Sherry Aitken: Respect the rule of law

Advertisement

I read with interest Steamboat Today’s front-page story on our local sheriff’s reaction to new state gun laws. I then went to the Steamboat Today website and read posted story comments, including Sheriff Garrett Wiggins’ post. I also read his “Gun Control” position statement on the Routt County website. 

In the paper’s story, Wiggins and Moffat County Sheriff Tim Jantz said every email, phone call and comment they have heard is from residents who oppose gun control. The original statement wasn’t in quotes, so I do not know if “every” was the word the sheriffs used, but with even the implication, I felt I must speak up. 

I live in South Routt and I own guns, but I am not writing to debate the new gun “control” laws’ constitutionality or practical enforcement or even effectiveness, though I easily could. With respect, I’m asking Sheriff Wiggins to enforce the laws of this state in a professional and impartial manner. I honor his right as a private citizen to his opinion and as a law enforcement officer to testify on bills with regards to their potential efficacy and enforcement. But that part of the debate is done now, and I think it is inappropriate for Sheriff Wiggins to continue using his position for a personal interpretational-based agenda. As much as he and many of his constituents may disagree, these now are Colorado laws. I personally do not look to the Routt County sheriff to uphold my constitutional rights. I do look to the Sheriff’s Office to protect and serve, which according to the Routt County website includes law enforcement, investigations and detentions. Let me repeat that: law enforcement.

Not all Colorado sheriffs share the position of Wiggins and Jantz. Arapahoe County Sheriff Grayson Robinson (whose office responded to the Aurora theater shooting) said, “Public safety officials serving in the executive branch do not have constitutional authority, responsibility, and in most cases, the credentials to determine the constitutionality of any issue. ... We all have an obligation to our families, neighbors, our community and our country to be engaged and to demand that well-considered, meaningful and sustainable solutions to these senseless acts of violence are implemented in a timely manner.” 

I ask that Sheriff Wiggins respect the rule of law. If he cannot in good conscience do that, then I think the people of Routt County respectfully can accept his resignation as an appropriate expression of his protest. Picking and choosing which laws to abide by and enforce should not be an option for an elected public safety officer. The loophole of course will be “prioritizing,” but each will have to look to his own integrity on that issue, as you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink. Or maybe you can. I’m answering my conscience on this issue even if, according to the sheriffs, I am very lonely.

Sherry Aitken

Oak Creek

Comments

jerry carlton 1 year, 6 months ago

Sherry Did you ever serve in the military or work in law enforcement?

0

Joe Meglen 1 year, 6 months ago

Sherry,

You may have read the comments following the article but you do not understand them. The 2nd Amendment is not the slightest bit ambiguous: …,the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

The Constitution is the Supreme Rule of Law and it trumps politically motivated unconstitutional state gun control laws. Sheriff Wiggins honors his oath when refuses to enforce unconstitutional state laws. In doing so he protects the rights we are born with and documented in the Constitution.

If the political animals that now control the Colorado State capital want to pass gun control laws, their lawful remedy is to introduce, and ratify an amendment to the Constitution.

4

Eric J. Bowman 1 year, 6 months ago

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Oh, is that what it says? You're right, it is pretty clear if we just eliminate all the ambiguity, and base our arguments on that re-writing of history.

0

Don Thayer 1 year, 6 months ago

Yes, that IS what it says. There are no other references to guns in the U S Constitution. What ambiguity? What re-writing of history?

1

Eric J. Bowman 1 year, 6 months ago

No, that's the NRA-condensed text. You're re-writing history when you claim the second amendment states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" because if that's precisely what Madison meant, that's what Madison would have written.

The ambiguity is all those words you oh-so-conveniently leave out, about well-regulated militias. Since the security of the country is no longer dependent on militias due to our standing army and national guard, the second amendment could be construed as saying that the right to keep and bear arms may be infringed.

The full wording is open to semantic interpretation, probably why the NRA has deliberately misled a large chunk of the country into believing that the complete text of the amendment is "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Making that condensed statement their motto has proven to have excellent propaganda value, but it's a deliberate deception.

0

Eric J. Bowman 1 year, 6 months ago

"Sheriff Wiggins honors his oath when refuses to enforce unconstitutional state laws."

True, but only after a COURT OF LAW finds it unconstitutional, the Sheriff's opinion in such matters is worth bupkus -- what's his background in constitutional law?

0

Scott Wedel 1 year, 6 months ago

Joe,

You may have read the comments following the article but you do not understand them. The 2nd Amendment is not the slightest bit ambiguous: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The Constitution is the Supreme Rule of Law and it trumps politically motivated claims that guns cannot be regulated. As conservative Supreme Court Justice Scalia wrote in Washington DC v Heller:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

2

Don Thayer 1 year, 6 months ago

The 2nd amendment, as written, IS unlimited. If you want to change it, do so. The ONLY statement about guns is " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. " The opinions of the courts may technically be law, but they don't change the U S Constitution, it still says what it says.

The 2nd amendment also trumps the politically motivated claims that guns can be regulated.

"The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

Longstanding prohibitions - that VIOLATE the U S Constitution - are not law, they are simply accepted by the people. They are still UNCONSTITUTIONAL prohibitions.

2

Scott Wedel 1 year, 6 months ago

"The opinions of the courts may technically be law, but they don't change the U S Constitution, it still says what it says."

Well, then you really do not understand the US judicial system. The public may have opinions on what the laws should mean, but the US Supreme decides what the laws actually mean and how they are to be understood by the courts.

It is the law of the US when the US Supreme Court writes in a decision that:

The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

1

Scott Wedel 1 year, 6 months ago

Does the Sheriff go door to door and ask to compare your meds vs your prescriptions?

Of course not, but Sheriff's dept is still willing to enforce the drug laws. The enforcement of the new gun laws will be to investigate sales that don't follow the law when mentally ill and convicts are found to have recently purchased guns, or the sale of large magazines.

0

Don Thayer 1 year, 6 months ago

Sherry,

Maybe you should ask your politicians to respect the U S Constitution.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

1

Eric J. Bowman 1 year, 6 months ago

How is it, exactly, that magazine capacity limits or background checks infringe your right to keep and bear arms?

You're not allowed to own RPGs, artillery, tanks, tactical nukes, list goes on... unconstitutional?

0

Don Thayer 1 year, 6 months ago

Magazines are a part of arms aren't they? It doesn't specify guns.I agree with restricting the ownership of RPGs, etc, but amend the U S Constitution. The vast majority of Americans will agree with those restrictions. What's the problem?

If a background check determines you can't own a gun, doesn't that infringe on your right to keep and bear arms?

I'm simply trying to make people think. We can do this right, do we need to allow our representatives to violate the U S Constitution?

0

Eric J. Bowman 1 year, 6 months ago

"Magazines are a part of arms aren't they? It doesn't specify guns.I agree with restricting the ownership of RPGs, etc, but amend the U S Constitution. The vast majority of Americans will agree with those restrictions. What's the problem?"

Well, since there's nothing unconstitutional about these restrictions, an amendment isn't called for.

"If a background check determines you can't own a gun, doesn't that infringe on your right to keep and bear arms?"

Only if none of my actions have forfeited that right, and there's no appeal/review process.

If I can't pass a background check because I've previously been convicted of using a gun to commit a violent felony, it isn't infringing on a right I've been duly stripped of due to my own irresponsible behavior in the past. Like how some states deprive felons of the right to vote -- which I disagree with, but agree that there's nothing unconstitutional about it.

"I'm simply trying to make people think. We can do this right, do we need to allow our representatives to violate the U S Constitution?"

I've thought about it, but continue to fail to see any violation of the second amendment, here. If this is indeed the case, I'm sure a court will so rule. Nothing to get all worked up about here, it's called checks and balances, and it's how our system works.

What's worth getting worked up about, are the House Republicans. After the demise of ACORN, a federal court ruled that its de-funding by congress amounted to an unconstitutional bill of attainder. So of course they've included the same thing in the latest budget they passed, despite ACORN no longer existing, and in shameful and oath-breaking spite of the (conservative) Supreme Court telling them that, yes, this is indeed exactly the definition of a bill of attainder.

Not much shame in being ignorant of the constitution the first time around. But where do they get off, this time?

1

Kevin Chapman 1 year, 6 months ago

Don that is a ridiculous statement and you know it. The second amendment is not unlimited and has been proven since it's origination to NOT be unlimited. You can't interpret it the way you see fit and do with it what you please. Just because you are American doesn't mean you can have whatever you want whenever you want it. Whether or not you agree with it, it comes with limitations just like freedom of speech. I find it interesting that the US has the most guns per capita by a LARGE margin and we bitch and complain about not being able to have all the guns we want when, in reality, we already do. Respect the constitution? I believe our elected officlas do respect the constitution, i believe it is folks like yourself that do the constitution a disservice by stretching it's intended boundaries to whatever you see as your agenda.

0

Don Thayer 1 year, 6 months ago

Where are those limitations written in the U S Constitution? I emphasize, as written, it IS unlimited. My position is amend it, as was intended. Why is that a problem? I'm not stretching it's meaning, gun control advocates are..

0

Eric J. Bowman 1 year, 6 months ago

Sorry, but you're the one stretching the meaning -- you claim an unlimited right by editing the text of the amendment to support your position. While you're entitled to your own opinion, you're not entitled to your own facts.

As really written, limitations on that right are the purview of a well-regulated militia, making this a collective right -- up until the 21st century when our activist supreme court legislated otherwise from the bench, not based on established case law (indeed, ignoring all legal precedent), but rather on NRA-funded academic papers published in legal journals.

But, even that ruling that an individual right to bear arms exists, didn't go so far as to declare it unlimited.

0

Don Thayer 1 year, 6 months ago

I'm NOT stretching the meaning or editing the Constitution, I'm quoting verbatim. I'm not required to be part of a well regulated militia, and it does not say gun regulated militia. The ONLY statement about guns is "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". It does not define militia nor expand on regulation of it. You're assuming "well regulated militia" means gun regulation.

Where does the U S Constitution say precedent or case law decision become law? Legal precedent is NOT law, here's one definition of it:

"precedent or authority is a principle or rule established in a previous legal case that is either binding on or persuasive for a court or other tribunal"

ONLY congress or legislatures can create law.

The 2nd amendment is outdated and needs to be changed, but we were given a process to do that. As REALLY written, "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". It does not say guns or rifles or non-military style weapons.

"A well regulated militia" can be interpreted several ways. Does it mean - since we need a militia, we must all have guns to be able to serve? Does it mean - since a militia is needed, we the people must be armed to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government?

0

max huppert 1 year, 6 months ago

Love it,, respect the Law,, what a Joke!!! they dont enforce all the illegals using tax payer services, now getting in-state tuition when Americans that live in this country legally pay higher tuition.. Politicians are so damn corrupt and illegal but think they know best for everyone else,, they represent there own ideas not the majority.

0

Kevin Chapman 1 year, 6 months ago

Max i have to agree with you on the illegals getting in-state tuition. I do not agree with that measure whatsoever. How can you be illegally in our country AND get in state tuition? Not enough balance in our state legislature OBVIOUSLY.

0

Kevin Chapman 1 year, 6 months ago

What Wiggins says in the paper basically equals dissent. As a responsible and civil minded adult i don't see how people can readily champion dissenting views that can be seen as disrespectful of the very people that are lawmakers and law interpreters for our beloved United States. Just because you do not agree with a law doesn't give you the right, even as a county sheriff, to announce you will not enforce it. If my boss gave me a task, and I announced that i was not going to perform this duty, i would lose my job. This, in my opinion, is just simple accountability and i believe our sheriff should be held to this same level of accountability.

0

Joe Meglen 1 year, 6 months ago

It is amazing from these threads to see how many have been trained to be good little socialists. What happened to the principles upon which this country was founded? Freedom, individual sovereignty, property rights and adherence to the Constitution that documents our unalienable rights. What has happened is that “progressives” (socialists – statists) have had a 100 year old plan to discredit the Founders and dismantle the Constitution via gradualism. These statists got control of our money system, passing the unconstitutional Federal Reserve System, and if you control the money (actually now currency not real money) you control the government. They got control of the public school system, and have successfully indoctrinated generations on the benefits of collectivism. They have infiltrated government at all levels, including the judicial branch. When voices of reason reintroduce the concept of individual liberty, it is so foreign to the socialist’s belief system they suffer from cognitive dissonance.

The 2nd Amendment documents the fact that free people have the right to defend themselves against an overreaching tyrannical government. Governments at all levels then introduce, and some pass, laws to make the 2nd Amendment illegal. What is going on is obvious to anyone who retains the ability to think critically, yet being good socialists too many just submit and obey, “for the greater good”.

Our socialized schools and controlled media do not teach the history of gun control. A quick review of gun control: The Turkish government slaughtered over one million unarmed Armenians in 1915, the key word being unarmed. Then we have Pol Pot in Cambodia, Hitler in Nazi Germany, and Stalin in the U.S.S.R, all of which had strict gun control laws “to protect the people”. Gun control laws have resulted in the slaughter of tens of millions of people during the 20th Century. History proves that gun control laws do not prevent mass murders, they guarantee them.

Sheriff Wiggins understands this.

0

Scott Wedel 1 year, 6 months ago

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The Supreme Court has decided the whole sentence matters and so the right of the people to keep and bear arms is based upon a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the well regulated militia is not limited to the state's National Guard units, but that it also includes the concept of a civilian militia, that includes militias of one person, able to protect and defend itself.

Thus, the Supreme Court has endorsed the idea of a well regulated militia and even stated in the decision that it is legal to prevent felons and the mentally ill from owning weapons. The decision also states that it is legal to regulate the types of guns.

Sheriff Wiggins demonstrates that he does not understand the laws he swore an oath to uphold.

0

Don Thayer 1 year, 6 months ago

Scott,

I've made these statements several times here on these forums, but they're worth repeating.The Supreme Court CAN be wrong. Their decisions ARE the law of the land, but that doesn't make them constitutional. Their decisions have been overturned by future courts.

The U S Constitution still says what it SAYS. Most of it is written in plain english, there are only a few areas that use legal terminology. Can you regulate me if I'm not part of a militia? The courts can't unilaterally declare me a militia. Here's a modern definition of militia - a military force composed of ordinary citizens. Neither you nor I know what they really meant by militia.

0

Scott Wedel 1 year, 5 months ago

Don,

The Supreme Court's concept of a civilian militia is how the justices extended to individuals the right to bear arms as part of a regulated militia. The dissenting justices were willing to say that only members of a government recognized militia have a right to own the weapons assigned to them by the militia.

People not qualified to be members of even a civilian militia such as felons and the mentally ill are the ones that the Supreme Court has said can be excluded from owning guns.

To ignore the "well-regulated militia" part of the sentence when making a future ruling would directly overturn numerous Supreme Court decisions. Brown v Kansas Board of Education only overturned one decision (Plessy v Ferguson) and made the exact same argument as the dissenting Justice in Plessy. To overturn numerous precedents by using a legal theory not even mentioned in the precedents would be the most radical Supreme Court decision ever.

Thus, I would not expect the Supreme Court to ever uphold your legal theory that only the second half of the 2nd Amendment is relevant.

0

Eric J. Bowman 1 year, 6 months ago

"individual sovereignty"

Ugh. There's no basis for this "sovereign citizen" claptrap, which is why it's so routinely lauged out of court by both judges and juries. The founding precept of this nation was Liberty -- no man shall be deprived of this by the state except under due process of law. NOT that no man shall be deprived of liberty by the state because the state has no sovereignty over its citizens.

"The 2nd Amendment documents the fact that free people have the right to defend themselves against an overreaching tyrannical government."

Not really. This is a modern interpretation referred to as "insurrectionist theory" as documented, and thoroughly debunked, here:

http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/bogus2.htm

History bears out that even if the insurrectionists are right in their interpretation, it turns out to be a pitiful mechanism to oppose government tyranny. Ask the folks at Ruby Ridge, or Waco, or the Confederacy, or the Whiskey Rebellion -- rise up in armed insurrection, the federal government will come at you with everything it's got, and you won't have a prayer.

That article also documents Washington's disdain for militia units, in his push to raise and train the professional army we required to defeat the British. We tend to glorify our early victories, which were indeed won by militia, but that was before the British brought the full might of their empire down on us, which militias didn't do so much to repel.

So this notion that the 2nd amendment protects us from either foreign or domestic government tyranny, is provably false.

0

Joe Meglen 1 year, 6 months ago

Eric,

People that worship the state are so well conditioned that they have an almost rabid inability to reason when their government’s authority is questioned. Committed socialists fancy themselves as intellectually superior to those that understand and support the 2nd Amendment. They ignore facts and real history when these do not support their cult like support of the state. They will cite every tortured and twisted “legal” rationalization of why the 2nd Amendment is inferior to other judicial statist efforts to disarm the citizens and erode this critical unalienable right.

You cite Waco, Ruby Ridge and Lincoln’s unconstitutional invasion of the Confederacy as evidence of how fruitless it is to resist the all powerful federal government. In doing so you make the point for supporting the 2nd Amendment. The federal government that collectivists worship has unlawfully slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Americans that dared not submit and obey. Granted, the average citizen that values his freedom armed with an AR-15 with a 30 round capacity magazine pea shooter isn't much of a match for the leviathan state. However, when tens of millions of Americans are armed, and they are, it becomes a bit more problematic for the empire.

You support the state’s authority to pass gun control laws without amending the Constitution. Remember, the Jews were disarmed using gun control laws in Nazi Germany. If you think it can’t happen here, you are naive as an understatement. I place little faith in an obviously corrupt government’s noble intentions to disarm the people for their own good.

Gun control laws are an unlawful attack on the 2nd Amendment, which is an attack on the principles upon which the sovereign states, and states United were founded. You may have decided to submit and obey, but fortunately for our country, you are in the minority.

0

Eric J. Bowman 1 year, 6 months ago

"People that worship the state are so well conditioned..."

Resorting to categorical ad-hominems against everyone you disagree with is in no way persuasive, and discredits any legitimate point you try to make. Seriously, calling me a "state worshipper" exposes your ignorance in your rush to insult. My writings here are clearly anti-establishment. Which has no bearing on my ability to see when a Sheriff has gone off the reservation.

"You support the state's authority to pass gun control laws without amending the Constitution..."

Because there's nothing under consideration here that goes against the 2nd amendment, or requires amending the constitution, and that's what the polling shows, so I'm not in any minority just because you think you're in a majority.

Also, calling Godwin's Law and ignoring your further comments. Come back down to Earth and try rational arguments, instead of wing-nut ranting laced with insults against those you disagree with, and maybe I'll give you another chance.

0

Scott Wedel 1 year, 6 months ago

Joe Meglen goes off on a rant saying the US Federal Reserve is unconstitutional, blames gun control for various genocides and then says that "Sheriff Wiggins understands this."

Yep, and that is exactly the problem. He ran for Sheriff as a professional, competent law enforcement officer. Not as a right wingnut.

0

Mike Isaac 1 year, 6 months ago

Scott most genocides have began with gun control laws, Hitler even used children to pass the 1933 Gun Control Act to disarm his Jewish residents. This is also known as Democide So in your mind someone who stand up for the Constitution is a "right wingnut"? Scott Should Wiggins go up to CMC and arrest a college student if he is illegal and breaking no other laws.

1

Eric J. Bowman 1 year, 6 months ago

"Right wingnuts" are those who think they're standing up for the constitution, yet have radically off-base notions about what the constitution is. For a Sheriff to stand up for the constitution, means that he'll enforce even those laws he disagrees with. When a Sheriff refuses to enforce a law because in his opinion it would be unconstitutional to do so, not only does he lack a legal leg to stand on, but is also failing to follow his oath to uphold the constitution.

Not the Sheriff's call whether something is constitutional or not, according to the separation of powers which is at the heart of the constitution.

0

Steve Lewis 1 year, 6 months ago

I watched the final Colorado Senate comments on the 15 round magazine limit, and heard 8 or 9 Republican Senators speak. I understood them far better than I understand these Pilot comment threads. Several of them were able to acknowledge that we do have a violence problem and the new laws, if misguided, were well intended. Sheriff Wiggins' post to an earlier thread repeated the same understanding of the opposing view.

While I disagree with the Sheriff's position, I appreciated his forthright honesty. He could have silently ignored these laws. Instead he made his convictions plain to his constituents and defined the consequences of his re-election in 2014. Fair enough in my view.

I have one additional concern. The Routt Sheriff website has this text about Gun Control:

  • I will not support any new legislation that infringes on the rights of law abiding citizens or in any way takes away their ability to defend themselves and their families from an imminent threat or act of violence.

  • I will not support legislation that prohibits law abiding citizens from purchasing or which limits products and goods to include firearms, accessories and ammunition, or new legislation which punishes law abiding citizens for the criminal acts of a few.

  • In my official capacity as Routt County Sheriff, I will defend our law abiding citizens against any unlawful or unconstitutional intrusion or enforcement action which clearly violates the constitutional rights of our citizens.

The first 2 are what Sheriff Wiggins has recently said, and what have caused this debate. The last one goes a step further - Use of the Sheriff's office to defend our constitutional rights.

It is one thing to prioritize which laws you can enforce. It is another, as Eric points out, to decide some are unconstitutional. And yet another to actively apply your office and taxpayers resources to defend your own constitution. I asked the Sheriff to reconsider and remove this last policy. I hope he will.

0

Scott Wedel 1 year, 6 months ago

Steve,

At the very least, Sheriff Wiggins should explain how he determines what is an unconstitutional intrusion.

Will it be based upon his personal expertise as a Constitutional legal scholar? Will it be based upon legal advice from the County Attorney? Legal theories from the NRA? From the ACLU?

A sheriff acting as a professional law enforcement officer gets legal questions answered by mainstream licensed lawyers to minimize the chances of being wrong.

0

Scott Wedel 1 year, 6 months ago

"most genocides have began with gun control laws"

Well, that is a pretty right wingnut idea. Genocides begin with the idea of repressing and killing a whole group of people. As part of that will include the removal of all rights, such as the right to vote.

And the whole concept that background checks to prevent felons and the mentally ill from purchasing gun or a magazine limit of 15 rounds is somehow related to genocides is a pretty extreme right wingnut idea.

The public support eliminating private party gun sales from being exempt from background checks by 88-11%. The vast majority of the population like the idea of not letting the mentally ill and felons to be able to evade background checks and thus be able to purchase weapons. But that commonsense idea does come at a cost because there are right wingnuts that thinks this will lead to genocide in the USA. Oh well, not much the vast majority of the population can do about that.

0

Bob Smith 1 year, 6 months ago

"They got control of the public school system, and have successfully indoctrinated generations on the benefits of collectivism." "...yet being good socialists too many just submit and obey, “for the greater good”. joe, there you go again about the school system! i'm guessing that you don't have kids. if you ever do, you will see that "socialism" is not what they teach in school. they teach stuff like math and chemistry and english. there are some bad teachers and some great ones. but they are not part of some conspiracy to undermine the 2nd amendment or any other aspect of the constitution or "freedom". it is quite peculiar how you keep bringing up the school system...

0

Mike Isaac 1 year, 6 months ago

Scott so what you are saying is that people that support these gun control measures in your words would be " Extreme left wingnut thinking "

I think in terms of Freedom vs Tyranny and don't think 88% of the people in this part of Colorado want to go through a background check to buy a shotgun from the Pilot. Those stats look like their are from MSNBC , FOX or CNN.

0

Scott Wedel 1 year, 6 months ago

The background check is the exact same background for retail gun purchases. Gun retailers are allowed to charge $10 for the service for private party gun sales.

The background check for retail sales is not so onerous to have seriously discouraged sales.

I think that anyone whom brings up genocide as a serious concern is a wingnut. Left wingnuts might say that failing to provide sufficient healthcare to the poor is genocide.

What makes for a wingnut is not so much the political opinions, but the extremism. That they either get what they want or they say it will be a cataclysm.

The vast majority of those that support these measures are not saying it would be genocide if they had not passed.

0

brian kofke 1 year, 6 months ago

Have you ever heard the term democide? Democide is the murder of people by their own government and is responsible for more murders in humanites history then anything else. Thats a fact, that is history, and to deny that it could happen to you, me or anyone else exemplifies the highest form of hubris a man can harbor. It is a very dangerous and foolish thing to ignore history.

0

brian kofke 1 year, 6 months ago

Unconstitutional laws are not laws. In case you have not noticed because you are so enamored by your own reflection in the mirror or hunched over your I-phone like a drooling zombie, DHS and FEMA have bought over 2 billion rounds of hollow point ammunition recently. That amounts to 4 bullets for every man, woman and child in this country, and could sustain a 30 year war domestically. The DHS has also bought (with your tax dollars) bullet proof roadside check point stations, over 6000 armored vehicles, body armor, drones, sniper rifles, sound cannons and microwave crowd dispersment systems that cook your skin. There needs to be a national discussion about why a clandestine government agency whom does not take an oath to defend the constitution of the USA is gearing up whilst the same administration that has outfitted this agency is doing everything it can to disarm the American people. What part of "Shall not be infringed" do you not understand? Do you know how many men have died for you to have the right to say what you say in a public forum? Do you not understand that without the second amendment there will be no first amendment? History tells us that this is true. Mao, Stalin, Hitler and all other despots throughout history followed the same tyrannical game plan; get the guns, crush freedom of speech and rule. There is a reason the second amendment is #2; because when it goes, the rest of the amendments go. It really does not matter what your opinion about guns are anyway; it is a God given right, and has been implemented in the Magna Carta over 500 years ago. We have history to show us what laws work for cultivating a free and prosperous society, and what laws do not. I would suggest that Hitler, Mao and Stalin's tyranny are dark pages in humanities history, and American freedom is a bright light. If anyone reading this is in disbelief about the DHS bying all of that gear, then get off your arse and do some darn research, because this is stuff every red blooded American needs to know. I for one commend Sheriff Wiggins for his courage and conviction concerning the constitution which your fathers and their father before them died defending for your right to slander their sacrafices.

1

rhys jones 1 year, 6 months ago

By the time this country wakes up to the real culprit, it'll be too late. It already is.

0

Scott Wedel 1 year, 6 months ago

Brian,

Except that DHS and FEMA did not purchase 2 billion hollow point rounds. It was answered in a JANUARY letter to Senator Coburn available on Sen Coburn's congressional website: http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public//index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=9cde768f-bb3a-4fd9-8176-1745c21519c2

It is a 5 year contract.

It states "up to" and has not been buying the maximum.

It is a mixture of types of bullets only which a portion is hollow point

It is the ammo for many federal agencies and training exercises with local law enforcement. They allow 1,000 training rounds per weapon per year.

So many lies in the story that it is a one time purchase stockpiling of ammo.

As for armored vehicles, you all forget that during riots that the local police has had to withdraw and could not do anything about innocent individuals being attacked? Or how the authorities had lost control of New Orleans after Katrina?

And yes, DHS and FEMA have answered the questions, but continuing the conspiracy theories is far more interesting for the right wing conspiracy sites.

It is certainly reasonable to question the effectiveness of this spending, but as a left wing plot to take over the country it is ridiculous. Maybe the left wing is clever enough to do things in a way to feed the paranoid ramblings of right wing conspiracies theorists in order to discredit conservatives, but that would require believing the left wing is extremely smart, plans ahead and is skilled at subtle plots. And that the right wing is stupid and falls for the traps being set by the left wing. Considering how the right wing conspiracy theories continue long after the Republican Senator received an answer that satisfied him then maybe the left wing is that smart and right wing is that stupid.

0

brian kofke 1 year, 5 months ago

Scott, I take offense to your ascertion that I am a right wing conspiracy nut. Anyone with eyes can see what is going on; I do not for the life of me understand how you could be so far removed from reality. In case you have not noticed, the militarization of the police has been going full force for over a decade. There are military drills going on all over the country with black helecopters. Military units are training on US soil for gun confiscation. The military even has a manual on how to take guns from people. There are sightings of FEMA and DHS armored vehicles by the thousands being shipped all over the country via railroad. According to the document you site as proof that the DHS did not buy over 2 billion rounds of ammo, it states that the TSA purchased nearly 30 million rounds last year. What does the TSA need 30 million rounds of ammo for? Last I checked there were under 60 thousand TSA employees; 60 thousand people that are supposedly unarmed need 30 million rounds of ammo, bought with your money? Huh? You do not see a problem with that? There are a plethora of highly educated, concerned persons that are pretty freaked out about the DHS buying all of this ammo. In fact, DHS announce yesterday that they were buying an additional 360 million rounds of hollow point ammo. There are congressman that are asking DHS what they need all of this ammo for, and are being ignored. There are literally hundreds of news stories talking about the DHS and the 2 billion bullets; are they all wrong? Are they all right wing conspiracy sites? You go ahead and rely on an obscure letter written by the very people with something to hide, and I will live in reality. If you ignore the possibility of our own government gearing up for a fight with it's own people, then you would be no different then a person living in 1938 Germany. These things have happened in the past, and they will happen in the future unless people are informed. I would suggest that you take a good look around before calling people with eyes to see rediculous. The rhetoric you use is what is called the left, right paradigm. You are stuck in a left, right world, but you fail to see that both the left and the right are nothing more then left and right cheeks of the same posterior, and I promise you someone owns that posterior that was not elected. Until you can escape the paradigm, you will remain ignorant and devisive.

1

jerry carlton 1 year, 6 months ago

Do "The Authorities" currently have control of "the Hood" in Chicago?

0

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.