County Sheriffs Position Paper on Gun Control

[That One Guy]

Originally Posted by TonyR

Oh? So on the one hand we have gun control measures which are perfectly reasonable, whereas on the other hand we have a fear that these controls will take away both one's guns and one's rights, which is not reasonable.

The idea of gun control measures is based on the obvious factual evidence showing that guns are misused for violence in this country, that guns are too easily accessed, and that there is no good use for certain types of guns. Somehow this common sense is then taken as the evil government trying to create a totalitarian police state.

Yes, exactly the same...

So what exactly changed in the late 90s which caused school shootings and murderous rampages to become so common? A new bullet? Gun prices dropped?

[Pony Boy]

Originally Posted by W*GS

Sheriffs are obligated to uphold the law. They do not have the power to refuse to enforce the law.

I take it you're a big city guy and have never been in any of the thousands of rural areas where the local sheriff is the law.

Local Sheriffs are not appointed by the federal government. They are elected by the local citizens and will uphold and enforce the laws according to the priority and needs of the people that elect him and sign his pay check.

It's the same as the high school football coach, if he doesn't listen to the local town business owners that support the school and the members of the school board, he will be coaching somewhere else next season.

Also more than likely the local sheriff will be a card carrying member of the NRA.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by Pony Boy

I take it you're a big city guy and have never been in any of the thousands of rural areas where the local sheriff is the law.

Local Sheriffs are not appointed by the federal government. They are elected by the local citizens and will uphold and enforce the laws according to the priority and needs of the people that elect him and sign his pay check.

The sheriff does not get to decide which laws pass muster and which don't.

If the local citizens want him to run all the gays out of town, he cannot follow their "needs".

All LEOs must enforce the law as it is, not what they wish it was. Period.

[That One Guy]

Originally Posted by W*GS

The sheriff does not get to decide which laws pass muster and which don't.

If the local citizens want him to run all the gays out of town, he cannot follow their "needs".

All LEOs must enforce the law as it is, not what they wish it was. Period.

"Lack of resources" then looking the other way is the oldest move in the book.

[Pony Boy]

Originally Posted by W*GS

The sheriff does not get to decide which laws pass muster and which don't.

If the local citizens want him to run all the gays out of town, he cannot follow their "needs".

All LEOs must enforce the law as it is, not what they wish it was. Period.

JFC ....... what rock did you crawl out from under, you do know that local sheriffs are elected and are usually good old boys that grew up in the community right? The local sheriff in my town plays in the big Thursday night poker game (Illegal) and then watches everybody drive home after a few too many beers (illegal). He is also the first in line to pickup his football betting cards (illegal). He will probably be elected again next year by a wide margin.

I would be willing to bet several of those Colorado sheriffs that signed that letter fit the same profile.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by Pony Boy

JFC ....... what rock did you crawl out from under, you do know that local sheriffs are elected and are usually good old boys that grew up in the community right? The local sheriff in my town plays in the big Thursday night poker game (Illegal) and then watches everybody drive home after a few too many beers (illegal). He is also the first in line to pickup his football betting cards (illegal). He will probably be elected again next year by a wide margin.

I would be willing to bet several of those Colorado sheriffs that signed that letter fit the same profile.

In other words, troglodyte sheriffs from troglodyte areas will do as they want.

No surprise there.

They're violating their oath of office when they do so, you know.

[lonestar]

Originally Posted by myMind

You should stop posting while drunk and or in a fugue state due to your old man alzheimers. Your grammar is horrendous and it makes you come across as an ignorant hick...which I'm sure you are. I took you off of ignore just long enough to read and reaffirm my opinion of your opinions. Well...bye.

well there you go thinking again.

Just another one of the mindless libs that need to change the subject, or attack when they can not refute a statement..

Ms. King in second grade was a grammar Nazi also, it matter back then, today I could less about what a far left liberal thinks..

read or do not read I will not lose any sleep over it..

My post was for those that have the ability to think for themselves.. Clearly you do not..

sorry but I can't help myself.. mymind is a terrible thing to waste..

[lonestar]

Originally Posted by ant1999e

Glad you add so much to the conversation. ****ing idiot.

kind of thinking the same thing Myself..

when unable to refute attack, attack, attack..

[lonestar]

Originally Posted by That One Guy

So what exactly changed in the late 90s which caused school shootings and murderous rampages to become so common? A new bullet? Gun prices dropped?

I'll take a Wild Assed Guess Gun Free Zones..

[lonestar]

Originally Posted by Pony Boy

I take it you're a big city guy and have never been in any of the thousands of rural areas where the local sheriff is the law.

Local Sheriffs are not appointed by the federal government. They are elected by the local citizens and will uphold and enforce the laws according to the priority and needs of the people that elect him and sign his pay check.

It's the same as the high school football coach, if he doesn't listen to the local town business owners that support the school and the members of the school board, he will be coaching somewhere else next season.

Also more than likely the local sheriff will be a card carrying member of the NRA.

he will be the guy that waits 45 minutes for the Police to arrive in a home invasion.. then whine and cry about how slow the response was IF they showed up at all..

ahahahahahahahaha

[lonestar]

Originally Posted by Pony Boy

JFC ....... what rock did you crawl out from under, you do know that local sheriffs are elected and are usually good old boys that grew up in the community right? The local sheriff in my town plays in the big Thursday night poker game (Illegal) and then watches everybody drive home after a few too many beers (illegal). He is also the first in line to pickup his football betting cards (illegal). He will probably be elected again next year by a wide margin.

I would be willing to bet several of those Colorado sheriffs that signed that letter fit the same profile.

I'll also bet that real crime is under control where he is the law..

Also bet he is a conservative.. not a flaming liberal..

[nyuk nyuk]

Originally Posted by W*GS

Sheriffs are obligated to uphold the law. They do not have the power to refuse to enforce the law.

No, that's what federal agencies and the White House are for. When those higher-ups tell the locals to ignore the law, the locals are expected to march lockstep.

[nyuk nyuk]

Originally Posted by myMind

I still dont understand why you gun nuts think the government is going to try and keep you from owning a gun. I really dont give a **** if you own a handgun, hunting rifle, or shotgun. Neither do they. A ban on civilians owning assault weapons of any kind and making the registration proccess to own normal firearms more stringent is not an attack on our constitutional rights. You can still own guns people, calm down.

If you cared to get off your can and read the paper instead of blindly dismissing it, you'd find an answer to this.

Just saying.

[nyuk nyuk]

Originally Posted by TonyR

These people desperately need someone/something to be mad at, to be scared of, to blame. And you can't change anything. Progress is not allowed, and any attempt to fix something is a threat to their very way of life. So much easier for them to have good guys and bad guys, black and white.

If you actually believed this drivel, you'd call for strict restrictions on alcohol sales, if not outright bans on booze. After all, when that many are killed each year by drunken drivers, we should all be frightened/threatened/outraged that something isn't being done to put a stop to it. Yet you and yours utter not one word or lift one finger, unless it's to lift a mug of ale to your chops.

NO, instead we're told to ban "assault weapons" of which the definition is vague and nearly 100% based on the cosmetic appearance of the gun which basically translates to "it's big and scary and something the Terminator would carry" based on nothing more than rare, small numbers of people actually being hurt/killed by these weapons by very rare abusers of the weapon.

Now that is MENSA-worthy, brah.

Shelf that one under Why I'm No Longer a Liberal.

[nyuk nyuk]

Originally Posted by That One Guy

The irony. This is exactly the thing driving the gun control measures.

BINGO.

There is nothing rational in this whatsoever, and the sheriffs report in the opening post in here explains that in detail - yet these gun snatchers come in here, refuse to read what the sheriffs say, and try to defecate everywhere.

[BroncoInferno]

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk

If you actually believed this drivel, you'd call for strict restrictions on alcohol sales, if not outright bans on booze. After all, when that many are killed each year by drunken drivers, we should all be frightened/threatened/outraged that something isn't being done to put a stop to it. Yet you and yours utter not one word or lift one finger, unless it's to lift a mug of ale to your chops.

What the hell are you talking about? We have laws restricting the possession/use of alcohol, dumbass. You're not allowed to operate a vehicle while impaired, you aren't allowed to have an open container in your vehicle, and you aren't allowed to possess/consume alcohol before the age of 21. You are allowed to possess/drink alcohol as long as you're over 21 and not operating a vehicle while impaired. You know, what sane people call common sense restrictions.

[nyuk nyuk]

Originally Posted by BroncoInferno

What the hell are you talking about? We have laws restricting the possession/use of alcohol, dumbass. You're not allowed to operate a vehicle while impaired, you aren't allowed to have an open container in your vehicle, and you aren't allowed to possess/consume alcohol before the age of 21. You are allowed to possess/drink alcohol as long as you're over 21 and not operating a vehicle while impaired. You know, what sane people call common sense restrictions.

LMAO. We already have laws on the safe/legal use of guns.

So what are you whining about?

Alcohol law violations kill far more than "assault weapons" ever could/did. So be consistent. Ban your booze.

[DenverBrit]

Originally Posted by That One Guy

Ruin the effect, I guess, might be a better way to put it.

I don't think anything could 'ruin the effect' of the US murder rate.

Lowering it might though, now there's a thought.

Why is it that any discussion about guns after a mass murder appears off limits? In fact, any discussion seems to get translated into....'they're coming to take our guns away,' which of course is exactly the message the lobbyists want to project.
And for the NRA, it's a cash windfall every time.

Is it really so difficult to get bi-partisan talks about gun murders and real solutions, instead of more of the same rhetoric we get every time? We all have a vested interest in closing loopholes and keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, criminals, terrorists etc.

So far, the gun lobby's answer has been, we need more guns!!

Has anyone read this yet??

From internecine warfare, media manipulation, and executive bankrolling to gun control bills and school massacres, Richard Feldman, former NRA regional political director and lobbyist for the firearm industry, exposes the NRA as a cynical, mercenary political cult obsessed with wielding power while exploiting members' fear in order to maximize contributions.

The upshot is that the NRA is not an effective advocate for its members' interests. Obsessed with fundraising, scare-mongering, and wielding political power, NRA leadership undermines commonsense solutions that would protect gun owners' rights while reducing accidental shootings and gun violence.

"Ricochet tells the truth.
With each page I can hear the echo of footsteps down the Rayburn Building's marbled halls as Feldman tells the intimate story few know and even fewer survive"
-- Hon. Jack Brooks, former Chairman U.S. House Judiciary Committee

"Ricochet casts an eye-opening spotlight on the shadowy world of behind-the-scenes gun politics.
Is it accurate? Absolutely! I was there."
-- John Aquilino, former Director NRA Public Education

"Ricochet is right on target. Feldman's behind-the-scenes memoir vividly describes America's firearms debate
and struggle to win in extraordinary detail. I thoroughly enjoyed it."
-- John W. Magaw, former Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms

http://www.mlscommunication.com/

[That One Guy]

^Nobody is interested in talks of any sort. Everyone has their mind made up. Anyone that can speak absolutely on the topic at all is merely comfortable in speaking despite ignorance.

[DenverBrit]

This a classic case of a complex problem requiring simple solutions.

[That One Guy]

Originally Posted by DenverBrit

This a classic case of a complex problem requiring simple solutions.

The problem is we disagree on what the problem is.

[DenverBrit]

Originally Posted by That One Guy

The problem is we disagree on what the problem is.

I see the problem as too many innocents being murdered by guns. It is complex, multifaceted and to some degree, divides us.

What do you see?

[That One Guy]

Originally Posted by DenverBrit

I see the problem as too many innocents being murdered by guns. It is complex, multifaceted and to some degree, divides us.

What do you see?

So the number would be ok if it weren't guns killing them? Or should your statement be simply that too many innocent people are being murdered?

[DenverBrit]

Originally Posted by That One Guy

So the number would be ok if it weren't guns killing them? Or should your statement be simply that too many innocent people are being murdered?

That's what you got from my comment? No wonder the NRA are so successful.

If you can't handle the notion that guns are involved in the vast majority of murders, then you are in denial.

Feel free to list the mass murders in the US by knives, blunt instruments and explosions and we'll compare.

[That One Guy]

Originally Posted by DenverBrit

That's what you got from my comment? No wonder the NRA are so successful.

If you can't handle the notion that guns are involved in the vast majority of murders, then you are in denial.

Feel free to list the mass murders in the US by knives, blunt instruments and explosions and we'll compare.

It was a mockery of your position. As I said, you have your position determined already so I know better than to bite.