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

[TurtleDude]

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.


Personal attacks ill become you.



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




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.

For 25 years, the numbers of semi auto firearms in the USA, along with normal capacity magazines that go with them, have been increasing rapidly. For most of these 25 years, crime rates have fallen below what they were when the Clinton anti gun laws were passed.

For 25 years, the numbers of Americans legally carrying firearms has skyrocketed as shall issue states went from less than 12 to I believe 44 or so. Yet, despite the predictions of doom and gloom by the anti ccw hysterics, for most of those 25 years, crime rates dropped below what they were before most people could legally carry firearms on our streets.

In the last several years, Democrats in office have passed punitive anti-gun owner laws in several major states such as California, NY, NJ, CT and Md. Maybe its those stupid laws that are more responsible for the rates going up than the other things?

 

[daeler]

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.

I wasn't being disingenuous, the question was legit, I needed to know if I was dealing with a rational person or someone who just commented to comment. Besides all that, if you check the link and read through the people that were able to purchase firearms legally that committed the mass shootings included you start to wonder why they were able to. I think it is a bit like when you are a teenager and you want to buy some beer for a party, everyone "knows" a place where they don't really check, or it could be that some of those people just fell through some cracks in the system.

Either way I was just saying that the link provides some thought provoking data.

 

[marke]

Reaffirming what this liberal has always believed- enforcement of laws passed hundreds of miles away should reflect local priorities and standards.

We should obey only laws passed within a hundred miles of where we live? Five hundred miles? Two miles?

 

[trouble13]

Why aren't they suing?

They dont need to

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Grand Mal]

We should obey only laws passed within a hundred miles of where we live? Five hundred miles? Two miles?

Reductio ad absurdum.
Listen. I'll give you the simplest example I can think of. Before pot laws changed the consequences of being arrested with a small amount were less in Vancouver than in Lethbridge, Alberta because the community standards are different and that's how it should be. Unless in your country everybody thinks the same from coast to coast and border to boeder it is (or should be) the same in the US.

 

[Ahlevah]

I wasn't being disingenuous, the question was legit, I needed to know if I was dealing with a rational person or someone who just commented to comment. Besides all that, if you check the link and read through the people that were able to purchase firearms legally that committed the mass shootings included you start to wonder why they were able to. I think it is a bit like when you are a teenager and you want to buy some beer for a party, everyone "knows" a place where they don't really check, or it could be that some of those people just fell through some cracks in the system.

Either way I was just saying that the link provides some thought provoking data.

Stephen Paddock, the Las Vegas shooter, had no criminal or mental history that would have prevented him from purchasing a firearm through legal channels. On the other hand, the Charleston shooter, Dylann Roof, should never have had such a purchase authorized:

On April 11, Roof tried to buy a handgun at a store in West Columbia, S.C. And under normal procedure, that paperwork was assigned to an examiner at the FBI's unit in West Virginia. The unnamed FBI examiner turned up Roof's arrest on March 1 on a felony drug charge — but the system did not show a conviction, and it wasn't enough to deny the purchase.

So she kept checking. And, Comey said, the first mistake comes in here. Roof's rap sheet mistakenly listed the Lexington County, S.C., sheriff's office as the arresting authority. The examiner then reached out to the sheriff's office and prosecutors in Lexington for more information.

The sheriff's office told her the Roof case was not theirs and advised her to check with police in Columbia, S.C.

And now, Comey said, the second mistake was made. The examiner consulted a contact sheet for local contacts in Lexington County, and didn't see anything for Columbia. So she called West Columbia, where Roof allegedly tried to buy the gun, instead. Local authorities in West Columbia said they had no record of the case, and the examiner turned to other matters while she waited to hear from prosecutors.

Under the normal process, if gun dealers do not hear back from the FBI with a flat denial in three business days, they are free to sell the weapon to the person who filled out the biographical paperwork. And that's what the gun store did with Roof on April 16.

FBI Says Background Check Error Let Charleston Shooting Suspect Buy Gun

But, honestly, I'm not sure how we prevent someone bent on committing mass murder from doing it. All you need these days to kill 80-plus people in forty-five seconds is access to a truck (2016 Nice truck attack).

 

[Ahlevah]

Recent Washington state laws on required training for permission to buy and raising the age to purchase certain guns.

We tell an 18-year-old person he can get married, have and be responsible for raising kids, purchase a home and sign contracts, vote, join the Marines to possibly die for his country while ensuring the rights of OTHER Americans, and yet we can deny him his constitutional right to protect his family and property by owning and possessing a firearm. That's bull**** and needs to get shot down by the courts on constitutional grounds.

 

[marke]

Reductio ad absurdum.
Listen. I'll give you the simplest example I can think of. Before pot laws changed the consequences of being arrested with a small amount were less in Vancouver than in Lethbridge, Alberta because the community standards are different and that's how it should be. Unless in your country everybody thinks the same from coast to coast and border to boeder it is (or should be) the same in the US.

Smoking pot in the cockpit likely contributed to the failure of the pilots to properly set the flaps and failure to heed nd react to the alarm which sounded because the flaps were not set before takeoff. 65 Dead, including two pot-smoking pilots, LAPA Flight 3142, 1999..

 

[Grand Mal]

Smoking pot in the cockpit likely contributed to the failure of the pilots to properly set the flaps and failure to heed nd react to the alarm which sounded because the flaps were not set before takeoff. 65 Dead, including two pot-smoking pilots, LAPA Flight 3142, 1999..

What the hell are you talking about? What kind of drug is leading your thoughts all over the map? We're talking about regional diferences in law enforcement priorities, not your deluded fantasies of pot-smoking pilots.
Gawdammit man, give your head a shake and see if that's enough to make you keep some semblance of focus.

 

[jamesrage]

Remember the 2nd Amendment Sanctuary movement in Illinois last year? The idea seems to be catching on:



The divergence between the interests of major metropolitan areas and more rural areas of states will become a bigger problem going forward as politics become more polarized. We're seeing here in microcosm what would happen in the United States between states with large, urban centers and more rural states should the country ever institute a more direct democracy.

Good for the sheriffs for upholding their oath to defend the Constitution.

 

[zsu2357]

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.

The reporting or NICS system is fine as it is. Why make the law abiding person pay for someone else's bungling (aka state,federal)with more "improvements" that will be just as worthless?

 

[zsu2357]

We tell an 18-year-old person he can get married, have and be responsible for raising kids, purchase a home and sign contracts, vote, join the Marines to possibly die for his country while ensuring the rights of OTHER Americans, and yet we can deny him his constitutional right to protect his family and property by owning and possessing a firearm. That's bull**** and needs to get shot down by the courts on constitutional grounds.

I'll bet that if every 18 year old that WAS going to enlist decided to wait until he/she turned 21 the proverbial sh** would hit the fan.

 

[Ahlevah]

The reporting or NICS system is fine as it is. Why make the law abiding person pay for someone else's bungling (aka state,federal)with more "improvements" that will be just as worthless?

The people who pay are the ones who are dead. If we don't get a handle on this, then changes will be made to the system, and I doubt they'll be for the better. The American public does not want loons and felons walking into gun stores and walking out with weapons.

 

[zsu2357]

The people who pay are the ones who are dead. If we don't get a handle on this, then changes will be made to the system, and I doubt they'll be for the better. The American public does not want loons and felons walking into gun stores and walking out with weapons.

Problem is that feel good laws and laws to get re-elected won't change a thing. But however hassling law abiding Americans seems to be the cure all. As far as gun stores go if someone with a record 10' long pass a NICS and it happens,then it isn't my fault or anyone else's here. Put the blame where it lies.

 

[CLAX1911]

Remember the 2nd Amendment Sanctuary movement in Illinois last year? The idea seems to be catching on:



The divergence between the interests of major metropolitan areas and more rural areas of states will become a bigger problem going forward as politics become more polarized. We're seeing here in microcosm what would happen in the United States between states with large, urban centers and more rural states should the country ever institute a more direct democracy.

The entire country should be a gun ownership sanctuary. the Second Amendment says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. When a municipality or state infringes upon it they're violating the Constitution. The lawmakers of such States and municipalities should not only be fined but also imprisoned for violating the Supreme law of the United States.

Illegal aliens are not citizens and it is not our duty to turn them into citizens so the idea of sanctuary cities for them is also a violation of the US Constitution.

The entire United States should be a sanctuary for gun ownership, religious freedom and so forth no part of it ever should be a sanctuary for criminals such as illegal aliens.

 

[Old Trapper]

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.

Tell me, is a Glock27 with a 32 round clip an "assault weapon"?

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

Aside from more guns making it easier to arm ones self to do harm?

 

[TurtleDude]

Tell me, is a Glock27 with a 32 round clip an "assault weapon"?



Aside from more guns making it easier to arm ones self to do harm?

NO, that is not an assault weapon. Assault weapon is a bogus term to start with. The term assault-when paired with rifle -is based on a military tactic of assaulting a fixed position. During the brutal street fighting of WWII in Russia, both Nazis and Russian infantry would encounter fixed positions defended by riflemen or machine gunners. Tanks were almost worthless in this sort of fighting so the best way to take out such a position was with a flamethrower, bazooka or a satchel charge. However, to get close enough to deploy such weapons, the attackers had to hose down the fixed position with enough bullets to suppress return fire. The russian machine guns-Maxims-especially-were heavy and the machine gunners often could not keep up with the infantry. Now, submachine guns could be used but they had limited use in other roles-such as targeting opposition infantry behind cover or accurately hitting soldiers at distances. So both the Germans and Russians developed carbines with fully automatic fire options so as to allow several soldiers to briefly substitute for a crew served machine gun, and serve as a fire suppression team by spraying a defended position with automatic rifle fire.

Calling semi auto rifles "assault weapons" is idiotic because those rifles lack the one feature that was designed for the military tactic of "assault". Rather, gun banners use that term in the hopes that slow witted or ignorant voters associate the criminal concept of "assault" to these firearms.

 

[Old Trapper]

Calling semi auto rifles "assault weapons" is idiotic because those rifles lack the one feature that was designed for the military tactic of "assault". Rather, gun banners use that term in the hopes that slow witted or ignorant voters associate the criminal concept of "assault" to these firearms.

What is a sign of "idiocy" is trying to use a military action to contradict what is a civilian law. If one enters a school, church, mosque, or sets on the 32nd. floor of a hotel, and randomly shoots whoever he can, that is an "assault". And to confuse an "assault rifle" with an "assault weapon" is a sign of ignorance.

Assault Weapon Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.

 

[TurtleDude]

What is a sign of "idiocy" is trying to use a military action to contradict what is a civilian law. If one enters a school, church, mosque, or sets on the 32nd. floor of a hotel, and randomly shoots whoever he can, that is an "assault". And to confuse an "assault rifle" with an "assault weapon" is a sign of ignorance.

Assault Weapon Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.

Your post is a classic example of a case where you cannot contradict my rational argument, so you post nonsense. The illegal use of a firearm-for something its makers did not intend-is not a proper grounds to label it based on that improper use. It is the same as calling a service pistol a "suicide gun" because some people use pistols for suicide.

Liberal gun haters are well known for trying to demonize certain firearms by labeling them with terms designed to inflame the anger of slow witted or ignorant sheeple.

Your biggest lie is pretending I don't know the difference between an assault rifle-which is a defined military term, and "assault weapon" which is a nebulous bit of nonsense that anti gun politicians have been using for three decades to try to confuse the public.

 

[Old Trapper]

Your post is a classic example of a case where you cannot contradict my rational argument, so you post nonsense. The illegal use of a firearm-for something its makers did not intend-is not a proper grounds to label it based on that improper use. It is the same as calling a service pistol a "suicide gun" because some people use pistols for suicide.

Liberal gun haters are well known for trying to demonize certain firearms by labeling them with terms designed to inflame the anger of slow witted or ignorant sheeple.

Your biggest lie is pretending I don't know the difference between an assault rifle-which is a defined military term, and "assault weapon" which is a nebulous bit of nonsense that anti gun politicians have been using for three decades to try to confuse the public.

Who is to say your limited definition of an assault weapon is not the mark of idiocy? Are you saying that the civilian world is subject to the same qualifications as the military? That would be really really stupid.

As to lies, your biggest one is in thinking that all on the left, which I am not, hate guns. I happen to own that Glock27 along with two 32 round mags, two 20 round mags, two 15 round mags, two 10 round mags, and 1000 rounds of ammo. If I were to load all of those mags, and go to a crowded church, do you not think I could assault that church, and the people within?

But you see, your own ignorance, and arrogance, refuses to allow you to see the common sense argument many whom you call "gun banners" are proposing. You prefer to believe the lies of the NRA.

 

[Sampson Simpson]

that's all dumb right wingers can do, steal things from liberals and just flip it around. No originality, no intelligence, just pander to the dumb idiots.

 

[TurtleDude]

Who is to say your limited definition of an assault weapon is not the mark of idiocy? Are you saying that the civilian world is subject to the same qualifications as the military? That would be really really stupid.

As to lies, your biggest one is in thinking that all on the left, which I am not, hate guns. I happen to own that Glock27 along with two 32 round mags, two 20 round mags, two 15 round mags, two 10 round mags, and 1000 rounds of ammo. If I were to load all of those mags, and go to a crowded church, do you not think I could assault that church, and the people within?

But you see, your own ignorance, and arrogance, refuses to allow you to see the common sense argument many whom you call "gun banners" are proposing. You prefer to believe the lies of the NRA.

OK so what I am dealing with is a leftwing voter who is trying to lead the life of a gun owner while bashing pro gun organizations because they don't help the leftwing candidates you want.

Why do you want to use terms that gun banners use in order to demonize civilian appropriate firearms?

 

[TurtleDude]

that's all dumb right wingers can do, steal things from liberals and just flip it around. No originality, no intelligence, just pander to the dumb idiots.

A stupid hack post that has no value. Last I checked, it is liberals who keep pushing for government to take stuff from conservatives and give it to leftwing parasites.

 

[Old Trapper]

OK so what I am dealing with is a leftwing voter who is trying to lead the life of a gun owner while bashing pro gun organizations because they don't help the leftwing candidates you want.

Why do you want to use terms that gun banners use in order to demonize civilian appropriate firearms?

Could you just answer the question, and leave your right wing bull **** in the trash can where it belongs?

Of course not. That would take independent, and intelligent, thought.

 

[TurtleDude]

Could you just answer the question, and leave your right wing bull **** in the trash can where it belongs?

Of course not. That would take independent, and intelligent, thought.

What are you complaining about? we get the fact you support the gun banning party while pretending to be a gun owner. That's like being a chicken and owning stock in Kentucky Fried Chicken