not in terms of axiomatically accepted concepts (as with, say, the first amendment and fifth amendment), but in terms of a specific category of products.
 
2013-03-19 06:09:35 PM  

GUTSU: With universal background checks, if I made a semi-automatic firearm from scratch and transferred it to a friend I'd have to pay for the background check. If I made a motor vehicle and gave it to a friend I wouldn't have to pay diddly.

Also, I wasn't talking about felons, but good job deflecting though.


If you were in the business of building semi-automatic rifles for charity, then I would have no issue with you being required to pay $20 for your buddy's background check. It really is the least you could do. If you can't afford the $20, maybe you should build something other than guns as gifts or at least charge something to offset the chump change for the background check.

You were talking about alienation of rights as if voting and owning guns were exempt. I think felonies are a perfect example. If someone commits a crime, is convicted, serves time in a correctional facility, then I would be fine with the voting rights being restored. I would NOT be fine with letting them immediately go buy any type of firearm. I wasn't deflecting. I think that someone should have some basic rights restored after rehabilitation. Voting to me is harmless enough to restore, but firearm ownership is not. IMO
 
2013-03-19 06:09:42 PM  

WippitGuud: new_york_monty: WippitGuud: GUTSU: With universal background checks, if I made a semi-automatic firearm from scratch and transferred it to a friend I'd have to pay for the background check. If I made a motor vehicle and gave it to a friend I wouldn't have to pay diddly.


You'd still need to register the car.
Do you need to register a firearm?

/honest question, that.

R.A.Danny: GUTSU: If I made a motor vehicle and gave it to a friend I wouldn't have to pay diddly.

I get your point but even a home-made car would have to be titled and the title would have to be transferred when sold, and in most states there are fees for that.

Well, if it were a track-only car or for use on private land, it wouldn't need to be registered. Not to take sides, just to make a point.

What about insurance?
Up here, off-road vehicles that are not registered still require a minimum $500 liability insurance.


Not where I live.
 
2013-03-19 06:09:49 PM  
That's a good start.

Next they need to declare unconstitutional all laws allowing police to seize your money, your car, boat or airplane because they think drugs might be involved.

They're all a bunch of punks anyway.
 
2013-03-19 06:09:55 PM  

Giltric: tylerdurden217: Casting a vote is always harmless and peaceful. There is some regulation of voting to prevent fraud, but no one's life is in danger by the casting of a vote

Say that to the families of the Iraq war dead....In their faces even.


That was the DNCs/Obamas platform against McCain though....a vote for him was a vote to kill your child in war.


But that was McCain AND Romney's plan.  Both of them promised war against:
Iran
Syria
Iraq
The Soviet Union

I'm assuming that the last one would require Obama to give them the technology for his magic time machine.
 
2013-03-19 06:10:07 PM  

JeffDenver: It should not be whether or not HE likes the laws...it should be whether or not WE like the laws.

He does not work for himself. He does not work for the Federal government.


He works for the people of Weld county, who do not like gun laws.
 
2013-03-19 06:11:40 PM  

GUTSU: R.A.Danny: GUTSU: You don't need to register a car if you don't use it on public roads.

So if I don't use a gun in public....?

You don't need to register firearms anyway, at least most firearms, besides using public roads is a privileged not a right.


Doesn't the Privelege and Immunities Clause guarantee Freedom of Movement? Wouldn't that make it a right?
 
2013-03-19 06:13:29 PM  
pciszek: He works for the people of Weld county, who do not like gun laws.

That was kinda my point.
 
2013-03-19 06:14:34 PM  

tylerdurden217: GUTSU: With universal background checks, if I made a semi-automatic firearm from scratch and transferred it to a friend I'd have to pay for the background check. If I made a motor vehicle and gave it to a friend I wouldn't have to pay diddly.

Also, I wasn't talking about felons, but good job deflecting though.

If you were in the business of building semi-automatic rifles for charity, then I would have no issue with you being required to pay $20 for your buddy's background check. It really is the least you could do. If you can't afford the $20, maybe you should build something other than guns as gifts or at least charge something to offset the chump change for the background check.

You were talking about alienation of rights as if voting and owning guns were exempt. I think felonies are a perfect example. If someone commits a crime, is convicted, serves time in a correctional facility, then I would be fine with the voting rights being restored. I would NOT be fine with letting them immediately go buy any type of firearm. I wasn't deflecting. I think that someone should have some basic rights restored after rehabilitation. Voting to me is harmless enough to restore, but firearm ownership is not. IMO


Then we are at an impasse, I believe that felons should be able to earn back their right to own firearms. I also disagree with having to pay to exercise any right. I believe that people should have the freedom to smoke, drink, fark, and own pretty much anything they want. As long as it doesn't affect anyone else, why should people care?
 
2013-03-19 06:15:09 PM  

WippitGuud: new_york_monty: WippitGuud: GUTSU: With universal background checks, if I made a semi-automatic firearm from scratch and transferred it to a friend I'd have to pay for the background check. If I made a motor vehicle and gave it to a friend I wouldn't have to pay diddly.


You'd still need to register the car.
Do you need to register a firearm?

/honest question, that.

R.A.Danny: GUTSU: If I made a motor vehicle and gave it to a friend I wouldn't have to pay diddly.

I get your point but even a home-made car would have to be titled and the title would have to be transferred when sold, and in most states there are fees for that.

Well, if it were a track-only car or for use on private land, it wouldn't need to be registered. Not to take sides, just to make a point.

What about insurance?
Up here, off-road vehicles that are not registered still require a minimum $500 liability insurance.


Is that to ride on public lands, or for private-land-only use as well? I don't want to be snarky, just don't know. The only off road vehicles I've ever owned are mountain bikes.
 
2013-03-19 06:15:16 PM  

theurge14: muck4doo: theurge14: muck4doo: theurge14: Well, if we're leaving it to local sheriffs to decide what laws are constitutional or not let's just send the Supreme Court justices home.

When the next Aurora shooting happens in Colorado can we hold the local sheriff who refused to enforce the laws he didn't like that led up to the shooting up on charges as well?  Or if not, can we the citizens decide which laws we want to ignore without consequence?

Make movie theaters gun free zones. Problem solved.

Yes, keep repeating this tired bullshiat right wing snark.  Laws get broken, so let's throw all the laws out because they're absurd and useless!  Shut up.

U MAD

And I'm not wrong.  Welcome to my ignore list.


Oh noes!!!!
 
2013-03-19 06:16:20 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: I'm assuming that the last one would require Obama to give them the technology for his magic time machine.


I think it was just a one time use time machine. He went back, planted evidence of his birth in Hawaii and then the machine disintegrated. If you ask me, that was quite a gamble. What if he lost the election? No one would have cared where he was born. I guess it paid off. I would have used it for something else.
 
2013-03-19 06:16:34 PM  

JeffDenver: It should not be whether or not HE likes the laws...it should be whether or not WE like the laws.

He does not work for himself. He does not work for the Federal government.


No, it should be if the people of Weld County like the laws, which they don't.  What you think about it shouldn't and doesn't matter, unless you are a Weld County resident.
 
2013-03-19 06:18:31 PM  

odinsposse: tom baker's scarf: they are allowed to use logic and common sense. Just as  transporting a couple of case of liquor doesn't automatically trigger "he's an illegal vendor" carrying two legal, unmodified mags wouldn't trigger "OMG he's gonna make a 30 round mag because he could, maybe, someday, let's get him."

So the law is poorly written since the most straight forward interpretation flies in the face of common sense and logic. It's sounding more and more like you agree that the law as written is unenforceable.

Which is a problem the gun junkies bring on themselves.

Of course. It's the opponents of the law that are at fault for a bad law. Why didn't I see that before?


So offer up and support a meaningful alternative. If your leaders aren't going to contribute in a useful way then you are going to get stuck with whatever comes down the pike.

The rest of the country is under no obligation to share your paranoia or live under the consequences of it.
 
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 »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report