Shoutbox

Refresh History
  • littlebit: Makes sense.
    July 16, 2017, 04:40:28 AM
  • Lepard LLC: Boards will stay open for a place people can find history information longer. I am not allowing anyone to sign up for now because of so many foreginers just wanting to promote their business..
    December 10, 2016, 05:10:27 AM
  • Lepard LLC: Not sure why didn't look, I may be shutting down these message boards..
    November 17, 2016, 12:42:43 AM
  • ~kathy~: rick why is the timestamp showing up a day in advance?
    September 13, 2016, 12:27:46 AM
  • Valor7: What I tried to say is that the actual money would not be there that quick. But a loan against that would work if they are willing to do that.
    August 08, 2016, 01:51:51 PM
  • Lepard LLC: Why so long before it comes online? 911 took out a loan or bond with the known guarantee payment and began building..
    August 08, 2016, 07:46:34 AM
  • Valor7: Actually no it is not, a dependable Revenue stream will not come on line until the 4th quarter of 2017 so 2018 budget will be up in the air, not quite sure what they will have. By 2019 budget all will be well.
    August 04, 2016, 09:27:17 PM
  • Valor7: You mean that tax that the Commissioners would not put on the ballot for so many years? Strange things happened when the citizens got a chance to vote on that issue.
    August 03, 2016, 06:43:06 PM
  • Lepard LLC: Back up is now available withe the new tax..
    August 03, 2016, 05:01:35 PM
  • Valor7: Thanks a lot Ladies!!
    July 29, 2016, 01:16:13 PM
  • littlebit: ((*(*&
    July 27, 2016, 03:47:52 PM
  • ~kathy~: lol
    July 15, 2016, 09:34:56 AM
  • Valor7: A guy could get killed around here while waiting for backup!
    July 13, 2016, 07:31:58 PM
  • Lepard LLC: You are not alone..
    July 13, 2016, 07:28:53 PM
  • Valor7: I just hate it when I talk to myself!!!!
    July 08, 2016, 12:54:09 PM
  • Valor7: I could have worded that better, we talked details, options, the pros and cons of each, in  order to arrive at the best ballot language to present to the voters. Hope that makes this clearer.
    April 15, 2016, 06:36:14 PM
  • Valor7: sorry about the typos still working with just one arm in action
    April 13, 2016, 01:10:42 PM
  • Valor7: Yes and no. We talked details and options until we were blue in the face but I never heardbring it over, it was always the time was not right for the issue to pass. Glad to see the time in now right and I for one shall vote yes on the ballot. I would urge all others to do the sameour county is busting at the seams crimewise and no matter how many bad guys we send off there always seems to someone to replace them. The Sheriff's Office needs the help.
    April 13, 2016, 01:08:35 PM
  • Lepard LLC: Is that true Valor? Did he ask you what you wanted?
    March 01, 2016, 04:55:37 AM
  • Lepard LLC: Gene Newkirk Rick I have waited for a Sheriff to bring it to me on what he wanted. I have pushed Mr long for a while to get it to me. He told me he was close to having or done. Now hopefully the people will get to decide on it. I spoke with Steve about this a few times.
    March 01, 2016, 04:54:54 AM
  • Kimberly: Wow- I have a new name..........
    February 23, 2016, 10:25:15 PM
  • Lepard LLC: Works on mine, improvements are being done here. I may kick back into her a lot and post but working on different technologies right now. Seeing how things interact.
    January 18, 2016, 09:01:20 AM
  • Valor7: Yes it is working. If you need a laugh the wife showed me how to correctly use the silly thing.
    January 04, 2016, 05:32:59 PM
  • Valor7: Think so, mine is trying to work but it is now user and password protected and I dont know mine
    December 17, 2015, 01:32:16 PM
  • "DJ": Is there still a working android app for the PCSD
    December 14, 2015, 08:14:53 PM

Author Topic: Finally.  (Read 3615 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline matrsnot

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 7612
  • Karma: +489606/-6227
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Finally.
« on: January 15, 2013, 01:58:52 PM »

Share/Bookmark


Offline Hi

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 903
  • Karma: +13281/-13254
  • Go to your profile and put something here.
    • View Profile
Re: Finally.
« Reply #1 on: January 15, 2013, 05:29:18 PM »
haha obama doesnt even have to do it himself, as evident by New Yorks recent gun bill.

Offline fish

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 8885
  • Karma: +349278/-349867
    • View Profile
Re: Finally.
« Reply #2 on: January 15, 2013, 06:03:07 PM »
that's how it should be, state by state. now watch the crime rate of ny.

nothing will pass congress. the idiot will try the eo route. he is sworn to uphold the constituition. his eo's controlling guns violates the 2nd ammendment.

I hope more politicians with a backbone start emerging.

all this after nobama signed a law giving himself armed guards for life.  will bloomberg or feinstein give up their armed security?

Offline matrsnot

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 7612
  • Karma: +489606/-6227
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Finally.
« Reply #3 on: January 15, 2013, 06:20:36 PM »
Yes and it is Unconstitutional too Hi.  It will be taken up the chain and see what happens then.  These absolute idiots in NY actually decided they want to confiscate after registration and announced it.  They are going to start something they cannot possibly win in the end.

Offline Hi

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 903
  • Karma: +13281/-13254
  • Go to your profile and put something here.
    • View Profile
Re: Finally.
« Reply #4 on: January 15, 2013, 07:38:36 PM »
To bad the 2nd amendment doesnt stipulate the process involved to get guns. So unless he outright bans them hes in the clear.  He could also outlaw ammunition and be in the clear.  As far as violating 2nd amendment rights, dont they already do that to felons?

Offline matrsnot

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 7612
  • Karma: +489606/-6227
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Finally.
« Reply #5 on: January 15, 2013, 08:20:15 PM »

Offline 3.14159

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 36
  • Karma: +1/-272
  • Go to your profile and put something here.
    • View Profile
Re: Finally.
« Reply #6 on: January 15, 2013, 10:57:20 PM »
To bad the 2nd amendment doesnt stipulate the process involved to get guns. So unless he outright bans them hes in the clear.  He could also outlaw ammunition and be in the clear.  As far as violating 2nd amendment rights, dont they already do that to felons?

The 2nd might not but the SCOTUS sure did
 
Quote

 On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Heller v. District of Columbia.[3][4] The Court of Appeals had struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional, determined that handguns are "arms" for the purposes of the Second Amendment, found that the District of Columbia's regulations act was an unconstitutional banning, and struck down the portion of the regulations act that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock." "Prior to this decision the Firearms Control Regulation Act of 1975 also restricted residents from owning handguns except for those registered prior to 1975."[5
 
Decision
The Supreme Court held:
[43][/sup](1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.(3) The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition – in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute – would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.The Opinion of the Court, delivered by Justice Scalia, was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. and by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.[44][/sup]

Offline fish

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 8885
  • Karma: +349278/-349867
    • View Profile
Re: Finally.
« Reply #7 on: January 16, 2013, 02:39:31 AM »
a lot of folks getting educated on the 2nd ammendment. history is a neglected subject.

perhaps other points of history will now be explored!

Offline Hi

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 903
  • Karma: +13281/-13254
  • Go to your profile and put something here.
    • View Profile
Re: Finally.
« Reply #8 on: January 16, 2013, 05:23:28 PM »
I wonder if any of you read.  Your little SCOTUS speel had nothing to do with my post.  In fact it said exactly what i did.  You cant ouright ban ARMS.  BUT you can make it impossible to get Ammo, or make liscensing them harder.  According to your SCOTUS opinion citizens should be able to buy and liscense RPG's and stinger missles because it would be what is required by a militia to deter them from getting dearmed, as well as planes and helicopters and the fittings that go with them.  According to what youve posted any ARM that is possessed by the military that could be used to dearm the militia should be ok, so our 2nd amendment rights are trampled on everyday because i cannot legally own certain arms.

Offline matrsnot

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 7612
  • Karma: +489606/-6227
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Finally.
« Reply #9 on: January 16, 2013, 05:56:07 PM »
I hiope you read the little blurb I placed in this thread.  Actually some factual history about the meaning of th e2d Amendment.  In the meantime, Obama has demonstrated his impotence is pushing his will upon the American people.  We already have background checks when we buy guns.  He is jumping at shadows as far as the weapons ban.  No rifle was used in Newtown.  This was just another liberal excuse to ban something  because it looks scary.  And magazines for 20 and 30 rounds are the common size as outlined by SCOTUS in the Heller decision.  I do not beleive congress will pass such a ban and if they were to do so, it would be challenged all the way up to SCOTUS. 

Offline Chas

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 1856
  • Karma: +11629/-2363
    • View Profile
Re: Finally.
« Reply #10 on: January 16, 2013, 06:10:33 PM »
Also from the Heller decision
(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

 You would be wrong if you think that the 2nd amendment guarantees you the right to have any type of firearm you would like to own.    I believe any of the previous rulings could be overturned or up held depending on how the current SCOTUS interprets the 2nd amendment. 
You can’t own a sawed off shot gun because of United States vs. Miller.   Both sides claim that it supports their position. 
No rifle was used in Newtown.  Every article I have read states that Bushmaster was used that’s a rifle.
From Fox news
He then drove to the school in her car with four guns, including a shotgun that was left in the back of the vehicle, and shot up two classrooms around 9:30 a.m., police say. Police added that multiple 30-round magazines and hundreds of bullets were also found at the scene.
The rifle used was a Bushmaster .223-caliber, according to an official with knowledge of the investigation who was not authorized to speak about it and talked on condition of anonymity. The gun is commonly seen at competitions and was the type used in the 2002 sniper killings in the Washington, D.C., area. Also found in the school were two handguns, a Glock 10 mm and a Sig Sauer 9 mm
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/16/at-least-26-dead-in-shooting-at-connecticut-school/#ixzz2IAAtkc3c

Offline matrsnot

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 7612
  • Karma: +489606/-6227
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Finally.
« Reply #11 on: January 16, 2013, 06:40:42 PM »
there has yet to be a full report of that shooting.  I trust NONE of the media in this matter as they all have the same agenda regarding the 2d Amendment.  They have no idea what the intent is and was.  there will be no confiscations and there will be no registrations.  there will most likely be no ban.  The decrees he signed today are nothing more than reiteration of laws on the books. He wants stronger background checks of citizens when none are allowed on him.  His children enjoy armed guards, but other children do not deserve the same consideration  in his estimation. 

Offline Chas

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 1856
  • Karma: +11629/-2363
    • View Profile
Re: Finally.
« Reply #12 on: January 16, 2013, 07:20:39 PM »
Matrsnot  are you just making up stuff as you go?  Did you read the plan by some of your statements I’m going to guess no.
First -If you are going to say that no rifle was used in Newtown but are not going to believe any of the media, then you cannot make the claim that there was no rifle used, unless you were there and have special knowledge that no one else has. If the final report is not out and you don’t believe the media you cannot back up your statement.
Second- there were background checks on Obama. I don’t think it is a requirement  to run for office but it should be.
Third- In the plan it states Some schools will want trained and armed police; others may prefer increased counseling services. Either way each district should be able to choose what is best to protect its own students.   That is pretty plain if they want arm guards they can have them.

Offline Hi

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 903
  • Karma: +13281/-13254
  • Go to your profile and put something here.
    • View Profile
Re: Finally.
« Reply #13 on: January 16, 2013, 07:41:03 PM »
Here are obamas executive orders on the matter.
 
  • Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.
  • 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.
  • Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.
  • 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.
  • Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.
  • Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.
  • Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.
  • Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).
  • Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.
  • Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.
  • Nominate an ATF director.
  • Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.
  • Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.
  • Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.
  • Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies
  • Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.
  • Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.
  • Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.
  • Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.
  • Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.
  • Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.
  • Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.
  • Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.
Here is what congress has to vote for
 
Require criminal background checks for all gun sales. (a.k.a. closing the "gun show loophole.")Reinstate and strengthen the assault weapons ban.Restore the 10-round limit on ammunition magazines.Protect police by finishing the job of getting rid of armor-piercing bullets.Give law enforcement additional tools to prevent and prosecute gun crime.End the freeze on gun violence research.Make our schools safer with more school resource officers and school counselors, safer climates, and better emergency response plans. Help ensure that young people get the mental health treatment they need.Ensure health insurance plans cover mental health benefits.

Offline Hi

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 903
  • Karma: +13281/-13254
  • Go to your profile and put something here.
    • View Profile
Re: Finally.
« Reply #14 on: January 16, 2013, 07:41:53 PM »
OBAMA IS SOOOOOO SCARY.

Offline matrsnot

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 7612
  • Karma: +489606/-6227
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Finally.
« Reply #15 on: January 16, 2013, 07:44:24 PM »
Please note he is also going to usurp HIPPA laws as they don't agree with his view.

Also leaving it up to Holder to decide who cann or cannot have guns.  Remember the MIAC report?

Yeah, we can really trust these hypocrites.
 
Armor piercing bullets?  You all must be kidding.  ANY high powered rifle bullet is capable of piercing police armor.

His Decrees:

The following is a list, provided by the White House, of executive actions President Obama plans to take to address gun violence.

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 it widely 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 effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative 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.



Offline matrsnot

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 7612
  • Karma: +489606/-6227
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Finally.
« Reply #16 on: January 16, 2013, 08:47:44 PM »
Another thought toward their hypocrisy:  They seem to have conveniently forgotten about Fast and Furious where the government fostered multiple mass murders in Mexico with their illegal sales of guns across the border.  And then covered it up.  He and Holder both need jailing.

Offline Hi

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 903
  • Karma: +13281/-13254
  • Go to your profile and put something here.
    • View Profile
Re: Finally.
« Reply #17 on: January 16, 2013, 08:59:34 PM »
It's a shame more than half of the country disagrees with you huh?  How's it feel to be in the minority? 

Offline Chas

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 1856
  • Karma: +11629/-2363
    • View Profile
Re: Finally.
« Reply #18 on: January 16, 2013, 09:09:19 PM »
What about your off the wall comments about no rifle at Newtown? Or Obama not wanting guns in schools? If the HIPPA laws say that that doctors can't tell law enforcement about crazy people then they need unsurped.

Offline matrsnot

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 7612
  • Karma: +489606/-6227
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Finally.
« Reply #19 on: January 16, 2013, 09:42:14 PM »
Off the wall on the rifle.  He is stating that the HIPAA laws are to be ignored if it is convenient for his agenda.  HE states they are unnecessary.  Obama wants guns in the school where HIS children are.  He is only encouraging resource officers out in the different schools.   Like I said. hypocrisy of the elite.  His people carry guns.  Feinstein carries and had bodyguards.  Shumer carries and has body guards.  Bloomberg has bodyguards (armed). What the hell makes them better than any other citizen?  Nothing.  Not one thing.

Offline Hi

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 903
  • Karma: +13281/-13254
  • Go to your profile and put something here.
    • View Profile
Re: Finally.
« Reply #20 on: January 16, 2013, 10:03:37 PM »
You just need to find a problem in everything Obama does, your not rational when it comes to Obama, and you may not be sane either at this point.  Obama has made you crazy!

Offline Chas

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 1856
  • Karma: +11629/-2363
    • View Profile
Re: Finally.
« Reply #21 on: January 16, 2013, 10:46:42 PM »
Obama’s kids would and do have protection no matter what school they would go to. All presidents’ children get Secret Service protection.  Are Obama’s kids more important than mine? No, however they are more at risk than mine. The fact is the rich, politicians, diplomats etc. kids are going to be at more risk than your average kid. They go to private schools that are paid for by the parents that can afford but when Obama does it is the ”hypocrisy of the elite” but when Obama was going after the rich for higher taxes because they can afford he was wrong for going after the rich.  In the full plan he states school can have armed guards.  Would an armed guard stop the shooting at Newtown no? Would it caused less death, more than likely, assuming they weren’t killed first? Columbine had an armed sheriff’s deputy who traded shots with one of the killers did it help maybe I’m sure it didn’t hurt.  It also didn’t stop the killing and the killers committed suicide.  Will the EOs and bans stop people from killing people no everyone knows that but they may save some.  I don’t have a problem with armed guards at schools but I also don’t believe that will stop everyone that wants to shoot up a school, but they can help.
Hypothetically let’s say all the schools have armed guards and it stops the killing in schools. Now the people that are going to start killing in more malls at the movies then we start having arm guards in these places before long we have an arm guard at every street corner a de facto police state.
 While there is no good answer do nothing is not an answer at all.

Offline matrsnot

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 7612
  • Karma: +489606/-6227
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Finally.
« Reply #22 on: January 16, 2013, 11:22:41 PM »
THAT is why citizens carry.

Offline matrsnot

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 7612
  • Karma: +489606/-6227
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Finally.
« Reply #23 on: January 16, 2013, 11:35:39 PM »
County Sheriffs Can Stop Gun Control

 President Obama has given his comic sidekick the task of pushing gun control measures through Congress. Democrats and some liberal Republicans are calling for more gun control after the tragic shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School. Some state and municipal politicians, like the #1 anti-gun person in the nation – New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, are also calling for more control.

 But did you know that no matter what gun control laws are passed by the federal government, they can only be enforced in your area if your county sheriff allows them to be.

 Most people, including politicians fail to realize that the ultimate legal authorities in the land are the county sheriffs. This was established from the time of the Founding Fathers and upheld by the US Supreme Court in the 1997 case of Printz v. United States. Initially, the case was Mack v. United States, but by the time it reached the Supreme Court it was renamed.

Offline Racer

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 607
  • Karma: +169381/-3619
    • View Profile
Re: Finally.
« Reply #24 on: January 17, 2013, 04:50:20 AM »
Obama’s kids would and do have protection no matter what school they would go to. All presidents’ children get Secret Service protection.  Are Obama’s kids more important than mine? No, however they are more at risk than mine. The fact is the rich, politicians, diplomats etc. kids are going to be at more risk than your average kid. They go to private schools that are paid for by the parents that can afford but when Obama does it is the ”hypocrisy of the elite” but when Obama was going after the rich for higher taxes because they can afford he was wrong for going after the rich.  In the full plan he states school can have armed guards.  Would an armed guard stop the shooting at Newtown no? Would it caused less death, more than likely, assuming they weren’t killed first? Columbine had an armed sheriff’s deputy who traded shots with one of the killers did it help maybe I’m sure it didn’t hurt.  It also didn’t stop the killing and the killers committed suicide.  Will the EOs and bans stop people from killing people no everyone knows that but they may save some.  I don’t have a problem with armed guards at schools but I also don’t believe that will stop everyone that wants to shoot up a school, but they can help.
Hypothetically let’s say all the schools have armed guards and it stops the killing in schools. Now the people that are going to start killing in more malls at the movies then we start having arm guards in these places before long we have an arm guard at every street corner a de facto police state.
 While there is no good answer do nothing is not an answer at all.

 
Thank you Chas..  Great post    :th_gen129:

Offline fireman_jeff

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 263
  • Karma: +46825/-108
  • Gender: Male
  • Common sense isn't so common
    • View Profile
Re: Finally.
« Reply #25 on: January 18, 2013, 09:51:40 PM »
To bad the 2nd amendment doesnt stipulate the process involved to get guns. So unless he outright bans them hes in the clear.  He could also outlaw ammunition and be in the clear. As far as violating 2nd amendment rights, dont they already do that to felons?

Seriously? Felons give up their rights by breaking the law. And how does stiffer gun laws affect criminals? It doesn't. It only hurts the law abiding citizens!
 
I have another good idea... Let's make heroin and meth illegal. That should cure the drug problem.
1*

Offline Chas

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 1856
  • Karma: +11629/-2363
    • View Profile
Re: Finally.
« Reply #26 on: January 18, 2013, 10:39:52 PM »
You can’t own a gun if have been dishonorable discharged from the military either, of course if that happened you probably did time in a military prison as well. Felons can get their gun rights back in some cases. I have to agree though using felons as a case for violating 2nd amendment rights makes little sense it was found to constitutional years ago and I would think with good reason in most cases.
All the Mack an Printz v. US did was to say that federal government couldn’t draft the police officers of the 50 states into its service.  In the end it didn’t matter since the Brady act required a National instant background check system done by the FBI.
 I would also bet it would be news to Kevin Hillman that the Sheriff is the ultimate legal authority in the county. The sheriff is the highest law enforcement in the county.  If the state said that the sheriff had to do back ground checks then I would think that sheriff would have to do them.  A sheriff can’t decide that it ok have meth labs and drink and drive in his county.

Offline matrsnot

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 7612
  • Karma: +489606/-6227
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Finally.
« Reply #27 on: January 18, 2013, 11:11:46 PM »
The sheriff does background checks.  They are done every time a citizen applies for a CCW or renews.  Try checking out  State HB 170 I believe.  Class D felony for them to come to enforce those illegal laws.

Offline Chas

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 1856
  • Karma: +11629/-2363
    • View Profile
Re: Finally.
« Reply #28 on: January 18, 2013, 11:41:03 PM »
The problem with with State HB170 is, "the Supreme Court has ruled that state nullification is unconstitutional and even conservative legal experts have agreed with this assessment." While states can pass laws that are odds with federal law they do not override federal law. Washington and Colorado legalized weed it still against federal law. Can the sheriff go on post and make an arrest without permission from post? The base is in the county so by saying he is the highest law enforcement then he should be able to. But I really don't know if he can or can't

Offline matrsnot

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 7612
  • Karma: +489606/-6227
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Finally.
« Reply #29 on: January 19, 2013, 12:18:55 AM »
Actually it has not done that.  State nullification is at the 9th Circuit at the moment.
As for the rifle comment:

a liberal new organization says I was correct:  http://www.ijreview.com/2013/01/30208-nbc-admits-no-assault-rifle-used-in-newtown-shooting/