Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Results 1 to 11 of 11
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    25,683
    vCash
    1500

    Utah Sheriffs threaten the U.S. government on gun control

    To the two well-known schools of U.S. constitutional thought – the originalists and the living constitutionists – we may now add a third school, that of the Utah Sheriffs. The originalists believe all decisions should be what the Constitution’s framers would have wished them to be. The living constitutionists believe interpretations grow and change over time. And the Utah Sheriffs believe that they are the highest court in the land, and their interpretation goes.

    All rise in the Court of Chutzpah. In an open letter to President Barack Obama, the elected members of the Utah Sheriffs Association implicitly threaten violent resistance to any attempts by the federal government to enforce Mr. Obama’s executive orders on gun control.

    “We will enforce the rights guaranteed to our citizens by the Constitution. No federal official will be permitted to descend upon our constituents and take from them what the Bill of Rights – in particular Amendment II – has given them. We, like you, swore a solemn oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and we are prepared to trade our lives for the preservation of its traditional interpretation.”


    What a dangerous moment, when hysteria is fomented by the people whose job is to enforce the law. The Supreme Court is the guardian of the Constitution, not the Utah Sheriffs, or those in other largely rural states who have published similar letters. The sheriffs are reinforcing a violent society’s message that violent resistance, not law, is an answer to problems.

    Perhaps, like Martin Luther King, the Utah Sheriffs are dedicated to opposing laws they consider unjust. Fair enough – then quit. Like the marriage commissioners in parts of Canada who refused to wed gay couples, they have freedom of choice. They can’t be forced to do a job they don’t believe in.

    But this isn’t a campaign of civil disobedience the sheriffs warn of. It’s closer to a declaration of war.


    We trust that President Obama will stick to his, uh, guns, and that ultimately, the rule of law will prevail.
    http://m.theglobeandmail.com/comment...service=mobile

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    65,641
    vCash
    1500
    The funny thing is that when you ask these people which of the President EOs they think is unconstitutional or that they oppose they can't point out one. They just oppose the idea that he is president really. They should just fess up and admit they don't want a Democrat in office.

    Please those who oppose Obama, point out to me what executive action you oppose...
    Member of the Owlluminati!

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Arvada, Colorado
    Posts
    18,062
    vCash
    653
    Utah gettin frisky.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    65,641
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Mudvayneowns91 View Post
    Utah gettin frisky.
    #1 in porn viewers per capita, if I'm not mistaken.
    Member of the Owlluminati!

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    774
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by dbroncos78087
    Please those who oppose Obama, point out to me what executive action you oppose...
    None of them. They were all perfectly Constitutional and legal.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    65,641
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Steel Curtain View Post
    None of them. They were all perfectly Constitutional and legal.
    I am going to assume you were being serious, because I was being 100% serious.

    If anyone sees one that actually was unconstitutional or wrong, I would like to know.
    Member of the Owlluminati!

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    40,403
    vCash
    500
    They said something similar in Tennessee as well.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    774
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by dbroncos78087
    I am going to assume you were being serious, because I was being 100% serious.

    If anyone sees one that actually was unconstitutional or wrong, I would like to know.
    Yes, I was being serious. I support gun ownership rights but none of those violated anything. Perfectly acceptable.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    65,641
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Steel Curtain View Post
    Yes, I was being serious. I support gun ownership rights but none of those violated anything. Perfectly acceptable.
    I'm glad to hear that. Because we have to be able to realize that not all efforts to restrict some gun ownership is akin to taking away everyone's guns. The same must also be true on (what I will call) my side that efforts to protect legitimate gun ownership is not an effort to hand criminals guns that they can commit crimes with.

    If we have influential people like the NRA chief saying that Obama is going to take your guns, then people who tend to be more conservative will start to take it seriously because of the important role the NRA has held in the past and still holds (maybe because of its legacy). The same is true of folks on the left. We either need those people to act more responsibly (don't worry I'll wait a moment until you can stop laughing) or to push them aside and agree that they aren't going to be serious about the discussion.
    Member of the Owlluminati!

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Louisville, Colorado
    Posts
    23,108
    vCash
    1500
    None of his executive orders about guns were radical at all too.

    They just seem like some small, common sense actions.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    6,657
    vCash
    1500
    They're right about one thing. The rule of law will prevail. The law on this issue was decisively tested in 1865, and the answer remains the same. The Supremacy clause of the constitution still applies.

    Shockingly, the Consitution does not consist of the 2nd Amendment standing by itself, reigning supreme.
    People who think the least powerful members of society are responsible for most of its problems are deluded, at best.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •