We need your continuing support to keep Free Republic on the air.
Please Contribute Today.
Posted on 01/25/2013 2:05:02 PM PST by kiryandil
Sheriffs vs feds
Grandstanding is useless exercise
First Published Jan 24 2013 01:01 am • Last Updated Jan 24 2013 01:01 am
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/55677972-82/law-constitution-federal-gun.html.csp
Why do law enforcement officers need to kill large numbers of people, pray tell?
Didn't post the link because it looks like SL Tribune is on the Free Republic no-fly list.
There is certainly precedent for this. For example, Police Battalion 101 needed to be able to keep order while they marched people off to the forests where they could kill them. That is exactly what they were tasked to do and that is what they did. For more details of this critical need, Google the term “Einsatzgruppe”. See what the left really has in mind.
"Assault weapons that can fire numerous times in seconds are designed for only one thing: killing large numbers of people. The military and law enforcement officers need that ability"
Sounds like this @sshole has wet dreams about poleeeces gunning down crowd of Tea Party types or other enemies of Obunga.
Just d-mn!
Walk down Madison Avenue in New York. Many posh stores have, on view, or behind a two-way mirror, an armed guard. Walk into most any pawnshop, jewelry story, currency exchange, gold store in the country, and there will be an armed guard nearby. Why? As currency, jewelry, gold are precious. Who complains about the presence of these armed guards? And is this wealth more precious than our children?
Apparently it is: for the Left adduces arguments against armed presence in the school but not in the wristwatch stores. Q. How many accidental shootings occurred last year in jewelry stores, or on any premises with armed security guards? Why not then, for the love of God, have an armed presence in the schools?
SL Tribune editorial: LEOs need ability to kill large #s of people..
So why did libs complain about Kent State? Lots o’ dead in Ohio.
BS
We know what the constitution says.
There is call for police to be slightly more heavily armed than civilians. For whereas you and me have the right to defend ourselves and others, police have the powers—and they are legitimate ones—to chase people down in order to effect arrest and to keep the peace, which nay involve crowd control. Also, they may lay siege to fortified positions in order to execute lawful warrants or resolve hostage situations, beyond what would be justified for private individuals.
Aside from that, and remember they must all be lawful, no, they don’t need anything more than Average Joe.
is Geobbels the editor??
By the way, since when were semi-automatic rifles designed only to kill large numbers of people, any more than, for instance, handguns. They give you a wider range, is all, not that it matters when your quarry is penned, like in gun-free zones. Do they realize they’re no different than hunting rifles? If so they don’t care.
Anyway, weapons designed only for killing large numbers of people are called bombs. Mass murderers are actually being sporting by killing one at a time instead of all at once that way.
The 1938 parallels are all too accurate and the bloodlust of the statists is reaching the boiling point.
Yep, this is a great example, along with DiFi's gun-grabbing bill exempting LEOs and government officials from the ban.
We need a two-pronged attack here. The first on the logical absurdity of the proposed legislation and how it is just the first step down the road to outright bans of just about all guns. And the second is to show the mendacity of this bunch.
I’m SURE you’ve already heard this...ping.
No you jackass, they are designed for FIGHTING OTHER ARMED OPPONENTS!
Which is why they are so effing devastating when used against people who are UNARMED!
Anyforce dealing directly with the people should require the people they are dealing with have the means to supply themselves with weapons of simular power and abilities.
Alexander Hamilton's retort from Federalist #29:
...if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.
-PJ
Police State bump for later..........
The ruling libtards are afraid. They want to disarm us because they are going to do things that are grossly unconstitutional and they don’t want people to rightly revolt and remove them from office for most likely treason and more heinous unconstitutional legislation.
All these years people have bought handguns that their local police used, because “if it was good enough for them, it’d be good enough for me”. That way if you ever had to use it, you could always say I have the same model our local police carry and use, I’m not using anything stronger than the LEOs believe to be enough for them.
Now all of a sudden LAW ABIDING people can’t be trusted with the same guns they’ve had for years?!?!
It’s about disarmament. Totally.
2. Those demanding gun bans are demanding victims be disarmed so bad guys don't have to work so hard to kill them.
3. Those demanding gun bans do so claiming there is so much violence warranting it somehow, yet, anyone wanting a gun to defend themselves from such violence is just being "paranoid".
4. Liberals have the mind of a 7 year old: They yell, "Daddy, Daddy! Fix it!", and believe gun bans will solve violence, not understanding guns are not the only tools of violence and gun don't kill people, people kill people.
5. Liberals believe anyone with a gun is a violent murderer waiting to happen, so I guess just because a liberal woman is equipped to be a prostitute means she is one.
6. To liberals, police officers, who qualify with their duty weapons once or twice a year, have some special Jedi-like mastery over handguns that private citizens can never hope to obtain.
7. To liberals, police operate with backup which is why they need larger capacity pistol magazines than do "civilians", who must face criminals alone and, therefore, need less ammunition
8. To liberals, citizens don't need to carry a gun for personal protection, but police chiefs, who are desk-bound administrators that work in a building filled with cops, need a gun.
9. To liberals, "assault weapons" have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people, which is why the police need them to kill large numbers of people…for some reason.
10. To liberals, private citizens don't need a gun for self-protection because the police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says the police are not responsible for their protection.
11. To liberals, private citizens don't need a gun for self-protection because the police are the professional gun slingers…even if they take longer to arrive than the bad guy needs to kill their victims.
12. To liberals, trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for defensive purposes, which is why you don’t see police officers with one on their duty weapon.
13. Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, and Chicago cops need guns and those cities have the highest murder and violence rates. Again, We the People are only being paranoid if we want a gun to defend ourselves from that violence.
14. Washington DC’s low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Indianapolis’ high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control. Wait, huh?
15. To a liberal, the more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals.
16. Liberals claim other devices like oven spray or bear spray will better deter a criminal because an intruder can be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray but if shot with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you.
17. To a liberal, a woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.
18. The New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about guns; just like Guns and Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart surgery.
19. To a liberal, these phrases,
"right of the people peaceably to assemble,"
"right of the people to be secure in their homes,"
"enumeration's herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people,"
"The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people,"
all refer to individuals, but "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" refers only to the State.
20. To a liberal, guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them properly but so simple to use that they make murder easy.
21. To a liberal, ordinary people in the presence of a gun turn into slaughtering butchers but revert to normal when the weapon is removed, so we should ban guns.
22. To a liberal, guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun shows and police stations.
23. To a liberal, a majority of the population supports gun control so we should do it, just like a majority of the population once supported owning slaves.
24. To a liberal, most people can't be trusted with a gun so we should have laws banning guns, which most people will abide by because they can be trusted.
25. To a liberal, the 2nd Amendment was written during a time when muskets were the norm, but they do not agree that the 1st amendment should only pertain to yelling in the town square and printing using quill pens and manual printing presses.
26. To a liberal, we should ban "Saturday Night Specials" and other inexpensive guns because it's not fair that poor people have access to guns too.
27. To a liberal, having a gun in case if violence is stupid and paranoid, yet, a person is more likely to encounter violence against them than a fire but fire extinguishers are everywhere.
Liberals know so much don’t they. They are just so right about everything, so let’s show a few of their perfectly stupid statements of the past.
"It is already too late to avoid mass starvation." Dennis Hayes, chief organizer--Earth Day 1, 1970
"At least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years." Paul Ehrlich, Earth Day 1, 1970
"By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine." Prof. Peter Gunter, North Texas State University, 1970
"In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution... by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half..." `Life' Magazine, January 1970
"Air pollution... is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone." Paul Ehrlich, Earth Day 1, 1970
"By the year 2000... there won't be any more crude oil." Ecologist Kenneth Watt
"In 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct." Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary, Smithsonian Institute, Earth Day 1, 1970
"The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years... the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age." Kenneth Watt
"In the 1970s and 1980s, hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash program embarked upon now." Paul Ehrlich, "The Population Bomb" (1968)
the Supremacy Clause, it says the “Constitution, and the Laws of the United States … shall be the supreme Law of the Land.” It means that the federal government, in exercising any of the powers in the Constitution, takes precedence over any conflicting state law or exercise of power.”
These morons don’t understand their own scribblings. Legislating the 2nd amendment out of existence via the Congress or executive order is not “exercising any of the powers of the Constitution.”
It’s treason by making war against the American people. Period.
Perfect stupidity is a hallmark of the neo-Nazi propagandists hiding behind the 1st amendment.
Or one attacker who’s so hopped up on bath salts that the first ten shots aren’t enough of a hint to him that he’s dead.
OK, four things.
“Ruth made a grave mistake when he gave up pitching. Working once a week he might have lasted a long time and become a great star.” - Tris Speaker (1919)
Finally, the Fourteenth Amendment — just as much a part of the Constitution as the Second Amendment — was added to clarify the relationship between federal law and state law. Known as the Supremacy Clause, it says the "Constitution, and the Laws of the United States … shall be the supreme Law of the Land."
The Supremacy Clause is in Article VI, not the 14th amendment!
They must have the 14th on the brain, because that's what they're trying to use to let Obama override Congress on the debt limit.
-PJ
I’m “borrowing” your post to send to my e-mail list and I’m sure they will also borrow it.
“The 1938 parallels are all too accurate and the bloodlust of the statists is reaching the boiling point. “
Problem is most of Obamas cabinet and people that are supporting this are Jewish communists. Makes you wonder if these were the people Hitler wanted dead and my family was collateral damage.
Forgotten in all the rhetoric is the USSC decision in Miller that ties the 2nd amendment to “military” style weapons, saying that intent of the 2nd was to protect possesion of military style weapons by the people (militia).
I disagree. I could complain about cops for hours without tiring the subject, but do beloved in the justice of their existence. The point of having a police force is that they can do certain things denied to regular people. Their powers aren’t restricted to mere defense, and shouldn’t be. Whereas I can shoot someone breaking into my home, for instance (so long as there is a reasonable threat of death or severe bodily harm; at least here in MN you can’t kill to protect property), I cannot chase them down the street. Cops can. They have the power of pursuit, because they may not only defend themselves but arrest and detain wrongdoers.
Likewise, as I said, we empower them to execute warrants, resolve hostage situations, and keep the peace, which contain an element of but easily go beyond self-defense. The latter is often abused, but I feel rather indispensable if you are going to have a police force.
Civilians have the resources to KILL a lot of LEOS also.
That decision has been superceded. If the “military style” portion is still in effect, well, take a look at any war fought in part by irregular forces, which is pretty much every war, and you’ll soon find basically any weapon has its use. Think of Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto or Iraqi insurgents. And you can’t say it only applies to regular forces like the various branches of the U.S. armed forces. Because what is a militia, after all? Not the U.S. military, whatever it is.
Besides, Miller was bogus. I don’t even think the government was opposed at the bar. Their reasoning was beside the point, also, because the weapon in question, short-barelled shotguns, were in use by the U.S. military, even though SCOTUS ruled in favor of the state.
beloved = believe
The 14th, by the way, does have the privileges and immunities clause, which clears up any confusion as to whether restrictions in the Bill of Rights apply to the states. Some say the due process clause does the same, but it doesn’t. At least not in the way they think, though judicial review may be part of the “process.”
“Problem is most of Obamas cabinet and people that are supporting this are Jewish communists.”
I’ll tell you right up front, EQAndyBuzz, that we have a small contingent of leftist infiltrators here on FR - long time commie sleepers - who will accuse you of anti-semitism if you point to any Jewish gun-grabber, such as Feinstein, as being a commie or a Nazi.
They’re using political correctness to blunt any criticism of certain high-profile individuals in this administration who are advocating gun control and the murder of conservatives.
We need to recognize the enemy, who they are and their associations.
Exactly so. The tell is the actions of Obama and friends in the wake of Manuel Zelaya's attempt to overthrow the Honduran Constitution, and his subsequent (constitutional) removal and exile.
Please do, and if you find more to add let me know so we can keep that list growing.
Joe Biden
Vice President of the United States
"Banning guns is an idea whose time has come.", 18 November 1993, as U.S. Senator Joseph Biden, Associated Press interview
Nelson "Pete" Shields III, known as "Peter Shields"
Founder of Handgun Control, Inc., now the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
"We'll take one step at a time, and the first is necessarily ... given the political realities ... very modest. We'll have to start working again to strengthen the law, and then again to strengthen the next law and again and again. Our ultimate goal, total control of handguns, is going to take time. The first problem is to make possession of all handguns and ammunition (with a few exceptions) totally illegal.", 26 June 1976, New Yorker Magazine
" Our ultimate goal - total control of all guns- is going to take time ... The final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition - except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs and licensed gun collectors - totally illegal.", 26 July 1976, New Yorker Magazine
"We're going to have to take this one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily - given the political realities - going to be very modest. Right now, though, we'd be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal- total control of handguns in the United States- is going to take time...The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns being produced...The second problem is to get handguns registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of handguns and all handgun ammunition- except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors- totally illegal.", 26 July 1976 New Yorker Magazine
Sarah Brady
Chairman, Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, formerly Handgun Control, Inc. & Wife of James "Jim" Brady
"The House passage of our bill is a victory for this country! Common sense wins out. I'm just so thrilled and excited. The sale of guns must stop. Halfway measures are not enough.", 1 July 1988
"Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed.", January 1994, In a letter to Senator Howard Metzenbaum, The National Educator.
"We must get rid of all the guns.", September 1994, Phil Donahue Show Interview
"There is no personal right to be armed for private purposes unrelated to the service in a well regulated militia.", 6 June 1997, Richmond Times-Dispatch
"I don't believe gun owners have rights.", October 1997, "Handguns in America", Hearst Newspapers Special Report
"I believe that the interpretation of the second amendment does not necessarily give every individual the right to keep and bear arms. However, I, personally, am not against the ability for any law abiding person to keep and bear arms for legitimate purposes.", 9 February 2001, ABC News Interview
James Brady
Board Member, Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, formerly Handgun Control, Inc. & Husband of Sara Brady
"It is not a loss of freedom. It's a measure to protect it.", 21 March 1991, On gun control, congressional testimony.
"I just believed that what I was doing was right. I told the NRA (National Rifle Association) I would make it my life's ambition to see you all don't exist anymore and I will do this until I put them out of business. That keeps me going when I have to deal with rude people.", 21 May 1994, Hartford Courant
"For target shooting, that's okay. Get a license and go to the range. For defense of the home, that's why we have police departments.", 26 June 1994, Parade Magazine Article
Diane Finestein
United States Senator, Liberal Democrat, California
"And, I know the sense of helplessness that people feel. I know the urge to arm yourself because that's what I did. I was trained in firearms. I'd walk to the hospital when my husband was sick. I carried a concealed weapon. I made the determination that if somebody was going to try to take me out, I was going to take them with me.", 27 April 1995, C-Span
"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe.", 18 November 1993, Associated Press
"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in,' I would have done it.", 5 February 1995, CBS, 60 Minutes, Interview
Janet Reno
United States Attorney General, Clinton Administration 1993-2001 Dade County Florida State Attorney
"The most effective means of fighting crime in the United States is to outlaw the possession of any type of firearm by the civilian populace.", 1991, Speech to B'nai B'rith, Ft. Lauderdale FL Gathering
"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal.", December 1993
"Gun registration is not enough.", 10 December 1993, Good Morning America Interview
Howard Metzenbaum
United States Senator, Liberal Democrat, Ohio
"I don't care about crime, I just want to get the guns.", 1993, Brady Bill Debate
Charles Schumer
United States Senator, Liberal Democrat, New York
"We're going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy! We're going to beat guns into submission!", 8 December 1993, NBC Interview
Michael K. Beard
President of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence
"Our goal is to not allow anybody to buy a handgun. In the meantime, we think there ought to be strict licensing and regulation. Ultimately, that may mean it would require court approval to buy a handgun.", 6 December 1993, Washington Times
Mary Ann Carlson
Vermont State Senator
"We must be able to arrest people before they commit crimes. By registering guns and knowing who has them we can do that. .If they have guns they are pretty likely to commit a crime."
Charles Krauthammer
Washington Post, writer
"In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea ... Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic - purely symbolic - move in that direction. Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation.", 5 April 1996, Washington Post
Jose Cerda
President Clinton White House Official, Specializing in gun control
"We are taking the law and bending it as far as we can to capture a whole new class of guns [to ban]", 22 October 1997, Los Angeles Times
Mel Reynolds
U.S. House of representative, from Illinois, Liberal Democrat
"If it were up to me we'd ban them all [firearms].", 9 December 1993, CNN Crossfire
Carl Rowan
Washington Post, writer
"We must reverse this psychology (of needing guns for home defense). WE can do it by passing a law that says anyone found in possession a a handgun except a legitimate officer of the law goes to jail- period!", 1981, Washington DC Syndicated Columnist
"A complete and universal federal ban on the sale, manufacture, importation and possession of handguns…”, 1985, Washington Post Article.
Note: Rowan in 1988 was arrested and tried for shooting a teenager skinny dipping in his pool that he shot with an unregistered .22 caliber pistol.
John H. Chafee
RINO Senator from Rhode Island.
“I shortly will introduce legislation banning the sale, manufacture or possession of handguns (with exceptions for law enforcement and licensed target clubs). . . . It is time to act. We cannot go on like this. Ban them!”, 15 June 1992, Minneapolis Star Tribune
Warren Burger
Former U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice
"If I were writing the Bill of Rights now there wouldn't be any such thing as the Second Amendment... This has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word 'fraud', on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime. The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies - the militia - would be maintained for the defense of the state. The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kink of weapon he or she desires.", 14 January 1990, Parade Magazine
They killed something like 76 at Waco. Is that what the author has in mind?
Let them accuse me. I am Jewish, so using the lefts criteria for who can say what about whom, I am immune from criticism by the Jewish gun grabbers.
Thanks for quoting Mel Reynolds! It’s like winning the Lotto!
Travis, One might say yes to the following situations:
1) The only need for civilian ownership of firearms is for hunting
2) The left is afraid of the right and therefore wishes to limit their legal right to own certain firearms
3) A socialist government has the responsibility to restrict the ownership of firearms to maintain public order and saftey
4) There is no need for the average citizen to own firearms in a socialist state.
As a country we have seen the socialist’s ever creeping agenda with respect to civilian firearms ownership since the 1930s. The socialists have never told the truth about their true agenda when it comes to civilian firearms ownership and they never will.
However, the socialists in U.S. must feel that they are fairly close to achieving their primary goal. Their primary goal being suspension of the U.S. Constitution and the establishment of a socialist state. The obvious reason for government control of civilian firearms ownership is the prevention of resistance to a socialist coup d’etat. No other reason truthfully exists.
Gun Laws and the Fools of Chelm†
Jan 29, 2013 12:00 AM EST
The individual is not only best qualified to provide his own personal defense, he is the only one qualified to do so. By David Mamet.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2013/01/28/gun-laws-and-the-fools-of-chelm-by-david-mamet.html
Bookmark.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.