Utah sheriffs warn Obama of deadly war over guns

[unicorn]

Utah sheriffs warn Obama of deadly war over guns
January 20, 2013


In the most strident warning over gun control to President Obama yet, the Utah Sheriffs' Association is pledging to go to war over any administration plan to take guns away, even if it means losing their lives.

Calling the Second Amendment a sacred right of citizens to protect themselves from "tyrannical subjugation," the association state elected sheriffs said in a new letter, "we are prepared to trade our lives for the preservation of its traditional interpretation."

Theirs is the first meaningful proof that some in law enforcement and the military are preparing to fight federal forces if the president wins his goal of sweeping gun control.

In a direct warning to Obama, the FBI and other agencies, the sheriffs wrote: "Make no mistake, as the duly-elected sheriffs our our respective counties, 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."

While he wants an assault weapons ban and limits on ammo magazines, the president has not yet suggested he wants to confiscate guns.

The association revealed their concerns in a letter to the president just made public. It was sent on January 17. It opens by decrying the recent shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.

But the group argued that guns are simply "instruments," and that they are needed by law-abiding citizens to sometimes subdue killers. "The citizenry must continue its ability to keep and bear arms, including arms that adequately protect them from all types of illegality," said the letter.

Several groups have argued that assault weapons and high-capacity magazines are needed for self defense.

The association also called on Obama to push his efforts through Congress, not executive orders with no debate. "Please remember that the Founders of this great nation created the Constitution, and its accompanying Bill of Rights, an effort to protect citizens from all forms of tyrannical subjugation."

Utah sheriffs warn Obama of deadly war over guns | WashingtonExaminer.com

 

[MilSpec]

Good job Utah sheriffs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Solomon2]

TV network news reports here are all about gun control and zero about whether or not the violent culture espoused by TV network's entertainment may or may not encourage such things. Can you say, "conflict of interest"?

 

[RescueRanger]

TV network news reports here are all about gun control and zero about whether or not the violent culture espoused by TV network's entertainment may or may not encourage such things. Can you say, "conflict of interest"?

Agree totally. I don't know much about the US, most of my opinion comes from meeting expats here in Pak, and from media etc... But this whole gun control thing is being hyped up and all for political reasons. Sure invent and enforce more stringent checks on people applying for arms licences etc, but be reasonable. Asking a Texan to give up his gun is like asking a mullah to shave off his beard!

That **** is just not on!

 

[Solomon2]

Asking a Texan to give up his gun is like asking a mullah to shave off his beard!

Don't know about the mullahs but if you ask a Texan about gun control his answer might well be, "Use both hands!"

 

[RescueRanger]

Don't know about the mullahs but if you ask a Texan about gun control his answer might well be, "Use both hands!"

lol, xD. I will remember that one!

 

[UnChosen]

TV network news reports here are all about gun control and zero about whether or not the violent culture espoused by TV network's entertainment may or may not encourage such things. Can you say, "conflict of interest"?

We Canadians watch pretty much ALL the violent entertainment that comes out of the US and yet we don't have nearly as much problem with guns. In fact, a significant portion of our gun crimes are caused by smuggled guns from south of the border. There are times when I wish the continent could be split at the border so that we stop importing all of the bad influence from down there.

I always find it hilarious how pro-gun people scream so loud about government intervention but then divert people's attention to "solutions" that requires even more government intervention.

Don't touch my guns, but go ahead and mess with other people's entertainment and the entertainment industry, because "inanimate" guns don't kill people, but (inanimate) films do.

Gun Rights > Free Speech.

Don't touch my guns, but go ahead and spend billions on mental health. Wait...DON'T spend billions on mental health, just spend a coupon of millions for institutionalization and lock those "crazy people" up forever. That way we won't promote evil universal health care for crazies.

This way we can also avoid mandated background checks, mandated follow ups, or any kind of gun registries...brilliant!

Don't forget to ONLY tax the families of those crazy people and don't touch my moneh.

Gun Rights > Human Rights

 

[gambit]

We Canadians watch pretty much ALL the violent entertainment that comes out of the US and yet we don't have nearly as much problem with guns.

There ain't that many of you to start.

In fact, a significant portion of our gun crimes are caused by smuggled guns from south of the border. There are times when I wish the continent could be split at the border so that we stop importing all of the bad influence from down there.

You mean like the Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal shooting was made up?

I always find it hilarious how pro-gun people scream so loud about government intervention but then divert people's attention to "solutions" that requires even more government intervention.

Don't touch my guns, but go ahead and mess with other people's entertainment and the entertainment industry, because "inanimate" guns don't kill people, but (inanimate) films do.

No. We -- and am a gun owner -- are saying: If you say that my guns affect my thinking, then why not violent entertainment?

What I find hilarious is the fact that the same people in entertainment and advertising will spend hundreds of million$ and all kinds of rhetoric to say how much words matter, like 'Musick has Charms to sooth a savage Breast' (William Congreve 1697), but those same speeches, music, plays, movies, and Grand Theft Auto rated M have no effects on the human mind at all. No sir. Not a whit. They spent all those advertising money just for the sake of spending money.

Gun Rights > Free Speech.

No. In the US, it is 'Gun Rights = Free Speech'. If anything, gun rights ENSURE free speech. What is Canada's National Firearms Association's credo? In defense of freedom.

Don't touch my guns, but go ahead and spend billions on mental health. Wait...DON'T spend billions on mental health, just spend a coupon of millions for institutionalization and lock those "crazy people" up forever. That way we won't promote evil universal health care for crazies.

This way we can also avoid mandated background checks, mandated follow ups, or any kind of gun registries...brilliant!

Don't forget to ONLY tax the families of those crazy people and don't touch my moneh.

Gun Rights > Human Rights

Ban advertising. Everything from medicines to used cars. Ban music and soaring speeches for they have the power, not only calm the savage breast, but also to incite passion in the same. After all, how many revolutions were started by words?

 

[gambit]

We should put Victoria's Secret out of business. If 'Musick has Charms to sooth a savage Breast' (William Congreve 1697), then certainly mostly nude women excite my loin and who knows how many men out there have ideas other than sex. We should ban advertising featuring children to protect them from excited pedophiles. In public, women should be forced to cover up.

 

[gambit]

A more rational perspective (as usual) from Thomas Sowell.

===
The gun control controversy is only the latest of many issues to be debated almost solely in terms of fixed preconceptions, with little or no examination of hard facts.

Media discussions of gun control are dominated by two factors: the National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment. But the over-riding factual question is whether gun control laws actually reduce gun crimes in general or murder rates in particular.

If, as gun control advocates claim, gun control laws really do control guns and save lives, there is nothing to prevent repealing the Second Amendment, any more than there was anything to prevent repealing the Eighteenth Amendment that created Prohibition.

But, if the hard facts show that gun control laws do not actually control guns, but instead lead to more armed robberies and higher murder rates after law-abiding citizens are disarmed, then gun control laws would be a bad idea, even if there were no Second Amendment and no National Rifle Association.

The central issue boils down to the question: What are the facts? Yet there are many zealots who seem utterly unconcerned about facts or about their own lack of knowledge of facts.

There are people who have never fired a shot in their life who do not hesitate to declare how many bullets should be the limit to put into a firearm's clip or magazine. Some say ten bullets but New York state's recent gun control law specifies seven.

Virtually all gun control advocates say that 30 bullets in a magazine is far too many for self-defense or hunting -- even if they have never gone hunting and never had to defend themselves with a gun. This uninformed and self-righteous dogmatism is what makes the gun control debate so futile and so polarizing.

Anyone who faces three home invaders, jeopardizing himself or his family, might find 30 bullets barely adequate. After all, not every bullet hits, even at close range, and not every hit incapacitates. You can get killed by a wounded man.

These plain life-and-death realities have been ignored for years by people who go ballistic when they hear about how many shots were fired by the police in some encounter with a criminal. As someone who once taught pistol shooting in the Marine Corps, I am not the least bit surprised by the number of shots fired. I have seen people miss a stationary target at close range, even in the safety and calm of a pistol range.

We cannot expect everybody to know that. But we can expect them to know that they don't know -- and to stop spouting off about life-and-death issues when they don't have the facts.

The central question as to whether gun control laws save lives or cost lives has generated many factual studies over the years. But these studies have been like the proverbial tree that falls in an empty forest, and has been heard by no one -- certainly not by zealots who have made up their minds and don't want to be confused by the facts.

Most factual studies show no reduction in gun crimes, including murder, under gun control laws. A significant number of studies show higher rates of murder and other gun crimes under gun control laws.

How can this be? It seems obvious to some gun control zealots that, if no one had guns, there would be fewer armed robberies and fewer people shot to death.

But nothing is easier than to disarm peaceful, law-abiding people. And nothing is harder than to disarm people who are neither -- especially in a country with hundreds of millions of guns already out there, that are not going to rust away for centuries.

When it was legal to buy a shotgun in London in the middle of the 20th century, there were very few armed robberies there. But, after British gun control zealots managed over the years to disarm virtually the entire law-abiding population, armed robberies became literally a hundred times more common. And murder rates rose.

One can cherry-pick the factual studies, or cite some studies that have subsequently been discredited, but the great bulk of the studies show that gun control laws do not in fact control guns. On net balance, they do not save lives but cost lives.

Gun control laws allow some people to vent their emotions, politicians to grandstand and self-righteous people to "make a statement" -- but all at the cost of other people's lives.

===
Home intruders prefers numbers in order to overwhelm their victims. Limiting the amount of ammunition per magazine is a useless gesture because people will buy more guns to compensate. Banning guns does not ban violent crimes and this is the misleading argument from gun control/banning advocates. Even if no guns are available at all, criminals will always find tools and gather in superior numbers to commit their misdeeds. The real solution is not to ban guns but to allow decent citizens the means to defend themselves against criminals.

 

[SQ8]

I agree with gambit on this one..
What is going to deter a potential robbery or rape attempt...: Knowing that your target may very well fire back!
The problem is , incidents like the cinema or school shooting have little to do with excessive guns in the street.. and more to do with psychopaths. Problem is, many people are born or gain chemical and emotional imbalances that remain unidentified for a long time until those people pick up a gun to shoot children. The question is not of gun control, but rather of social awareness and an attempt to stem social issues like broken families and the like.
Children need to be able to go somewhere to talk it out if their families are having issues or otherwise.
So that they dont grow up into disturbed adults and take it out on the innocent.
Perhaps Obama's healthcare should include such a program..

 

[UnChosen]

There ain't that many of you to start.

Per capita we have less gun crimes. Oh, and we have less crime of every other sort as well even though we are not armed to the teeth. And frankly the number of people dying in the US due to criminals having guns far outnumbers the number of people dying in Canada due to people not having guns, even adjusting for population.

You mean like the Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal shooting was made up?

I said a "significant portion"...and if you have to quote an example from 20+ years ago I think our policies are working rather well.

No. We -- and am a gun owner -- are saying: If you say that my guns affect my thinking, then why not violent entertainment?

If gun owners are serious about the whole "anti-government" thing then they should shut up and stop diverting attention to other things that they want the same government they fear so much to regulate. All that does is nullify their whole "inanimate objects don't kill" argument and show how much of a hypocrite they are.

By the way, I would GLADLY accept controlling violent media in exchange for better gun control. I don't need to watch violent films.

What I find hilarious is the fact that the same people in entertainment and advertising will spend hundreds of million$ and all kinds of rhetoric to say how much words matter, like 'Musick has Charms to sooth a savage Breast' (William Congreve 1697), but those same speeches, music, plays, movies, and Grand Theft Auto rated M have no effects on the human mind at all. No sir. Not a whit. They spent all those advertising money just for the sake of spending money.

Everything advertisers say is the truth. [/sarcasm] Be right back, going to stomp turtles with my friends co-op because Nintendo advertise it as fun.

No. In the US, it is 'Gun Rights = Free Speech'. If anything, gun rights ENSURE free speech. What is Canada's National Firearms Association's credo? In defense of freedom.

Oh no, I better watch my back now because the government is watching. Poor me, I don't have a gun to defend myself when the government squad comes to shut me up.

Back in reality, if the government wants to limit speech it'll just do it through the law or corporations. And in the event that a fight does occur...those little toy guns won't be able to do squat against what the US government has at its disposal.

It's not called the world's strongest military for nothing. I would place my bet on the US military turning against the government by itself as opposed to the "citizen army" somehow winning.

The NFA is pretty much the Canadian version of the NRA...yeah I'm sure they will not say stuff to make themselves look better.

 

[Vassnti]

My question is why are Americans so afraid?

You need guns to defend you from robbers murderers rapists the goverment the UN.
What happens with those guns by a two thirds majority they shoot the owners.

Of the 30,470 firearm-related deaths in the United States in 2010, 19,392 (63.6%) were suicide deaths, and 11,078 (36.4%) homicide deaths.

http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/pdf/10LCID_Violence_Related_Injury_Deaths_2010-a.pdf

Allowing for most murders being by family members spouses etc the chances are if you own a gun the only person its going to be used on is you or your family.

No limit on magazine capacity no limit on weapon choice would you be comfortable for the "quiet guy who keeps to himself" down the street owning one of these?

 

[gambit]

Per capita we have less gun crimes. Oh, and we have less crime of every other sort as well even though we are not armed to the teeth. And frankly the number of people dying in the US due to criminals having guns far outnumbers the number of people dying in Canada due to people not having guns, even adjusting for population.

It is not just about crimes involving firearms. It is about crimes in general.

Crime in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Overall, the national crime rate was 3466 crimes per 100,000 residents,...

Crime in Canada - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The province with the lowest crime rate in 2006 was for the third straight year Ontario with 5,689 per 100,000, followed by Quebec with 5,909 per 100,000. The province with the highest crime rate for the 9th straight year was Saskatchewan with 13,711 per 100,000. Regina is the city with the highest crime rate followed by its provincial counterpart Saskatoon. Quebec City, Trois-Rivières, and Saguenay have the lowest crime rates of any city and are all located in Quebec.[2] The three northern territories have higher per capita crime rates than any province.

You are no different than US.

I said a "significant portion"...and if you have to quote an example from 20+ years ago I think our policies are working rather well.

The majority of gun crimes in the US involves gangs, not law abiding citizens, including states with the most restrictive gun control laws. People with criminal records are also more likely to die from gun related events, as in recidivism. The reality is that in the US, the majority of gun crimes involves illegal possession/use far more than legal ownership of guns. The Ecole Polytechnique shooting in Montreal was with legal guns. An anomaly in line with US like the recent Sandy Hook school shooting.

But if you want, keywords searches are not that difficult to perform...

Teenage girl, Ajax man killed in Toronto shooting - Toronto - CBC News

Friends and family are mourning two young people who lost their lives in one of the bloodiest shootings in Toronto’s history.

Toronto police say that at least 100 people were attending a block party when shots rang out on Danzig Street at about 10:40 p.m. Monday.

Twenty-five people were hit when the shots were fired and two of those people died.

If gun owners are serious about the whole "anti-government" thing then they should shut up and stop diverting attention to other things that they want the same government they fear so much to regulate. All that does is nullify their whole "inanimate objects don't kill" argument and show how much of a hypocrite they are.

The majority of US gun owners do not have that 'anti-government thing'. Sorry to burst your bubble. Being suspicious of governmental intrusions and power does not equate to being 'anti-government'. But I guess that would be strange to anyone who is comfortable and even encourages governmental controls over their lives.

By the way, I would GLADLY accept controlling violent media in exchange for better gun control. I don't need to watch violent films.

Then you would have no problems if the Canadian government ban criticisms of it.

Everything advertisers say is the truth. [/sarcasm] Be right back, going to stomp turtles with my friends co-op because Nintendo advertise it as fun.

And I am positive you have never been influenced by speeches, music, or opinions. You are a rock.

Oh no, I better watch my back now because the government is watching. Poor me, I don't have a gun to defend myself when the government squad comes to shut me up.

Back in reality, if the government wants to limit speech it'll just do it through the law or corporations. And in the event that a fight does occur...those little toy guns won't be able to do squat against what the US government has at its disposal.

It's not called the world's strongest military for nothing. I would place my bet on the US military turning against the government by itself as opposed to the "citizen army" somehow winning.

This argument has been debunked a long time ago. In order for this to happen, the US would have t become a dictatorship politically. The American military members will not allow this to happen. They will leave the military, either legally or illegally, before they will allow themselves to become instruments of political oppression. This is America, not compliant Canadians willing to support censorship.

 

[MilSpec]

@gambit is killin it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!all hail gambit!!!