As a super-far left-winger I'm entirely with the GOP on this one issue (they're wrong about virtually everything else).

The point of the second amendment is to provide the population with a means of defending itself from the government. We're already at a tremendous disadvantage even with fully-automatic weapons as the government has drones (which it can legally use to murder US citizens) Tanks, Fighter-Jets and more.

We'll be as defenseless as the Pakistani children Obama keeps attacking with drones by the end of this term... and I can only imagine how much worse it will be when the predictable republicrat-cycle swings hard right in 4 years and we end up with Bush III on the throne and an unarmed population whose peaceful protests are met with armored assault vehicles and drone-bombings.

Somewhere Dudley Do-Right and Barney Fife are very proud of their fellow law officers.

how is it that the liberals has reported non stop for weeks how EVERYBODY is behind this gun ban and now law enforcements across the U.S. say they will ignore this ?

who is trying to pull ANOTHER fast one on the american citizens AGAIN ? anybody ?

dont believe what you read or hear from tabloid cable news, all they are is flame throwing @!$%# starters !

News is a myth, now its all speculation and drivel !

The states arent allowed to enforce federal Imigration laws, and get sued if they try, so why should they risk getting sued for trying to enforce any Federal Gun Laws?

If They wan't local and State Police to Enforce Federal Gun Laws then Let them enforce Immigration laws as well.

With 12 million Illigal immigrants in the United States, and them using up our resources such as emergency room visitsm, free education, in stae tuition, etc. it seems to me Enforcing immigration laws will have a much greater and wider impact on crime then useless gun laws.

What?

What are you referring to? The CONSTITUTION part.

@Anonymous Economist: I'm curious how you think a semi-automatic AR-15 (or some other assault style weapon), handgun, or shotgun save you from a drone flying tens of thousands of feet in the air, armed with missiles. You really need to be realistic about this, I understand the 2nd Amendment, unfortunately, if the Government truly wanted to fight you. You simply don't have access to the kind of weaponry that would make it even a 'chance' at a stalemate. But hey, good luck in that one. Please mount some video cameras on your home and store the receiver in some kind of explosive proof bunker. I'd love to see exactly how that turns out for you.

Wow, so if this sheriff see's someone smoking weed in the privacy of his own home, not bothering anyone and this sheriff doesn't even have a warrant I guess he won't enforce that law either, you know the fourth ammendment. It's funny how our civil liberties have been under attack for the last 25 years, warrantless search and seizure, asset forfeiture, Patriot Act, drug war, cameras, drones and no one says a word. All of a sudden these great defenders of the contsitution are outraged over attacks on the 2nd ammendment. Where were you big constitution defenders when a guy like Guilliani was mayor of New York and declared people couldn't protest anymore to redress their grievances, (quoting the constitution) or that he was going to close the Brooklyn Museum of Art because their exhibitions offended HIM. No first ammendment protectors then. All a bunch of losers. There's more ammendments in the constitution than two

So let me get this straight, a bank employee can face time in a federal prison and the bank can face a minimum $500,000 fine if they open an account for somebody on the Designated Terror Watch List, but if you sell 300 guns to that same person this Sheriff feels that's ok? Gotta keep those poor defenseless dollars safe.

Exactly - bankers suck that badly.

Hmmmm . . . . I don't agree with red lights and I'm not stopping for them any more.

And the sheriff hadn't even heard what the executive orders were going to be. He was just instantly against anything coming from Obama. Fact is that in the 23 executive orders that are being enacted immediately not a single one restricts guns in any way. It all has to do with mental health, studying effects of video games and gun violence, and other common sense things like strengthening existing laws. The houses will have to vote on any of the gun restrictions that are suggested.

But when one side has knee jerk negative reactions before even hearing the proposals then the matter is already failed.

Hope that their counties have LOTS of money for the lawsuits the first time someone in their jurisdiction is killed for the sheriffs not doing their lawful jobs.

Those would NOT be "frivolous lawsuits." They'd be justified.

Let's see if anyone sees a correlation here:

I think that traffic lights interfere with my rights. Honest people don't run stop lights, only criminals do. So traffic light laws only impact honest car owners. Based on this, we should repeal and ban all traffic lights. After all - cars don't kill people -- people kill people. And if they don't use a car, they can use a motorcycle. Or a bicycle. Or a dump truck. Maybe video games cause the criminals to run red lights.

I find it amazing that these same 'pretend cops' that use the excuse 'it is the law' to enforce discrimination against minorities will not enforce the laws when it impacts their 'shoot em up' lifestyle.

In Minnesota, Pine County Sheriff Robin Cole told constituents in a letter that he would "refuse" to carry out any federal law that infringed on his interpretation of the Second Amendment.

So now "his interpretation of the Second Amendment" will be the law in Kentucky? Folks, this is exactly why I don't want to give up any gun rights. This, from someone who is in law enforcement?!?! The American people should understand that they need to be extremely cautious of people like this as well as the need to protect their freedom. Whether it's guns, unions, abortion, suppressing voting rights, or silencing the hate spewed by the Westboro Baptist Church, giving up or allowing freedoms to be taken away is an extremely dangerous precedent.

@moshuluu- Your laughing while the 25,000 to at most 40,000 Taliban fighters are fighting the US military plus the rest of NATO to a stalemate using only small arms and IEDs that they made themselves in Afghanistan. Guerrilla warfare tactics/strategy allows a smaller/weaker force to defeat larger/stronger forces. Your statement is ignorant considering the USA is a nation founded by a small number of outgunned individuals that defeated the superpower of their time (British). The Afghans defeated the Russians using the very same tactics with small arms. The NVA/VC defeated the USA using the very same tactics. As @USMC201 pointed out the US military may not side with the government. Not to mention alliances can be made/smuggling used to supply various hard to get weapons. The Russian military did not side with the hardliner communist in 1991, they refused to fire on their own people. Go read a history book.

"Kentucky is a sovereign state..."

That proud sheriff said it as if KY seceded from the Union and became their own country.

Be careful what you wish for, Sheriff Peyman. There will come a time soon enough in your law enforcement career, when you'll be seriously hoping for assistance from the U.S. Federal Government. (I'm sure you'll be too proud and too afraid by then, to admit that to your peers, though).

"Kentucky is a sovereign state." What an idiot. Neither Kentucky, nor any other state meets the actual definition of sovereignty. Webster's defines it as, "supreme power especially over a body politic; freedom from external control." The Supremacy Clause (Article VI Clause 2) states "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding." The government of the United States (aka the FEDERAL government is sovereign. Since Kentucky and every other state in the Union is bound by the Constitution, laws and treaties of the federal government, they are not free from external control and are therefore NOT sovereign. According to the 10th Amendment certain powers are reserved to the states, BUT that does not mean they are free from federal control. Federal courts can strike down state laws and portions of state constitutions. Federal laws trump state laws in the event of a conflict. States cannot tax or regulate federal entities within their borders. The federal government has jurisdiction over federal land and buildings within the borders of a state. This sheriff is bound first and foremost to uphold and defend the Constitution of the UNITED STATES. That's what we fought the Civil War over. A group of traitors seized control of the state governments in the South and tried to defy the federal authorities, and we saw how that turned out for them.

@ mb59059. Not really, they have not lost MAINLY because of their geography.

This thing the sheriff said... is a non-statement. Federal law... federal law enforcement... state and local laws.... state and local law enforcement...

Seriously, this is political theater at its lamest. Make grand completely empty and meaningless statement... gullible people give you campaign donations so you can keep your job... maybe run for statewide office of something... nobody figures out you never actually said anything remotely substantial... this is political double-talk. Means nothing.

You have to register your car. You have to register real estate sales. There's even a pseudoephedrine purchase registry. You register to go hunting, you register go fishing...but registering an assault rifle is just crazy talk... Riiiight.

No, seriously. The NRA gets over 3/4 of its income directly from the firearm industry manufacturers and most of the rest from distributors... and people still think these guys care one whit about the 2nd Amendment?

Its about sales rights for dishonest companies, not gun rights for honest people. Dealers at gun shows make sales without background checks... those guns came directly from the manufacturer. Manufacturers don't care if the guy buying it is a schizophrenic serial rapist or career violent criminal. They just want new orders filled out. Don't be ridiculous. 1.9 million denied gun sales... at a place where people KNEW they'd be denied the sale... what's the math on completely stupid? How many more just went out and bought them from somewhere else?

What do you want to bet the firearm industry has done that math too? You might as well look for guidance on cancer prevention from the tobacco industry if the NRA is setting your compass on this issue. Think.

Anita Hamilton WTF

@today57- They operate in Afghanistan at will. They control large areas that we don't go to. Geography plays a role but it is not the main reason they are capable of holding us at bay. It's their tactics of melting into the population and ambush. Explain why we could not beat the Iraqi insurgency. We paid them off to not fight us. Explain why we could not beat the VC. Your comment means nothing as the USA has mountains and various geographic features that are similar and give advantage.

First thing the White House needs to do is issue a list of the Federal Laws it wants the states to enforce and which to ignore.

As a citizen, I've personally lost track.

Thank you Mr President and Uncle Joe, you have shown great courage once again to bring some sense to the atrocious spread of needless violence in the country.

Just as you are protective of the safety and well being of our children, We, the Mothers of America have your back, we shall spread your message and try to educate the rest of the people.

It is pure ignorance in the minds of some sporadic segments of the population that causes them to listen to the unreasonable rhetoric of the now-corrupt NRA and their masters, the manufacturers of the deadly instruments of death. We shall explain the truth to the wives and mothers to convince their husbands and sons of the need to regulate the industry and respect the right of others in their pursuit of life and freedom to happiness in this great country.

We have seen too many mothers grieve for their children lost to this senseless violence.

May God bless you.

One thing is for sure and that's that criminals will still market and possess firearms regardless of any legislation passed to restrict the law-abiding citizens from possessing them...

sittingonafence- it would appear you are right. Enough already with trying to needlessly control responsible, law abiding people- be it gun owners or soda drinkers.. (How big of a soda is LEGAL size for me to order...)

An issue this large should be handled by a vote by ALL THE PEOPLE- on a ballot: not by force or by Executive Order. My hat is off to those that would stand against a policy and 'rule making' like this- Enough already with FORCED ON US LAWS!

Bosco66,

Well, Obama did not let me down on this one. I have to admit, I was a bit worried that his minions might pressure him into something stupid. From what I have read, he actually has in principle agreed with what the NRA suggested. He didn't use their terms, but that is what it means. His telling Congress to enact an assault weapons and magazine ban are little more than window dressing. He knows it won't happen. I don't agree with doing that, but at best Obama can only sign a bill that gets passed in that regard. He even indicated that its impact would likely be pretty small, but said that if it saves one life it's worth it. I do struggle with that because when you start restricting rights, it is hard to say that it is worth some theoretical good it accomplishes. From what I see, none of his executive orders really changes any current restrictions. Most probably have forgot that GW Bush issued an executive order to ban importation of foreign made "assault weapons". It basically took the previous "assault weapons" ban and applied it to imports. From what I see, Obama did nothing even close to that.

From what I see of this President, it is that he's a very sensible guy and he understands the Constitution. I think he knows the previous assault weapons ban was useless, but at least it may have been Constitutional, even though it never really was directly challenged. I think it was interesting that he danced around the mental health issues a bit and didn't suggest any new laws regarding this. I think the reason is that we have laws already. If we somehow tried to extend those laws to people who were not in any way adjudicated as mentally ill, or if we demanded that doctors had to report people getting mental health treatment, we would be crossing another Constitutional barrier. This is an area where the individual's rights to privacy are protected. Also, if we did this, we would only discourage sick individuals from seeking help. That would be counter productive.

I am very pro-Obama and very Progressive, but I can not get behind this anti-gun movement at all. I think it runs counter to being for individual rights. I really struggle with how this became a left vs right political issue. If anything, rights of individuals to own guns and protect themselves ought to be one of our "left wing" issues.

Personally I see Obama as far more of a centrist than a far left leaning Democrat that he gets called. What I saw today seems to just support that even more. I have little doubt that most of us, regardless of what side we take, would like to see gun violence and these mass killings, stop or at least lessen. But there is no magic bullet, no pun intended. We all have some ideas and we come at it from our own perspectives. A lot of people on the left are just not gun people. They don't really understand much about guns. The left generally speaking, tends to be city dwellers and the right tends to be more from rural environments. Guns tend to play a bigger role in the rural environment. I suppose I am one of those non-typical rural Progressives and I see guns differently.

But I don't view the idea that the 2nd Amendment is about being able to overthrow the government by force. The Constitution has plenty of other mechanisms to prevent tyrannical government. The 2nd Amendment is in the Bill of Rights. This is about personal rights. If anything, a reason for having guns could very well be as part of a government militia to oppose radical groups attempting to overthrow the government. That could come from terrorist organizations and those organizations don't necessarily need to be foreign based. Bottom line is that is exactly what the Civil War was about. God forbid it should ever come to that again, but who knows. However, I think it is not all that unlikely that a breakdown of government could occur. A lot of things could do this. Some could be purely naturally based. Most likely these would lead to criminal elements trying to take advantage of the situation. In the absence of official law enforcement, one will need to be able to protect themselves or become a victim. The 2nd Amendment is about being able to defend yourself. This really speaks to what the 2nd Amendment was about when it was written. Laws may have applied everywhere, but law enforcement was sparse. But even today in cities with huge law enforcement agencies, they can't be everywhere at all times. Individuals have the right to protectthemselves. A gun offers a way to defend against superior aggressiveforces. It can be an equalizer. I understand if people do not choose to exercise that right. That is their choice. But they can not choose what rights others wish to exercise. That is why it is a guaranteed right in the Constitution.

I find it just a bit disturbing that law enforcement officers would publiclystatetheir intention to ignore some laws even before they knew what they were. I find this indicative of a breakdown of government. It is a suggestion that individuals in the government in important roles would choose to sabotage the system. We may not agree with what the government does, but we have a system. We have laws and courts andwe have the right to vote our leaders into or out of office. The suggestion that a small group of independent thinkers could arbitrarily reject what the system produced is a bit scary. The fact is, this whole country elected our President. But there is a segment that does not want to accept that. They can oppose his policies and use the courts to challenge them or use their votes to try to change things, but they can't just choose to ignore them.

Now, if these guys said they would resign before they would enforce such laws, even though they don't know what they are, that would be one thing, but to say they would use their positions in defiance is something else altogether. Unfortunately, some are so convinced that the President is some kindof enemy of the state, that they don't even care to wait andhear what he has to say before opposing him. To my fellow lefties, if you don't see this as evidence of a breakdown of government, you are blind. To be perfectly honest, when I hear things like this it just re-affirms to me the importance of the 2nd Amendment. This idea that it is somehow Constitutionally appropriate to overthrow the government by force is completely asinine, however, it would be foolish to ignore these folks.

I agree with the right that we should not try to infringe on gun rights of individuals, but for different reasons. My view of the 2nd Amendment is much more consistent with what the Supreme Court has ruled in recent times. I don't know that the bans being suggested would be unconstitutional, but I do believe they would be ineffective and therefore not be the reasonable regulation the Supreme Court has said is acceptable. Most importantly the bans would do nothing in a positive sense but in fact would only restrict law abiding citizens. These are not the people we need to be concerned about. Criminals don't concern themselves with legality. We have plenty of gun laws in place and many don't get enforced.

There are only two logical reasons for such a ban. One is some misguided belief that it could do some good. I don't think any one even seriously buys this. The second is to take a step toward a much larger goal of eliminating weapons in the hands of anybody. You only have to read through these posts to see that is the true desire of many who are backing this move. There should be no doubt that this is the ultimate goal of the Brady Campaign and other such groups. I suppose there could be one other reason and that is to serve as a "Liberal trophy" to illustrate a victory over the right. All of these reasons are pretty stupid. We have far more important things to do and wasting political capital on this is just foolish. In the long run this will just hurt the Progressive agenda. If Congress spends a lot of time debating this issue, more important things fall to the wayside and ultimately we will be risking losing seats in Congress in the next election. This will in fact drive some middle minded people to the right and will bring no one to our side. This would just be a dumb thing to do because it will achieve nothing. It is not worth losing more important issues. We were poised to make some gains as the idiocy of the right on many issues is becoming more obvious. So why show our idiocy? We ask the Republican Party to squash their far right wing and play nice, so now we are catering to our far left wing. That's just dumb.

I think a line has been crossed with this one, and the sheriffs have just cause to not enforce these laws. With the NDAA and all, things are going in a very scary direction. I just checked out the Oathkeepers.org site that someone mentioned. This is what they say and I generally agree:

1. We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people.

2. We will NOT obey orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people

3. We will NOT obey orders to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to military tribunal.

4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state.

5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty.

6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.

7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.

8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control."

9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies.

10.We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.

Read more at:

http://oathkeepers.org/oath/

This is not partisan, and even they say so. I am registered Independent. I lean Democrat on fiscal issues and Republican on national security (which makes it hard for me to fit in the usual political molds). Whether left or right, we can't allow ourselves to become disarmed sitting ducks waiting for a tyrant to do us in. This is a bigger issue than a lot of hand-wringing over that tragic shooting. That shooting is being used for another agenda. beware.

Military grade weapons need to stay in the military!

Other than that, keeping a handgun in your home for protection or a shotgun or rifle for hunting is well within our constitutional rights!

Hokey Dokey!!! The people who think they need guns to protect themselves from a police state want a police state presence in schools so people who want to kill children are more entitled to do so than the children are entitled to go to school in a police-free/gun-free zone.

Gotcha. x eye roll x

No wonder so many are up in arms about the President's proposals. They would fail the mental health background checks in a heartbeat.

Until the day muskets/flintlocks become the weapon of choice for armed criminals and murderers, the argument that the Constitution was referring to specifically them is absolutely the most illogical thing I've ever heard.

Politicians, media and many among us are such far-reaching, fear-mongering liars.

Those sherriffs, like all law enforcement officers take an oath of office to enforce and uphold the laws eben if the laws are against what they desire. Where they deliberately refuse or fail to do so they themselves should be prosecuted and promptly removed from office and their duties.

Ao when the guy he "let go" kills your kids, please come here to blog about it. I'd love to hear from you.

I think everyone should go back and read the constitution you all seem to like fredom of speach. get a clue morons!!!

"JeanValjean",

Are you referring to Colorado and Washington? If law enforcement can't pick and choose which federal laws they choose to enforce, where are all the arrests for marijuana possession? I get it, blue states are allowed to ignore federal law, if it interferes with getting stoned, but red states must do whatever Obama says, even if it's unconstitutional.

The one thing that always gets me is that people seem to think the military blindly follows Washington and if our government became truly corrupt, that the military would be out there slaughtering US citizens at the order of whoever is in control. The people in the military are our sons, daughters, fathers, husbands, wives, sisters, brothers, etc, etc. Do you really think they are going to take aim at crowds not knowing who's family members might be in them?

Those sherriffs, like all law enforcement officers take an oath of office to enforce and uphold the laws eben if the laws are against what they desire. Where they deliberately refuse or fail to do so they themselves should be prosecuted and promptly removed from office and their duties.

You have no real moral code beyond the law, do you?

If the law is to round up Jews, should they do that?

If the law is to return black slaves to their masters, should they do that?

If the law says to kill all intellectuals, which includes anyone wearing glasses, should they do that?

No law has any authority if it is not an ethical law. That is for you individually to decide. The Nuremburg Trials made that abundantly clear...because when you follow laws just because it was your job you can be HANGED for your crimes against humanity.

Nazis made laws in Germany to round up Jews. The USA made laws to return black slaves to their masters when they JUSTLY ran away (which was against the law). Pol Pot's Cambodia made laws to pick-axe human beings to death for being intellectuals (including anyone wearing glasses).

I never follow any law I disagree with if it's immoral. Most laws are immoral. If it does not harm or defraud an unwilling person of age and sound mind, then there should be no law against it. This is called Civil Disobedience, pioneered by American activist Henry David Thoreau. Martin Luther King Junior credited him with the concept when he decided to engage in Civil Disobedience as a tactic against unjust laws. Thoreau predates Gandhi, BTW.

If you just follow laws because they're laws you're one of the sheep who were cheerleading for burning witches, handing runaway slaves back to their masters, turning in the Jews to the Nazis, and murdering the intellectuals for Pol Pot.

Think before you write such nonsense next time. Something being law does not make it right...and often resisting laws peacefully IS right. Clue: if it's popular you should definately question if it's right....because it usually isn't.

Crackdown on ILLEGALS, not AMERICANS!

"Illegals" are just being civilly disobedient to an unjust law. They commit crimes at a lower rate than natives. In fact, 2nd generation immigrants have higher rates of crime than 1st generation, and 3rd have a higher rate than 2nd...but still lower than natives. It's us (Americans) who commit so many crimes, not immigrants (legal or "illegal"). It is in their Americanization that they become more likely to commit crimes. It's our influence that is bad, not theirs.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1717575,00.html

Indeed, among men ages 18 to 40 — the demographic most likely to be imprisoned — those born in the U.S. were 10 times more likely than foreign-born men to be incarcerated.

A second study, released earlier this month by Washington-based nonprofit Immigration Policy Center, found that on the national level, U.S.-born men ages 18-39 are five times more likely to be incarcerated than are their foreign-born peers.

They discovered what Sampson calls the "Latino Paradox" — first-generation Mexican immigrants were 45% less likely to engage in violence than third-generation Americans. This pattern continued into the second generation, which was 22% less likely to be violent. Similar trends have been seen in New York and Miami, both of which have large immigrant enclaves. "Immigrant communities are often responsible for revitalizing the urban neighborhoods that they live in," Sampson says. The irony of people's popular misconceptions, he adds, is "that the longer one is exposed to American culture, the more likely you are to participate in violence."

So how about they just go after violent people, not immigrants or natives exclusively...would that be alright?!?

This is why both consertvatives and liberals are wrong...they have no consistent ethical theory. The same liberals who claim to love freedom will attack economic and gun freedoms. The same conservatives who claim to be for free markets will try to make labor markets (immigration) an unfree market instead of letting the market regulate immigration (as opposed to the state doing it). Stop criminals (including terrorists) and those with pandemic disease coming in, and then let everyone elsei n because the market wants them here! Geez....I hate politics.

Odin is exactly right. Federal Law trumps State and Hillbilly Local Laws everytime! I guess we will be having a Gov. George Corley Wallace Jr. moment all over the country with these moronic sheriffs. I suppose President Obama will have to send in the National Guard or the US Army to remove these sheriffs from office. I can only hope that it would be possible.

Hey ho-lee-cow person, that is one amazing argument you put up about the budget! Funny stuff, man! Let's not hear your pain about Guantanamo. Come up with something pressing in the minds of our citizens if you want to be taken seriously. There's a reason the speaker of the house is 3rd in line to the presidency. No matter what the WH and the Senate pass for a budget, the House will NEVER pass it as long as REPs are in charge. Not as long as Obama's in the WH. So let's move on to what the country wants to deal with right now and hope they will come together eventually on all matters of importance. I'll guarantee you the voters will not vote out someone that votes against a budget. But wait and see how we vote for those that vote against sensible firearms restrictions.

The one thing that always gets me is that people seem to think the military blindly follows Washington and if our government became truly corrupt, that the military would be out there slaughtering US citizens at the order of whoever is in control. The people in the military are our sons, daughters, fathers, husbands, wives, sisters, brothers, etc, etc. Do you really think they are going to take aim at crowds not knowing who's family members might be in them?

Some will, some won't. I tend to agree, however. This is why an armed populace will win a revolution if it ever occurs...because at least half the military will side with the populace, and bring with them all those weapons the armed populace don't have. That, or the military will stay completely neutral when the people war with the police forces, like happened in Egypt.

But wait and see how we vote for those that vote against sensible firearms restrictions.

Right, because all anti-gun people who fail to know guns have no correlation with violent crime rates and murder rates are dispersed evenly all over the country, including in Republican districts. Keep dreaming. People in those districts don't want gun control.

Let's not hear your pain about Guantanamo. Come up with something pressing in the minds of our citizens if you want to be taken seriously.

Right...because the universal right to trial and due process is not important at all. It's only on those list of Amendments we call the Bill of Rights with the one about guns.

Again both sides disappoint me. Clearly protecting the 2nd Amendment should be just as important as protecting trial rights and due process...and NOT just for Americans. If you don't understand why, look up natural rights (they aren't rights you get from govt or via citizenship; they are yours via you being human).

Federal Law trumps State and Hillbilly Local Laws everytime!

The Constitution trumps them both. You cannot overrule the Constitution with laws or Executive Orders...you have to Amend it where your wishes conflict with the Constitution. If a federal law is in direct conflict with the Constitution it is illegal...therefore an unlawful order.

OK there are a couple of things that the GOVERNMENT needs to figure out BEFORE passing these gun laws.

1. Who is going to pay for and make sure all private citizen background checks are really for gun sales, hey who is going to keep Mom and Dad from screening some of the guys in their daughters lives or girls in their son's lives.

2. Who is going to enforce this law the same incompetent people that are invorcing drug sales and illegal immigration?

3. Are we going to have another tax to pay for this enforcement.

4. The medical information release information how can we be sure our other medical information is not being released.

Where I live and yes I have a concealed weapon permit we already have a background check to get a permit as well as mental health check. But how do we insure that if you are sane now you always will be. If someone decides you should not have a weapon are they going to come in a take family heirlooms away in our family we have a civil war gun that belonged to a relative would the family member that has that have to give it up at someones discretion and hey if I want that gun can I claim that the family member that has it threatened to kill me so I can get possession of it? What I am pointing out is that people can and some will use a well intended law to get what they want from others or to get revenge on others. And yes this is yet one more law that our already overburdened law enforcement might not be able to keep.

Melissa, why is it whenever someone disagrees with Barry people have to make an issue of us disagreeing with the "Black President"

Get off the race kick already. It's old and it's boring.

We can disagree with Barry and not be a racist. That's something you folks don't seem to understand. We didn't fall into the Media "If you don't vote for him then that PROVES you're a racist" rant.

I don't own a gun. Never have. I have no desire to fire one.

What I EXPECT the President to do is Uphold the laws regarding arms that already on the books NOW. Making up new laws won't change anything.

For those of you who want to stop sending support to states that don't support the white house why doesn't that work both ways? Some states now legalize same sex marriage, but the feds don't. Does that mean that those states that DO should not have to support the Federal government? Personally I think that's a great idea. Some states have legalized marijuana for personal use, but the Feds haven't? Should THOSE those be able to stop sending money to the Feds? Shouldn't the people who live in those states be exempt from paying Federal payroll tax, or even Federal excise taxes on gasoline if the Feds don't support their state?

What's good for the goose should be good for the gander too.

Why do we always have to bring politics, abortion, gun control, religion etc. into these problems nothing ever gets resolved. Why can't we just be humans and stop putting certain weapons on store shelves, honor the children of Newtown. It has nothing to do with the second amendment..We will never be able to resolve mental illness in this country, Insurance industry wants no part of it..You will never be able to decipher when someone goes off the handle or decides to calculate a mass killing, you can see on the web how distant we are.

Soon enough we'll see the M16 on store shelves

HELLO!!!!

Will everybody PLEASE look up the phrase "Posse Comitatus" I don't think the president would be so foolish as to invoke this law at this stage of the game.

The Posse Comitatus Act is the United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385, original at 20 Stat. 152) that was passed on June 18, 1878, after the end of Reconstruction and was updated in 1981. Its intent (in concert with the Insurrection Act of 1807) was to limit the powers of Federal government in using federal military personnel to enforce the State laws. Contrary to popular belief, the Act does prohibit members of the United States Armed Forces from exercising Law enforcement agency powers within a State, police, or peace officer powers that maintain "law and order"; it requires that any authority to do so must exist within the United States Constitution or Act of Congress (which it currently does not except under the Insurrection Act).{Federalist 29 (Hamilton, 1788)} Any use of the Armed Forces under either Title 10/Active Duty or Title 10/Reserves at the direction of the President will offend the Constitutional Law also known as Public Law prohibiting such action unless declared by the President of the United States and approved by Congress. Any infringement will be problematic for political and legal reasons.

The Bill/Act as modified in 1981 refers to the Armed Forces of the United States. It does not apply to the National Guard under state authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within its home state or in an adjacent state if invited by that state's governor. The U.S. Coast Guard, which operates under the Department of Homeland Security, is also not covered by the Posse Comitatus Act, primarily because the Coast Guard has both a maritime law enforcement mission and a federal regulatory agency mission.

For those who think that executive orders are laws ---

THEY AREN"T!

They are orders and do not carry the weight of law. There is a difference! This is why this needs to go through Congress, where it would be killed anyway as Obama does not even have the backing of his own party to pass what he wants this time - politicians remember what happened at election time the last time an assault 'weapons' ban was enacted.

ANY infringement on the Bill of Rights is unConstitutional by definition and any Supreme Court Justice, Senator, Representative, or President that chooses to go against the Constitution needs to be removed from office and tried in a court of law for the traitor that they are.

If any of these sheriffs carry out their plans, then all of them deserve to lose their jobs, period, end of discussion.

My personal favorite is the one who says he will not enforce laws that contradict "HIS" interpretation of the 2nd amendment...

HEY JACKA$$, WE HAVE A SUPREME COURT FOR THAT. MAN UP AND DO YOUR JOB.

Does the 2nd Amendment protect me and my suitcase nuke?

Moshuluu- your ignorance is amusing. First off most members of the military own their own personal guns, and they would be required to turn them in if there was a ban, however I would bet not one would do so. Next they would not follow the orders to confiscate the weapons, as this would be breaking many Constitutional amendments, 2nd and 4th off the top of my head

you people need to get a grip. NO ONE IS TRYING TO BAN YOUR FREAKING GUNS, CAPICHE?!?

If America were to survive a hundred years I can see a line in the sand that starts in D.C. and ends in Eureka California. Two countries.

kahn: What 'crowds'? Likely less than 1% of Americans are willing to die to protect anyone's right to anything, let alone military-type weapons. As long as we have free elections, the 'Monster' in Washington is the figment of your frightened imagination.

"This will be great. Simply stop ALL federal aid to any county or state that does not comply. These Red States all rely on welfare provided by the Blue States, they will shrivel up and blow away if the Blue States stop supporting them !"

They obviously made pot legal where this idiot is posting from as he must be freakin higher than a kite to believe that! I'm stuck in a blue state, and we're going broke even though we are over taxing everyone to death. Neighboring red state has funds left over and is running just fine. Go figure. Idiots. We deserve whatever happens to us in the next 50 years for simply allowing this kind of stupidity to exist here. 100 years ago, someone that stupid would have been shot already.

"This will be great. Simply stop ALL federal aid to any county or state that does not comply. These Red States all rely on welfare provided by the Blue States, they will shrivel up and blow away if the Blue States stop supporting them !"

They obviously made pot legal where this idiot is posting from as he must be freakin higher than a kite to believe that! I'm stuck in a blue state, and we're going broke even though we are over taxing everyone to death. Neighboring red state has funds left over and is running just fine. Go figure. Idiots. We deserve whatever happens to us in the next 50 years for simply allowing this kind of stupidity to exist here. 100 years ago, someone that stupid would have been shot already.

The "idiot" you're referring to is 100% correct. In terms of federal dollars paid in, versus federal dollars paid out, blue states almost unanimously receive less than $1 in return for every $1 paid, while red states almost unanimously receive MORE than $1 for every $1 paid in (Texas being an exception, and quite a large one at that).

If California received $1 back from the federal government for every dollar they paid, they actually would have been running a multi-billion dollar SURPLUS every year. This is the "red state welfare" the poster you quoted was referring to. For example, in 2007 Cali paid $313B in federal taxes but only got back $260B, a difference of $53B. They're deficit was less than half that (i.e., they would have run a $30B SURPLUS that year if not for "red state welfare").

This is pretty much common knowledge, and can be easily confirmed. Start here (although there are far more sources of info out there):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_taxation_and_spending_by_state

dave: "No- you pansy assed liberals like to have it your way, but don't let others have it their way." "how do you homo loving, abortion loving people sleep at night?

By ignoring such drivel?

Lusitania

......

Soon enough we'll see the M16 on store shelves

That is NOT true, full auto's are already available to people in states that allow it, you just need a very large pile of cash to get one, $10k-$15K and deal with a very tedious government control procedure to get it. Machine guns were banned from unregulated sale in 1934 and expanded in 1968. The awb of 1994 to 2004 did nothing to curb violence. All of the 'assault weapons' you see out on the streets merely look like the M-16 and share quite a few parts, however, the important part, the trigger mechanism, (sear) is highly regulated and is by BATF definition the 'machine gun'. None of the look alikes have this full auto sear installed in them, the sear in the look alikes are all made such that one trigger pull fires only one round.
No you won't see full autos readily available to the general public any time soon, unless of course, you are a criminal, then you can find what you want because you don't really care about the consequences anyway. This is the point, criminals won't follow regulations, ever. Trying to regulate something even more in a vain attempt to 'fix a problem' won't help one iota.

COMMON SENSE will prevail! Congratulations to those who have drank the Kool-Aid. You Liberals now magically believe all gun owners are rednecks and Obama is just trying to keep our children safe. Guess what, you have proven that your mind is soft and easily manipulated into believing our government is looking out for our best interest. I'm here to tell you that you can wake up now. Your thinking is dangerous but i'm happy to know that at least you won't be armed. Right? Those who are defying the government are aware of their oath to the constitution as am I. I am a veteran and I will continue to defend America against any enemies foreign or DOMESTIC.

...if you look at these comments you can see that they* desperately need a dictator...and I mean right now...Obama, you have done well. I believe the throne awaits you, please sir wont you take it, it is my honor to have you rule my existence.

*they:(those calling out against any party other than theirs, specifically Democrats who think because they won THIS election they won absolutely every race out there ever to be won)

I am a veteran and I will continue to defend America against any enemies foreign or DOMESTIC.

I resemble that remark. Scouts out...

@ moshuluu, seriously? Republicans refusing to enforce law? How about you open your eyes! That is all this president has done since he has been in office. Refused to enforce ANY laws that he doesn't agree with. These Sheriffs and Law Enforcement personnel did not disclose their political affiliations so you have gone and decided their affiliations for our benefit. All he has done since he has taken office is divide this country, sue states and bulleyed anyone and anything that opposes him; I thought you Liberals absolutely despise bullying? He took an oath to support and defend the constition! Period! These Sheriff's have also done the same and the have an obligation to NOT enforce anything that is not Constitutional which would be a violation of that oath! At least someone still has the integrity to stand up for the oath they took. You can go back to worshipping the one you love now! There is no HOPE for you and your kind!

It's ironic that the first Civil War was started by a white man to free black men. The next Civil War is being started by a black man trying to enslave white men.

What were you independents thinking when you voted for this idiot in November?

@ moshuluu, seriously? Republicans refusing to enforce law? How about you open your eyes! That is all this president has done since he has been in office. Refused to enforce ANY laws that he doesn't agree with. These Sheriffs and Law Enforcement personnel did not disclose their political affiliations so you have gone and decided their affiliations for our benefit. All he has done since he has taken office is divide this country, sue states and bulleyed anyone and anything that opposes him; I thought you Liberals absolutely despise bullying? He took an oath to support and defend the constition! Period! These Sheriff's have also done the same and the have an obligation to NOT enforce anything that is not Constitutional which would be a violation of that oath! At least someone still has the integrity to stand up for the oath they took. You can go back to worshipping the one you love now! There is no HOPE for you and your kind!

dogband-

Their job is not to interpret the law, simply enforce it. Even vocalizing the fact that they will not uphold law is beyond grounds for dismissal, pure and simple.

Apply the same standard to the president and the second amendment...

Pursuant to the US Constitution's Supremacy Clause, every state's militia act MUST be consistent with the Federal. And those militia acts regulate the militia of the Second Amendment. IF these jackasses want to claim the Second Amendment protects a private individual right -- OUTSIDE the well regulated militia -- then they must comply with the regulations that apply through the Second Amendment.

Bottom line: the Second Amendment DOES NOT PROTECT FROM regulation, any more than the right to operate a motor vehicle is exempt from regulation.

The actual and deliberate stupidity which insists that regulation is the same as confiscation are crackpots. And their rationale is CRIMINAL. Public safety TRUMPS any individual right, especially when that "right" threatens public safety. The issue isn't the Second Amendment, and the "right" to kill others; the issue is public safety.

The NRA boasts of some 4 1/2 million members -- most of whom are for the President's proposals. There are 312 million Americans who ARE NOT members of the NRA. Majority rules -- despite the continuing efforts of the tyrannical terrorist minority that runs the NRA as a far-right anti-Constitutional fomenter of anti-Constitutionalism:

US Constitution: Art. I., S. 8., C. 15. The Congress shall have Power To provide for calling forth the Militia to . . . SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS. See Shays's and Whiskey rebellions and how the Founders SQUASHED them by use of the militia.

Constitution: Art. I., S. 8., C. 16. The Congress shall have Power To provide for . . . ARMING . . . the Militia.

The militia hasn't relied on privately owned guns since at latest ratification of the Constitution.

As for the BS about what are and aren't assault weapons: that issue has been settled law for centuries:

IN LAW, if one points an UNLOADED gun at another, it is the CRIME of "Assault with a Deadly Weapon".

If it LOOKS like an assault weapon, it IS an assault weapon.

Last but not least: when will the foaming-at-the-mouth so-called "responsible gun owners" who falsely believe their right to kill supersedes others' right not to be killed learn the laws their "responsibility" REQUIRES they know?

This POTUS is notorious for picking and choosing laws he likes or dislikes and abiding to them as He see fit...seems like he's just started a trend.

I wonder if any of you people crying that your constitutional rights are being infringed upon actually know what the 2nd amendment says. Well here it is, as passed by Congress:

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.

You might notice the words "well regulated" right in there. Why is it that all of the crazy gun people site the 2nd Amendment, but don't acknowledge those words. It is actually unconstitutional to NOT regulate gun ownership. I am 100% for freedom to responsibly own a gun. Why is it that there are so many who believe that anyone should be able to own such a deadly weapon, when there are so many crazies out there?? Why is it so much to ask that anyone who wants to own a gun must first undergo safety and usage training? I just don't get it.

Every time I read comments like this ^ I laugh my ass off. In this day and age, if you really think you can defeat our Military with your pea brain-pea-shooters, you are sadly mistaken.

Go tell Libya and Syria they better just pack it in and do as their told, they have no chance at accomplishing anything because their weapons are useless against their governments.

I heard a liberal pundit say the these restrictions are primarily opposed by white males.

Well golly gee...if that's correct; doesn't that speak to the fact that these restrictions are a tad racist?

So...let's be fair about this: if the President is so intent on going after white males and their guns - where is the big push to disarm black criminals?

earthpig

dogband-

Their job is not to interpret the law, simply enforce it. Even vocalizing the fact that they will not uphold law is beyond grounds for dismissal, pure and simple.

Apply the same standard to the president and the second amendment.

_____

In view of the fact that the Second Amendment does not prohibit regulation of the well regulated militia, it does not protect anything else declared to be within the scope of that Amendment FROM regulation.

Let's look at the "Heller" abortion, which holds --

1. FALSELY, that the Second Amendment protects a private, individual right OUTSIDE the militia; and,

2. CORRECTLY holds that gun control regulation is CONSTITUTIONAL.

Which half of that law do you reject?

same question again un-answered;

U.N. treaty signed by Hillary; any semi-automatic weapon shall be consider a assault weapon and outlawed from civilian ownership.

WHAT IS A ASSUALT WEAPON , UNDER THE GOVERNMENTS PLAN ?

arguesforsport

Every time I read comments like this ^ I laugh my ass off. In this day and age, if you really think you can defeat our Military with your pea brain-pea-shooters, you are sadly mistaken.

Go tell Libya and Syria they better just pack it in and do as their told, they have no chance at accomplishing anything because their weapons are useless against their governments.

_____

Yet another illiterate claiming to be "defending the Constitution" who has never read it:

Art. I., S. 8., C. 15. The Congress shall have Power To provide for calling forth the Militia to . . . SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS.

As for your effort to substitute the "Declaration of Independence" for the Law of the Land:

1. The "Declaration" applied EXCLUSIVELY -- ONLY -- to BRITAIN. The Founders were not declaring independence from the colony gov'ts, which were controlled BY THE FOUNDERS.

2. Look up Shays's and Whiskey rebellions, hothead tough-guy: they were CRUSHED by the Founders by use of the MILITIA.

READ your STATE constitution: the commander in chief of the militia is your state's governor. IS he going to "take up arms" against himself?

3. A militia is not an individual. You are not a militia. Nor are you at all regulated by reason.

jd: And will you continue to " obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me,.."? Or is that part overridden by your personal agenda?

Some sheriffs say they won't won't enforce gun plan...

Hey, NBCNews.com dimwit writers! How about proofreading and/or editing before you post?

argues: Let's not forget the billions in cash/weapons aid these folks received from other nations.

The Afghani argument is even more spurious. The Afghani people have been continuously defending against outside invasion for centuries. Generation after generation schooled in guerrilla warfare. The mountains of weapons left by the Soviets and the $40 billion in cash/weapons aid from the US and Saudi Arabia is pretty useful as well.

So sad we have a president who swore to uphold the Constitution then clearly does not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHApBhUUA30&noredirect=1

This is why we must protect ourselves. Defend freedom from tyranny and internal terrorism. Stop the corruption in American politics and it starts with ending the manipulation of our politicians, our media, our way of Life. Remove and GOD and it will be replaced with even MORE faith. Please view other vids on the side...and especially notice the evil father who speaks...loving father or agent of fear and evil. You decide.

WE are One. WE are Knowledgeable. WE want our Country back. WE ARE ON TOO YOU.

ham: "You liberals"?

So when a law is unconstitutional, should we obey them blindly? I can think of many that have come and gone because of this very thing. I'm glad for the constitution.. it makes the process SLOW for a reason so we don't over react on emotional items. I wish our President would lead through this process instead of reacting and trying to go around this well formed process of our constitution.

So, where's Pigotry and that annoying bitch Fiesty?? Both are usually the first ones to post on anything about thier saviour Obama!!

ProBusiness

So sad we have a president who swore to uphold the Constitution then clearly does not.

Please tell me, what part of the constitution is he not upholding? Seems to me that he is trying to enforce the constitution but implementing the part of the 2nd Amendment that calls for "a well regulated militia". But I guess if you're one of those who only wants him to uphold the parts of the constitution that you agree with, then you'd think he wasn't doing his job.

What makes the left think the military would be on the side of the government in fighting the population, its a lot easier to get rid of 535 than fight 300 million.

How SAFE

do the folks in LINN, OREGON

feel

with the defiant

Sherriff

?

I'm always amused by the "revolution" types on these boards. So let's say you all pick up your guns and lead your revolution and win. Then what? The arrogance is astounding.

PJuliett,

God Im sorry you and RI are moms. Just going to raise the next generation of ignorant moochers. Thats good. You can always spot liberal hypocrisy. Obama is stopping the enforcement of federal law of removing the illegals from our country and libs support it, but when a sheriff actually wants to uphold the constitution and refuses to carry out a dumb liberal scare tactic you guys go nuts over it. Liberals wake up, actually do research, learn these things we call statistics, and stop goose stepping right along with Obama.

What makes the left think the military would be on the side of the government in fighting the population, its a lot easier to get rid of 535 than fight 300 million.

I don't think the left feels that way. If anything, it's the rightwing that feels the military would side with the government in a war against the American people.

Hence why they persistently claim that the 2nd amendment is there to "defend the people against a tyrannical government" and why they feel the need to stockpile massive weapon caches complete with assault rifles and 1000's of rounds of ammunition.

Those on the left, espousing common sense gun control, know that if a "dictator" ever did come into power in this country, the military (which is all-volunteer and made up of our friends, family members, and neighbors) wouldn't storm down Main street blindly following orders.

We know that when the 2nd amendment was authored, America had no standing army and so our only protection against a "tyrannical government" (read as: the British crown, which at the time was VERY likely to reinvade, as they did in 1812) was to arm the populace. Now that we DO have an armed "populace" (read as: an all volunteer army made up of the PEOPLE) and it happens to be the largest, most powerful, most well-funded "militia" the world has ever seen, we don't need personal weapons caches that would make the Mexican drug cartels blush...

Once again, struck the nerve @ 1.50.

SDN, I will not obey any unlawful orders. I made the mistake of following orders that were unlawful by participating in the invasion of Iraq and I will not make that mistake again. We are not required to obey UNLAWFUL orders and my personal agenda is to defer to the Constitution of the United States of America when we have a traitor as president making unlawful orders. It seems your personal agenda is willful ignorance and sheep-like behaviors. Wait and see how that works for you.

mrburns: You mean like the statistics on the rate of deportation of illegal immigrants over the past 6 years? "Goose stepping", indeed.

jd: A simple 'yes' would have been sufficient.

funny how people go off about things they have nether read or understand. an assault rifle ban would mean nothing to those who own them now. just like when bush sr banned the import of assault rifles or when clinton banned the sale. does'nt have any effect on those who have them.

personally i don't think a assault rifle ban will make anyone safer because the shape and style of a gun has little to do with how it kills. and there are already tens of millions in the country. but for those who oppose a ban making silly arguments hurts your case. the best argument against a ban if the facts. not ginned up hysteria

two things that would have some effect and i don't see how either can be all that contriversial is universal background checks and more effective enforcemnt of gun laws pertaining to the mentally ill. those things will have an effect, banning assault rifles wont save one life because a 223 assault rifle or a 223 deer rifle only look different, they both kill the same and the size of clip means little since you can change a clip in seconds.

best way to prevent crazy people from doing crazy things is keep guns out of the hands of the crazy people

Local PD isn't allowed to enforce immigration laws, so it follows they shouldn't enforce Obama's gun laws.

Ya can't have it both ways whiney liberal douche bags.

MSNBCMFE

Let's just make sure that they pay their debt back to the rest of us as they exit. Like for the interstates, the bridges, the airports, etc.

And will you be paying back all of the money you've saved at the G-store and gas pump because Fed subsidies to those places have reduced the cost of most of the things you consume?

jd: And your last couple sentences were wholly convincing - where do I sign up?

No need to wait and see - it's worked very well indeed for my entire 65 years.

spencer: More brilliance - "whiney liberal douche bags"? Yes, I do believe that mental health requirements for gun (or baseball bat) possession have been amply demonstrated.

JNagarya and Sally Lu:

Thanks you for bringing up "well regulated militia". And JNagarya, you also bring up about the SCOTUS miscalling the outside "militia", private ownership of firearms.

FALSELY, that the Second Amendment protects a private, individual right OUTSIDE the militia

So lets see what the terms actually mean by using the same reference materials the courts use, and see who has got it right...

"Well Regulated" is defined as: well equipped, well ordered and well trained...

"Militia" is defined as: A body of CITIZENS ARMED and trained, esp. by a state*, for military service APART FROM the regular armed forces. -- reserve militia. ALL persons who are not exempt from military service and not actively serving in the armed forces OR national guard. -- Black's Law Dictionary 8th Edition

So using the rules of the English language, we can put the definitions in the sentence and have the same exact meaning... So it CAN be read as:

"Well equipped, well ordered and well trained ARMED CITIZENS being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Hmmm? Looks like you both are eatin' crow for dinner...

*"Esp. by a state" is separated because the law does NOT REQUIRE it to be managed BY the state. HOWEVER, private militias MUST follow and abide by Constitutional Law.

ALL laws restricting firearms ARE unconstitutional and therefore unlawful, and thereby unenforceable... {Unconstitutional Official Acts -- 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256}

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JNagarya: Before you jump back and say, "they were referring to the National Guard"... Let me point out that it appears you are neglecting the Militia Act of 1903 as well.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gun Grabber Logic: The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1791, refers to the National Guard, which was created by an act of Congress in 1903.

”The great body of our citizens shoot less as times goes on. We should encourage rifle practice among schoolboys, and indeed among all classes, as well as in the military services by every means in our power. Thus, and not otherwise, may we be able to assist in preserving peace in the world… The first step – in the direction of preparation to avert war if possible, and to be fit for war if it should come – is to teach men to shoot!” -- President Theodore Roosevelt

1) Did any of you actually read the EOs? They are pretty reasonable. Not a single one of them comes across as particularly controversial.

2) The Assault Weapons ban you guys keep saying is a sure sign that the US Constitution is coming to an end and we are all going to die or whatever hyperimaginative nonsense you spew was ALREADY DONE once before, for 10 years.... so what makes this time any different?

I don't support the ban myself, but for God's sake - the ridiculously over the top CRAZY and PARANOID rhetoric from some of ya'll does gun-rights people like myself NO FAVORS. I'm seriously starting to think that you all are plants to simply bolster the gun-control arguments for why we need more regulations.

3) Reagan brought about the Brady Act - which instituted the background check rules and regulations of which the potus wants better enforced. I mean, it's been around awhile - and ... looking around.... nope, not looking at some dystopian futuristic terrorscape.

Seriously ya'll - take a step back from your absurd fear-mongering hyperbole about 'dictators' and 'violating the constitution' over some truly innocuous EO's, it makes you look not only ridiculous - but UNSTABLE.

I'm pro-gun, but for real some of ya'll should not be armed. You carry on as if you are advocates for gun-rights; but in reality you are only being examples for gun-control.

RI Mom:

How SAFE do the folks in LINN, OREGON feel with the defiant Sherriff?

They probably feel very safe knowing they can still defend themselves, and that their sheriff isn't going to stand for federal authorities violating their right to do so. Especially since the sheriff knows that it is not the obligation of any government policing agency to provide protection to any citizen.

"...fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." -- SCOTUS, Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App.181)

Gun Grabber Logic: Private citizens don’t need a gun for self-protection because the police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says the police are not responsible for their protection.

”I am thus far a Quaker, that I would gladly argue with all the world to lay aside the use of arms and settle matters by negotiation, but unless the whole will, the matter ends, and I take up my musket and thank Heaven He has put it in my power.” -- Thomas Paine

I am glad this Sheriff is on the side of the people. Finally!

The moment fire arms are banned, we'll start looking like Spain or Greece with the austerity measures that will be imposed on us by the World Government, for "our debt" (created by the US Government under the auspices of the World Government as has been done in so many countries worldwide - the wars, the wild spending, the constant economic "crisis", basically to take away our sovereignty and place it in the hands of a few unscrupulous and powerful individuals); and they will send their police battalions to suppress all protests, since no one will be equipped like the citizens of Spain and Greece weren't. They can protest till Kingdom Come, and their protests will fall on deaf ears since they have been taken over.

The "US Government" is not representative of the American people at all. The British Empire probably had a higher approval rating in the colonies than does the current "US Government" by the American people.

1) Did any of you actually read the EOs? They are pretty reasonable. Not a single one of them comes across as particularly controversial.

doesn't matter. Obama proposed it, and it's under the guise of "gun control," hence the NRA and the Republicans are against it, regardless of how benign or common sense the proposal actually is.

Do I hear a dog whistle?...

@ Spiddas

Glad you set them straight with your most recent posts. Reading what they were saying was driving me crazy!

There isn't going to be any ban on black semi-auto rifles (i.e. assault rifles to you gun grabbers). It won't make it through Congress.

Two words for you gun grabbers - ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ (I think most gun owners would agree)

I disagree with Gun regulations but the fault can be placed with the RIG

I am very proud of these American sheriffs that are standing up to King/Mullah Obama. God bless them just as he did the colonists that stood up to King George.

anybody remember what Obama said when Arizona passed their immigration reform law?

oh yeah, he told Holder not to prosecute any federal cases brought by AZ...

pot meet kettle

So the IRS and Social Security offices bought up stock piles of ammo and assault weapons and now our grand leader is banning certain weapons. In a few months another shooting will happen and they will say the typical line of "there is more work to do" and they will start banning more weapons. If people cant read the writing on the wall then we are doomed as a nation. I know alot of you libs can see what is happening but your blind love for Obama is bluring your rational thought process. Wake up.

what the sheriff means is he wont enforce the law on anyone who is WHITE...you better not be BLACK or BROWN going through there or thats your ass

Easy solution. Any state that will not make their employees enforce federal law will get no federal funding. Its the same reason all the state have started to open up medical insurance marketplaces because the red states RECEIVE the most federal funding by far. They are supported by and large by the blue states. I'm not lying look it up. If you said to Kentucky either get this guy to follow the laws or we'll not giving you $ I'm pretty sure we know who'll win out.... (by the way this is the same argument anti-immigration folks use for immigration laws when that was discussed).

basedrum777

Easy solution. Any state that will not make their employees enforce federal law will get no federal funding.

So we should cut off California, Washington and Colorado now for refusing to enforce Federal laws on immigration and drugs right?

They are supported by and large by the blue states

I can't believe there are still sheep buying into this. Please explain how maintaining military bases, trust payments to Indian tribes, Federal infrastructure spending, paying Federal employees including military personnel, ag and energy subsidies, etc amount to supporting anything other than the Federal government? Didn't spend even one second verifying your rhetoric did you?

spencer: More brilliance - "whiney liberal douche bags"?

And more whiney liberalism. Complaining about me calling you a whiner because you can't dispute my statement.

In Minnesota, Pine County Sheriff Robin Cole told constituents in a letter that he would "refuse" to carry out any federal law that infringed on his interpretation of the Second Amendment.

Since it's going to be Congress that sets that ban if it happens, if this guy chooses to defy the law, he better be looking for a new job.

Most of you arm-chair warriors don't even come close to understanding the role of the government.

Now, all of a sudden with THIS President you want to talk about the Military not taking sides with a corrupt government? So corruption in the federal government just started under this administration, that's what you'll are saying?

Man, it still proves, you white people are so pathetic when it comes to this President. I've said it before, I'll say it again, when the majority of you'll grow enough nuts to admit the REAL reason why you don't like this man, I might respect your pathetic asses,

Ronald Reagan's support of the 1994 assault weapons is nothing more than what President Obama is doing. Back then, oh, it was ok, it was Ronald Reagan, today, it's a black man.

And don't come with your pathetic race card, in @!$%#ing America, the race card is always in play, and you racist know for a fact racism in America is as alive as baseball and Moms Apple Pie.

I could care less that the pres is black. I say he is white. His mother is white so he is white. You say he is black because his father was black? Which of us is right?

Someone tell me what difference it makes to curb gun violence by banning assault rifles? Last I checked handguns killed around 80% of the murdered victims in this country. I see alot of sheeple riding the wagon on this one.

The REAL reason for an assault weapons ban is to begin restricting citizens from their ability to defend themselves against the U.N. troops soon to arrive in America thx via Obama. But, I don't credit Obama with all the glory of neutering America. The four presidents before him have done a good job too at slowly chipping away gun ownership, freedom of speech, privacy, right to a fair trial, illegal search and seizure, ect... the list goes on. The government is ONE entity. They all fall in line with each other either rep or dem doesn't matter. This ploy has fooled 90% of America over the last 32+ years.

For those who are in denial of what to do to take over a free country and control it lets see if any of these things may be on the list. Repress the people with a collapsed economy. (Check) Use propaganda to instill distrust amongst themselves. (Double check) Disarm them as much as possible. (Pending congressional approval) Use foreign troops to suppress insurrection because local troops may defect. (Check) Pass laws to undermine the constitution and bill of rights so a continuation of activity against the people can proceed. (Work still in progress)

I just can't believe most people can't put this all together. This was all done under the guise of "protecting the citizens" but in actuality I see it as pulling the teeth from the dog. The more people THINK the government is helping them the more their rights are stripped away. Whats worse is that alot of people actually BELIEVE them whole heatedly and are quick to help them destroy a once free nation.

Go back to your ephone and playstations. Lose yourself in your gluttony of perversions. Continue down the path of self entitlement. Applaud the rape of the constitution. Rely on others to think for you. Judge your peers through a programmed yardstick of rules. It is like most people want to be a hamster on a wheel while the politicians praise you, " Run little servant. RUN!"

I DO voice my opinions to my congressmen and senators. To my governors and mayors. To my police department and community groups. But NOT to the president anymore. I disagreed with American troops being used as a world police force. I was punished for that. Right after I sent those letters I was audited three times in a row. Never before or since. Even my tax lawyer agreed it was very very unusual. Random audit was the term I got when I asked why. But I know the real reason. "Stay in line you little puppet or it can get worse."

Eh, so much for keeping quiet. "Damn Americans always trying to think for themselves again. What to do, what to do?" I know..... You get the picture? I can only hope.

oh, the irony... they take an oath to uphold THE CONSTITUTION of their state (an independent nation within the UNION known as the United States) and that's exactly what they're doing by refusing to enforce UNCONSTITUTIONAL dictates.

I'm sure all local sheriffs are constitutional scholars who know what is or isn't "UNCONSTITUTIONAL".

@lifeisadimension, not necessarily. If the law goes against the constitution, which our government was elected to protect, they're merely upholding the law, not refusing to enforce it. The government would actually be the ones breaking the law, or oath to the people....

So, the Constitution doesn't allow for law. Makes sense if you don't think about it.

The Sheriff is the ONLY law enforcement official listed in the Constitution. They are ELECTED by the people and have a duty to uphold the Constitution. He is doing his job.

Also the feds have maintained that only feds can enforce federal law (see immigration). So now they want to pick which federal laws states can enforce?? ... The ones that fit the administration's agenda...

Once again...... Barry's oath means NOTHING to the left.....

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Immigration, voter fraud & intimidation, Fast & Furious, all laws IGNORED by Barry & Co......

My condolences to your awareness.

Anonymous Economist

oh, the irony... they take an oath to uphold THE CONSTITUTION of their state (an independent nation within the UNION known as the United States) and that's exactly what they're doing by refusing to enforce UNCONSTITUTIONAL dictates.

The Second Amendment allows REGULATED gun ownership, it allows REGULATIONS ON GUN OWNERSHIP. There is no regulation on gun ownership that is unconstitutional - as long as it does not remove the right of qualified private citizens to keep and bear arms, and conservative Justice Antonin Scalia will once again remind you ALSO of that fact. Executive level orders, and Congressional regulations on what type of/what manner of gun you can own are well within the 2nd amendment direct determination of REGULATION. I really wish you would break out your gun and waive it around to threaten to do something because you think that regulation of guns is an UNCONSTITUTIONAL dictate... Please do.

Oh, and there is no independent nation within the union, there are STATES within the Union, but the USA is ONE NATION. SMH Read a civics book.

ho-lee-cow,,, you're a fool.

Fact is, the federal government has no right to impose any gun laws, that is not part of the constitution, the 10^th amendment states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

The constitution allows Congress to raise and support an army for no longer than two years, according to section 8.

The language of the next line says congress is to provide and maintain and provide for a navy, there is nothing anywhere in the constitution allowing the president to or congress to regulate guns or the militia that was left to the states.

So, Wildcard, did you come up with this interpretation of our constitution all by yourself, or did you get help from your buddies over at the range?

I believe it's called knowledge. If you don't have any then do not question those who try to.

I think it is more like BS and a few beers with the good ole boys

I didn't see where the President says he expects the law to go to every house and check on what weapons they have, any more than going to each house to see if they have any pot or other illegal drugs...so why does this so called man of "law" said he isn't going to do it?

Wildcard-781265

there is nothing anywhere in the constitution allowing the president to or congress to regulate guns or the militia that was left to the states.

Gee, except maybe that part in the 2nd amendment that states "a well-regulated militia." You know, the part the ridiculous right tends to ignore. The knowledgeable stuff. It says it right there...

R E G U L A T E D

@boogablue- you are wrong about the wording of the 2nd Amendment- It says a well regulated militia and gives the people the right to bear arms that shall not be infringed. That means that the weapons are not being regulated, it's the militia that is being regulated once called to service. Remember the militia brought their own weapons (not supplied by the government), there was no regulation of weapons but once the militia formed they were regulated by a government body (state, county). Regulations in this case means standards to be followed by the militia. Has nothing to do with the weapons they were carrying.

"Sheriff Brown said he particularly wants to take aim at Obama"

I'm sure he would given the chance.

Freedom at the wrong end of a gun is no freedom at all. That works both ways.

This is not a conspiracy to enslave the working class. It is a rational response to a situation that has spun way out of control and is endangering the UNITY of our Nation.

@Treadlightly- "Assault weapons" are used less than 3% of the time in crimes. School shooting make up a small percentage of firearm related crime. How is that rational to ban them? Alcohol is a major contributor to motor vehicle deaths and domestic violence, we going to ban alcohol again? Tobacco is the leading reason for mouth and lung cancer, we going to ban tobacco? Your argument is being selectively applied and does not hold water.

We have a right to own firearms just like we have the right to vote. Its gun owners discrimnation just like making someone have an ID to vote is voter supression. They dont have the right to make us have IDs to vote because voting is a constitutional right so is the right to bear arms. This will go to the courts and they have just ruled recently that its unconstituitional on the voting issue so I doubt they will say any different since this is the same issue just a different constituitonal right.

Steve,

The constitution is not followed as written but as the Supreme Court translates it through their rulings. Scalia said in 2008 (or maybe 2010) that the 2nd amendment is not protected from regulation.

If it becomes a federal law..no problem if you don't want to do it..but then again you shall be arrested like any other citizen of the USA who has to follow the laws of the land!

They are not saying you can't bear arms..its the arms that a citizen shouldn't have to begin with is what they are saying!

WTF..you need a semi-automatic assault weapon for..to kill BAMBI?

For protection? Don't you think your RE taxes pay for that already? If not sure..tell town hall that..not the USA!

The only "John Adams" this guy is familiar with is 'one of those damn Yankee sissy beers'.

Once again...... Barry's oath means NOTHING to the left.....

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Where the @!$%# is "Barry", a constitutional scholar, treading on the constitution exactly? I get sick of reading this ignorant nonsense from misinformed mouth breathers.

Law enforcement that refuses to do the work required for the job should be fired. Also, failure of different branches of law enforcement to cooperate was one of the contributing factors to the events leading to our nation being attacked on 9/11. Law enforcement has made a lot of changes to improve cooperation since then. We don't want to go backwards like this sheriff.

Geowil

The constitution is not followed as written but as the Supreme Court translates it through their rulings. Scalia said in 2008 (or maybe 2010) that the 2nd amendment is not protected from regulation.

Maybe you better re-read the decision that Scalia wrote. This was the case where they over turned a DC law banning handguns.

In the majority opinion authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court first conducted a textual analysis of the operative clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The Court found that this language guarantees an individual right to possess and carry weapons. The Court examined historical evidence that it found consistent with its textual analysis. The Court then considered the Second Amendment’s prefatory clause, "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," and determined that while this clause announces a purpose for recognizing an individual right to keep and bear arms, it does not limit the operative clause. The Court found that analogous contemporaneous provisions in state constitutions, the Second Amendment’s drafting history, and post-ratification interpretations were consistent with its interpretation of the amendment. The Court asserted that its prior precedent was not inconsistent with its interpretation.

The Court stated that the right to keep and bear arms is subject to regulation, such as concealed weapons prohibitions, limits on the rights of felons and the mentally ill, laws forbidding the carrying of weapons in certain locations, laws imposing conditions on commercial sales, and prohibitions on the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. It stated that this was not an exhaustive list of the regulatory measures that would be presumptively permissible under the Second Amendment.

The Court found that the D.C. ban on handgun possession violated the Second Amendment right because it prohibited an entire class of arms favored for the lawful purpose of self-defense in the home. It similarly found that the requirement that lawful firearms be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock made it impossible for citizens to effectively use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense, and therefore violated the Second Amendment right. The Court said it was unnecessary to address the constitutionality of the D.C. licensing requirement.

obama took an oath also and here he is trying to crap on the 2nd amendment. obama should be fired

So your sayin that if 30 illegals crossed your land you would have the right to gun them down

Haggis

you are absolutely 100% correct. They took an oath to support and defend the constitution of the US. It seems that oath includes the 2nd Amendment. Where does it say that an executive order overshadows all rights granted by the constitution. They are defending a persons 2nd amendment right

Republicans are at fault here? Really?? Are you Nutts? Its the Democrats who are shoving there Communist Ideals down our throats and telling us what to believe, And Obama Keeps Quoting Lincoln??? Any time a President is going to get us in serious trouble they quote Lincoln... Well He wanted a Divided Nation, he got it, but he may not like the outcome.

just like obama has no right to tinker with the constitution. He took an oath to support and defend the constitution too. Next will come government censoring for national security.

The Federal government has laws against Same sex marriages. At the same time individual states allow them. Does that mean that the local police/sheriffs should arrest those who are married in same sex unions?

The Federal government makes possession of marijuana illegal. At the same time individual states allow personal use of pot.

The Sheriffs/police uphold the laws of their state, not the federal government. The Feds have no jurisdiction in a sovereign state.

This faux presidente' is on the road to adding 4 million+/- more criminals to the U.S. population....the law abiding gun owners of america.

We've launched a new wave of Apocalypse forecasters. "Meet the new wave, same as...............

This faux presidente' is on the road to adding 4 million+/- more criminals to the U.S. population....the law abiding gun owners of america.

Funny, I didn't see anywhere, in either the proposed laws limiting magazine size or banning the sale of assault weapons (that will have to go through congress, and likely won't pass the house), or in the 23 executive actions that make guns illegal and thus making gun owners in this country criminals.

Care to point out that clause for the rest of us? I'll be waiting with bated breath...

Where does it say that an executive order overshadows all rights granted by the constitution. They are defending a persons 2nd amendment right

executive order DO NOT overshadow the constitution. So I propose the same challenge to you as I did to the poster above, can you point out which of the 23 executive actions detailed by Obama violate any part of the constitution or in any way infringe on the 2nd amendment?

You know, bated breath again...

So which of you libbies is going to Jackson County, KY and tell this sheriff to enforce the law? LMFAO! Thought so!

You simpletons just don't understand that the Constitution is the law. The sheriffs and anyone else who refuses to abide by Obama's will is acting in accordance to the constitution. These gun control "laws" are null and void. We who are awake defer to the Constitution. Those of you who are asleep have no spine, understand not the importance of the Constitution and why it was created, and possess weak minds because you cannot think for yourselves. When I am out and about, I wonder which of you are the spineless toads I continually see lining up to kiss Obama's feet. I know you are amongst us and I feel sick in my stomach. You just want someone to follow. Try thinking for yourselves. Learn the history of this country. Tyrants and feeble minded sheeple beware.

The Nazi German people were all 'following the laws' too!

Just because someone makes a 'law' doesn't make that law right or just.

'Following laws' got six million people killed, intentionally, with malice, while the executioners sat back and claimed they were 'following orders'. This did not exonerate them from guilt.

History is replete with good intentions and laws that in the course of time were twisted to fit the sick minds of those in power. Learn from it, if we ignore it we will repeat it.

localboy:

"It stated that this was not an exhaustive list of the regulatory measures that would be presumptively permissible under the Second Amendment."

Let's not conveniently ignore other relevant elements.

The Nazi German people were all 'following the laws' too!

...

'Following laws' got six million people killed

the myth of "Nazi gun control" is just that, a myth. Gun control in Germany post WWI was passed in 1928 by the Weimar regime, 5 years before the rise of the Nazi Party (Hitler wasn't even elected chancellor until 1933). Note, the rise of the Nazi party was NOT an armed insurrection, but rather a democratically elected "insurrection" that raised them out of plurality party status after the removal of the socialist/communist party following the Reichstag fire.

By 1938, when the Nazi party stripped Jews of their gun rights, the die had already been cast and no amount of private arms in the hands of Jews was going to stop the Nazi party. Presumed "German" citizens were exempt from these gun control laws, but it didn't matter, as many/most of them were Nazi Party members by that time anyway.

So no, the "first thing the Nazi's did was take away guns" as we see repeated ad nauseum has no basis in reality. People need to stop posting this nonsense as if Obama asking for expanded background checks at gunshows is straight outta Nazi Germany...

haggisbingo-2225582

Remove arrest them

Should we start with all of the liberals who refuse to enforce the immigration laws? Or are you just a friggin hypocrite????

Am I the only one that finds it hilarious that the moderators restore liberal comments that don't violate the COH, but leave conservatives comments collapsed?

@ Scuba

Gee, except maybe that part in the 2nd amendment that states "a well-regulated militia." You know, the part the ridiculous right tends to ignore. The knowledgeable stuff. It says it right there...

R E G U L A T E D

So, in contrast, the ridiculous left gets to dictate that the random elimination of certain types of weapons means we'll all be "regulated." What a maroon, first of all the President isn't in any constitutionally legal position to regulate a state militia, much less do it "well" from what I've seen thus far (think "fast and furious" and "Benghazi"). You can't have the pieces without the whole Scuba; it also says right there that it "shall not be infringed," so follow the bubbles to the right Scuba for some fresh air!

by refusing to enforce UNCONSTITUTIONAL dictates.

Since only the Supreme Court can decide what is unconstitutional, until then the law stands. (if passed)

Not liking, not approving of, or not agreeing with a law, doesn't give you permission to break it.

dksouthern

So, Wildcard, did you come up with this interpretation of our constitution all by yourself, or did you get help from your buddies over at the range?

Read the constitution, you will find that ONLY congress is allowed to pass laws, I believe it is called the separation of powers, each having a certain power that the others can override with a majority vote.

And whatever pensions they have should be scrapped.

What about the government, who is refusing to protect the constitution, as they were elected to do by passing some of these new laws? It's not about "sticking it to the President", it's sticking by the constitution which the President failed to do.

I agree entirely. Refusing to enforce the law for a "law enforcement officer" does not allow for picking and choosing which laws they approve of! Determining the constitutionality of a law is the province of the Supreme Court. This is yet another example of gun owners putting themselves above the law. These people should be fired and replaced with someone who will do the job. The ultra-right wing will bring this country to ruin yet. I wonder if the fact that these are all middle aged white guys has anything to do with it..... nah, couldn't be.

Yeah...there was already an assault weapons ban, so clearly it's not unconstitutional to put one in place. It's also clear that the President's executive orders do not violate the constitution, they simply strengthen current laws. No more, no less.

Imagine if the conspiracy nutjobs (yes, you're crazy..or willfully blocking attempts to curb the violent nature of this country) put as much effort into reforming the country, as they do stonewalling and forward progress.

@ Cameron Ford:

I absolutely agree! They should also be enforcing federal immigration laws! I know you agree with that!

I believe I would prefer someone protect ME and my children...all these interpretations of the Constitution and laws and who is doing what...please show me where it says that he wants to ban handguns or hunting rifles...and who in their right mind thinks it's wrong to have to do a background check?? If you do, you must have something to hide. It's no different than when you want to get a credit card or a driver's license.

Here in Alabama, like in MOST states, I could walk into any gun show and buy whatever I want...doesn't matter who I am or what is on my criminal record, and I don't have to worry about a backgroud check. All I need is some @!$%#ing greedy @!$%# who will apparently do ANYTHING for a buck to sell me what I want...

THAT has NOTHING to do with a person's rights and how they are perceived as being trampled on or not.

They are heroes these sherriffs. They know the dangers in which this moron Obama is putting the average citizen. Guns don't kill people. People kill people. I agree with background checks and that people with mental problems shouldn't be allowed to have guns. But you need to read these proposals more carefully. They are only going public with the proposals that are most palatable. There is alot more there than Obama is mouthing because he's a rotten liar who doesn't care one bit about the average, law abiding citizen. He only cares about the media attention and pandering to the tea sipping liberals he has been ignoring. He can't be trusted. These sherriffs know what Obama is doing. They know if you take weapons from the average law abiding citizen then only the bad guys will have the guns. Why doesn't Obama go after the real source of all the murders by guns going on out there...the street gangs and drug dealers...who by the way are raping over 100 women every day. They're killing people by the thousands. Form task forces to go after these thugs and leave the law abiding citizens alone.

Ironic isn't it.

The same people who are for disregarding immigration laws (sanctuary cities) are the same ones who are now OUTRAGED!

Hypocrisy at its finest.

Ron-975213 "tea sipping liberals"? Gee I thought the Tea Party had the monopoly on that. Very few of the bad guys in the US import their guns from overseas. They get them easily from right here at home because the NRA has made sure that anyone and everyone can get guns in the US. The danger to the average citizen with regard to gun violence comes from the irresponsible proliferation of guns in this country. And hey.... guns DO kill people and if they don't... they sure make it easier for people to kill people. And please get a clue... no one has proposed taking your precious guns away from you. You can still keep your handgun in the dresser drawer if it makes you less afraid at night.

Shouldnt the same apply to the feds not doing their jobs when it comes to ilegals are pot smokers. I would put the hunters and people like that in the same catagory as the pot smokers. I mean realy if someone is law abiding and already has one of this weapons he should be granfathered in. We have millions of these weapons in circulation already.

Cameron

Who says they arent enforcing the laws? I dont think Obama signing executive orders supercedes the 2nd Amendment. These sheriffs ARE enforcing the laws (including the 2nd Amendment). It takes a vote by Congress to make any changes in the Amendments, not an executive order. That is why we have a Congress.....to keep the executive branch in check and NOT overstepping his authority

CCWokie, it's amazing how people who blindly support Barry accuse these local sheriffs of NOT enforcing the laws while at the same time Barry and his followers are NOT enforcing Immigration laws, and his supporters don't say a word.

CCWokie, it's amazing how people who blindly support Barry accuse these local sheriffs of NOT enforcing the laws while at the same time Barry and his followers are NOT enforcing Immigration laws, and his supporters don't say a word.

this argument is a red herring. The Federal government IS enforcing immigration laws, Obama has deported more people in 4 years than Bush did in 8. This is a known fact.

The problem for people like you, and those who like to make this argument, is that they're not deporting them FAST ENOUGH, and to some extent, I'd be inclined to agree with you. But there are serious legal ramifications to the type of "justice" you want to enact. You can't just go door-to-door and ask for ID from anyone who "looks mexican," that's blatantly unconstitutional.

This is why the justice department stepped in against SB1040 in Arizona. It's not because they necessarily WANT illegal immigration to continue (big business on the other hand, DOES want illegal immigration to continue), but moreso that they don't want the legal headaches that will come with brownshirt-type thugs roaming door-to-door frisking anyone who, again, "looks mexican and illegal" to them.

Yes, the government could stop illegal immigration from the Southern border in its tracks if it so desired and they were willing to build a 15ft. high (and 20ft. below ground) wall along the entire border from Tijuana to the Gulf of Mexico and station 100,000 ICE officers along the wall with motion activated machine gun turrets and drones flying over head. But then again, are YOU willing to pay for that? Hell, we can't even enact a 4% tax hike on the top 2% in this country to pay for our existing deficit without serious hand-wringing and cries of "class warfare" from the same people that want a wall and US Army sized enforcement task force stationed on the border...

Maybe these guys have developed the 'Arpaio Syndrome'. I salute Sheriff Joe for making every effort to enforce the laws, except when he violates Articles of the Constitution to do so.

It's so very funny that all the people on this board castigating these sheriffs for refusing to follow any new Federal gun laws they disagree with while at the same time saying these sheriffs do not have the right to enforce other Federal laws like immigration, you idiots can't have it both ways, if they have to enforce Federal gun law's then they have to enforce Federal immigration laws, which is it, what way do you want it.

They want the cops to enforce the laws they agree with. If on the other hand if that sheriff arrests someone for having an ounce of pot in their pocket they would be screaming that the cops should have something better to do.

1. 40 per cent of gun sales are conducted without background checks -- which applies mostly to the "gun show loophole". That GUARANTEES guns will get into the hands of criminals.

2. Last year al Qeuda released a video encouraging would-be terrorists within the US to exploit the "gun show loophole".

3. The NRA OPPOSES background checks, and closing the "gun show loophole" for obvious reasons: they WANT criminals to get guns, becasue the central purpose of the NRA, as not-for-profit tax-exempt special interest front for the gun industry, is to gin up fear in order to sell more guns this year than last, and more next year than this.

Is there a more transparent lie than the claim one "needs" an ASSAULT weapon for DEFENSE?

jnagarya: Interesting observation. An "assault (type) weapon" for "defense". Does meet the criteria for oxymoron status.

Jnagarya

Obviously you have never been to a gun show, criminals dont buy at gun shows because the prices are too high, its much cheaper to buy one off the street.

Jnagarya

Obviously you have never been to a gun show, criminals dont buy at gun shows because the prices are too high, its much cheaper to buy one off the street.

good thing this legislation is aimed at prosecuting "straw buyers" then too, isn't it? Oh wait, nevermind, a common sense solution such as this will never, repeat NEVER pass the Republican House...

Sheriffs and police officers refusing to do their job of enforcing the laws should be taken off the job and removed from serving the public.

That is true. For laws that fall under their jurisdiction.

Police officers can enforce laws that penalize crimes against the state, or local ordinances, mostly relating to traffic. They do not generally handle things the city inspector would, such as zoning violations, and they don't mess with things that the county health department polices, such as violations of regulations in restaurants. Counties are an extension of the state, so deputies ultimately enforce state laws, and sometimes city ordinances, though they do tend to leave those to the city police officers unless they're patrolling a town that doesn't have any. The state police enforce state laws and generally don't mess with enforcing local ordinances - they've usually got their hands full with bigger cases. Police officers, sheriff's deputies, and state troopers do not enforce federal law!

Now, often times state law mirrors federal law, so if you break a federal law, depending on what it is, you can be charged with breaking the state law and serve time in state prison. If that isn't the case, it's not unusual for federal authorities to be notified so they have the chance to come and arrest someone if they choose to do so. Unless it's something serious, though, a lot of time the federal agents aren't going to drive several hours to come pick up a 'small fish' out of some Podunk county jail somewhere. If you live in a big city, your odds of this happening to you if you're arrested for violating a federal law are much greater! Federal agents enforce federal law. They usually concentrate on the most egregious violations, too. Federal laws are some of the least enforced because many are difficult to detect in a timely manner and the logistics of it means that expending the resources to hunt down the 'small timers' breaking them usually just isn't worth it.

A sheriff claiming he isn't going to enforce a federal law isn't saying much as it's not his job, anyway!

Cameron Ford

Sheriffs and police officers refusing to do their job of enforcing the laws should be taken off the job and removed from serving the public

ROTFLMAO!!

Question for all of you liberals posting this sort of stuff. How many of you were so outspoken when LEO's refused to enforce the immigration laws??? Because I sure don't recall much outcry from the left regarding the so-called "sanctuary cities". I suspect many if not all of you supported that action but here you are making hypocrites of yourselves. Why am I not surprised??

Question for all of you liberals posting this sort of stuff.

Chirp, chirp, chirp...Pretty much what I expected

JNagarya

1. 40 per cent of gun sales are conducted without background checks -- which applies mostly to the "gun show loophole". That GUARANTEES guns will get into the hands of criminals.

BULL @!$%#! Most are because people with permits to carry concealed have already had a Federal background check and the seller only needs to check with the state to insure that the permit is still valid. Surly you can't be stupid enough to believe that anywhere close to 40% of gun sales occur at gun shows or even through private sales?

But please don't let any actual facts prevent you from stating uninformed speculation as if it were the truth.

Fools will trust a gov who would supply "assault weapons" to the Mexican Cartel.

Sheriff Peyman is a traitor

Bernanke should be tried for treason.

Liberals need to take their heads out of the sand.

Sorry ho-lee-cow... there's no room under the sand for liberals. The space is already taken by the GOP.

Yes,,, that republican Bernanke should be tried for treason.

alan,

No, he is a terrible example. Not only is this sheriff refusing to do his damned job, he's usurping powers from democratically elected representatives of this nation, the judiciary of this nation, and the executive branch of this nation. YOU DON'T DO THAT BECAUSE YOU DON'T LIKE THE RULES. It's anti-American, anti-democracy, and autocratic tyranny. He is the last person you want serving The People in anywhere except places like Iran.

I guess that would make Holder and Obama traitor's also, beings they would not allow sheriff's in Arizona to enforce federal immigration law.

Sheriffs in Arizona aren't enforcing immigration law. They are profiling anyone who looks different than their white asses. In reponse to some of the idiots posting on this thread.

Pragmatic,

State officials cannot uphold federal regulation. Why do you think Colorado and Washington don't enforce fedearal drug bans on marijuana? And if it is the state's job to uphold federal law why did obama sue Arizona for enforcing federal immigration laws?

Pragmatic, he IS doing his job. Under his state laws the weapons are not illegal to own. I commend him for holding up to his beliefs.

Janine-1645002

Pragmatic, he IS doing his job. Under his state laws the weapons are not illegal to own. I commend him for holding up to his beliefs.

_____

If they aren't illegal to own in his state, then why is he invoking the US Constitution, nitwit?

"A system of laws, and not of men." -- John Adams. He is sworn to enforce the law; his beliefs are not the law.

It always amazes me the people who are unable to prove their point without resorting to insulting others in the process.

@ Haggisbingo, Peymon for President!

Even our Uniform Code of Military Justice has a provision that allows anyone serving in our Armed Forces to disobey an order if they perceive it as being unconstitutional or immoral.

Peymon is acting on his beliefs, as all good Americans should. He's also doing it in an open and respectful manner.

Treachery is a seriously strong and slanderous accusation that shouldn't be loosely thrown about sir; even when quasi veiled with an avatar and pseudonym. After all, none of are hardly Silence Dogood here on these threads.

Steve,

Just what is the point you make so repetitiously? Is there something you're having trouble getting out?

Fire and try him for what Grampa S.? He has a right to his opinion; unless of course, you and your fellow left wingers are suggesting free speech is yet another luxury we don't need.

He hasn't done anything wrong yet, much like the majority of those who own, or want to own, a weapon that makes your ilk want to curl up in a blanky and sob.

As to him choosing to enforce a law or not; wake up people, the police exercise their judgement on every call, so get over yourselves and hope he's in a good mood the next time you get pulled over for not following the law yourself!

What a bunch of Maroons!!!!!

He is not enforcing that which is not constitutional.

And when did he become a Constitutional scholar? We are proudly a nation of laws, and it is not up to him to decide what meets the letter of the Constitution. That is for the Courts of this land, not a two-bit sheriff.

I thought Obama was the constitutional scholar.

Soldiers aren't "military law" scholars, and yet they're allowed to refuse illegal orders.

It's kind of a moral/ethical thing, and they are allowed to disobey what they believe is an illegal order, and see their day in court.

alan_static:
I thought Obama was the constitutional scholar.

Correct, Obama is a constitutional scholar, but as to whether or not this (or anything else) is or isn't constitutional is not up to him or you or me or some bald headed goosestepper in Kentucky. It's up to the SCOTUS and no one else.

The only entity that gets to decide which laws are constitutional and which are not is the Supreme Court.

This sheriff does not get to decide himself. He was not nominated by the President nor confirmed by the Senate.

If he believes that he cannot enforce laws passed by duly elected officials then he should resign his office immediately.

Curious what other laws he doesn't feel like enforcing...

Isn't Kentucky full of meth labs? Maybe you oughtta get on that sheriff! Or is meth protected under the constitution in Kentuck?

Steve; you are being a giant pain in the neck. There is not one thing that President Obama has done to not up-hold the Constitution. Stop being such a dumb a**.

Matt: yes they can refuse an order and have their day in court, but they will be sitting in jail between refusing that order and their day in court.

Did the sheriff not say that if a person was on their land and breaking no laws he was not gonna nitpick the law and go after that person just because he has a rifle that the gunners want removed?

dksouthern, well, This particular KY Sheriff, the county hired his deputies away from him except the one that didn't pass a drug test, won't give him any more money, & basically took away his job duties. As close to firing him as they can do at the moment.

What can I say, people voted him in office, like they did Rand Paul & Mitch McConnell...

Fuhhhhhkkkk. Just reading the responses is A VALID @!$%#ING CASE that there needs to be gun control. The lack of reason or sound logic, and repetitions of the incongruous arguments/fallacies after someone has answered or explained otherwise. @!$%#...they won't learn cus they don't gotta....so, you want to have a full arsenal? Move to the middle east, otherwise let progress and civility prevail.

Steve; you are being a giant pain in the neck. There is not one thing that President Obama has done to not up-hold the Constitution. Stop being such a dumb a**.

Didn't he order the assasssination of a United States Citizen(Awlaki) without a trial?

Wild, you are kidding right?

Mr. Awlaki had been perhaps the most prominent English-speaking advocate of violent jihad against the United States.. Killed by a drone, he was a leading figure in Al Qaeda’s affiliate in Yemen.

You are complaining about this death? The guy was hanging with the wrong crowd; no, he was leading the wrong crowd.

Not complaining about his death just lack of due process. He was still a U.S.Citizen and deserved a trial before we hung him.Constitutionally he was entitled to it. You wanted to know when President Obama did not uphold the Constitution. This is a good example, no?

Boy are you stretching it. I suppose if he hadn't you would have gone after him for being soft on Muslim Terrorists. Maybe Awlaki was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. You need to do much better than this.

@ Wild Bill-544481

Enemy combatants, even U.S. citizens, are legitimate targets.

Something tells me you weren't at all upset (or even aware) when Bush, Jr. suspended habeus corpus.

He was not an enemy combatant because he was not on the field of battle, was not armed and was not presenting an immenient threat to American military forces. The president stretched quite a bit to get this done. This guy was killed in Pakistan, which is not the field of battle (we have not declared war on Pakistan). He was in a home. There were no American soldiers around so he could not pose an iminient threat.

Here is the precident that President Obama set. He can now call Zannie an Terrorist and without trying him in a court of law, kill him anywhere. Why, because of the war on terror. Has anyone seen any evidence that Alawaki was a terrorist or supporting terrorist? Not what the media reported, but actual proof? No, because Alawaki was denied his day in court. We as American's accepted one mans word that he was a terrorist. How do we know that Alawaki didn't just steal President Obama's parking spot and this was a grand plan to get even.

I would have been fine with the order had Alawaki been tried in abstentia, proof submitted to a jury of his peers, presided over by a judge and found quilty. However, this did not happen. The President should be brough up on charges of murder and violating Alawaki's civil rights to due process. The soldier who operated the drone should be brought up charges as well as his chain of command. This is all part of the UCMJ. Soldiers are required to disobey unlawful orders and even place the commanders under arrest if they refuse to rescind the order.

You @sshats are defending terrorists? You were fine about indiscriminately killing them before. Obama didn't create the Patriot Act. Bush did. Obama also didn't block the closing of Gitmo so that terrorists could be moved to U.S. soil and tried here...YOUR Republican reps did because they were trying to make your crazy @ss happy.

Face it, it has nothing to do with anything you honestly believe the president is doing or has done, you are batsh!t crazy because the black guy has a little power. That's what you inbreds are really upset about. Own up to it.

Human,

Please re-read my statement. I am fine with killing terrorists, I just ask that if an American citizen is accussed of being a terrorist regardless of the accusser that we give that citizen his day in court. Once he is found quilty, do with him as you will.

Let me extrapolate. I accuse you of being a murder. I have proof (or so I say). Now I am free to deliver punishment. Notice the lack of a day in court for you? The President and I are equals in the eyes of the law. If it is good for him it is good for me. Do you see the point here?

By the way, only those weak on the side of a debate resort to insults. In the future, you would be better served presenting your arguements than demonstrating the number of four letter words you can string together in a sentence.

I am going to throw up reading all these statements from so many dummies in this country.How can people think by taking away any kind of gun is going to stop killings? IF my mind serves me right,the first killing in this time frame came from the two sons of ADAM and EVE. Their was no gun.As long as people live in this world they are going to be killings. Did any of you just think of how many killings would be here if the police didn't have guns? Their have also been reports of concealed carry holders saving lives in this country. You know all you hear is gun controll,and taking care of the mentally ill. Well let me tell you something that I have never even heard the president say anything about. DRUGS<DRUGS<DRUGS Don't anyone think some of these killers could be high on drugs? I would stake my life on a bet that if all these killers dead or alive at the time of the killing were drug tested,you would find drugs in them. I also bet that is you checked their home right away you would find the same drug there.If you still have douts look up on the web the top 10 ways people are killed in America. It would probably surprise you to know that more people are killed with baseball bats,then are with guns. You want to stop these sinceless killings of our people.My suggestion would be to arm and protect yourrself and your family.The average 911 call is ten minutes. A bullet travels much faster. I don't think it can be explained anymore. The choice is your. Shutup and save lifes,or bitch and let these killers keep killing.

true: Your thoughts on the assassination of Osama Bin Laden? Pakistan. No due process. Not on the field of battle. Not an imminent threat to US Military forces.

No smarm. Just curious.

True: Has anyone seen any evidence that Alawaki was a terrorist or supporting terrorist? Not what the media reported, but actual proof?

You mean the videos where he is supporting the killing of Americans in his holy war isn't good enough proof? So, since he was at home, maybe in his pjs, he isn't a target?

Zannie84

I don't remember where in the Constitution it says that sheriffs are allowed to pick which laws to enforce. Can someone point that out?

Perhaps you could look under the Pesky Sheriff Amendment I suppose. Are you serious, what do you remember?

You could start with the 10th Amendment; whereas, he works for a state law enforcement agency, not a federal one, it's a jurisdictional issue. Kind of like our federal government's hemp laws that have been shoved down our throats for the past 75 years. Local laws mirror the federal ones because the states are coerced into making them; if they don't the fed withholds road or law enforcement funding.

By the way their Marijuana Stamp Act of 1937, the original law that their prohibition was founded upon, was found to be unconstitutional in 1960. States like Washington and Colorado have wised up since; whereas, the states are suppose to guide the laws of the states, not the federal government.

Human, I'm not defending terrorists. I'm defending the Constitution. A U.S. Citizen , even one accused of terrorism deserves a fair trial.

Cap'n Jack I am aware of the erosion of my civil rights, That's one of the reasons I support the right to keep and bear arms. Zannie wanted to know when The President has not upheld the constitution. I gave an example.It's a good one too. Not stretching it a bit.

How's this Zannie? Would you like an update EVERY time he wipes his ass with the Constitution?

Published: January 25, 2013

A federal appeals court ruled on Friday that President Obama violated the Constitution when he made three recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board last January.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/26/business/court-rejects-recess-appointments-to-labor-board.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0

Gee Bill, just like Bush Jr. Come on, if Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush Jr. can do it, why not Obama. How lame.

The idiots are all saying it's because the root of the issue is mental illness, unemployment drugs, etc... etc.. and not the real issue which is better gun control

@ajs - So I assume that you, like all the gun worshippers, are ready to vote more money for mental health services, drug treatment, training the unemployed, etc., etc?

If you're not, then you are prepared to admit that you are simply raising red herrings to distract from the real issue.

You're right, gun control could have absolutely no effect whatsoever, because clearly the laws prohibiting private citizens from owning guns in the UK have paved the way for the Queen's jack-booted thugs to terrorize their citizens.

/sarcasm

England - 6.6% of homicides by firearms, 41 deaths

United States - 60% of homicides by firearms, 9,146 deaths

That's right, we rank right up there with Mexico, Brazil and Venezuela for the amount of homicides by firearms yearly. But hey, America's gotta compete in all categories, right?

@Rizter: Really? You think so?? Oh my god, stop the presses. /facepalm

How many massacres are performed with a knife? Hmmm?

Also, way to understand percentages, clearly if only 6.6% of homicides in a country are committed with guns, then that other 93.4% must be some other type of weapon. Still, 41 is 6.6% of 621. 621 homicides. We have 14x the total amount of homicides in England _just— from guns.

But AJS, we ARE talking about confronting mental illness here. Paranoia is a serious mental illness and many of your gun slingin' buddies show up here exhibiting overwhelming symptoms of paranoia. Or don't you agree paranoia is a mental illness?

I think the paranoia is on you. Gun slinging. Get a grip. I would rather have a gun at my side than you. What will you do,Say" shoo, go away you bad person"as you are getting what no one should.

@USMC: A constant persistent fear of violence from a Governmental bogeyman, that after 4 years, has made 1 attempt to curb gun violence due to unprecedented massacres with said weapons, is certainly a sign of mental illness.

How many massacres are performed with a knife? Hmmm?

It's quite prevalent in China where they currently enjoy strict gun control.

Murphy, The only reason he's doing this now is he doesn't half to worry about re-election. If this had all happened before the election he would be himming and hawwing to delay until after the election.

I'm seriously worried about the next four years. Without the concern for re-election who knows what kind of stuff he's going to try and pull.

It would be nice if you and dk and haggis (who I think just wants to stir the pot and has no real points to make) would stop attacking and start communicating it might help. And yes there are those on the other side that need to as well.

hey haggis why are you so ignorant to the fact if you take law abiding persons guns away criminals will still have theirs. your comments are some of the dumbest i have ever read. if you dont like tattos dont get if you dont like guns dont get one simple as that leave the rest of us ALONE.

ajs: "again some idiots posting like they know things.... for one gun control is not the answer" Hmmmm.

@Local Boy: I'd sure like to see ANY proof of that claim. Problem is, you have none. Merely talking points from the most inflammatory of Obama detractors. People have been foaming at the mouth since he took office that he was coming after your guns, and it was only after 20 6 and 7 year old's were brutally murdered that he decided enough was enough.

I've communicated plenty on this issue, plenty. However, there are people who are worth talking to, and there are people who simply want what they want without any discussion of all of the factors. Not talking about gun control, when we're discussing gun violence is about the dumbest debate ever to be made.

Countries with far stricter gun control laws, have clearly less deaths among there populace, from guns. The US has 14x the number of yearly deaths in the entire UK, from guns alone. 14x. That tells me that there's some efficacy to gun control.

Do I want all guns taken away? Of course not, and that's not what Obama is proposing. He's simply attempting to make it more difficult to obtain weapons that civilians really have no need for, other than for pleasure shooting. If you need an assault rifle for hunting, you're clearly doing something wrong.

Would I love to live in a country where whacko nutjobs didn't ruin it for everyone else? Certainly. But, we don't live in that country, I don't think any country can claim that. And eventually, you have to sacrifice some toys, for the overall good of the country.

And for those who think an AR-15, semi-auto assault-style rifle will serve as any kind of protection against a 'corrupt' Government. I refer you to the increased use of drones by the US Military (not to mention the civilian agency use). You'd have to be an insanely good shot to down a drone flying at tens of thousands of feet targeting your house with a missile. I mean, afterall, if Obama's 'that bad', as some suggest, he wouldn't bat an eyelash at leveling your entire block just to get you, right? *rolls eyes*

Great post B Murphy.

B Murphy, the problem I see is that you automatically lable everyone that wants to hold onto their guns and not have that liberty infringed in anyway as a nut job. That's not only unfair it's inaccurate. I would like to see the proof you have to back up that statement. As far as backing up my statement about the political process and how politicians take advantage of horrible situations, I have none other than just watching what they do. And this happens on both side. It's sad and it proves that none of them actually have any interest in what's best for the people or the country.

As for the gun debate it just seems illogical to spend so much effort to get rid of one specific class of weapon, which as I posted elsewhere has been shot down before by the SC, and not even address the one that actually causes the most murders. If they were so concerned about public safety then why not attack the one with the most incidents of involvement? The only reason I can see is it's for political gain and not real change.

And again I don't see, and maybe I missed it before, that you are even looking at the root cause of these horrible situations. And it's what most of those that own guns have been trying to get more debate about. That of mental health and criminal/gang aspects. Would you disagree that if we could better take care of our mentally deranged citizens and reduce gang and criminal activity we would have lower incidence of these sorts of events? Would that not make more actual change and not only save lives but be better for everyone?

So why focus on a symptom and not on the root cause of the problem?

On and as far as the the drone comment, I really think, and yes some may think I'm crazy but I actually served in the military and I am very close to many actively serving in the military, that many if not the Majority would not fight that fight. I do not see our military willing to turn themselves against our own people. And I also think you would see the national guard called up in states where this might happen to protect their citizens. They have much more powerful weapons. Oh and then you might also include the possibility of foreign aid from say china who would be very interested in seeing our government destabilized. And then once we weaken ourselves I'm sure there will be plenty of wolves knocking at our door.

Oh and if you really want to read something that will scare the pants off you..

The first 3D-printed gun was created by AR15.com forum member HaveBlue. It was a pistol, and consisted of a 3D-printed receiver, with a fully metal upper area, such as the barrel. The receiver is actually what legally constitutes a firearm, so in the eyes of the law, that’s a “real” gun. After HaveBlue’s gun made the rounds, another company, Defense Distributed (DefDist), began 3D-printing gun parts. The team has already 3D-printed the receiver of an AR-15 assault rifle, and subsequently tested it to failure. As we previously noted, the rifle only survived for six shots, but that’s pretty impressive for a 3D-printed gun made of plastic.

Wonder how many are going to get the background checks done before they start printing their guns?

@Local Boy:

Local Boy-3300141

B Murphy, the problem I see is that you automatically lable everyone that wants to hold onto their guns and not have that liberty infringed in anyway as a nut job.

Anyone who goes into a discussion, and that's what this is, completely shutting down certain topics of debate, without any willingness to even listen to very very important facets of the conversation, is a nut job. And quite honestly, don't even have a place in a civil debate. You cannot have these conversations without having everything on the table. And you cannot seriously have a discussion without gun violence, without talking about gun control. Sorry if you don't feel that way, but it's absolutely insane to hold that stance.

That's not only unfair it's inaccurate. I would like to see the proof you have to back up that statement.

What kind of proof would you require? The NRA 100% against any and all discussion of gun control? The freaks who threaten civil war over the mere conversation? These kind of inflammatory idiots, who view the world through such a narrow narrow field, are about as reasonable as the Westboro Baptists.

As far as backing up my statement about the political process and how politicians take advantage of horrible situations, I have none other than just watching what they do. And this happens on both side. It's sad and it proves that none of them actually have any interest in what's best for the people or the country.

No, your statement wasn't about the political process, you clearly stated that Obama did this because it's his 2nd term. You have zero proof of that. Zero. Show me some, and I'd be inclined to agree with you, but until such a time as you can show me evidence of this, it's simply a talking point to turn the conversation away from curbing gun violence, to fearing Obama. Which has been a consistent tactic of his detractors since he took office.

As for the gun debate it just seems illogical to spend so much effort to get rid of one specific class of weapon, which as I posted elsewhere has been shot down before by the SC, and not even address the one that actually causes the most murders. If they were so concerned about public safety then why not attack the one with the most incidents of involvement? The only reason I can see is it's for political gain and not real change.

Well, it's called baby steps. There is nothing that humans can do, to stop every evil act committed by the deranged or psychotic. It's simply impractical to think that's possible. However, it is possible to make it that much more difficult for these people to pull off mass murders, on the level of Sandy Hook, by making it more difficult to attain such weaponry, and high capacity clips. Will they all disappear? Of course not, but strengthening current laws, and adding ban on certain types of weapons can definitely have an effect. That having been said, I firmly believe there's more than just gun control that needs to be addressed. Mental Health services are also woefully inadequate in this country, and that plays a big role here as well. Strengthening both gun control laws and Mental Health detection/services can have the positive effect of throwing up more red flags of people attempting to obtain weaponry quickly.

And again I don't see, and maybe I missed it before, that you are even looking at the root cause of these horrible situations. And it's what most of those that own guns have been trying to get more debate about. That of mental health and criminal/gang aspects. Would you disagree that if we could better take care of our mentally deranged citizens and reduce gang and criminal activity we would have lower incidence of these sorts of events? Would that not make more actual change and not only save lives but be better for everyone?

As Stated above, I feel this issue is more multi-facted than just gun control, and just mental health services. It must be addressed in a comprehensive manner. But, just talking Mental Health, when the issue is gun violence, is a fools errand. And doesn't address the entire issue.

So why focus on a symptom and not on the root cause of the problem?

So, you'd disagree that a root cause of the problem is that we have 270+ million guns in circulation, in the United States? And that there's absolutely nothing wrong with having 30+ capacity clips available for anyone? The Mental Health services absolutely needs to be worked on as well, however, that we've allowed so many guns to fall into the publics hands (and thus, criminal enterprises as well), is certainly among the root causes of gun violence in this country.

One needs only look at the UK's gun homicides as proof that gun control can positively effect the rate of deaths from firearms yearly.

On and as far as the the drone comment, I really think, and yes some may think I'm crazy but I actually served in the military and I am very close to many actively serving in the military, that many if not the Majority would not fight that fight. I do not see our military willing to turn themselves against our own people. And I also think you would see the national guard called up in states where this might happen to protect their citizens. They have much more powerful weapons. Oh and then you might also include the possibility of foreign aid from say china who would be very interested in seeing our government destabilized. And then once we weaken ourselves I'm sure there will be plenty of wolves knocking at our door.

Then what exactly is it that you're so afraid of? Do you think Obama's going to show up on your doorstep with an automatic, and demand all your guns? That isn't a sign of paranoia?

Murphy

Show me some, and I'd be inclined to agree with you, but until such a time as you can show me evidence of this, it's simply a talking point

You are correct I don't have proof nor do you for your position but it doesn't negate the theory and to think that politicians don't take advantage of these situations for their gain is also insane.

So, you'd disagree that a root cause of the problem is that we have 270+ million guns in circulation, in the United States? And that there's absolutely nothing wrong with having 30+ capacity clips available for anyone?

Yes I would disagree. Also it's a right given to every lawful citizen of this country. You can't shred the Constitution just because you don't like some part of it. You also underestimate, or discount any arguments to the fact that having an armed population actually protects our country. If we didn't have so many guns in the hands of the population I think we would be a much more attractive target for other countries to invade. And do you really want to see a war fought on our soil? It's never happened but that doesn't mean it won't or can't.

Again you avoid the other major cause of gun deaths in this country. Gang and Criminal violence? What is your solution to those? If we were to solve those and the mental health issues I'd guess you would see not only gun deaths drop dramatically but also deaths from other weapons as well.

You make some good points but I don't see you espousing any efforts on the government to do anything about them. Just ban a single type of gun. Then what you are gonna come back for banning another type of gun? Where do you stop? You see that's the biggest fear that the gun owners have. That you won't stop.

And for the record I do not own any guns. I have a hell of a sling shot though.

Now there's a deep thought.

baloney, gomer

...so every town in the nation can have there own set of laws decided upon solely by the local sheriff? What country do you live in?

Forgive him , he's from Texas, land of the lost!!

Have you ever heard of a "Dry County?"... You know that liquor is llegel, yet some states and countys still make it illegel to have liquor. So should we fire those sheriffs? due to the fact they are not allowing the "federal" law...

Obummer wants total power in his hands ,that aint going to happen.

Uh-h-h- I don't think so Txman 1965.

illegel=illiterate. But maybe only where you live, ho-lee.

"ho-lee-cow

Have you ever heard of a "Dry County?"... You know that liquor is llegel, yet some states and countys still make it illegel to have liquor. So should we fire those sheriffs? due to the fact they are not allowing the "federal" law...

Obummer wants total power in his hands ,that aint going to happen."

m0r0n. that IS a decision that counties can make. The law allows for that. Obeying/disobeying laws are not a decision they are allowed to make. see the difference?

steve.....

i do solemnly swear that you don't have a clue what you are talking about. go back to history class before you make a fool of yourself. oh sh!t....you already did.

Have you heard of Sanctuary City? Apparently its only ok to purposely disregard immigration laws.

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=8731605

Yes, exactly he swore an oath to the constituion.

some people take oaths,real people mean it.

Stevie, I seriously doubt if anybody can tell you anything! Oh, do try to stay on topic, though.

maybe it's not a law yet, but it makes you wonder what other laws that are on the books this sherriff has ignored and/or broken...

Emphasis on "Constitution". Where a law conflicts with the Constitution, the Constitution takes priority.

Ever notice that the libs resort to insults when they have nothing substantial to contribute? As they continue to undermine the morality and ethics of our culture, they continue to proclaim themselves as the victims, when they are themselves the perpetrators of the very crimes they claim to abhor.

Why is it the Libs are 99% of the ones on here always calling names and degrading people. Can't you ever post with out all the B.S. and just make a comment? I might not like what you say but I do not insult your intelligence,your heritage,or your religion. I think you need a grip and listen and read to others and not go blindly where no man has gone before.

usmc,

No, you so-called "conservatives" just use the nick names "libs", "tards" and especially all the cutesy "Obummer, Oblama" and any other stupid sounding moniker you can some up with to avert calling the President anything but his real name. Other than than 99% of the time you simply degrade yourself with your hypocritical thinking.

usmc: "the libs"?

Prober:

and so called "liberal elites" use the nicknames "repugs", "repukes" and especially all the cutesy "Shrub, Dubya, W" and any other stupid sounding mokiner you....blah, blah,blah

Wow---Must BE NICE TO BE A TOTAL HYPOCRITE!!!!!!!!!

steve..........

what power grab? did the NRA tell you that talking point? get a brain and then some balls so you can think for yourself instead of being controlled by the puppet master wayne 'The Grand Puzzy' lapierre.

that's asking alot from Steve, considering he always thought balls were something he played with constantly... and brain, well that's just something sissies use

Three republican governors today praised Obamacare. They were against it but they now realize how much it will help their states with the cost of health care. They even were bragging about how many jobs will be created. stop watching fox 'the national enquirer ' news channel and you might actually learn something.

p.s. one of the republicans was Jan Brewer.

Really Jan Brewer? Did the earth stop? Did her face crack?

Tumbledumb: the infrastructure bill has been sitting in Congress gathering dust due the GOP. Learn something before you write. The bridge and road jobs are being held hostage due to your friends, not the President.

Knowing the bill was sitting in congress...yet Obama was shooting his mouth off campaigning away on it. Exactly like I mentioned. We'll not hear another word about it (again).

tumble: Desperation is unattractive - from any quarter.

tumble: what do you want President Obama to do? Go up to Congress, especially the House of idiots, and beg them to do their jobs for the American people? He has, and the GOP nuts just sit on their a88es and do nothing. Be a MAN or Woman and put the blame where it goes. You look very foolish with this post.

yes he was desperate and disgusting to hear it again.

Chris,

Maybe the really scary question is "what laws DOES this hillbilly feel like enforcing?" There may be some rather unusual stuff that could get you in big trouble up there. I gotta remember that county's name and stay the hell away from it, which I'm sure all the 'wingers on here will say in unison, "that's ok with us!"

just look at what state he is from. that should explain it.

Some people agree because it is anti-Obama. They will agree with absolute treason if president Obama is for it. The hatred runs deep.

But Obummer can???

There is nothing "constitutional" about what Odummy has put on the table. In fact it will take an act of congress to make it a law.

In fact what Obummer is doing can be considered againts the "constitution"....

ho.....

name one thing that is unconstitutional that was put on the table.

steve.......

still haven't found a brain..remember you need a brain before you can grow some balls.

cow..FYI..Obama was a Professor of Constitutional Law for several years..and your hillbilly sheriff thinks he knows better ??HILL BILLY.PERIOD. Like any one that agrees with him

In fact what Obummer is doing can be considered againts the "constitution"....

How so exactly?

*crickets*

That's what I thought...

Please don't be a thick turd, nothing Obama, Biden and the democrats are proposing (involving assault weapons) are against the constitution. The right to bear arms assured in the 2nd amendment isn't going anywhere.

depraw, Rich and RTypo, you can't argue with stupid and you certainly can't fix it... as demonstrated by the two comments above yours.

"Obummer"? "Odummy"? Compelling argument. Ever considered a career in Constitutional Law?

LOL

Now THAT'S interesting... why am I not surprised?

Stealing tax payer money? Must be a Republican...