• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Defiant U.S. sheriffs push gun sanctuaries, imitating liberals on immigration

VanceMack said:
The difference here of course is that by creating a sanctuary city for gun owners, a law enforcement official is actually upholding his or her oath to the Constitution and the protected rights of US citizens, whereas a sanctuary city is a specific act to defy and sanction breaking existing US immigration law by illegal immigrants.
Click to expand...

While ignoring the part of their oath that requires them to uphold state laws....
 
BlueTex said:
While ignoring the part of their oath that requires them to uphold state laws....
Click to expand...

If the laws violate the state constitution then yes.
 
daeler said:
That is why I said the link had some interesting information, since some of the people contained in it that committed mass shootings had purchased firearms legally. Including a person that escaped from a mental institution and had also committed violent crimes. Some of the information is a bit older which may explain some of the odd bits of people getting legal purchases then that they can not do now.
Click to expand...

any system is going to have a few failures. The real problem is this

Anyone who is PROPERLY denied purchasing a firearm after a background check has almost always committed federal perjury. IF YOU ADMIT on Form 4473 that you are a felon, a fugitive, adjudicated mentally incompetent or one of the other several disqualifying categories, the clerk doesn't even bother to call in the information-you are denied on the spot.

And almost every single case of a proper denial, perjury is easily proven. Yet almost NONE of those perjurers are even prosecuted. Same with straw sales-on Form 4473 you answer ARE YOU THE ACTUAL BUYER of this gun. While its not as easy to convict on that versus lying about your status, it is still pretty easy. yet, those crimes are almost never prosecuted.
 
BlueTex said:
While ignoring the part of their oath that requires them to uphold state laws....
Click to expand...

Most of the LEOs I have heard of in this situation are talking about federal laws. But yes, if a law is clearly unconstitutional, it is better to not enforce it than enforcing it and running the risk of causing lots of damage. Since we are talking about new laws-we note that society obviously had been functioning for years without that law being enforced in the first place
 
TurtleDude said:
any system is going to have a few failures. The real problem is this

Anyone who is PROPERLY denied purchasing a firearm after a background check has almost always committed federal perjury. IF YOU ADMIT on Form 4473 that you are a felon, a fugitive, adjudicated mentally incompetent or one of the other several disqualifying categories, the clerk doesn't even bother to call in the information-you are denied on the spot.

And almost every single case of a proper denial, perjury is easily proven. Yet almost NONE of those perjurers are even prosecuted. Same with straw sales-on Form 4473 you answer ARE YOU THE ACTUAL BUYER of this gun. While its not as easy to convict on that versus lying about your status, it is still pretty easy. yet, those crimes are almost never prosecuted.
Click to expand...

I completely agree with you. These are the problems with calling for more and more gun control laws. The laws to help prevent most of the problems are already on the books, we don't really need more. What we need are for the laws to be upheld a bit more stringently and/or to be prosecuted more often.
 
daeler said:
I completely agree with you. These are the problems with calling for more and more gun control laws. The laws to help prevent most of the problems are already on the books, we don't really need more. What we need are for the laws to be upheld a bit more stringently and/or to be prosecuted more often.
Click to expand...

Politicians don't get as much face time CALLING for existing laws to be enforced, nor do they get as much photo ops with crying mothers or others who tug at heart strings, as they do when they can pass something called "the save our children act" or "The safe streets" act or the "Law enforcement protection bill"
 
BlueTex said:
Sheriff's don't determine what violates a state constitution, courts do...
Click to expand...

Evidently a Democratic majority of big city voters thought they knew what was Constitutional.
 
daeler said:
This is a great link very informative. It mentions a lot of people that legally obtained guns that really should not have been able to.
Click to expand...
It also points out the folly of shrieking for Universal Background checks and the irrelevance of arguing for an AR ban, and it clearly demonstrates that people attempting to use school shootings as a springboard to infringe on the rights of 120 million law abiding citizens are repugnant.
 
BlueTex said:
While ignoring the part of their oath that requires them to uphold state laws....
Click to expand...
Do you believe state laws supersede Constitutional rights?
 
BlueTex said:
Sheriff's don't determine what violates a state constitution, courts do...
Click to expand...

Technically juries do. However the Sheriff as the discretion to make charges as well as state in court their opinion of the constitutionality of a law.
 
Rucker61 said:
Evidently a Democratic majority of big city voters thought they knew what was Constitutional.
Click to expand...

Which laws are you referring to with this statement?
 
BlueTex said:
If not in conflict with the constitution, they absolutely do...
Click to expand...

then you haven't answered his question, have you? His question assumed a case where a state law conflicted with a constitutional right.
 
Ahlevah said:
Parkland was an extreme situation. It certainly wasn't normal. And yet liberals use it as justification to outlaw an entire class of firearms (so-called "assault weapons") when, on average, about three hundred people a year are killed with long guns of all types. Compare that to the 70,000-plus people who die from drug overdoses. That's what I call a misalignment of priorities, otherwise known as stupidity.
Click to expand...

There were also several laws and checks in place that should have stopped him...and didnt.

So do you believe in adding MORE restrictions when a) we dont even properly enforce what we have so then b) we dont know what 'more' is needed if those were enforced?
 
BlueTex said:
Which laws are you referring to with this statement?
Click to expand...

Recent Washington state laws on required training for permission to buy and raising the age to purchase certain guns.
 
Rucker61 said:
Yes, tell us how many mass shootings where the shooter used an AR-15 we've had at schools. Heck, tell us, on average each year, how many people have been killed by someone using an "assault weapon" in a mass shooting since 2004.
Click to expand...

Would depend on how you define an "assault weapon". Hell, the 303 was an assault weapon at one time.

Anyway, that was not the question. The AR-15 just makes it easier to kill as many as one wants such as in Las Vegas. And did you happen to notice that as gun ownership increases the more killings we have? But you see, people like don't give a **** what happens to others. When it hits your circle you will.

We have strict drug laws. Do they work?
Click to expand...

Nope, and they won't as long as the minor players pay for the crime, not the big boss man.

And you never have addressed the example of one illegal immigrants actions compared to the millions we have here, or the actions of Native Born Citizens.
 
Old Trapper said:
Would depend on how you define an "assault weapon". Hell, the 303 was an assault weapon at one time.
Click to expand...

For purposes of banning, the term is fairly well defined.

Anyway, that was not the question. The AR-15 just makes it easier to kill as many as one wants such as in Las Vegas.
Click to expand...

I thought that was the bump stock's fault. That's what the Democrats told us. Nice told us a rental truck works just fine.

And did you happen to notice that as gun ownership increases the more killings we have? But you see, people like don't give a **** what happens to others. When it hits your circle you will.
Click to expand...

No, I did notice that since 1986 we've got 200 million more guns, according to ATF records, and our homicide rate is half of what it was in the early 90s. Did you notice that, too?

Nope, and they won't as long as the minor players pay for the crime, not the big boss man.

And you never have addressed the example of one illegal immigrants actions compared to the millions we have here, or the actions of Native Born Citizens.
Click to expand...

Nor will I. Not my circus, not my monkeys.
 
daeler said:
Not sure what facts I am supposed to get straight there. I asked a question, I did not present any facts....
Click to expand...

Don't be disingenuous, because no rational person would answer that question (whether "a guy who escapes from a mental institution and has a history of violent crimes should be able to legally obtain a firearm in the US") in the affirmative.
 
Lursa said:
There were also several laws and checks in place that should have stopped him...and didnt.

So do you believe in adding MORE restrictions when a) we dont even properly enforce what we have so then b) we dont know what 'more' is needed if those were enforced?
Click to expand...

One area that needs improvement is reporting into the NICS and the FBI's handing of that reporting. Anyone who is not legally permitted to possess or purchase a firearm should be in it, along with documents the Bureau needs to substantiate the denial. For some reason statistics in this area are going backwards, with more people being permitting to take possession of firearms because the FBI is unable to substantiate the conviction or mental history of the person within the legally mandated three-day deadline.
 
Rucker61 said:
For purposes of banning, the term is fairly well defined.
Click to expand...

Then why did you ask?

I thought that was the bump stock's fault. That's what the Democrats told us. Nice told us a rental truck works just fine.
Click to expand...

That's what you get for thinking you can think.

No, I did notice that since 1986 we've got 200 million more guns, according to ATF records, and our homicide rate is half of what it was in the early 90s. Did you notice that, too?
Click to expand...

That is old news. Did you notice that the rates are now going back up?

US violent crime and murder down after two years of increases, FBI data shows | US news | The Guardian

These very slight decreases are not enough to return the US to the record low violence levels of the middle years of the Obama presidency. Nearly 3,000 more Americans were murdered in 2017 than in 2013, driving a murder rate about 17% higher than five years ago.

About 73% of US murders are committed with guns, a proportion that has increased in recent years.

Nor will I. Not my circus, not my monkeys.
Click to expand...

Then don't condemn them.
 
Last edited:
Old Trapper said:
Then why did you ask?



That's what you get for thinking you can think.



That is old news. Did you notice that the rates are now going back up?

Nor will I. Not my circus, not my monkeys.

Then don't condemn them.
Click to expand...

You mean the rates are GOING UP after places like California, NY, Md, NJ etc banned lots of things? Hmmm
 
Old Trapper said:
Then why did you ask?
Click to expand...
I asked about the number of deaths caused by them in mass shootings per year, on average, not about the definition of "assault weapon". Since we seem to have an agreement on definitions, you should be able to answer the question.

That's what you get for thinking you can think.
Click to expand...
Personal attacks ill become you.

That is old news. Did you notice that the rates are now going back up?
Click to expand...

Yes, I have. What has changed to make those rates go up? Is there a causal effect you'd like to show us?


Then don't condemn them.
Click to expand...

I defy you to find a single instance here where I've condemned immigrants or compared their actions to those of people born here. We have enough to disagree about, I'm sure, without you attributing arguments to me that I've not made.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom