Jump to content
"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.
"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.
Much of the nation on the dole happen to be gainfully employed, by the likes of Wal-Mart. I doubt that any but a small minority are happy to game the system; most Americans have a solid work ethic and would be employed if only there were jobs available. Look at the numbers of jobs lost in the recession, subtract the number gained since, factor in a larger working-age population, and just try telling me all those folks on the dole are just lazy.
Government stimulus in the form of infrastructure spending not only gives an economic return from the infrastructure greater than the capital invested, but the jobs created increase demand for goods and services, causing businesses to start hiring again instead of sitting on trillions of dollars of capital currently sidelined when it's needed most. Raise the minimum wage to get the gainfully employed off the public dole.
I say it's time to put America back to work, instead of cynically grousing about how citizens are voting for free stuff and not having to work. We all know from history, that provided full employment, America has the most productive workforce in the world. Blaming the victims as freeloaders when massive numbers of jobs are eliminated, has no basis in history and is downright un-American.
I'm not speaking for him, merely stating what he had said in public, what his brother has said about him in public, and Google's your friend as far as Chomsky.
Why should he have to do that, when nothing in the legislation requires him to take such action? What does this have to do with national politics? Why would a Sheriff want to lose more votes through politicizing his office, than explain to constituents that "he is required by statute to keep and preserve the peace, serve and execute all processes, writs, precepts and orders issued or made by lawful authorities"?
My point is, a Sheriff stands to lose more votes by misunderstanding his job description, than he stands to gain by pandering to those who literally request that he state that it would be unconstitutional for him to do his job.
Well, we expect Presidents to politicize their offices. And congresscritters, state representatives, city council... but not Sheriffs. They must put their biases aside and serve the entire community, or law enforcement breaks down when the 2/3 of the community who aren't in the Sheriff's political party lose respect for the office and the department.
So all these "Obama does it too" arguments are strawmen, and you're preaching to the choir since I think he ought to be impeached, anyway. So stop changing the subject -- this is about how a Sheriff politicizing his office has a detrimental effect on public safety, and is strictly a local issue.
No, I recognize integrity and courage in the absence of politicization:
And I repeat, that if a citizen files a complaint against a gun store selling new high-capacity magazines, law enforcement has both probable cause and the duty to issue a citation.
That some of the law is unenforceable, I won't argue; but this is not reason to state that none of it will be enforced on constitutional grounds, when I see none at issue in this scenario.
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:
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.
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.
Last login: Tuesday, December 30, 2014
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2015 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.