E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSPresident Barack Obama says he's looking forward to a "robust conversation" on reducing gun violence.
In urging law enforcement leaders to back new gun control efforts, President Barack Obama is asking police chiefs and county sheriffs to unite behind a cause they don't even agree about among themselves.
Obama said Monday that he was seeking a "basic consensus" among law enforcement executives to pressure Congress for legislation to ban assault-style weapons and restrict high-capacity ammunition magazines, among a score of other measures.
But it turns out the two national groups representing police and sheriffs at a meeting of law enforcement officials Monday at the White House — the Major Cities Chiefs Association and the Major County Sheriffs Association — disagree on the initiative. The chiefs back it, while the sheriffs oppose it.
Philadelphia Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey, president of the police chiefs group, said the deaths of 20 students and six teachers and staff members at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., last month had settled the issue.
"If the slaughter of 20 babies does not capture and hold your attention, then I give up, because I don't know what else will," Ramsey said last week. "We have to pass legislation."
But in a letter to Vice President Joe Biden (.pdf), who is leading the White House lobbying effort, the sheriffs group argued that "a ban on assault weapons alone will not address the issues of gun violence we are facing in our country today."
Nor would limiting magazine capacity, it said: "The problem is not the law-abiding citizen that will follow the restrictions; the problem again is one of access. ... (E)ven if you can’t buy in bulk, you can still buy multiple boxes of smaller quantities."
Similarly, the International Association of Chiefs of Police said in a position paper (.pdf) that it was "a strong supporter of the assault weapons ban" and measures to limit ammunition capacity. But the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association applauded what it called efforts to "uphold and defend the Constitution against Obama's unlawful gun control measures."
Chiefs vs. sheriffs
The divide reflects a cultural and political gulf between police chiefs and sheriffs in a number of areas, criminal justice experts told NBC News.
Police chiefs run departments in cities where most gun crimes take place, according to FBI crime statistics over the past decade. Sheriffs run departments in counties, some or all of their jurisdictions covering rural areas where hunting and sport shooting are cherished rights. As a result, "you have these wildly different views of guns," said Gary Kleck, a professor of criminology and criminal justice at Florida State University in Tallahassee.
In counties, particularly heavily rural ones, "guns equal hunting, fishing, father-and-son-bonding-type things," he said, while in cities, "guns equal crime."
Those community views have real political effects, according to Kleck and another expert, Scott H. Decker, a professor of criminology at Arizona State University in Tempe.
"The big difference is a sheriff is elected and has to face the voters every four years," Decker said, but police chiefs are almost always appointed.
"If you're a police chief, you're not responsible to an electorate," Kleck said, and are therefore more free to advocate for politically unpopular policies like bans on certain kinds of weapons.
Sheriffs vs. sheriffs
Decker suggested that there was likely to be a broad range of opinion among sheriffs, because it's not just elections that keep them in touch with community sentiment. Because they have more varied duties — running jails and patrolling areas that can include rural, suburban and urban communities, all in the same county — their jurisdictions range across populations with widely different political views on guns.
So while many sheriffs say they wouldn't enforce new federal gun control laws, there are other sheriffs who call those sheriffs misguided.
Last week, Milwaukee County (Wis.) Sheriff David Clarke issued a public service announcement urging residents to learn how to handle a firearm "so you can defend yourself until we get there."
"With officers laid off and furloughed, simply calling 911 and waiting is no longer your best option," Clarke says in the spot, which you can listen to here.
Just a few counties over, Ron Cramer, sheriff of Eau Claire County, objected that Clarke was sending the wrong message.
Clarke could have gotten across his point that residents could take more responsibility for their own safety "without having to say it's time to join our team and pick up a gun," Cramer told NBC station WEAU of Eau Claire.
Related links:
Leave a Comment:
Sheriffs may be one of our last bastions of upholding the Bill of Rights since Washington politicians seems willing to trample on the 1st, 2nd and 4th when it they feel like it.
Joe, well said.
We have to many "community organisers" in Washington that don't have a clue of what really is needed.
It is good that we do have many sheriffs that are close to the people and understand what is important and real. We need more every day to stop the current stupidty.
When has any of those been trampled on? (never)
What has Obama done to diminish anyone's 2nd Amendment rites? (nothing)
Exactly Joe. I find it very ironic that the battle seems to surrounding gun control only when the tragic events committed by those sick individuals had Mental Illness, which has YET to have any issues or reform ideas addressed. Opening Pandora's box to alter any Rights that We The People have will only keep that lid open, then where does it stop? The violence in Chicago should be an example. Will handguns be next?
Washington needs to get in touch with We The People and NOT the idea of having " Big Government".
Lol John are you being serious? NOT YET
Obama wants to ban High Cap Mags and Assault Weapons.
That's infringing on my rights to bear Arms.
Obama has shown his true intentions and so has the Traitors to our Founding Fathers ideals .
The scum of the earth starting with Feinstinker, @!$%#omo and any politician who sides with them.
Guns are why America is still free 8) An armed public deters tyranny 8)
We all know that Gun Control works great we have seen it's evil from leaders like Castro, Stalin, Hitler and Mao
What has Obama done to diminish anyone's 2nd Amendment rites? (nothing) YET
He would if he could. If he could sign an Executive Order right now, outlawing ALL semi-automatic rifles & handguns, he would. If he could sign an Executive Order right now outlawing all magazines over 5 shots, he would. Take a look at Diane Frankenstiens Gun Grabbing Bill. It would outlaw damned near all 9MM pistols. They would try & outlaw every gun they could & leave us with single shot .410 shotguns. The Senate & Congress are the only ones between Odumbass & our guns.
Police Chiefs are appointed or selected. Sheriffs are elected. If God ain't political He's screwed.
Damn, didn't notice the post just below me until several minutes after I posted. Sorry about that "jonhinpa".
Really? You need to read a little more.. TSA ring any bells? Ever see their warrants to search you? How about the stop and frisk campaign in NYC? Ever see their warrants? The feds are demanding the states provide health insurance exchanges or the feds will come in and set them up on their own. Familiar with NDAA2013? How about HR 347? So let's see, that's 2 against the 4th, 1 against the 10th, 1 against the 6th, and 1 against the 1st. Now they're coming after the 2nd. Perhaps you might want to reconsider your post, because you are wrong....dead wrong.
By the way, the correct spelling is RIGHTS, but if Obama has his way the last rites for this country won't be far off.
Bull@!$%#. If I tell you you cant have a bazooka - is that infringing on your rights?
As a gun owner with 2 shotguns and 2 pistols I say bring on responsible and sensible gun legislation. If that involves banning certain guns - so be it. Only small minded simpletons shout and yell that their rights are being infringed upon because you cant carry assault rifles. Boo hoo. GTFO
@Dandy416:
Big talk from a small mind. Assault rifles? Really? And you call yourself a gun owner..LOL Perhaps you can muster a little intellect and tell us your of idea of "responsible and sensible" gun legislation. Should we register them so we can control crimes the way vehicle registration has reduced motor vehicle deaths and injuries? Should we pass more laws to keep the evil weapons out of the hands of the bad guys just like the anti drug laws keep drugs out of the hands of users? Perhaps we need more than the 20,000 laws, which currently are not being enforced, on the books. Maybe since handguns do more than 95% of the killings we should ban handguns and allow rifles. Please oh great sage, enlighten us...
Hey WAIT A MINUTE HERE!
The official police report of the Ct. shootings has not been officially released. I have heard that the so called assault rifle was never even used in the killings it was in the car the entire time. What was used in the killings was 4 auto handguns. If this is true and I believe it is because that is what the first reports stated WHY THAN DID THE STORY CHANGE TO A SO CALLED ASSAULT RIFLE and why has the MEDIA repeatedly stated it over and over again WHEN THE OFFICIAL REPORT HAS NOT EVEN BEEN RELEASED. COULD THE MEDIA BE PURPOSELY LYING TO FURTHER A POLITICAL AGENDA AND IF THIS IS FOUND TO BE TRUE and WE WILL KNOW SOON CAN THE MEDIA AND THE GOVERNMENT EVER BE TRUSTED TO TELL THE TRUTH AGAIN?
@Dandy
I call myself an American who believes in the founding fathers of this great land.
This isn't about Bazookas it's about sporting rifles that happen to come in different colors and different styles (cosmetic) It's still a semi-auto one pull one shot. It's about magazines that hold more than 10 rounds and the more you can fit the better it is to stop multiple intruders.
But all of this talk and bluster is nothing but bull@!$%# because the majority of Americans love and believe in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
I love quotes so here are some to view
To Disarm the People is the best and most effectual way to enslave them. (George Mason)
The said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize congress to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms (Sam Adams)
Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom. – John F. Kennedy
Criminals obey "gun control" laws in the same manner politicians follow their oaths of office.
"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." --Thomas Jefferson
Temptation without representation, Enforcement without laws at all?
Then the enforcer for the mob boss comes to put the heat on the corner bookie to collect the percentage, the enforcer will be tempted to take few dollar bills to keep business going.
Then the sheriff for the law can choose which laws to enforce, and when to enforce them, for the state or federal, he will be might start looking for a percentage and be tempted by a few dollar bills, to look the other way.
Now really, can we have this flagrant violation of law, laws that not uniformly enforced, and laws subject to variable laws subject to variable enforcement, and only signs of things of coming apart?
Not enforcing laws uniformly, the same way in every state, district and precinct, means that sheriff can make a few buck here and there. Or for that matter find a whole new way to make a whole lot of money, to supplement his pay. Or just to be come at large enforcer of laws, or keep it simple to collect a few dollars for each arrest that is suspended for little green persuasion.
Is it not impossible to see that each sheriff in each town might just make his own law, but I assure you that this is no correct, and examples surround the globe?
Exactly what justification in civil society of laws does this have? How is it not possible to see how this affects the citizenry who may from time to time wish that they are not arrested just for the little green persuasion? Carry a sticker on the car as signal that it is ok for you to turn left in Jacksonville FL, but not the out of towner?
Compare this with a uniform code of justice, where the laws are enforced the same everywhere, by dedicated uniformed officers sworn to uphold all the laws in the country.
If we have any local, municipal, urban, city, country, parish, state or federal government that does not adhere to uniform laws, then it is past time to get rid of such obvious threat to civil society.
If we are not paying enough, we might get frontier justice, where any over confident gun toting citizen can just pin on a shiny badge, and become a target for the truly well-armed, citizen who has no respect for the law.
One of the best arguments against the need for excessively armed citizens is sure, swift justice, for a little bit of tax money, and smarter jury system we might find it very useful to enforce the laws. The alternative is a police state, where every freedom is interpreted by some one with gun.
You might have gun at your side every moment of the day, but what about the sniper just hanging out of your range.
In addition to being political offices, County Sheriffs are typically not required to have a background in law enforcement; most are certified public administrators or have other various elective, political or public management backgrounds before running for election to Sheriff.
So it's logical to expect this split in philosophy between those who have risen through the ranks as street cops, and those who have risen through the ranks of politics and administrative service.
If this request for support were put to a vote of those professional police officers and Sheriff's Deputies who work the streets, and who respond to calls and scenes of gun violence and domestic disturbances every day, I believe the support for sensible guns regulations would be overwhelming.
With more than 40 years as a street COP and as a chief of police, I certainly DO NOT support additional laws restricting the ownership of lawful weapons by law abiding citizens. There as so many laws on the books now that you can not get past prosecutors its mind boggling.
The National Association of Chiefs of Police conduct an annual poll regarding second amendment issue and they collectively have never supported gun control measures. Simultaneously, the International Association of Chiefs of Police consistently support gun control. Note the operative word "INTERNATIONAL" as oppose to National.
band automaticweapons use tazor or stun guns the 2 amend did not say what kind of guns and raise taxes on guns really high. or put a cap on how many auto guns that will be sold in the us and put a high tax on the guns.
It's very simple folks. Learn how your government works. Sheriffs have ABSOLUTELY NO AUTHORITY to decide what is constitutional and what is not. Their job is to enforce the law and that is all! The authority for determining constitutionality belongs to the Supreme Court. If the sheriffs are unwilling to do their jobs and enforce the law they should be replaced by someone who can. Also, Witchking, one more time for the intellectually challenged. ALL the rounds removed from the 20 murdered children in Newtown according to the official coroners report were from an AR-15 Bushmaster. This was the murder weapon no matter how many times your repeat false information. Please try to keep up.
Witchking
No, they found an Izhmash Canta-12 12-gauge shotgun. Please correct any previous comments you made, the last thing we need is people propagating misinformation. Leave that to the MSM.
***
Maybe I am just getting cynical in my old age.
But has anyone else noticed that it is the Police Chiefs, who are always calling for gun control? And it is the rank and file officers who generally oppose it. Ever wonder why?
This is my theory, the Police chiefs know that crime will go up if they implement gun control. And as a consequence, they will need to hire more officers, which means a bigger budget, which means a bigger salary. Meanwhile, the rank and file know that crime will go up and they will have to work harder, and be placed in greater danger.
How much are the Chiefs of Police in D.C., New York and Chicago paid?
I have posted the above on several vines, and have to yet to have a single reply.
"The intelligence of a people is inversely proportional to the size of city and the length of time spent there in". Robert Reedy 1980
“To paraphrase Chairman Mao: Freedom and Oppression are dispensed from the END of a gun. Which END are you on?” Robert Reedy 2008
And to the right minded people here, remember to vote up those you agree with. Or add a Kudos or a Ditto as a comment.
Jow come the government didn't have to turn in their guns after they shot and killed a bunch of students at a school? (Remember Kent State?)
How not Jow. Damn fingers!
Mountain Lady
Once again you are wrong. A sheriff better know what is consitutionally legal and illegal otherwise they risk being sued blind for making mistakes.
This whole issue is dividing the country.
The MEXICAN plan for taking over the United States:
1. Remove all weapons from the hands of Americans.
2. Legalize all Mexicans in the US to aid in stealing all the resources of the American people.
3 Build a railway that will be used to round up all Americans so they can be used as slave labor in Latin America.
There are some in law enforcement that believe in the 2nd ammendment and there are some whom think that only law enforcement should be armed. The President has his perspective (wink, wink... more gun laws) and he's lining up as many friends as possible to propagandize the issue and get what he wants.
Try this out: See an officer (have a friend in law enforcement?)- ask them what they think and ask them how they feel about the possibility of someday being asked to go door to door to take away people's guns. My PD friends are absolutely for the 2nd amendment and they are very much against the idea of having to round up anything. They believe that new laws are only being proposed to hurt law abiding citizens and to sweep up some more guns from good people. The criminals will continue to be themselves and do what they have to to get illegal weapons and use them.
Remember, that bastian of safety Chicago (with some of the strongest gun ownership laws in the country) already has 40+ murders this year. I guess the residents of Chicago either can't read or they don't follow all of those laws!
And that right there puts it all in perspective......ME, ME, ME...it has nothing to do with gun/magazine control or saving BABIES lives, it has to do with ME being re-elected to my plush political job!!!
You just described our ELECTED president and his wife, Moochelle. Uh oh, that analogy just took a bad turn for you, didn't it?
Actually no, but your ignorance sure showed up!
It's people like you who listens to too much FOX news, who can't make decisions for yourself, and use ignorant comments about the First Lady like you just did.
Facts are not your strong point!!
And it's ignorant people like you that automatically ASSume anyone who doesn't agree with you listens to Fox news, which I don't. I could say the same thing: It's ignorant people like you that reads NBC news, who can't make decisions for yourself, and uses the "Fox News insult" every time someone disagrees with you and points out your ridiculous assumptions.
Facts are not your strong point!!
^^ Do you have anything "original" to add, or, are you going to continue to play on what I said to you?
Buddy, you showed your true colors with the "Moochelle" ignorance. Have a nice day!!!
I am aware that there are many fine sheriffs and deputies.
However, often, for many and varied reasons, when hearing "sheriff", one tends to thinks "redneck". Labeling the current gun control proposals as "Obamas" smacks of racism, reinforcing that stereotype.
The head of the police chiefs says "if the slaughter of 20 "babies" does not capture and hold your attention then I give up, becuase I don't know what will". We have to pass legislation." I wonder if this (appointed) public servant also believes that abortion is OK? Why do some of these clowns continue to use children to trample on American citizens rights and at the same time say some Americans need to close their eyes to what they believe is OK? The progressive/liberal agenda will ruin this country if we allow it to continue unabated. Fight this gun ban with all you have got or sit back and wait for whatever they deem wrong next.
For what it's worth. I have belonged to gun clubs in three different states now. Including Mass and Illinois, two of the least gun friendly. Lots of cops in those gun clubs.
Also, when you think about it, Police chiefs are political appointees too. They serve the Mayor or City Council that appoint them. They are frequently fired. Chicago has fired quite a few since I've lived here - all for big city insider politics. They must reflect the political views of their appointer - or they will be fired.
So they are not different than elected Sheriffs in that regard. It's just that they are beholding to the views of 1 person, not the electorate.
So.... I would be interested in the opinions of Cops and Deputies. I expect there would be a difference between inner city and rural.
But the cops I see at gun clubs and ranges seem to have little problem with the armed citizens shooting in the next bay.
Jim. I laughed out loud. You need to get a better sence of irony.
You want to debate the Right? Might as well find a rock and do the same. They don't know enough about most issues to debate or they have these rigid positions that overrule any debate before it has even begun. That's why we call them extremists.
My local sheriff is such an evangelical redneck that if someone started an armed insurrection I would expect him to join that group. By his beliefs God ordained us all to be gun owners and provide our own security. Sounds more like a copout from someone who wants the public to do his job for him.
voxrational - So you feel that your local sheriff is as dumb as those on the right? You feel that he doesn't know enough about most issues to debate? You are on high and mighty person aren't you? I am curious, did your local sheriff get elected or was he appointed. If he was elected you must be smarter than all of your neighbors too. How is the air up there?
moshuluu
From 1918 until 1934, any one in the US could order and have shipped through the USPS, a fully automatic sub-machine(Tommy Gun w/30 or 50 round magazine), BAR (High power machine gun w/20 magazine) or even a M2 .50 cal. Belt fed machine gun, no questions asked. Where were all the spree shootings then(other than criminal gangland)?
It was not uncommon to walk into a local hardware store and buy a case of Dynamite to remove tree stumps. If easy access to deadly weapons is the measure of a deadly society, why were things like the "Bath School Disaster" not regular occurrences?
NO, the only thing that has changed in the last 50 or so years is the Secular Progressive agenda has wove its tentacles into society. Family is irrelevant. Dads are irrelevant. Males, especially white males, are irrelevant or even 'need' to be marginalized. Morals and Personal Responsibility are irrelevant.
My point is, since the 60's and the Progressive march toward hedonism in this country, with the rise of the welfare state, abortion and easy divorce, discipline in this country is gone. There are no consequences. No longer are men being raised by fathers. And how do you become a real man, if you don't have one to show you the way? Granted it isn't always successful, but it seemed to be more successful than the alternative.
"The intelligence of a people is inversely proportional to the size of city and the length of time spent there in". Robert Reedy 1980
“To paraphrase Chairman Mao: Freedom and Oppression are dispensed from the END of a gun. Which END are you on?” Robert Reedy 2008
And to the right-minded people here, remember to vote up those you agree with. Or add a Kudos or a Ditto as a comment.
Voxrationis. The truth of the matter is that the police are not there to protect you. If you live in a rural area or in a small town, it might take 20-30 minutes or longer to get to you in an emergency. Having the means to defend your self as well as the know how to do so, can be the difference between life and death. And just IMO, not being particularly religiouss myself, it sounds like you are the intolerant one who has the bigger problem in comparison to your sheriff.
Obama's Hypocrites banned, re-reg.
voxrationis
"By his beliefs God ordained us all to be gun owners and provide our own security."
If we are not born with our rights, then where do they come from?
"Sounds more like a cop out from someone who wants the public to do his job for him"
Do you understand the actual function of Law Enforcement?
I wonder how many police cheifs would support this when they are forced to hand in their firearms at the end of the day when they are off the clock. After all, an off duty police offer is just like you and me. He can't speed, he can't enter someone's residence, simply put, he has to obey all the same laws as us.
And for the bazooka comment, yes, they Constitution says "the right to bear arms shall not be enfringed." That means that I can own a bazooka if I want. Or a tank. Or a fighter jet (boy would that be fun). Or any other weapon. Why? Because I am a law abiding citizen and you have nothing to fear from me.
Police chiefs are mostly political appointees,by mayors and such,and are more likely to come under the influence of deep pocket individuals like Michael Bloomberg.
Sheriffs,on the other hand are elected by the people they serve,and are more likely to take their oath of office and obligation to the people a lot more serious.
That is kind of scary. How is that any different from the Mafia organization?
johninpa - what a crock. Because you agree with the sheriff's - that makes them a better example of law enforcement?
DANDY because sherriffs are elected, you putz. I don't have to agree with Obama all the time to understand that he has his legitimacy through winning elections...just like sheriffs do.
Both take oaths to serve and protect. The Sheriff must appease the far right wing gun nuts to get re-elected. The matter of fewer guns being a much lesser threat to his loyal deputies take a back seat to his lust for power. Not so with the Police Chief. He remains loyal to his oath and the men that lay their lives on the line everyday(under his command) to enforce that oath.
Bull@!$%# Commonsense the sheriffs get re-elected because the power of people (Voting) puts them in office.
Most police chiefs and some Sheriffs are @!$%#ing stingy @!$%#s who rarely hand out ccw permits and are beholden to pos politicians in Sacramento who always seem to treat regular folks as plebs or 2nd class citizens. (here in California we have plenty of these miscreant douchebags)
I think "Big" Al is anti-gun and just posts to make gun lovers look bad.
Oh really takenaka what I say is pretty close to the truth 8) any Californian whose a gun owner & that's about 8 million of us see the politico elites like that twit Feinstein and Leland Yee erode and chip away our freedoms.
The elites only get ccw's in our state 8( you have to sue to get your license and that costs money.
I love my children and my family and wife but my guns I do not they are just tools to help me protect my family from the 450 active gangs in LA County alone 8( that's 45,000 criminals.
Fienstien has her CCW. Fact check it. The again she is important and you're not.
And Al stop playing with that damned little troll, It just gives him a woody.....
And you really believe that. No, sheriffs, just like other politicians worry about being re-elected, not some oath of office and obligations, so, in some cases they listen to, and pay attention to constituents who put them in office and have the pull to yank them out of office, just like appointed police chiefs who listen to their appointing authority who can yank them out of office too.
The BIG difference is rural is overwhelmingly white and republican....the cities you'll like to bang on for gun violence is overwhelmingly black, and democrat, but I know, you won't admit that.
I don't know how many anti gun chiefs that were there were appointed by mayors who are under the influence of Michael Bloomberg ,and his MAIG organization,but I'll bet any mayor who belongs to MAIG would not tolerate a pro gun chief.i saw Ramsey in the picture from Philly and I know he was appointed by Michael Nutter,a Maig mayor.
Thats how one man's billions can buy influence and political clout.
The sheriffs are not appointed by Bloomberg,but elected by their voting constituents,its a totally different thing.
Its kind of like one person elected by the will of the people versus a guy appointed by someone who could be under the influence of someone else because of their wealth.
moshuluu
Be happy to admit it... white conservatives living outside of the urban Obama Welfare Ghetto Plantations are not murdering each other with guns... and therefore see no need for more laws that restrict law-abiding citizens from owning them. Consequently, the law enforcement officers that they elect reflect their values and their respect for the Constitution. Inner city Obamabots, on the other hand, murder each other with alarming frequency, especially in the cities that have the strictest gun control. Their law enforcement is appointed by the same Liberals that passed the ineffective gun laws in the first place, and so their values reflect Progressive moral relativism... that is, no values at all. Progressive policy made the Welfare Ghetto Plantations... now deal with them...
Moshuluu,
Are you saying that the bulk of gun violence occurs in Black, Democratic areas and that they inhabitants need to have "Big Brother" tell them what to do?
Since when do sheriffs get to decide which laws they want to uphold? Isn't that the very definition of a police state? BTW, NOBODY is talking about taking away ANY privately owned guns.
Let the paranoid rants begin...
Sheriffs and military personal take a lifetime oath to up-hold the constitution. obama is demanding they break that vow.
Yet. No one is talking about taking away any privately owned guns yet. That is why they are starting with the "scary" guns first. Background checks are the same as registration. THey may not know what specific gun you are acquiring, but they know you are getting one. History has shown, over and over and over again, that governments do not stop after making a first move. Those in power fear an armed citizenry because it means that they are held in check.
Arizona: Obama isn't demanding anyone do any such thing. Can we stay in reality for this discussion?
Even if he did, sheriffs do not have the right to decide which laws they want to enforce. In this country, if you don't like the law, vote for another politician. Politicians make the laws, not the law enforcers, because for one to do both is a serious conflict of interest.
LS: Dear Lord, the idea that if we ban one type of gun, then there is a slippery slope to banning all guns, is the most ludicrous thing I've ever heard. There is no basis to believe such a thing. Personally, I think I understand your not wanting to be told what to do, but I also think that's clouding your judgment.
Bobo in Chief has clearly stated and demonstrated that he will decide what laws he wants to uphold.
What do you say to that? Speak up as soon as you get off the smoke.
Are guns not now already being registered, years before Obama came onto the scene?
I doubt anyone in DC is fearful of the armed citizenry, thanks to all the "defense" nuts that convinced Congress to spend many hundreds of billions of dollars a year on the Pentagon. The funny part of that is, it is usually the same folks as the gun nuts. Oh, the irony of it all!
humble: When you say "NOBODY", you're saying you talk for EVERYONE. That's one hell'eva ego you have there.
john: NONE of my guns are registered, and never will be. I'm not required by any law to do so.
LOL Arizona, I have no idea what your moronic babbling is about, but it's interesting that you read that into my statement. I speak for myself, I don't need to feel like I'm speaking for everyone, or that anyone feels the same as I do. All I was saying is that I know of no serious discussion, by Obama or Biden or anyone that matters, about taking any privately owned guns away. They are only talking about restrictions on future sales. period.
Ok, humble: I doubt you can comprehend this, but I'll show it anyway. When you say "NOBODY" you mean the brady bunch also.
"In 2001, Handgun Control, Inc. changed its name to Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. The organization originated (1974) as the National Council to Control Handguns (NCCH), a group which lobbied for government restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms through support for restrictions on the manufacture, importation, sale, transfer, and civilian possession of handguns. The organization voiced a desire for an eventual handgun ban through gradual steps, but changed its name and espoused goals due to results of a survey. In 1991, then HCI amended its Articles of Incorporation to reflect its support of restrictions on rifles and shotguns as well."
Humble, you're apparently new on the scene if you're saying no one is talking about taking guns away. First, guns have been confiscated from law abiding citizens, or did you forget Katrina happened? Second, some legislators have outright said they want confiscation. Here is just an example of that very statement by the "public servant" who is again heading the legislation (she's not the only one either).
Dianne Feinstein
The simple fact that assault rifles do not contribute to crime in near the capacity that other types of firearms, and/or the hands and feet of people and/or cutting objects, (FBI statistics Table 20) should nauseate you with caution. What they're trying to do is go for the firearms legislation that they think they can get away with. When the next mass shooting happens and it most inevitably will (as long as the focus is on honest citizens and very little is being done to combat the real problem), they'll come for the next batch, in the interest of public safety of course. Liberty is unrestrained action of will within the limits outlined by the rights of others. I have done nothing wrong, nothing that infringes on the rights of others, yet men I've never met, who have never met me are treating me like I have. To top it off, its disgusting to see "our leaders" traipse around in front of a camera pretending to believe that this piece of legislation is going to stop a madman bent on murder. It's equally as revolting to see people like you actually have the gumption to open your mouth in defense of something so vitriolic.
In answer to your question, NO. Guns are not being registered, except in a few states. 2 posts now and you've been wrong on both. Please do a little research before spouting your nonsense.
The media picks up every detail of the illegal use of firearms but refuses to report positive things such as people preventing themselves from danger by being armed or the sport of target shooting, hunting, etc.. You notice I said armed not necessarily shooting the criminal. In addition, no one that I am aware of has reported the crimes committed by legal gun owners, because it is such a small percentage that it would diminish the current biased media push. Too bad that reality is not a part of todays media. As horrific as the recent shootings have been, how many legal US gun owners have been involved? Taking guns (as is evident in the route we are heading) will not deter mentally disturbed illegal shooters. They could care less what the laws are, especially since most of them commit suicide after their crime. If anyone has the statistics mentioned above regarding legal gun owners involved in crimes, I think it is time for reality!
From the Florida Dept of Law Emforcement
2.5 Police officers must obey lawful orders, but must refuse to obey any orders the officer knows would require the officer to commit an illegal act. If in doubt as to the clarity of an order, the officer shall, if feasible, request the issuing officer to clarify the order. An officer refusing to obey an order shall be required to justify his or her actions.
The Constitution is the ultimate law of the land. Failure to follow the laws as set down in the Constitution, which they swore to uphold and defend, would be an illegal act for the LEO. So, how do you feel about your statement now?
Look at all these arm chair idiots that think a sheriff can pick and choose what laws to enforce based on his interpretation of the constitution. Didnt know constitutional law was a prerequisite for being a sheriff. Oh wait its not.
VERY GOOD, Xbonz.
Dandy
What about the LA County Sheriff or the SF County Sheriff? What about the LA Police Chief or the SF Police Chief? They have stated that they will not enforce Federal Immigration Laws. Are you OK with Sanctuary Cities and Counties and States?
@Dandy416:
Constitutional law is not a prerequisite. But don't you think since they've taken an OATH to uphold and protect the Constitution it would be a good thing if they knew a little bit about it? Or would that infringe on your rights to make asinine comments? Ah what the hell, I can't expect the senators and congressmen to care about our rights, why would I expect it from you?
Yea in 1945–46, I had my orders
The liberal radical governor of New York Cuomo
HAS USED THE WORD CONFISCATION there was an uproar so he backed off BUT in the MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT HE USED AN EMERGENCY TECHNICALITY TO PASS THE MOST RESTRICTIVE GUN LAWS IN THE COUNTRY whether it stands up to court challenge has yet to be seen BUT HE WANTED CONFISCATION
Part of the laws that the radical, liberal Governor of NY State passed in the middle of the night is that all guns that meet the criteria as the so called assault weapons MUST BE REGISTERED WITH THE STATE POLICE ONE YEAR FROM April 15TH. The so called definition of an assault weapon in NY is essentially any semi auto gun.
State law supercedes federal law pertaining to its citizens. Federal only covers areas that the state has no law on the books. Police cheifs take no oath, its an appointment, like a promotion. Sheriffs are elected officials who take the oath of office, just like obama did, same oath, to support and defend the constitution. if sheriffs refuse to enforce a federal law, they have that right. its thier "jurisdiction" and it must be respected. and requesting to register your guns is so they can come get them later, that I will never do, I have plans for my guns, and the government isn't the heir.
The ironic part of it all was that there were literally not hundreds BUT THOUSANDS OF SO CALLED ASSULT RIFLES SOLD IN New York State before the ban on assault weapons went in to effect that evening.
King Xerxes of Persia to King Leonidas of Sparta. "Lay down your weapons"
King Leonidas of the 300 Spatins, "Molon labe : Come and get them"
@Dandy416
Sheriffs are required to affirmatively enforce any law, let only federal law. They have the right to determine what takes priority in their jurisdictions. This is nothing new, it's always been this way.
Learn a little bit about the and law enforcement before you run your mouth. Belligerence and ignorance is an annoying mixture.
http://realitycommunicator.newsvine.com/">Reality Communicator
I agree. I don't see the logic in disarming law abiding citizens (and I agree with others who mention it will probably not stop at assault guns). Criminals will still have guns, and any other weapons they can think of. The 2 women who tried to disarm Adam Lanza would probably have been able to stop him if they had been armed. And what about all the people (including many children) who were able to defend themselves because either they, or someone around them, owned a gun? Their lives don't matter?
Melindra Herman, mother hiding in her closet with her two 9 year old twins, who was able to protect herself and her 2 children after an intruder broke into their house.
Kendra St.Clair, 12 year old girl, who was on a day off from school, and shot intruders who had broken into the house.
Mother in Cape Girardeau, Missouri, who was able to save her daughter from getting raped.
Man, in Shelburn, Indiana, who saved his neighbors, a woman and her daughter, who were attacked by a rapist (who raped the daughter). After the mother managed to send him a text message he came to the rescue, and when the rapist refused to leave he shot him in the legs multiple times (which stopped the attack).
Woman, in Midwest City, Oklahoma, who protected herself and her two chilren from 2 intruders. She fired at them when she saw them in her living room.
Father, in Sacramento, California, who protected his wife and two children when he shot at men who were trying to break into his house (one of the intruders was carrying a rifle).
I could go on and on, there is so many cases like these, but the news medias never (or rarely) mention them.
Every LEO (law enforcement officer) has the ability to exercise discretion in the enforcement of the law. That includes our Sheriffs (short for Shire Reeve for those wish to know the origin of the term) across this nation. Our Sheriffsare more directly responsible to the public than any other LEO, with that comes even greater discretionary leeway.
States are now consistantly flipping off the Feds when it come to Marijuana laws, why should gun control be any different?
@ Humble human
Because they are not "Banning" one type of gun. they are banning a whole class.
Basically and Watchking pointed this out in 1.19 "The so called definition of an assault weapon in NY is essentially any semi auto gun."
Evidently you are not a gun efficiendo. The AR platform is a wonderful hunting rifle system. It is completely modular. I have one AR lower and (or the plan was to get) 4 AR uppers. One (I have) is .243 SSM for prairie dog(heavy barrel bench gun), 6.8mm for deer, .50 Beowolf for wild hogs and .223 for coyotes and just plinking. One firearm, 4 useful guns. It was cheaper to go this route until the liberals got their panties in a bunch. And some of us are not wealthy Republicans, some of us are on budgets.
It would help the discussion if the other side, namely you anti-gun types, actually knew anything about guns, perhaps then you might understand the futility of what you suggest. Back when the first gun ban was being discussed, I happened to be in a college class, and the debate was brought up. I volunteered to present a demonstration. I brought in two guns, and asked which was an "Assault Weapon" and the students picked out gun 'A' and gun 'B' was a hunting rifle. Both guns were Ruger Mini-14's.
Gun 'B' was a stainless, with a wood stock,
Gun 'A' was blued, with a synthetic (black plastic) folding stock.
But one was going to be made illegal to own and the other was not, and they were the same gun, with different and interchangeable "furniture" (jargon for stocks, or other attachments). Maybe now you can see the dilemma we face. WE have people with no idea of what they are talking about getting ready to force idiocy upon us.
"The intelligence of a people is inversely proportional to the size of city and the length of time spent there in". Robert Reedy 1980
“To paraphrase Chairman Mao: Freedom and Oppression are dispensed from the END of a gun. Which END are you on?” Robert Reedy 2008
And to the right minded people here, remember to vote up those you agree with. Or add a Kudos or a Ditto as a comment.
It's down right funny listening to liberals trying to talk like they are all about reason and common sense.
If banning high-capacity semi-automatics was such a blatantly logical thing to do, why did the liberals wait until a couple of tragedies to do it? Knee-jerk reaction? Can't let a tragedy go to waste?
That's the thing with liberals, you have to wait and see which way the wind is blowing (their emotions are swinging) before you even know what your dealing with....at least until the wind shifts.
DumbFarmBoy....most people are unaware that a semi-automatic, by definition, is a gun that will shoot one bullet with each pull of the trigger without reloading or manually chambering a shell. That includes revolvers. It's just a matter of time until they come after those as well.
My, how times change, makes me think it has more to do with WHO is currently in the White House as opposed to reality:
moshuluu
People were against it then just as they are now, for the same reasons, which have nothing to do with WHO is in the White House (and why would you even think that?). And it is ironic to see Jimmy Carter pleading for a ban on assault guns, he who supported Khomeini and his Islamic government, he should know better.
Benjamin Franklin: "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
hs321
Provided it is a Double Action Revolver. Have you seen Jerry Miculek? Youtube him. WOW.
I am reminded that this argument (gun control) is not unlike the argument against welfare to some extent. I would very much like to end all Government Social Programs because of the fraud they incite. The liberals will always tell me that these programs help many more than those who abuse it. Funny how they can only use logic in one direction.
Anna===
Did you even read the article? You can actually research it if you'd like, and the same words will pop up. How can you say "people were against it then just as they are now," when the article specifically states what I've posted below, again?
If you're a "Farmboy," I'm sure you must be aware of "Farm Subsidies," and corporate welfare
Hello moshuluu. I meant the people who were against it then are still against it now (most of them at least), but there is possibly more people who are against a ban and new gun laws now (assuming the numbers from the surveys are correct). But I guess it depends which surveys (or polls) you are looking at because it seems the support for bans and more gun laws have been declining somewhat steadily for many years (for example in 1959 60% supported a ban on handguns while in 2007 only 29% supported it). One of the differences between then and now is the Internet, a lot of things have changed because of it. People in general probably know more about guns (and many other things). Also a lot more women buy guns now.
Either way it doesn't matter who is President, it is always the same old story for every president, half the population like them and the other half doesn't.
Let the cities ban guns and leave the rest of us alone.
That way cities can be safe, like Chicago.
And the back country of Arizona is any safer? ROFL! Good luck with that. All the guns you guys can handle and you still have a cess pool of a state being over ran with illegals. Mighty fine job you people are doing. Very safe indeed.
Yeah dandy: Keep obama out of our business, and we'll clean up that problem.
So true Arizona
New York
Chicago
California
DC
All have high crime with guns and have the most stringent gun control laws in the nation.
There have got to be both police and sheriffs that realize that Washington can pass all the "feel good warm fuzzy laws" they want to, it will do NO good at all. Until we as a nation address the real problem,,, PEOPLE,,, we will get no place. Pass this, pass that, ban this, ban that, creates a false sense of security, gets nothing done. Create a "gun free zone" crooks and nut cases don't give a rats a$$ what sign you put on the door. Guns never jump out of the gun case and go shoot someone, it's the wacko person, we have a people problem, face it.
I agree with you, but then using your logic, the only way you could really solve the problem, is remove guns from the equation. And I sure hell dont want to that. For larger cities that are dealing with high crime rates, it makes sense to have stricter laws with guns, but than we run into the issue of at what point goven the population vs crime rate do we enforce stricter laws?
If someone gets killed by gun, does it really matter where it happend, or why it happened?
Mr. J
I have never suggested to remove guns from the equation, cannot and will not happen.
"" For larger cities that are dealing with high crime rates, it makes sense to have stricter laws with guns,""
Your statement holds not water at all, look at Chicago, horrid problem and the strictest gun laws in the nation. Gun laws do nothing, nothing at all. Crooks and nut cases don't follow the laws, they dont care about the laws.
It's the people!!! We have a people problem, moral decay and the list could go on.
Mr. J, sorry sir, but you couldn't be more wrong. Here, take it from an expert on the subject:
More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws, Third Edition
“A compelling book with enough hard evidence that even politicians may have to stop and pay attention. More Guns, Less Crime is an exhaustive analysis of the effect of gun possession on crime rates. . . . Mr. Lott’s book—and the factual arsenals of other pro-gun advocates—are helping to redefine the argument over guns and gun control.”—James Bovard, Wall Street Journal
“John Lott’s More Guns, Less Crime revives the wisdom of the past by using the latest tools of social science. By constructing careful statistical models and deploying a wealth of crime data he shows that laws permitting the carrying of concealed weapons actually lead to a drop in crime in the jurisdictions that enact them. . . . By providing strong empirical evidence that yet another liberal policy is a cause of the very evil it purports to cure, he has permanently changed the terms of debate on gun control. . . . Lott’s book could hardly be more timely. . . . Lott’s work is a model of the meticulous application of economics and statistics to law and policy.”—John O. McGinnis, National Review
And just to put things in perspective from another opinion:
"To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and
law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own
conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the
law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the
lawless will allow...
For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to
accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals.
Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate
themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding." - Jeff Snyder
Because both are law enforcement agencies under the Executive Branch. But, chiefs earn substantially more annually than sheriffs do. And that, my friends is the reason for the divide here. The chiefs suck up to the president who will protect their jobs if the align with him. The sheriffs are the grunts (and they know what I'm talking about - serving process and all that crap) and make about $30,000 less in annual salary – they are stuck with the movement of inmates and court proceedings – pretty sucky job. That's it in a nutshell.
There is no geniune concern for the citizen from either. It's all about money.
Justis4U,
Sheriffs are paid by county taxes, same as their deputies. They have jurisdiction over the total environs of "Their" county. Police Chiefs on the other hand are hired by the city government which they work for and are paid by the city. I think you could make a valid case that they are subordinate to the Sheriff of their county. I don't know where you get that they are paid by the Executive branch or that they fall under it. Maybe the judiciary but that would be pushing it.
Law enforcement has always picked which laws to enforce...a good example is the murders in Chicago...the cops aren't preventing murders although there is a law against murder...there is a law against stealing but the cops don't attempt to prevent stealing...there is a speed limit law with an occasional ticket given...there is a law that requires headlights in the daytime when it's raining no enforcement...there's a law that pedestrians must cross roads at traffic signal crossings and people like the proverbial chicken cross the road to get to the other side wherever it suits them...you want about a couple hundred more laws that aren't enforced???
The main job of law enforcement is to find out who killed you.
If you'ed like to stay alive, DEFEND YOURSELF.
Ban handguns.
I just got home from the hearing on gun-control at the Connecticut Capitol. Over 2000 people attended.
As I read the msm stories being posted on it I see most are written to make it look like most all of the people there besides Ct gun manufacturers were in support of tougher gun-control laws. That is a total lie! I saw far more people there to fight for the 2nd amendment!
Here is on thing that happened that only the AP has reported so far:
http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CONNECTICUT_SCHOOL_SHOOTING_LEGISLATURE?SITE=VARIT&SECTION=NATIONAL&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-01-28-18-05-06
FYI - Alabama Sheriffs report on the meeting with the President - http://blog.al.com/wire/2013/01/what_the_alabama_sheriff_told.html
Hey, these bulls--t artists/ enforcers are paid to ENFORCE our laws, not break them ! ! ! If they don't like the pay and the laws, let them walk ! NJ has tough gun laws, and the kill rate would even be lower if guns were not brought in from those states with virtually no controls.
You are so full of Sh*t, your eyes are brown.
ras: Your right. They are paid to enforce OUR laws. We the people make the laws and elect the sheriff to enforce them.
obama and YOU are trying to make them violate their oath to us and the USA.
Just because you can't own a gun, doesn't mean you can ride ruff-shod over the rest of us.
Arizona, you are one crazy loon. First of all, our elected officials make the laws, not us or the sheriff. Secondly, NOBODY is talking about taking away your guns!
What the hell are you babbling about? Does the black man make you angry?
You just keep lying.
Wow you must think you're so damn important you can talk for EVERYONE. And a racist to boot.
Keep your guns Arizona, just don't freely sell them to insane idiots like the gun shows do. GET IT !
I don't understand: I'm a racist for pointing out that you are a racist? or I'm a racist for saying "black man"?
Jesus, I hope you don't own guns...
Humble
Your the racist, nobody here has said anything about any-ones race until you brought it up. Why do you racist always try to bring up the Presidents race if you disagree with their views. Nobody cares but you evidently. Nobody cares that he is 1/2 white.
Deerhunter: I was ignoring her racist remark. She can't say anything intelligent, so she brings up race to start a fight.
Boy you sure do need a civics lesson dont you?
Gun restrictions lead to more crime because criminals ignore them. According to Australian government statistics website - - in the five years following a gun ban in Australia the number of ARMED ROBBERIES TRIPLED. Even 10 years later it was 50 percent higher than before the ban!
Many sheriffs are against gun control because they understand the reality that law abiding citizens have the right to protect themselves. See the news about Oconee County Georgia, Milwaukee County Wisconsin, Collin County Texas - to name a few. Watch these sheriffs being marginalized in the main stream media as this administration's push for more gun control.
Make no mistake: this is NOT about the safety of our children. This is about our constitutional rights!
Roman Smith, I do have to disagree with you on your numbers on the armed robbery statistics. I spent quite a bit of time looking for the numbers and the most reliable I have found are from the National Armed Robbery Monitoring Program (NARMP), which is operated by the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC):
2003 – 8,865
2004 – 6,646
2005 – 6,978
2006 – 7,560 (53% with knives, 15% firearms)
2007 – 7,113
2008 – 6,427
2010 – 14,582 robberies, 61% unarmed, 39% with some type of weapon (47% knife) followed by “other weapon” (22%) and firearms (18%)
There has been a 28% decrease in the overall number of armed robbery victims since NARMP (National Armed Robbery Monitoring Program, operated by the Australian Institute of Criminology) first started collecting data in 2003. After an initial large decrease in 2004, figures have remained at similar levels, fluctuating yearly. There was a 10% decrease in the number of armed robbery victims in 2008 compared with the 2007 results (6,427 in 2008 compared with 7,113 in 2007).
However, assaults have risen significantly, from just over 9,000 per month in 1995 to over 16,000 by 2007 and does not include sexual assault. Assault is defined as the direct infliction of force, injury or violence upon a person, including attempts and threats.
You can't force a criminal to admit that, in violation of the law, they own a firearm. That is covered by the 5th Amendment, self-incrimination and was ruled upon by the Supreme Court in the case of Haynes vs U.S. (1968).
Law-abiding citizens are already affected by gun control laws (just look at the legislation NY has already passed). Assault-type weapons purchased legally must be registered and larger capacity clips must be sold outside of the state within a year. Quite a database for clerks and technicians to maintain on the budget of the police department.
The really sad thing is that the most recent shootings were committed by people under 21 who should not have had access to weapons in the first place. If these incidents were not a wake-up call to those too-trusting gun owners who take insufficient or no precautions to keep their weapons safe, I don't know what would open their eyes. Gun ownership is not something to take lightly. I was taught from an early age to respect guns. My father removed firing pins from all of his guns, except one, and kept them in a separate, hidden location. Both of my parents even went so far as to lock the bedroom door when they were not home. In addition, us kids were absolutely forbidden to cross the threshold of their room without permission, even to place folded laundry on their bed to be put away. We had to let them know what we were doing. I don't know if every parent goes this far, but I don't see any harm to it.
They will obey the Constitution and god help the idiots who try to force them to do otherwise. Gun Control is not going to be enforced with threats. If it comes to that there will be consequences not seen in America in 150 years.
You gun haters will be on your knees, begging, for a return to the status quo.
ROFL! Another idiot gun nuts issuing threats. Huge surprise.
And I ask you - if the government does ban a few guns - then what? What are you going to do? Diddly.
Gonna buy them now....
The problems aren't with law abiding citizens, but yet they are the only ones that are affected by gun control laws.
When politicians pull their head out of the sand and look at places like Detroit, Chicago and D.C. they will relaize that they need a new approach to crime. Gun control is never the answer.
Correlation is not causation my simple minded friend. You think because they have strict gun laws that they have more gun crime. Who cares about demographics, poverty numbers, education levels right? None is that is relevant. Its all the gun laws. LOL!
It is a fact that the states with stricter gun laws have fewer gun related deaths.
Are you kidding me Dandy because the highest murder rates by Firearms for the most part is California then DC in 2011
Both have strict gun control laws that law abiding citizens have to follow
most of these gun murders are gangs
The figures show that California had the highest number of gun murders. - 1,790, which is 68% of all murders that year and equivalent to 3.25 per 100,000 people in the state.
Here is another one
If you look at the firearms murder rate per 100,000 people, District of Columbia comes out top - with 12 firearms murders per 100,000 men, women and children in the state. There were 77 firearms murders in DC in 2010
Both of these Democrat Bastions have strict gun control.
DC is also top for firearms robberies per 100,000 people - with 242.56
Dandy -
We all agree that fewer guns typically equal fewer gun deaths - not necessarily fewer deaths, and certainly not lower violent crime rates. Check out the facts on the UK, Australia, Brazil, Mexico.
You could educate yourself, but I expect you will continue to lie, disemble and deflect.
If you can't pro tect your home with a shotgun or a pistol or a auto-handgun then you don't deserve a gun in the fist place. A sheriff is an elected officials a police chife is not so it comes down to politics. poly-meaning many - tics meaning blood sucking insect.
There's nothing in the 2nd amendment about protecting your home...
Heathen'sPride
Who tells you what you can own & not own? Who the F@CK are you to tell me what I can & can't use to defend my home & family? I worked & paid for all my guns & paid for my $1,000.00 900lb safe in my bedroom. It is not yours nor the Governments business what I have locked up in my home.
There's nothing in the Second about Feinstein's extra-constitutional authority, either.
And who the @!$%# are you to tell me you can keep an arsenal in your basement and threaten the safety of me and everyone around me? Your e-peen gun masturbatory fetish does not trump my right to live my life free from domestic threats. You are a bigger threat to society than the criminals.
Geez, Dandy, now you are just showing your love for hyperbole, as well as your devotion to trite correlations between gun ownership and genitalia.
Deerhunters locked weapons are a bigger threat to society than the criminals?
Hilarious.
LOL
It may not be written in the 2nd Amendment, but it is pretty obvious, considering their statements, that the Founding Fathers did want people to be able to protect themselves.
Thomas Jefferson: “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
John Adams: “Arms in the hands of individual citizens may be used at individual discretion… in private self defence.”
Thomas Jefferson: “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
Ha, Ha! Both quotes from the same person! Correlation is not causation, and yet you proceed to claim that someone who has an arsenal in their basement correlates to threatening your safety.
Ignorance and hypocrisy on display, in the extreme! Come on, fellow gun owners and 2nd amendment defenders, vote me up on this one!!!
We have kids serving in the military carrying guns. Why ban guns for law abiding citizens? It is the US FED.'s giving guns to the MEXICAN CRIMINALS to bring back and kill US Citizens with. It is CRIMINALS using guns, knives, fists, ect that are going to obtain weapons no matter what. So, there can only be ONE agenda and reason to disarm LAW ABIDING citizens. That would be to OVERTHROW the US Constitution and the USA. I call that TREASON!
This is entirely anecdotal, but from my dealings with a police chief vs. a county sheriff, I've found the chief tends to be a bit more of a chair jockey than anything else. I've never been in trouble with the law, but have taken part in meetings and discussions, and the local chief of police was more about red tape than about common sense and the law. I've met a deputy sheriff, and he was pretty no-nonsense, cut-the-BS type of guy. But it also has a lot to do with the culture of where people live -- the police chief was in "white suburbia," the sheriff (and his deputy) were in a rural area.
It might just be the sort of setting you run into these people and the different culture, but the other thing, which I believe someone mentioned, is that chief of police is generally appointed, while sheriff is frequently elected by popular vote. That also has implications, when you consider the 80-million gun owners, and the fact that many of us are one-issue voters -- if you betray us on that one issue, we vote against you.
Police chiefs are politicians who wear a badge, and they're appointed to their jobs by other politicians. Sheriffs are elected officials accountable directly to the people they serve. Certainly explains many of the huge differences in their approach to law enforcement.
The 2nd amendment was never about hunting rights.
200+ years and this country hasn't turned to tyranny. You can't be a tyrannical government while the populace is well armed.
Tyrannies can only exist if you have a disarmed population.
I know a lot of people that think this country would never become a tyranny, hey this is the USA and we have rights to freedom. If they can take away the 2nd amendment or even water it down they can take away or water down any other right as well.
Read history it says a lot about human nature when it comes to power and keeping it.
Because your AR-15's will do alot of good against a tank.
All you idiots who think you can rise up and conquer the government need to google the whiskey rebellion. George Washington himself lead a charge against dickbag farmers who didnt think they were responsibile to anyone. Go read the story to find out how it ends.
Google Syria.
Google Afghanistan.
Google Pol Pot.
Google the 1938 German firearms law.
Google...I don`t know, try citizen vs. subject...
To all 2nd Amendment supporters out there:
We need to also start making our voices heard on the political sites where people in Washington regularly read.
Here are some links to Feinsteins new assault weapons ban bill.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s150
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/113-s150/show
http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/113_SN_150.html#toc0
This is a country of choices. Here are some.
#1 Get on your knees and beg.
#2 bend over and grab your ankles.
..........OR.........
#3 Fight/Shoot back.
No one is saying you cant shoot back. I fail to see anyone trying to take my 12 ga from me.
Dandy, you can't see them coming to take your 12 gauge from you because it's a little farther down the list. It's assault rifles first, then semi-automatics, then handguns, then shotguns... Well, you get the idea, unless of course you just don't want to see. In any country in which the people have been deprived of the right to bear arms, the right was eroded, not taken in one fell swoop. Maybe you should study a little history, or be doomed to relive it.
Why would you think to tell me what I should and should not use to defend my family in my own home?
"Why would you think to tell me what I should and should not use to defend my family in my own home?"
Simple, the safety of your neighbors. If my neighbor is using a high powered rifle to defend himself, then he is endangering me and my family. Besides, how many times have you actually had to defend your family in your own home? Hmmmm? I'll bet it's exactly zero...
So humble; It's ok if the burglar robs/rapes/kills you? Just don't let the neighbor accidentally shoot you.
The odds of your house being robbed is far higher than you being shot be you neighbor.
If you want to find out how the cops feel about preventing crime just call 911 about midnight everyday and ask for a patrol car to cruise your neighborhood to prevent any thefts or murders that might take place...
This is part of the official title of Feinsteins new "assault weapons" ban bill,
That speaks volumes in itself!
Also meaning to ensure the right to bear arms shall be infringed.
She is nothing but a traitor.
These Sherrif s defying these idiot's and their Draconian Gun Control are The True American hereos! the Last Bastion that have the balls to tell these idiots where to stick it!
They have my backing 200%.As far as that Sheriff making a public service announcement about protecting yourself and your families,he has my utmost Respect,Good for Him!
As far as the tin horned dictator Obama and all the rest of the wack jobs are concerned,Take your Gun Control and SHOVE IT WHERE THE SUN DON'T SHINE!
You lost. The people the NRA were funding lost. Your party lost house seats. Your party lost senate seats. Your party lost the election. You sound like a loser to me.
I don't belong to any particular party.So I've lost nothing!You on the other hand, sound like the rest of the anti gun wackos and you sound like you've lost your mind!
So that makes you, the Biggest Looooooooser!
@ Dandy
I don't belong to either party. Wouldn't if they paid me their salary. What does that have to do with whether you own a gun or don't?
All US citizens are guaranteed 2 "voting rights" for their government...the first vote is with a pen...if that doesn't work out the second vote is with a gun...
Of course the City Chiefs will endorse whatever the big-city political machines tell them to...The County LEOs are much freer to speak the truth: LEOs prefer having well-versed and armed law-abiding citizens.
Clarke could have gotten across his point that residents could take more responsibility for their own safety "without having to say it's time to join our team and pick up a gun,"
Last time I checked, becoming a responsible and safe gun owner WAS the single most effective means of taking responsibility for your own safety. It's abundantly clear that Clarke feels threatened by citizens taking responsibility for self defense instead of calling 911 and waiting for the cavalry.
Ironically, virtually every street officer I know (patrolman through shift lieutenant) is perfectly fine with armed self-defense. Maybe it's because they're realists who know it could be 10 minutes before the first officer arrives at your house, and they'd much rather find a live homeowner with a gun than a murder scene with no suspects.