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  
•       •       •

28477 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 10:04:59 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: If they think they are unconstitutional, challenge them in court. Otherwise STFU and do your job.


The job (like every other government office in the US) includes an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States.  That inherently requires the sheriff to judge what acts on his part uphold it and what acts do not.  Refusing to take actions to enforce what he believes to be an unconstitutional law is, in fact, part of his job.
 
2013-03-19 10:15:00 PM  

JRoo: I will start sticking up for the rights of gun owners when other people start sticking up for my right to ingest any plant I want without people with guns coming to throw me in jail for it.


Since 1,275,804 people did so back on November 6th, can we backdate your support for the rights of gun owners to then?
 
2013-03-19 10:23:21 PM  

manimal2878: alberta_beef: Owning removable mags at all, let alone enormous ones, is not.

Um, that's retarded.  That would be like saying free speech is protected but owning books is not.


Owning books would be a strange thing to justify under "free speech" - perhaps you meant distributing books?
 
2013-03-19 10:27:29 PM  

Verzio: The job (like every other government office in the US) includes an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. That inherently requires the sheriff to judge what acts on his part uphold it and what acts do not. Refusing to take actions to enforce what he believes to be an unconstitutional law is, in fact, part of his job.


No, it's not.  There's a legal course of action if you think something isn't legal or Constitutional.  Random hicks declaring it unconstitutional isn't one of them.
 
2013-03-19 10:30:43 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: edmo: Can't wait until these far right sheriffs start declining to prosecute rape, since women should give way to men anyhow.

That's an interesting idiotic leap to make.



First amendment


Farkage: edmo: Can't wait until these far right sheriffs start declining to prosecute rape, since women should give way to men anyhow.

So someone refusing to arrest and prosecute people for an arbitrary law that turned law abiding citizens into criminals when they haven't done a single thing to anyone is the same as refusing to arrest and prosecute someone for violently attacking and forcing themselves on someone else?  Somehow I don't think you've thought your own point through.



Second amendment

;-)
 
2013-03-19 10:31:35 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: Random hicks declaring it unconstitutional isn't one of them. covered under the bill of rights.


Also, when the law is unjust, the just man must ignore it. These laws are insane and just make currently law abiding people into criminals on paper. fark 'em. Go to a failed state if you want the police to carry out your bidding at the expense of public safety.
 
2013-03-19 10:34:09 PM  

Rat: Apparently the liberals would just have us pounding on the bad guys chest screaming "you brute, you brute, you brute".

[Blazing Saddles Scene jpg]
©



I'm parked over by the commissary...
 
2013-03-19 10:34:46 PM  

Biological Ali: manimal2878: alberta_beef: Owning removable mags at all, let alone enormous ones, is not.

Um, that's retarded.  That would be like saying free speech is protected but owning books is not.

Owning books would be a strange thing to justify under "free speech" - perhaps you meant distributing books?


Sure, whatever, either way it's stupid.
 
2013-03-19 10:37:34 PM  

Farkage: GUTSU: It just makes you an obstacle to progress

Define "progress".  Is that pretending to "solve" a problem by saying "Well, at least we did something even when that something will do absolutely nothing to solve the problem you were going after?  Maybe we can take care of Global Warming by making it a felony to drive a car without written permission from your boss/doctor/police, etc.  At least we did something!!
Go after the root cause of the problem and not a symptom.  This kind of gun crime and mass shooting didn't exist in the 50's, 60's, etc and you're damn right the same firearms were around back then.  Why is that?  Blaming the gun for the operators actions doesn't explain things when you look at it objectively.  Telling me I don't "need" something is your opinion and yours only.  Mental Health care was shot down hard by the ACLU preventing known psychopaths from being forcibly committed because they "didn't do anything yet", and where did that get us?  Adam Lanza would like to thank you all for that one!  The War on Drugs has done a fantastic job of getting gangs armed to the teeth, hasn't it?  Hell, prohibition was what put the mafia back on the damn map!  Stop going after the tool and hit the root cause of the problem if you want to fix it!
Another shining example:  I personally know 3 people that have 5+ DWIs (no, I don't associate with those POS's).  They still have a license.  How about if we "solve" the drunk driving problem by restricting the kind of car you can drive, increasing license fees to $500.00 and making it very difficult to get one?  Oh yeah, because that would punish the people that are good drivers without doing anything to the shiatheads that are breaking the law...  Sorry, logic fail.



Very well said.

[Applause.jpg]
 
2013-03-19 10:37:55 PM  

doglover: Also, when the law is unjust, the just man must ignore it.


I assume you're paraphrasing Dr. King there?
 
2013-03-19 10:45:26 PM  

Biological Ali: doglover: Also, when the law is unjust, the just man must ignore it.

I assume you're paraphrasing Dr. King there?


Are you actually an unlettered vagabond or are you attempting to play coy?
 
2013-03-19 10:48:16 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: Verzio: The job (like every other government office in the US) includes an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. That inherently requires the sheriff to judge what acts on his part uphold it and what acts do not. Refusing to take actions to enforce what he believes to be an unconstitutional law is, in fact, part of his job.

No, it's not.  There's a legal course of action if you think something isn't legal or Constitutional.  Random hicks declaring it unconstitutional isn't one of them.



4.bp.blogspot.com

Godwin?

No, he lost.
 
2013-03-19 10:52:35 PM  

Frank N Stein: 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!!

[media.tumblr.com image 336x346]


That would be a lot funnier if, you know, he had been crying or something.
 
2013-03-19 10:55:43 PM  

manimal2878: Biological Ali: manimal2878: alberta_beef: Owning removable mags at all, let alone enormous ones, is not.

Um, that's retarded.  That would be like saying free speech is protected but owning books is not.

Owning books would be a strange thing to justify under "free speech" - perhaps you meant distributing books?

Sure, whatever, either way it's stupid.


The famous "Fire in a crowded theater" phrase was actually coined in a case that related to a man distributing leaflets (which I'm sure you'll agree are similar enough to books as far as "speech" is concerned. The case didn't turn out very well for the guy arguing "free speech". Now, the circumstances under which the government can take similar action have been narrowed down since then, but it can still be done - and that only refers to criminal prosecution for the speech itself. There are other limits based on venue and setting, like with the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" guy.
 
2013-03-19 11:01:12 PM  

doglover: Satanic_Hamster: Random hicks declaring it unconstitutional isn't one of them. covered under the bill of rights.

Also, when the law is unjust, the just man must ignore it.



Jury nullification FTW.

The fully informed jury is a jury that understands that it is their duty not only to decide innocence or guilt, but to judge the LAW ITSELF, and whether said law should apply in the case before them.

The fully informed jury is one of the last bastions that The People have in defense against tyranny.

The Second Amendment is THE last bastion.
 
2013-03-19 11:02:10 PM  

doglover: Biological Ali: doglover: Also, when the law is unjust, the just man must ignore it.

I assume you're paraphrasing Dr. King there?

Are you actually an unlettered vagabond or are you attempting to play coy?


Because if that's the case, then the second half of the sentiment is that the "just man" must also be prepared to face the legal consequences for his actions.
 
2013-03-19 11:10:50 PM  
I think most people here HAVE NO FARKING CLUE what this new Colorado law does and why it is unenforceable. It is an EXTREMELY poorly worded law that effectively outlaws about 70% of all guns in Colorado.

First, the guns it applies too:
All pistols, shotguns, and rifles that use, or can be modified to use, magazines, because effectively all magazines can be modified to hold more than 15 rounds. Only exception would be if you permanently disable modification in some way, but that isn't possible or practical with the vast majority of magazines. Total this probably applies to about 60% of all guns in Colorado.
All pump action shotguns that hold, or can he modified to hold, more than 5 rounds in the tube, which is about 90% of all pump shotguns. Probably close to another 10% of all Colorado guns.

Second, the affect on individuals (in reference to use of the guns above):
If you own any of the above guns you can not leave the magazines in the possession or constructive possession of ANYONE ELSE EVER. Among other things, this means that if anyone else lives in your house you have to keep your magazines locked up at all times when not on your person. This effectively means you have to use a combination only safe and only you can know the combination.
You can not loan (let them touch when you aren't also touching) your gun to anyone else if it has a magazine in it, nor leave it or the magazines where someone else has constructive possession, even for a minute. Even at the range with you standing right there the only way someone could shoot the gun is if you load in a magazine, cycle the round into the chamber, remove the magazine, hand it to them, let them shoot, take it back, and repeat. Effectively it makes it a single shot with a dangerous handoff process required between each shot.
If someone else does ever gain possession of your magazine from that point on ANYONE who possess that magazine is a criminal, including yourself.
If you are at a range and the gun jams with the magazine in it the Range Safety Officer can not assist you in clearing the jam except by giving verbal instructions.
If you are at a range, hunting, or just going about your life while carrying, and become sick or injured nobody can assist you with your firearms even if you are physically incapable of moving them. If the paramedics have to remove your belt with they, and even your wife, has to leave the firearm on the ground where it is, and it is illegal for you to every pick up the magazine ever again. A police officer could remove the magazine and return the gun to you though.
Selling or buying any of the above firearms with a magazine anywhere in the state is of course then illegal. If you don't already have magazines for a given gun before July 1st there is no point in buying the gun because you can't purchase magazines for it unless the magazines are effectively impossible to expand to hold 16 rounds.
If you need your firearm repaired you can't leave your magazines with the gunsmith (or ship them with the gun) so they may not be able to repair it, or if they can they may not be able to test it properly (they would have to have a magazine for that gun from before this law became active). Pump action shotguns become effectively unrepairable by anyone but yourself.

In effect this law will effectively make probably more than 99% of gun owners, and their family members, into criminals. It will make owning a gun shop or manufacturing almost all guns or gun accessories effectively impossible in the state of Colorado.

In practice it won't be enforced this way of course, but that is how the law is WRITTEN....This is one of the biggest problems with anti-gun legislators. They are generally the least qualified people imaginable to make laws about guns. They don't know what they are talking about, why the hell are they writing the laws?
 
2013-03-19 11:17:03 PM  

Biological Ali: manimal2878: Biological Ali: manimal2878: alberta_beef: Owning removable mags at all, let alone enormous ones, is not.

Um, that's retarded.  That would be like saying free speech is protected but owning books is not.

Owning books would be a strange thing to justify under "free speech" - perhaps you meant distributing books?

Sure, whatever, either way it's stupid.

The famous "Fire in a crowded theater" phrase was actually coined in a case that related to a man distributing leaflets (which I'm sure you'll agree are similar enough to books as far as "speech" is concerned. The case didn't turn out very well for the guy arguing "free speech". Now, the circumstances under which the government can take similar action have been narrowed down since then, but it can still be done - and that only refers to criminal prosecution for the speech itself. There are other limits based on venue and setting, like with the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" guy.


Do you really thing it is llogical to say you could own the gun, but not a way to actually fire it?  Wouldn't that cross some sort of de facto infringement?
 
2013-03-19 11:17:14 PM  

tom baker's scarf: redmid17: tom baker's scarf: redmid17: tom baker's scarf: redmid17: tom baker's scarf: Fark It: tom baker's scarf: 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.

Said every advocate of the Patriot Act, NDAA, warrantless wire-tapping, and 4th-amendment-skirting drug laws.

WippitGuud: Full circle: You don't need a 30 round clip exercise your right to bear arms.

You don't need semi-automatic weapons to exercise your right to bear arms.

You don't need revolvers or lever-action weapons to exercise your right to bear arms.

You don't need cartridge-based ammunition to exercise your right to bear arms.

You don't need rifled barrels to exercise your right to bear arms.

The founding fathers overthrew the government with (mostly) smooth bore and single shot weapons. Are you saying you aren't as patriotic as them? Is your belief on liberty so weak you can't walk in their footsteps?

If the slippery slope starts with "you can't have 30 round mags" and moves at its current pace we will be extinct long before we even get doing something useful about assault weapons.

They also had cannons, warships, and no laws regarding the open or concealed carry of any type of weapon. Careful what bad arguments you try to bring into a debate.

/assault weapons aren't that big of a problem
//handguns are the huge problem in the room that no one is bothering to address

You new not give me a history lesson. The American warships were largely ineffective and you bet your ass the British had laws about carrying guns leading up to and during the war.

I'll make you a deal. We get serious about gun control in this country and I'll fully support any plan you want to put forward pertaining to the ownership of 6lb horse or 12lb foot artillery.

I'm not sure I get ...


What you basically just said was "I want to do away with the 2nd amendment but don't have the guts to say it." Be honest about your goals. People will debate you and even take you seriously. Now you just sound like a troll.
 
2013-03-19 11:25:23 PM  
 This kind of gun crime and mass shooting didn't exist in the 50's, 60's, etc and you're damn right the same firearms were around back then.

No, they existed.  Both sides seem to want to dismiss that mass shootings have been a problem for much of this century.  I guess the decision that needs to be made is a simple one, can we accept the level of morbidity and mortality that results from having access to these weapons (keeping in mind that plain old non-mass killings are far more common.)

There will still be many, many legal guns and there will still be many fatalities caused by people using them recklessly, (but, let's be honest, as designed.)
 
2013-03-19 11:25:35 PM  

Biological Ali: Because if that's the case, then the second half of the sentiment is that the "just man" must also be prepared to face the legal consequences for his actions.


Yeah, but what else do expect from a gay hermit writer who didn't pay taxes but a passive course of action? He was obviously into non-confrontation. Ideally there's no consequences at all.

These stupid knee jerk guns laws ARE stupid and knee jerk. It's in society's best interest that the already understaffed police do tell lawmakers to eat a bowl of dicks and refuse to enforce them because that's how checks and balances work. You pass a shiatty law, the other two branches tell you to go pound sand, you're forced to discard your shiatty law. That's why there's three branches of government, not one.
 
2013-03-19 11:39:41 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.


cnsnews = crappy news service, uh, news?
 
2013-03-19 11:45:20 PM  

doglover: These stupid knee jerk guns laws ARE stupid and knee jerk. It's in society's best interest that the already understaffed police do tell lawmakers to eat a bowl of dicks and refuse to enforce them because that's how checks and balances work.


The police aren't part of the "checks and balances" you're talking about. What you're thinking of is courts.

Now, these sheriffs can of course refuse to do some part of their jobs in order to make this political statement, but I suspect they'll be about as successful in that endeavour as that one guy from the military who said he'd refuse orders because Obama didn't show his birth certifict.
 
2013-03-19 11:45:55 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: Verzio: The job (like every other government office in the US) includes an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. That inherently requires the sheriff to judge what acts on his part uphold it and what acts do not. Refusing to take actions to enforce what he believes to be an unconstitutional law is, in fact, part of his job.

No, it's not.  There's a legal course of action if you think something isn't legal or Constitutional.  Random hicks declaring it unconstitutional isn't one of them.


Go ahead, show me where in the US Constitution that lays out this "legal course of action", and says individual officials must defer their own judgments to it.  Article and section, please.

The fact that the courts have the implicit power to review the constitutionality of laws does not, in any way, actually relieve persons who have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution from their oath to uphold the Constitution.  By the fact that it's an obligation on the individual, the individual must make a judgment.  If the judgment that individual makes is to assume constitutionality until a court rules, that is still a decision he made.  Making the judgment is inescapable.

Biological Ali: The famous "Fire in a crowded theater" phrase was actually coined in a case that related to a man distributing leaflets (which I'm sure you'll agree are similar enough to books as far as "speech" is concerned. The case didn't turn out very well for the guy arguing "free speech"


Yeah, because Oliver Wendel Holmes, Jr., was a fascist asshole who used the Constitution for toilet paper.  And that a later Supreme Court held that it was okay to round up Japanese-Americans who had committed no crimes and detain them in concentration camps didn't make that actually constitutional either.
 
2013-03-19 11:46:12 PM  

camelwalk: This kind of gun crime and mass shooting didn't exist in the 50's, 60's, etc and you're damn right the same firearms were around back then.

No, they existed.  Both sides seem to want to dismiss that mass shootings have been a problem for much of this century.  I guess the decision that needs to be made is a simple one, can we accept the level of morbidity and mortality that results from having access to these weapons (keeping in mind that plain old non-mass killings are far more common.)

There will still be many, many legal guns and there will still be many fatalities caused by people using them recklessly, (but, let's be honest, as designed.)


Yeah, pretty much this. They existed, it's just that in an era without live TV coverage on 500 channels, or the Internet, or cell phones or any of the instant communication we take for granted, nobody knew about it until well after it happened (if at all). It could take days or weeks for news of a guy killing his neighbors in some backwoods community to leak out to the rest of the state, never mind the country, and by then it wasn't news anymore.

Also, let's not forget a couple other things: First, "mass shootings" that involve the deaths of more than four or five people are still extremely rare. Again, we hear about them MORE because of the media echo chamber; but averaged over time, there are still very few of these large-scale massacres that occur outside war zones. Second, the reason they were less common in the 50's and 60's was that the firepower itself was less available. The M16/AK-47 style assault rifle wasn't even produced for military use until the 50's and wasn't available for civilian use until the 60's--so that's kind of going to prevent "mass shootings" using military hardware from occurring prior to that date. Charles Whitman used a sniper rifle and Lee Harvey Oswald used a deer rifle, if memory serves. You might as well observe that mass shootings were nonexistent in the 1870's. Of course, because the Maxim gun hadn't been invented yet.
 
2013-03-19 11:48:17 PM  

biffstallion: Meanwhile...  the murder of a Gay person is somehow more important than the murder of a straight person.   The HATE CRIMES law is another Democratic and wasted vote getter.   Make new laws to make people feel special.....

Dumb-arse Demococques...


It's interesting how often stupid people call other people or ideas they can't understand "stupid."

There are reasons why we have hate crime laws, if you want to try to understand what you mock.  But I doubt you'll make the effort.
 
2013-03-19 11:52:12 PM  

ciberido: biffstallion: Meanwhile...  the murder of a Gay person is somehow more important than the murder of a straight person.   The HATE CRIMES law is another Democratic and wasted vote getter.   Make new laws to make people feel special.....

Dumb-arse Demococques...

It's interesting how often stupid people call other people or ideas they can't understand "stupid."

There are reasons why we have hate crime laws, if you want to try to understand what you mock.  But I doubt you'll make the effort.


No, you are probably called stupid because you are stupid.
 
2013-03-19 11:53:51 PM  

Gyrfalcon: camelwalk: This kind of gun crime and mass shooting didn't exist in the 50's, 60's, etc and you're damn right the same firearms were around back then.

No, they existed.  Both sides seem to want to dismiss that mass shootings have been a problem for much of this century.  I guess the decision that needs to be made is a simple one, can we accept the level of morbidity and mortality that results from having access to these weapons (keeping in mind that plain old non-mass killings are far more common.)

There will still be many, many legal guns and there will still be many fatalities caused by people using them recklessly, (but, let's be honest, as designed.)

Yeah, pretty much this. They existed, it's just that in an era without live TV coverage on 500 channels, or the Internet, or cell phones or any of the instant communication we take for granted, nobody knew about it until well after it happened (if at all). It could take days or weeks for news of a guy killing his neighbors in some backwoods community to leak out to the rest of the state, never mind the country, and by then it wasn't news anymore.


Deadliest school attack in US history is still the 1927 Bath School Disaster, which was perpetrated with explosives and one bolt-action rifle.
 
2013-03-19 11:56:11 PM  

Biological Ali: The police aren't part of the "checks and balances" you're talking about. What you're thinking of is courts.


No, the citizens are the 4th and ultimate check and indeed the source of the government's power.

The president is an old guy in a nice suit.

The congress is a bunch of old people in cheaper suits.

The supreme court is a bunch of old people in black dresses.

Without the support of the people, they're just a bunch of over 30s sitting on their asses.

The same is true of the state level government. They pass an unenforceable law that makes all citizens criminals, the police have no mandate to enforce it and a moral obligation not to. It's the duty and the power of the 4th branch.
 
2013-03-19 11:56:25 PM  

Giltric: 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!!


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?


it's symbolic.  local officials aren't supposed to enforce immigration laws.  that's the job of the feds.
 
2013-03-19 11:58:10 PM  

arentol: I think most people here HAVE NO FARKING CLUE what this new Colorado law does and why it is unenforceable. It is an EXTREMELY poorly worded law that effectively outlaws about 70% of all guns in Colorado.

First, the guns it applies too:
All pistols, shotguns, and rifles that use, or can be modified to use, magazines, because effectively all magazines can be modified to hold more than 15 rounds. Only exception would be if you permanently disable modification in some way, but that isn't possible or practical with the vast majority of magazines. Total this probably applies to about 60% of all guns in Colorado.
All pump action shotguns that hold, or can he modified to hold, more than 5 rounds in the tube, which is about 90% of all pump shotguns. Probably close to another 10% of all Colorado guns.

Second, the affect on individuals (in reference to use of the guns above):
If you own any of the above guns you can not leave the magazines in the possession or constructive possession of ANYONE ELSE EVER. Among other things, this means that if anyone else lives in your house you have to keep your magazines locked up at all times when not on your person. This effectively means you have to use a combination only safe and only you can know the combination.
You can not loan (let them touch when you aren't also touching) your gun to anyone else if it has a magazine in it, nor leave it or the magazines where someone else has constructive possession, even for a minute. Even at the range with you standing right there the only way someone could shoot the gun is if you load in a magazine, cycle the round into the chamber, remove the magazine, hand it to them, let them shoot, take it back, and repeat. Effectively it makes it a single shot with a dangerous handoff process required between each shot.
If someone else does ever gain possession of your magazine from that point on ANYONE who possess that magazine is a criminal, including yourself.
If you are at a range and the gun jams with t ...


How could Colorado write such blatantly STOOPID laws???


sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net

I'll bet legalized weed did this!
 
2013-03-19 11:59:34 PM  

Rat: Apparently the liberals would just have us pounding on the bad guys chest screaming "you brute, you brute, you brute".

[i235.photobucket.com image 500x209]
©


I guess that works, if by "apparently" you mean "I rarely speak to actual liberals and never understand them when I do, so I just make up crap about them."
 
2013-03-19 11:59:51 PM  

Verzio: Satanic_Hamster: Verzio: The job (like every other government office in the US) includes an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. That inherently requires the sheriff to judge what acts on his part uphold it and what acts do not. Refusing to take actions to enforce what he believes to be an unconstitutional law is, in fact, part of his job.

No, it's not.  There's a legal course of action if you think something isn't legal or Constitutional.  Random hicks declaring it unconstitutional isn't one of them.

Go ahead, show me where in the US Constitution that lays out this "legal course of action", and says individual officials must defer their own judgments to it.  Article and section, please.

The fact that the courts have the implicit power to review the constitutionality of laws does not, in any way, actually relieve persons who have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution from their oath to uphold the Constitution.  By the fact that it's an obligation on the individual, the individual must make a judgment.  If the judgment that individual makes is to assume constitutionality until a court rules, that is still a decision he made.  Making the judgment is inescapable.

Biological Ali: The famous "Fire in a crowded theater" phrase was actually coined in a case that related to a man distributing leaflets (which I'm sure you'll agree are similar enough to books as far as "speech" is concerned. The case didn't turn out very well for the guy arguing "free speech"

Yeah, because Oliver Wendel Holmes, Jr., was a fascist asshole who used the Constitution for toilet paper.  And that a later Supreme Court held that it was okay to round up Japanese-Americans who had committed no crimes and detain them in concentration camps didn't make that actually constitutional either.


Fine; when I become sheriff of your county I'm going to declare that I consider any anti-rape laws to be unconstitutional and I will no longer be enforcing them because that's what I think the Founding Fathers intended.  I mean, they didn't even MENTION rape in the Constitutional, so how could it be legal or Constitutional to ban it?  And I know this is right, because I have a GED in Constitutional Law.
 
2013-03-20 12:00:31 AM  

manimal2878: Do you really thing it is llogical to say you could own the gun, but not a way to actually fire it? Wouldn't that cross some sort of de facto infringement?


The discussion, I believe, was not about banning ammunition altogether, but rather, whether it was okay to restrict certain kinds of magazines.
 
2013-03-20 12:07:58 AM  

way south: Evil High Priest: Canons is the way to go, obviously. They should be mandatory if you want to vote.


I thought they were, especially in places like Chicago and New York...
[dl.dropbox.com image 450x406] [dl.dropbox.com image 650x443]


You do realize that voter fraud is basically a dogwhistle for efforts to disenfranchise voters, right?

So, are you gullible enough to have drunk the Kool-Aid, or do you know you're spreading misinformation?
 
2013-03-20 12:12:13 AM  

doglover: The same is true of the state level government. They pass an unenforceable law that makes all citizens criminals, the police have no mandate to enforce it and a moral obligation not to. It's the duty and the power of the 4th branch.


If you genuinely believe that these laws are unconstitutional, you should be all for the police trying enforce them, as they can then be challenged and struck down. These sheriffs aren't doing the gun rights movement any favours; indeed, this is the kind of silliness that the sensible gun rights advocates will be distancing themselves from in years to come.
 
2013-03-20 12:13:15 AM  

camelwalk: This kind of gun crime and mass shooting didn't exist in the 50's, 60's, etc and you're damn right the same firearms were around back then.

No, they existed.  Both sides seem to want to dismiss that mass shootings have been a problem for much of this century.  I guess the decision that needs to be made is a simple one, can we accept the level of morbidity and mortality that results from having access to these weapons (keeping in mind that plain old non-mass killings are far more common.)


People are very ignorant of history.  I got into a debate with a family member a few weeks back over school shootings.  She insisted that they were a recent phenomenon.  She wouldn't believe that they dated back to the 1700s in the USA (or actually, what would later become the USA)
 
2013-03-20 12:19:42 AM  

Biological Ali: If you genuinely believe that these laws are unconstitutional, you should be all for the police trying enforce them,


No, because I'm not a dickhole.

They can be challenged in the courts if they're enforced, but that creates victims and costs at least one person time, money, and for a time possibly even freedom. It's an abuse of power.

What they should do is just send the poorly worded laws back to sender, COD, BEFORE they victimize people and make innocent citizens into criminals.

Do you not understand the job of police is to protect citizens from the bad guys. If those guys are robbers, you bust 'em and toss 'em in the back of your squad car. If those guys are lawmakers you refuse to enforce their bad laws.
 
2013-03-20 12:22:42 AM  

doglover: What they should do is just send the poorly worded laws back to sender, COD, BEFORE they victimize people and make innocent citizens into criminals.


Who is "they"?
 
2013-03-20 12:24:22 AM  

ciberido: Rat: Apparently the liberals would just have us pounding on the bad guys chest screaming "you brute, you brute, you brute".

[i235.photobucket.com image 500x209]
©

I guess that works, if by "apparently" you mean "I rarely speak to actual liberals and never understand them when I do, so I just make up crap about them."


And those two liberals then made sweet, sweet lovin' out behind the commissary.

And thus the brawl decreased by two brawlers.

Which was entirely to the point, not only of that particular scene but of the entire film that young Mr. I'm-still-closeted-and-angry-enough-about-it-to-act-out-overcompensati ngly-online to whom you responded.

Which clearly sailed over his troubled young head.
 
2013-03-20 12:26:26 AM  

Biological Ali: manimal2878: Do you really thing it is llogical to say you could own the gun, but not a way to actually fire it? Wouldn't that cross some sort of de facto infringement?

The discussion, I believe, was not about banning ammunition altogether, but rather, whether it was okay to restrict certain kinds of magazines.


I believe the most recent rulings of the supreme court on the subject of guns taken in combinition with some of the earliest ruling would indicate it is not okay.  Large capacity magazines are suitable for use in the militia and are in common use, and people have a personal right to own and bear arms for the purpose of self defense with any weapon that meets those definitions.  Looking at the well regulated portion of the 2nd and some historical materials a person was well regulated if they had a suitable number of ball shot, charges, powde, and misc. equipment needed for militia purpose.  The modern equavalant equal to that of the common soldier would be a magazine of about 30 rounds.

I think one could constitutionally limit magazines to 30, but not less.  That's the way I see it.
 
2013-03-20 01:20:49 AM  

Biological Ali: doglover: What they should do is just send the poorly worded laws back to sender, COD, BEFORE they victimize people and make innocent citizens into criminals.

Who is "they"?


The magic people who read a law before it's been implemented and realize "Holy crap! that's a badly worded law! We better send it back to Congress before somebody gets hurt!" In other words, somebody who apparently doesn't realize that before you can find out that a law is poorly constructed, someone has to actually run afoul of it and their attorney has to see what it is about it that's so bad/vague/overbroad/too narrow/etc. so that it CAN be sent back for rewriting.

You know, someone who failed Civics 101.
 
2013-03-20 02:17:23 AM  

Biological Ali: doglover: Biological Ali: doglover: Also, when the law is unjust, the just man must ignore it.

I assume you're paraphrasing Dr. King there?

Are you actually an unlettered vagabond or are you attempting to play coy?

Because if that's the case, then the second half of the sentiment is that the "just man" must also be prepared to face the legal consequences for his actions.


That part is often left out by people imagining they have "moral courage." Facing the legal consequences of you actions is SUPPOSED to make thinking people realize that the government is wrong to be punishing people for that action. If you aren't punished, where is the call to arms? Why would anyone go to extra lengths to change anything, if you didn't get oppressed?
 
2013-03-20 04:38:05 AM  

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.


OK
 
2013-03-20 05:45:59 AM  
This thread is so damn hilarious. You'd be screaming these guys as the biggest heroes in the damn world if they refused to uphold a law you disagreed with.

You're also being completely pants on head retarded with the bit about how they "have" to do their job because they swore to it. I'm guessing you complete imbeciles would be totally okay with it if your state legislature passed a law that violated your free speech rights and the sheriff said "Well that's the law kid, welcome to PMITA prison" and you would in no way hold that against law enforcement just like you NEVER hold it against them for enforcing any other law you don't agree with.

Get a grip you little immature dolts and think about what you're saying for a few minutes. At least be logical about it.

And yep, I'm going there... When authorities start violating peoples rights because somebody above them told them to...? "Just following orders" wasn't a valid defense for Nazi soldiers either.
 
2013-03-20 06:22:56 AM  

Eddie Adams from Torrance: I wish I could tell my boss that I think his policies are bullshiat and just refuse to do my job.


Which you would be able to do if your boss' boss said that your boss' policies are BS.  The sherrifs are the employees, state law is their boss and the 2nd amendment is their boss' boss
 
2013-03-20 06:26:41 AM  
ciberido: way south: Evil High Priest: Canons is the way to go, obviously. They should be mandatory if you want to vote.


I thought they were, especially in places like Chicago and New York...
[dl.dropbox.com image 450x406] [dl.dropbox.com image 650x443]

You do realize that voter fraud is basically a dogwhistle for efforts to disenfranchise voters, right?


If that's the case then the people who hear it are easily fooled by politicians.
It should be a call for transparency and more public involvement in verification of the vote. Even by force, if necessary.

/But if we're to accept the argument that all gun owners must be carded, for the greater good, I guess its only natural that they'll card voters too.
 
2013-03-20 07:23:04 AM  
Liberals around the country openly flaunt that they do not enforce federal laws regarding immigration and drugs, because they don't feel like it. Liberals cheer.

Conservatives say they will not violate the 2nd amendment by enforcing stupid laws. Liberals boo.

Hippiecrits, how do they work?
 
2013-03-20 10:59:25 AM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: semiotix: You can decide for yourself if these people are "shady," or patriotic defenders of our Second Amendment rights.

For the most part they are neither. They're just people looking to buy and sell stuff.

Marcintosh: Or we could give something a try and see if it works, if it doesn't and proves unworkable then fine lets move to something that is workable.

I carry a magic rock, and I've never been shot. Clearly, distributing magic rocks is a worthwhile endeavor, because why not?

/Since when is "Let's throw it at the wall and see if it sticks" a valid form of lawmaking?


what else has worked?  A good plan today is better than a great plan tomorrow at least according to the capitalists.  And put your rock on the ground right next to your strawman.  They're friends.
 
2013-03-20 11:17:36 AM  

Marcintosh: Noticeably F.A.T.: semiotix: You can decide for yourself if these people are "shady," or patriotic defenders of our Second Amendment rights.

For the most part they are neither. They're just people looking to buy and sell stuff.

Marcintosh: Or we could give something a try and see if it works, if it doesn't and proves unworkable then fine lets move to something that is workable.

I carry a magic rock, and I've never been shot. Clearly, distributing magic rocks is a worthwhile endeavor, because why not?

/Since when is "Let's throw it at the wall and see if it sticks" a valid form of lawmaking?

what else has worked?  A good plan today is better than a great plan tomorrow at least according to the capitalists.  And put your rock on the ground right next to your strawman.  They're friends.


Actually putting in some effort to determine root causes and address those first has been pretty successful. That require some work though.
 
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