Utah Sheriffs warn Obama

[Copenhagen Metropolis]

I'm inclined to ask how the obvious notion and unnecessary statement that 'reality doesn't go away', makes it a valid argument for it being right, but I doubt I'll get a more relevant and less nonsensical answer from you - so I wont.

I don't know how else we can tell you, it is RIGHT that the federal govt cannot force state and city police to enforce federal law, if it is to be enforced, the federal govt has their own law enforcement agencies to do the job.

Good thing I never said they could.

Why should state and city police be strapped with doing the feds job and their job?
State and city police work for their state not the federal govt.

Also a good thing I never questioned that, or, in fact, even mentioned it.

I'm beginning to wonder if you're even aware of what you're replying to.

[Copenhagen Metropolis]

It's not a good argument for it being right, no. That something is a law is a good argument for it being obeyed and upheld - that something is a law is not a good argument for it being a good law. Bad laws can be changed, and should be, if the only ''argument'' against it is that 'the constitution says so'.

What? Are you delirious?

No.
If your only argument for keeping a law is that 'it's already there', then that's a bad argument.

[Republica Newland]

What? Are you delirious?

No.
If your only argument for keeping a law is that 'it's already there', then that's a bad argument.

Yes,you must be delirious.

[Copenhagen Metropolis]

No.
If your only argument for keeping a law is that 'it's already there', then that's a bad argument.

Yes,you must be delirious.

You can quit the name-calling already. It's not my fault you're too stupid to make a decent point.

[Dyakovo]

Yes,you must be delirious.

You can quit the name-calling already. It's not my fault you're too stupid to make a decent point.

The irony here is delicious...

[Copenhagen Metropolis]

You can quit the name-calling already. It's not my fault you're too stupid to make a decent point.

The irony here is delicious...

It was intended to.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

Yes,you must be delirious.

You can quit the name-calling already. It's not my fault you're too stupid to make a decent point.

*** Warned *** for the flaming. Was it also your intention to break the rules? That bit was your fault. Let's not do it again.

[Copenhagen Metropolis]

You can quit the name-calling already. It's not my fault you're too stupid to make a decent point.

*** Warned *** for the flaming. Was it also your intention to break the rules? That bit was your fault. Let's not do it again.

Let's quit being hypocritical and childish and give the guy who called me 'delirious' a warning too, shall we...?

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

Let's not be obtuse - 'delirious' and 'too stupid to make a decent point' are nowhere near the same level of insult. Now either get back on topic, or go do something else not involving getting into trouble on the forums. Thanks.

[Inyourfaceistan]

Nice!

It also looks like the who "assault weapons" crap has been dropped from the bill they will try and get passed in the Senate. Now it's mainly down to magazine capacity and tighter background checks, the later I doubt very many people are against.

Tighter background checks have backfired with idiots misusing them.Take this guy for example Apparently the CCW background check in his state was only supposed to go back 7 years or so but they went back 15 just for him.Not only this,but they also denied his CCW because while he was a juvenile he committed a misdemeanor which would have been considered a felony were he to be an adult back then.

That is a valid point. I also didn't necessarily say "I like background checks" I kind of meant " That provision will likely get passed" but honestly I don't care as long as I can still legally purchase an SKS with a 30rnd mag.

And none of the suggested provisions would have stopped Sandy Hook anyway, because 1) He didn't purchase the AR-15, his mother did, and 2) He didn't even use it, he used handguns...

[Ifreann]

So there's no restrictions on these types of weapons at all, except that they be manufactured in the US or registered before 22nd October 1968? None at all?

Y'know Ifrean, if you dont like it then just stay in Ireland.

I fully intend to, for the time being at least, but that doesn't really answer my question.

---

Laws that Obama has put on gun control. It clearly states that it doesnt ban guns.

They're clearly warning the office of the President that they'll brook no further interference of their citizens rights to own guns.

What they will brook or not is really not relevant to any state or federal law, so I can't see why the office of the President would care. The Secret Service might care that potentially credible threats are being made against the life of the President and the lives of other government officials, but that's it.

---

Wrong. The Utah Sheriffs Association is not, despite what they appear to believe, the final arbiters of what is, or is not constitutional; that role falls to the Supreme Court.

Perhaps the "war" they are referring to is a legal one? They could be simply stating (in more violent words than needed) that they will fight any attempt to take away what they believe are undeniable rights.

And perhaps when they say they're willing to trade their lives to see their preferred interpretation of the US Constitution enforced, they mean it in a metaphorical sense. Of course, it would be stupid for the Secret Service et al to take that chance.

[Chernoslavia]

Y'know Ifrean, if you dont like it then just stay in Ireland.

I fully intend to, for the time being at least, but that doesn't really answer my question.

---

They're clearly warning the office of the President that they'll brook no further interference of their citizens rights to own guns.

What they will brook or not is really not relevant to any state or federal law, so I can't see why the office of the President would care. The Secret Service might care that potentially credible threats are being made against the life of the President and the lives of other government officials, but that's it.

---

Perhaps the "war" they are referring to is a legal one? They could be simply stating (in more violent words than needed) that they will fight any attempt to take away what they believe are undeniable rights.

And perhaps when they say they're willing to trade their lives to see their preferred interpretation of the US Constitution enforced, they mean it in a metaphorical sense. Of course, it would be stupid for the Secret Service et al to take that chance.

Good. And I did answer your question only at a different post. Either way why would you support a full auto ban when only one crime was ever commited with one from 1934 up to today?

[Republica Newland]

Yes,you must be delirious.

You can quit the name-calling already. It's not my fault you're too stupid to make a decent point.

It's not my fault you're too <snip> to not summarize the whole constitutional debate to "it's right because it says so".

[Republica Newland]

The irony here is delicious...

It was intended to.

Right pal,good one

[Republica Newland]

*** Warned *** for the flaming. Was it also your intention to break the rules? That bit was your fault. Let's not do it again.

Let's quit being hypocritical and childish and give the guy who called me 'delirious' a warning too, shall we...?

Lulz,did you just call out a mod "hypocritical and childish"? You might want to get some meds for that <snip>hurt of yours.

You can quit the name-calling already. It's not my fault you're too stupid to make a decent point.

*** Warned *** That bit was your fault. Let's not do it again.

This.

[Herador]

Good. And I did answer your question only at a different post. Either way why would you support a full auto ban when only one crime was ever commited with one from 1934 up to today?

Did you source that earlier in the thread?

[Republica Newland]

Good. And I did answer your question only at a different post. Either way why would you support a full auto ban when only one crime was ever commited with one from 1934 up to today?

Did you source that earlier in the thread?

It's kind of hard to get online references on that,but,it is a fact.So,no matter how much the Democrats dislike it,it is a FACT that only one single incident (including several victims) involving registered full-auto firearms ever happened in the almost 80 years that have passed since the NFA came into effect.And... here comes.. it was a police officer.

Not only does this prove that we already have gun regulations doing their job incredibly well ,it also humiliates anyone rambling about how you don't need guns because you have a totally awesome and capable police force (oh and did I mention it can magically make everything go away and has a 0.5 second response time???)

[The Emerald Dawn]

Did you source that earlier in the thread?

It's kind of hard to get online references on that,but,it is a fact.So,no matter how much the Democrats dislike it,it is a FACT that only one single incident (including several victims) involving registered full-auto firearms ever happened in the almost 80 years that have passed since the NFA came into effect.And... here comes.. it was a police officer.

Not only does this prove just how effective gun regulations that are already in place are,it also humiliates anyone rambling about how you don't need guns because you have a totally awesome and capable police force (oh and did I mention it can magically make everything go away and has a 0.5 second response time???)

...No, getting citations for crime rates isn't really that difficult. And if you can't prove it, it isn't a fact. And putting it in all-caps doesn't somehow magically lend it more credence.

[Republica Newland]

It's kind of hard to get online references on that,but,it is a fact.So,no matter how much the Democrats dislike it,it is a FACT that only one single incident (including several victims) involving registered full-auto firearms ever happened in the almost 80 years that have passed since the NFA came into effect.And... here comes.. it was a police officer.

Not only does this prove just how effective gun regulations that are already in place are,it also humiliates anyone rambling about how you don't need guns because you have a totally awesome and capable police force (oh and did I mention it can magically make everything go away and has a 0.5 second response time???)

...No, getting citations for crime rates isn't really that difficult.

It sure isn't.At all.

Good thing there are no crime rates here.

[The Emerald Dawn]

...No, getting citations for crime rates isn't really that difficult.

It sure isn't.At all.

Good thing there are no crime rates here.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr
Google. Less than a second. Getting information on crime rates, and the methods they use to determine things, is quite easy. You can thank FOIA.

[Dyakovo]

It's kind of hard to get online references on that,but,it is a fact.So,no matter how much the Democrats dislike it,it is a FACT that only one single incident (including several victims) involving registered full-auto firearms ever happened in the almost 80 years that have passed since the NFA came into effect.And... here comes.. it was a police officer.

Not only does this prove just how effective gun regulations that are already in place are,it also humiliates anyone rambling about how you don't need guns because you have a totally awesome and capable police force (oh and did I mention it can magically make everything go away and has a 0.5 second response time???)

...No, getting citations for crime rates isn't really that difficult. And if you can't prove it, it isn't a fact. And putting it in all-caps doesn't somehow magically lend it more credence.

After a quick search, it appears that his claim probably isn't to far off...
It's Yahoo! Answers, but this one is sourced...

[The Lone Alliance]

The Utah Sheriffs Association is not, despite what they appear to believe, the final arbiters of what is, or is not constitutional; that role falls to the Supreme Court.

But if a law was signed, and if the supreme court hadn't gotten into a ruling yet, what happens then?

Can't they refuse to enforce the law because it hasn't been determined to be constitutional or not?

[Farnhamia]

The Utah Sheriffs Association is not, despite what they appear to believe, the final arbiters of what is, or is not constitutional; that role falls to the Supreme Court.

But if a law was signed, and if the supreme court hadn't gotten into a ruling yet, what happens then?

Can't they refuse to enforce the law because it hasn't been determined to be constitutional or not?

No, the default position is that it is constitutional. If some one brings a legal action against that law, the court may issue an injunction stopping its enforcement, but otherwise, it is assumed to be constitutional.

[The Emerald Dawn]

The Utah Sheriffs Association is not, despite what they appear to believe, the final arbiters of what is, or is not constitutional; that role falls to the Supreme Court.

But if a law was signed, and if the supreme court hadn't gotten into a ruling yet, what happens then?

Can't they refuse to enforce the law because it hasn't been determined to be constitutional or not?

They would petition the court to begin the legal proceedings.

[Frisbeeteria]

Lulz,did you just call out a mod "hypocritical and childish"? You might want to get some meds for that <snip>hurt of yours.

Congrats. You just got upgraded from a soft warning to a *** warning for flaming and gloating. ***

Edit: on review of your warning history, upgrading to a *** seven day forumban ***.

*** Warned *** That bit was your fault. Let's not do it again.

This.

Next time, take your own advice.