Utah Sheriffs warn Obama

[Indira]

All talk and no action. In other words, typical American right wingnuts. (But that seems to be the case with wingnuts of both sides)

[Grenartia]

How badly are we talking here? Like M1 Abrams vs Ford Pinto?

No, they're real close on the scary scale... More like M1A2 vs. M1A1...

DAMN!

You know, every time I see bullshit like the OP's article, I take conservatives less seriously. I say that because they're acting like petulant children denied a sweet.



Every time I see a comment like this I'm reminded how few Second Amendment supporters have actually read the fucking thing.

Oh, and exactly HOW does poisoning the well help your argument?

Conservatives happen to belive history repeats itself - if you give someone power, they tend to abuse it, and hurt others in the process. Currently, Obama seems to think he is the king of the U.S, and that makes us uneasy. The events that have happened in the past (genocide, authoritarianism, revolution, etc.) are all still possible in the U.S, because they have happened, and are happening, elsewhere and in the past. For us to trust a few politicians, half of whom are millionares or billionares, to not repeat human nature - to repeate history, is exceedingly ignorant.

To expect the government to commit suicide by repealing 2nd amendment rights is also exceedingly ignorant.

Also, please justify your claim of Obama thinking he's the King of America.

[Dimar]

Haha seriously? I'm in total favour of de-centralisation, but you're a sovereign nation under a sovereign federal government, so you should start behaving like one instead of playing martyrs, because you are nothing but martyrs of violence and ignorance.

[Khadgar]

You know, every time I see bullshit like the OP's article, I take conservatives less seriously. I say that because they're acting like petulant children denied a sweet.



Every time I see a comment like this I'm reminded how few Second Amendment supporters have actually read the fucking thing.

Oh, and exactly HOW does poisoning the well help your argument?

Conservatives happen to belive history repeats itself - if you give someone power, they tend to abuse it, and hurt others in the process. Currently, Obama seems to think he is the king of the U.S, and that makes us uneasy. The events that have happened in the past (genocide, authoritarianism, revolution, etc.) are all still possible in the U.S, because they have happened, and are happening, elsewhere and in the past. For us to trust a few politicians, half of whom are millionares or billionares, to not repeat human nature - to repeate history, is exceedingly ignorant.

You see, it's the disconnect from reality that makes me not take you seriously. You're not helping my perception by saying things that are patently absurd.

[Galiantus II]

Thomas Jefferson disagrees.

James Madison (you know, they guy who actually wrote it) felt differently, as evidenced by the original draft...

The rightof the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiouslyscrupulous ofbearingarms shallbe compelled to render military service in person.

You can't be serious. If you are going to quote someone, at least use their actual words. Let me tell you something else, Dyakovo: I am not "religiously scrupulous" of bearing arms; I am religious about all the rights of all people, to the point I will fight and die upon seeing anyone - government or not - take them away from me, you, or anyone else. I believe homosexuality to be wrong, yet if I ever see someone get harmed because of their sexual orientation, I will stand up for the person with the opposite belief. I presume you are an atheist. Well, if I ever see a member of my church beat you up for not believing in God, I am on your side.

The difference between the right to own a gun and gain other tools capible of defending you and others, should someone else wish to harm you, is that this right affects your ability to defend your other rights. The reason me, and many others, will be up in arms if the government starts taking more actions to remove guns from society (not outright "turn 'em in", but buy-back programs), is because we have looked at history. Every single time a government has taken weapons from their citizenry, it has ended badly. The government suddenly has carte blanc, and no opposition to its power. Furthermore, enemies of those countries have taken that oppertunity to stage invasions. Do you wonder why Israel still survives, though it is surrounded by countries that wish every jew dead? It is because every adult is trained to use a gun, and the citizens of Israel keep and bear arms.

The U.S, also, has benefited immensely from allowing its citizens to keep and bear arms. How much incentive do other countries have to invade a country where there is at least one gun per citizen? How much incentive do criminals have to rob, rape and murder, when by doing so they risk their own lives? Forget the fact that every massacre in the past year took place in a "gun-free" zone; there are simply not enough police to protect all of us, 24/7, and it is infeasible to make it so. Forget that Chicago, with some of the heaviest gun regulation in the country, also has the highest murder rate; if someone wants to murder, guns are just one of literally thousends of ways they could do so.

I think it is a disgrace that we defend our president, our banks, our stadium, our borders - practically everything- with guns, yet place a sign in front of schools that says "gun free zone". Where do our values lie? Don't innocent children deserve protection? You see, guns are power, and in a gun-free zone, whoever brings a gun has all the power. I postulate that Obama is a crook - for, just like crooks, he wishes that only he has the guns. And what about all of you, who support him? You only support him because you can benefit from his evil acts, or you are ignorant. Just remember this: what is wrong for one person, is also wrong for a coordinated group of people. Myself and other God-fearing Americans happen to believe everyone deserves equal treatment, that we all have the same rights, and that government exists to protect those rights - not to "grant" those rights.

Let me also ask: how do you interpret the rest of the bill of rights, besides the second? How can you interpret any of them to say anything other than "indeviduals deserve these rights", or "the government will be limited in this way"? Why, by interpreting the second amendment to actually give power to the state, rather than limit it, is completely hypocritical of you: you must apply the same logic to all of them, and either interpret them to be meant as deterants to the state, or simply state what you really believe; which is, either you wish to further the bill of rights, or you wish to repal all of them. There is no middle ground to pussy-foot around in. Take a stance: either you are for the people, or you are for the state.

If the government ever comes for my gun, they can have it: if they can pry it from my cold, dead hands. Better to die free than to live a slave.

[Galiantus II]

Haha seriously? I'm in total favour of de-centralisation, but you're a sovereign nation under a sovereign federal government, so you should start behaving like one instead of playing martyrs, because you are nothing but martyrs of violence and ignorance.

Take me seriously. I am prepared to die for what a believe.

[Galiantus II]

No, they're real close on the scary scale... More like M1A2 vs. M1A1...

DAMN!

Oh, and exactly HOW does poisoning the well help your argument?

Conservatives happen to belive history repeats itself - if you give someone power, they tend to abuse it, and hurt others in the process. Currently, Obama seems to think he is the king of the U.S, and that makes us uneasy. The events that have happened in the past (genocide, authoritarianism, revolution, etc.) are all still possible in the U.S, because they have happened, and are happening, elsewhere and in the past. For us to trust a few politicians, half of whom are millionares or billionares, to not repeat human nature - to repeate history, is exceedingly ignorant.

To expect the government to commit suicide by repealing 2nd amendment rights is also exceedingly ignorant.

Also, please justify your claim of Obama thinking he's the King of America.

How is circumventing congress through executive orders not dictator-like?

[Saruhan]

James Madison (you know, they guy who actually wrote it) felt differently, as evidenced by the original draft...

You can't be serious. If you are going to quote someone, at least use their actual words. Let me tell you something else, Dyakovo: I am not "religiously scrupulous" of bearing arms; I am religious about all the rights of all people, to the point I will fight and die upon seeing anyone - government or not - take them away from me, you, or anyone else. I believe homosexuality to be wrong, yet if I ever see someone get harmed because of their sexual orientation, I will stand up for the person with the opposite belief. I presume you are an atheist. Well, if I ever see a member of my church beat you up for not believing in God, I am on your side.

The difference between the right to own a gun and gain other tools capible of defending you and others, should someone else wish to harm you, is that this right affects your ability to defend your other rights. The reason me, and many others, will be up in arms if the government starts taking more actions to remove guns from society (not outright "turn 'em in", but buy-back programs), is because we have looked at history. Every single time a government has taken weapons from their citizenry, it has ended badly. The government suddenly has carte blanc, and no opposition to its power. Furthermore, enemies of those countries have taken that oppertunity to stage invasions. Do you wonder why Israel still survives, though it is surrounded by countries that wish every jew dead? It is because every adult is trained to use a gun, and the citizens of Israel keep and bear arms.

"It is forbidden in Israel to own any kind of firearm, including air pistols and rifles, without a firearms license.
Israel Defense Forces officers honorably discharged with the rank of non-commissioned officer, reservists honorably discharged with the rank of regimental commander, ex-special forces enlisted men, retired police officers with the rank of sergeant, retired prison guards with the rank of squadron commander, licensed public transportation drivers transporting a minimum of five people, and full-time dealers of jewellery or large sums of cash or valuables, Civil Guard volunteers, and residents of militarily strategic buffer zones considered essential to state security are eligible for licenses allowing them to possess one handgun. Reservists honorably discharged with the rank of regimental commander are also eligible for licences allowing them to possess one rifle. Licensed hunters may possess one shotgun, and licensed animal-control officers are allowed to possess two rifles while Civil Guard snipers may possess one rifle.
To legally own a gun as a souvenir, prize, inheritance, or award of appreciation from the military, an individual must first present proper documentation that they are about to receive it. Permits for gun collectors are extremely rare, and typically only given to ex-high-ranking officers.
To obtain a gun license, an applicant must be a resident of Israel for at least three consecutive years, have no criminal record, be in good health, have no history of mental illness, pass a weapons-training course, and be over a certain age (20 for women who completed military service or civil service equivalent, 21 for men who completed military service or civil service equivalent, 27 for those who did not complete military service or civil service equivalent, 45 for residents of East Jerusalem).
Gun licenses must be renewed every three years and permits are given only for personal use, not for business in the firearms sale while holders for self-defense purposes may own only one handgun, and may purchase a maximum of fifty rounds a year, except for those shot at firing ranges"

US: 88.8 guns per resident
Israel: 7.3 guns per resident

Don't think Israel is your best bet for this argument

[Galiantus II]

My little brother used to warn our parents that they better not take away his TV privileges OR ELSE.

He'd also scream that "It's a free country!!!!" when he was told to help wash up after dinner.

It would seem that the solution to the tantrum-throwing behavior shown by some of our state governments and elected officials would be Time Outs and a blanket ban on their consumption of sugary snacks until they can get control and speak like big boys and girls.

Wait... so the feds are somehow "better" than everyone else? What flavor kool-aid you drinking, buddy?

[Khadgar]

My little brother used to warn our parents that they better not take away his TV privileges OR ELSE.

He'd also scream that "It's a free country!!!!" when he was told to help wash up after dinner.

It would seem that the solution to the tantrum-throwing behavior shown by some of our state governments and elected officials would be Time Outs and a blanket ban on their consumption of sugary snacks until they can get control and speak like big boys and girls.

Wait... so the feds are somehow "better" than everyone else? What flavor kool-aid you drinking, buddy?

She said nothing of the sort.

[Galiantus II]

Wait... so the feds are somehow "better" than everyone else? What flavor kool-aid you drinking, buddy?

She said nothing of the sort.

She clearly portrayed the states as "tantrum-throwing" children, and the government as the punisher of those children. Sounds an awful lot like the argument that the government knows best.

[Farnhamia]

DAMN!



To expect the government to commit suicide by repealing 2nd amendment rights is also exceedingly ignorant.

Also, please justify your claim of Obama thinking he's the King of America.

How is circumventing congress through executive orders not dictator-like?

It's not because his 23 EOs don't materially affect the rights of persons who already own guns. Here's a list, for your information.

[Saruhan]

She said nothing of the sort.

She clearly portrayed the states as "tantrum-throwing" children, and the government as the punisher of those children. Sounds an awful lot like the argument that the government knows best.

Because the Federal Government does know more than the States when it comes to Federal policy

[Khadgar]

She said nothing of the sort.

She clearly portrayed the states as "tantrum-throwing" children, and the government as the punisher of those children. Sounds an awful lot like the argument that the government knows best.

She said nothing of the sort. She portrayed these assholes from Utah as tantrum throwing children, as did I. She never said, nor implied that the federal government knows best.

[Galiantus II]

How is circumventing congress through executive orders not dictator-like?

It's not because his 23 EOs don't materially affect the rights of persons who already own guns. Here's a list, for your information.

23? Is that right? Tell me: since when does the president have the authority to pass even one measure of legislation? This is unlawful.

[Khadgar]

It's not because his 23 EOs don't materially affect the rights of persons who already own guns. Here's a list, for your information.

23? Is that right? Tell me: since when does the president have the authority to pass even one measure of legislation? This is unlawful.

Well it started in 1789 with Washington. Surely you don't question the wisdom of the founders.

[Saruhan]

It's not because his 23 EOs don't materially affect the rights of persons who already own guns. Here's a list, for your information.

23? Is that right? Tell me: since when does the president have the authority to pass even one measure of legislation? This is unlawful.

"All presidents beginning with George Washington in 1789 have issued orders which in general terms can be described as executive orders. During the early period of the Republic there was no set form with which such orders were required to comply and consequently such orders varied widely as to form and substance.[6] Until the early 1900s, executive orders went mostly unannounced and undocumented, seen only by the agencies to which they were directed. However, the Department of State instituted a numbering scheme for executive orders in 1907, starting retroactively with an order issued on October 20, 1862, by President Abraham Lincoln. The documents that later came to be known as "Executive Orders" probably gained their name from this document, captioned "Executive Order Establishing a Provisional Court in Louisiana."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order_(United_States)

[Farnhamia]

It's not because his 23 EOs don't materially affect the rights of persons who already own guns. Here's a list, for your information.

23? Is that right? Tell me: since when does the president have the authority to pass even one measure of legislation? This is unlawful.

Executive orders are not legislation. Never have been, never will be. They are directives from the President to the departments of the Executive branch of the government. Here's the list, which you very obviously did not look at:


1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.

2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.

3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.

4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.

5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.

6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.

7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.

8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).

9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.

10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make itwidely available to law enforcement.

11. Nominate an ATF director.

12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.

13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.

14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.

15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effectiveuse of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to developinnovative technologies.

16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.

17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.

18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.

19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.

20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.

21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.

22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.

23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.

[Galiantus II]

She clearly portrayed the states as "tantrum-throwing" children, and the government as the punisher of those children. Sounds an awful lot like the argument that the government knows best.

She said nothing of the sort. She portrayed these assholes from Utah as tantrum throwing children, as did I. She never said, nor implied that the federal government knows best.

You are dead wrong, buddy. Also, I take offense to what you just called my sheriff. The fact is, you guys are a very large majority here on NS. I don't think that is the case when it comes to the rest of the nation, however. Please realise that, to me, you look like tantrum-throwing children, but you happen to be getting what you want. Speak nicely.

[Saruhan]

She said nothing of the sort. She portrayed these assholes from Utah as tantrum throwing children, as did I. She never said, nor implied that the federal government knows best.

You are dead wrong, buddy. Also, I take offense to what you just called my sheriff. The fact is, you guys are a very large majority here on NS. I don't think that is the case when it comes to the rest of the nation, however. Please realise that, to me, you look like tantrum-throwing children, but you happen to be getting what you want. Speak nicely.

So, when are you going to respond to my posts? Because ignoring things when you're wrong is, well, childish

[Tyramithul]

Have to love the democratic leftists dreaming about murdering and invading people who wants to keep their guns.

[Greed and Death]

How is circumventing congress through executive orders not dictator-like?

It's not because his 23 EOs don't materially affect the rights of persons who already own guns. Here's a list, for your information.

Some of those weren't anything, also a nomination is an executive action not an executive order.

[Saruhan]

Have to love the democratic leftists dreaming about murdering and invading people who wants to keep their guns.

Gotta love the rightists calling themselves patriots and then supporting treason. See, I can play that game too

[Farnhamia]

Have to love the democratic leftists dreaming about murdering and invading people who wants to keep their guns.

Have to love the Utah sheriffs having a hissy-fit over something that is never going to happen.

[AiliailiA]

All talk and no action. In other words, typical American right wingnuts. (But that seems to be the case with wingnuts of both sides)

Talk is good in this case. The sheriffs fired their verbal shot, now they get to sit down and take some legal advice before shooting a Federal agent for coming onto their patch.

Perhaps they can negotiate some settlement: for instance, that they'll be informed when Federal agents conduct operations in their county. They may even have the right to arrest Federal agents, but when their state court gets a look at it they'll be paying costs for wasting the federal agent's time. Sheriffs may be the law there at the time, but everything they do can ultimately go to court and appeals go from their county to their state courts, to their state supreme court, to their federal circuit and ultimately to the Supreme Court.

There's no need for a shoot-out. Federal officers have more authority than a county sheriff does and the sooner the sheriff involved in such an incident backs down, the better it will go for them. The Utah sheriffs can talk tough, and they can invoke their elected mandate and the constitution for authority but when it comes down to it they'll obey the law. Because the alternative is to be criminals themselves.