The Gun Debate That Will Happen Whether You Like It Or Not

[MathiasOfAthens]

Haven't you seen the outsales across the US? No one gives a dirt what you want, what you demand how others should live. No one cares except for looters who are just like you, demanding things.

The Americans ain't as stupid as the germans who turned in their guns becaus of whatever after a massacre, they gear up for the next.
What i find so amusing? You. I find you amusing sitting in your socialist ruled open air prison and being loud about how others should live to be secure and demanding the hole day. You are so amusing.

I live in socialist europe and its no ing open air prison. We are ing secure over here. What is sad is that after every ing massacre in the states you guys get all ing scared and go out and buy more guns and a month later there is another massacre and those guns you bought didnt ing help.

You think being able to buy automatic rifles from gunshows or whatever somehow protects you or makes you freer. I think your wrong. A shotgun is enough imo to protect your home.

[Ciabhán]

Everyone raise your hand: Who here has been to POST?

I'm a 'guest' out at Forsyth on a regular basis. Went through as a candidate a little over a decade ago.

[Arch]

Ok, you dont want to close the gunshow sale loophole or stop gun trafficking. Your not against criminal background checks on ALL gun purchases and you dont agree with lifting the ban on federal research into gun violence or putting more counselors in our schools because the former is enlarging government and the later is intruding in our private lives.

What are your solutions then?

Solution to what? School shootings?

Have you ever heard of the idea that the government is not the tool of a solution but merely an instrument of law and national protection, and that problems like these should be solved between men?

If people are paranoid and think that school shootings will happen to exactly them in 300 million + nation, then that's their problem, not anyone elses. Might aswell build a rocket base to divert comets next to your school.

[motiv-8]

Oregon sheriff blatantly and loudly advocates violation of the constitution, says he intends to do so, is supported by tens of thousands. America!

An Oregon sheriff says he will not enforce any federal regulation that President Barack Obama lays out in his package of gun control proposals Wednesday.
Linn County Sheriff Tim Mueller joins several other public officials across the nation who have decided to square off with the White House even before it outlines what its plans are for expanded measures.
Mueller sent a letter to Vice President Joe Biden this week saying he won't enforce any federal regulation "offending the constitutional rights of my citizens." He won't permit federal officers to come to his county to enforce such laws either, he said.
Mueller's defiant stand exploded into a groundswell of support. His letter -- posted on the department's Facebook page -- earned more than 59,000 likes and shares -- and was growing by the minute.
Over the weekend, Sheriff Denny Peyman of Jackson County, Kentucky, said that he too would disobey any directive from the administration. He told residents in a town hall meeting that the sheriff has more power than the federal government.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/16/us/ore...html?hpt=hp_t2

The best part is when these sorts of people use "the constitution" in their argument to... violate the constitution. There's also this bit in the article where an elected representative refers to another elected representative as a monarch. Priceless!

[Dr Zoidberg]

The best part is when these sorts of people use "the constitution" in their argument to... violate the constitution.

At the risk of bringing down a 'Muerica Jihad' upon myself; perhaps if so much faith and blind following wasn't placed on a 200 year old document?

[motiv-8]

At the risk of bringing down a 'Muerica Jihad' upon myself; perhaps if so much faith and blind following wasn't placed on a 200 year old document?

I will keep my legally-registered assault weapon at waist level while I ask the following question: is this an argument against blindly following something, or against 200 year old documents? Choose the next words carefully.

[Ciabhán]

Oregon sheriff blatantly and loudly advocates violation of the constitution, says he intends to do so, is supported by tens of thousands. America!

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/16/us/ore...html?hpt=hp_t2

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/16/us/ore...html?hpt=hp_t2

The best part is when these sorts of people use "the constitution" in their argument to... violate the constitution. There's also this bit in the article where an elected representative refers to another elected representative as a monarch. Priceless!

I'm actually not all that familiar with the constitution. What is the sheriff violating? Federal law and state law are often at odds and it seems this would be a case of that. Unless it's written in the constitution that states are obligated to follow any federal laws? I sort of doubt that seeing as I've always been under the impression that the writers weren't particularly fond of central government to begin with but honestly don't know.

[motiv-8]

The sheriff's job is in no way, shape, or fashion deciding what is or what is or what is not constitutional. He is not legally capable of interpreting law. His sole role is enforcing law. He is failing in his job -- which in many areas, I'm not sure about Oregon, is an elected position -- and violating his constitutionally-defined role as a member of the executive by advocating and planning to act in the way he is.

[Ciabhán]

I get that. But if I remember correctly the sheriff is technically there to enforce STATE law. Not federal.

[motiv-8]

Federal law supercedes state law in most cases except those designed otherwise or those challenged and struck by a court. A sheriff has absolutely no capacity to make that call himself.

But you're right, a sheriff enforces state law, or local law as sheriffs are county-based. Federal agencies enforce federal law. Where the problem comes into play then is where the Kentucky sheriff said he will not allow federal agencies to enforce federal law.

[Dr Zoidberg]

I will keep my legally-registered assault weapon at waist level while I ask the following question: is this an argument against blindly following something, or against 200 year old documents? Choose the next words carefully.

The first bit. My own constitution is over 100 years old, so I can assure you I've nothing against old documents.

[Valiant Champion]

The amendments preempt federal law. A law officer oath is both to defend the constitution and uphold the law. The constitution preempts the law.

When in doubt you obey the stronger document.

[motiv-8]

The amendments preempt federal law. A law officer oath is both to defend the constitution and uphold the law. The constitution preempts the law.

When in doubt you obey the stronger document.

No, that is not how it works. A law officer has absolutely no ability and no right to say, "well the law says this, but I think the constitution says this and means this, so no go!" That is purely the purview of the court.

I took an oath to defend the and uphold the constitution. That also does not mean I get to choose what or what not to do today because I personally think the constitutions says or means x. I am immediately bound to follow the orders given to me and the contents of the UCMJ.

[Gaidin]

No, that is not how it works. A law officer has absolutely no ability and no right to say, "well the law says this, but I think the constitution says this and means this, so no go!" That is purely the purview of the court.

I took an oath to defend the and uphold the constitution. That also does not mean I get to choose what or what not to do today because I personally think the constitutions says or means x. I am immediately bound to follow the orders given to me and the contents of the UCMJ.

The executive has prerogative of first interpretation. As a lower rank you follow instructions on how to execute that interpretation, but the executive always gets first interpretation. No law gets "interpreted" as you would put it, until it comes before the courts. And that requires a case. But that case requires, for lack of a better term, an execution of said law.

[craziii]

check this out

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolit...ebate?roundtwo

[The spartan]

So because someone has criminally entered my house, there is a possibility that they're not a threat. I'll remember that next time I'm jumped, I'll just play along because there is a possibility they're not a threat.

Yeah, because that's exactly what I said.

Sorry, i don't believe in completely unrestricted gun control. All of our rights have limits, including our right to bear arms.

BS, if I want to own and operate a minigun, it is my right. I mean, it isn't like there have many crimes committed with a minigun, so it isn't dangerous.

[Gaidin]

check this out

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolit...ebate?roundtwo

Research has been illegal due to gun lobbying managing to get a law passed outlawing agencies to do research regarding the effect of gun laws. This happened early to mid 2000s.

[motiv-8]

The executive has prerogative of first interpretation. As a lower rank you follow instructions on how to execute that interpretation, but the executive always gets first interpretation. No law gets "interpreted" as you would put it, until it comes before the courts. And that requires a case. But that case requires, for lack of a better term, an execution of said law.

Right, but that's why the correct end of Valiant Champion's sentence starting with "When in doubt..." is "...enforce the law and let the court do its job."

[R]esearch has been illegal due to gun lobbying managing to get a law passed outlawing agencies to do research regarding the effect of gun laws. This happened early to mid 2000s.

Wow, that is absolutely bonkers.

[Simon Cashmere]

Federal law supercedes state law in most cases except those designed otherwise or those challenged and struck by a court. A sheriff has absolutely no capacity to make that call himself.

But you're right, a sheriff enforces state law, or local law as sheriffs are county-based. Federal agencies enforce federal law. Where the problem comes into play then is where the Kentucky sheriff said he will not allow federal agencies to enforce federal law.

He is jumping the gun, the President hasn't issued the executive order yet. It could be valid, it may not be. Properly advised by the DA or the county's outside lawyers, they could make a challenge at that time.

What I find interesting is that superior courts of record cannot make invalid orders, they must be obeyed, until set aside, even if they were beyond power. A President however, if he makes an order beyond power - can just be ignored. It would probably be more prudent to get it challenged in court however.

[Arch]

The sheriff's job is in no way, shape, or fashion deciding what is or what is or what is not constitutional. He is not legally capable of interpreting law. His sole role is enforcing law. He is failing in his job -- which in many areas, I'm not sure about Oregon, is an elected position -- and violating his constitutionally-defined role as a member of the executive by advocating and planning to act in the way he is.

I'm thinking this is rather a refusal of enforcing that law, like a strike. Striking is not the same thing as failing your job.