Lets look at this letter."I have long suspected that Salt Lake
City Police Chief Chris Burbank was anti-gun and gun ownership."Hardly. Many Many people who are for universal background checks are anything
but anti-gun."Several studies have shown that the ban had no
affect on crime reduction or crime prevention."While not
specifically referring to fully automatic weapons, the point is the same. WHY
have fully auto weapons NOT been in the headlines in these shootings?Why? Because they were banned many years ago."The majority of
gun purchases in the country are through federal licensed firearm
dealers"The most common number is about 60%. Yes, the majority,
but not by much. So, 40% of gun buyers go through NO background checks. Very
easy to circumvent. 15 Million people in 10 years were denied
firearm purchases because of the background check requirement.Yes,
probably most still got firearms. They looked in the want ads or went to gun
shows or bought off the internet.Why would we NOT want to include
those avenues in background checks? I don't get it.
"Why would we NOT want to include those avenues in background checks? I
don't get it." Joe it's easy. Barack Obama wants it..enough said.
He could create a boycott on strawberry ice cream if he wanted.
Our Constitution protects us against police chiefs and presidents who think that
the Supreme Law of the Land can be changed because they don't like the way
that it is written. They forget that they are not above the law; that they are
servants of the people who ratified that law through the vote of their State;
that they are required to respect the law, just as they expect us to respect the
law.Chief Burbank needs to spend some serious time reflecting on
what it means to be a citizen in a country where the rights of the citizens come
far before the "right" of any police chief to re-interpret the Supreme
Law of the Land."the right of the people to keep and bear arms
shall not be infringed."
Mike,You use the "unconstitutional" argument every day. Like it or not, the Supreme court interprets the constitution. I would
have to believe that the Heller ruling would have been considered an overall win
with gun advocates. However, here is part of the text from majority
opinion. Supported by Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy, Alito, and Clarence Thomas."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. Pp. 54–56."
@Mike RichardsSouth Jordan, Utah"the right of the people
to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."==========Mike - that is called word-smithing, cutting and pasting, and taking OUT
of context.It's the same thing Satan does to twist and misrepresent
the "scriptures"...."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.I want to know what Militia you
happen to belong to, and what you do to consider it, or you as for that
matter, as full filling the Constitutional requirement of being
Thanks to JoeBlow for presenting useful facts about gun control and to Chief
Burbank for his sensible efforts to reduce gun violence.Those who
argue that the Constitution does not allow restrictions on gun ownership need to
become better informed on the law. In particular, they need to learn why there
is "tension" among the various rights under the Bill of Rights and why
no right is absolute.Personally, my favorite part of the 2nd
Amendment is the term "well-regulated."
@airnautMilitia duty is *a* purpose for the right to bear arms. It
doesn't say anywhere that that's the *only* purpose.
Joe Blow and LDS Liberal,YOUR version of the Constitution in not the
Constitution that is used by the United States of America. No matter how much
you whine and moan about freedom being excessive in America, it will not change
the fact that we are a free people and that we have restricted the government
from infringing on our right to keep and bear arms. You both know that the
Supreme Court has not ruled at any time that the people must get permission from
the government to keep and bear arms. You both know that the Supreme Court
specifically stated that our right to keep and bear arms is not tied in any way
to membership in a militia; yet, you continue to ignore the Constitution,
substituting your own beliefs as you try to tell us that your constitution is
the Supreme Law of the Land.Fortunately, in America, we, the people
have access to the true words of the Constitution so that we don't have to
rely on your interpretation.
Re: ". . . the same thing Satan does to twist and misrepresent the
'scriptures'...."Well, I guess liberals oughtta know
how Satan works.But, it is not, of course, honestly arguable that
the Second Amendment, by saying that the right of the people to keep and bear
arms shall NOT be infringed, actually means that the right SHALL or MAY be
infringed, unless you're a member of a militia group.It's
just not honest.And, by the way, even if it did, the historical
definition of militia includes ALL people able to respond to a call to defend
the community or its freedoms, not some more limited, but disingenuously defined
@JoeBlow "Why would we NOT want to include those avenues [Internet and gun
shows] in background checks? I don't get it."If this had
been all that was in the legislation, it may have passed. But gun-control
proponents couldn't resist overreaching.
Re: "However, here is part of the text from majority opinion."Yeah, part of the text. But not necessary to the decision of the case, and,
therefore, nothing more than an obiter dictum.It's simply
dishonest to suggest that the Supreme Court supports any of the unconstitutional
liberal proposals currently on the table. The Court simply has never been called
upon to decide their constitutionality.So, if you want to honestly
bolster your case for infringing, in the face of an unambiguous prohibition on
infringing, you'll have to go elsewhere.Liberals can, and
probably will, continue to use disingenuous sophistry to suggest their approach
is correct, but that's all it is.There is no honest, reasonable
support for the constitutionality of their useless, ridiculous proposals in
anything other than older, now thoroughly discredited cases.
Honestly do people have the mentality of 3 year olds? Background check will
never ever work because the criminal wil never ever ever ever submit to
background checks. Didn't anybody learn anything from prohibition? anything
at all? If you throw a dog off a cliff, it will never grow wings and fly back
into your arms.
Joe Blow/LDS Liberal - Clearly, you two are the ones subverting the Constitution
by taking into account the entirety of the COTUS and all subsequent SCOTUS case
law that flows from it. Mike Richards, on the other hand, is a
"purist." In that he "purely" follows the parts of the COTUS
and SCOTUS case law he agrees with and then ignores blatant, explicit SCOTUS
case law to the contrary.Let's compare an individual's gun
rights to actual fundamental rights within the COTUS: Can a convict
get married? Yep. Can a convict get a gun? Nope. Does a person
with certain mental challenges still enjoy the right to privacy? Yep.
Abortion? Yep. Speech? Yep. Can that same person get a gun? Nope. Does an individual in the US enjoy a personal right to gun ownership? For the
last five years or so: Yep. For the previous 230 years or so: nope. Is the standard of "strict scrutiny", which is applied to the
limitation of fundamental rights, applied to gun control? Nope. In
spite of McDonald v Chicago, has the SCOTUS ever applied a strict scrutiny
standard to gun regulation? Nope. Thus, is gun ownership a
fundamental right? Nope.
@Mike RichardsSouth Jordan, Utah@procuradorfiscalTooele,
UT========== I've served in an actual
"Militia" as defined by the US Constitution.[State National
Guard]Let me ask a couple more questions --How much ammo do
you have?Is it standardized [meanings, can you share or have shared when
you run out]?Do you have a uniform?Who is your commanding
officer?What is your Chain of Command?Where are your orders, and Who
authorized them?If you can not answer those questions completely --
You are nothing more than armed thugs and armed MOBS.No
different that the "Militia" Mobs who killed Joseph and Hyrum Smith
saying they are defending the Constitutional right to a Free Press.Not meeting the Requirement of "Well-Regulated Miliita".You have your right to your gun to protect your house, But you are NOT
by any stretch of the most wold imagination a "well-regulated
militia".This is real life - not Rambo, RedDawn fantasyland.
futhermore -- the Constitution recognizes state Militias, and gave
them vital roles to fill: "to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress
Insurrections and repel Invasion." (Article I, Section 8, Clause 15). The
Constitution distinguished "Militia(s)", which were state entities
(Article I, Section 10, Clause 3).The Constitutional "Militia of
the Several States" were not entirely independent, however, because they can
be federalized. According to Article I, Section 8; Clause 14, the United States
Congress "calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union,
suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions." Congressional guidelines
"for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing
such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States,
reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the
Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by
Congress" (clause 16). The President of the United States is the
commander-in-chief of the state militias "when called into the actual
Service of the United States". (Article II, Section 2).---------In Summary,Mike Richards could never be part of
Militia -- He would never subject himself to orders from President Obama
Re: "If you can not answer those questions completely -- You are nothing
more than armed thugs and armed MOBS."I also served for a time
in the National Guard. But, nothing in the Constitution limits militia service
to National Guard service. In fact, most Americans that served honorably and
well as part of a militia did so long, LONG before the National Guard was
established.But, I digress. Nothing in my National Guard service,
nothing in my 30+ years of active military service, nothing in my time as a cop
-- NONE of those -- entitle me to keep and bear arms. Rather, the
Second Amendment guarantees that right to "the people." Not the
"militia people." Not the "police people." Not the "national
military people." Not even the "liberal, oligarch-wannabee
people."Liberal sophistry notwithstanding, nothing in the Second
Amendment magically makes the words "shall not be infringed" mean
"shall" or "may be infringed."I don't get to
choose whether liberals are honest or dishonest. But I can and do choose to
ignore them when they're patently dishonest.
LDS Liberal / airnaut,You claim to uphold the doctrine of the LDS
Church and to stand for its principles. One of those principles is NOT bearing
false witness nor misrepresenting. What does the LDS Church tell us about
keeping an oath? Hasn't God told us that though the heavens and the earth
pass away, yet his word shall not be altered.Obama, the Commander in
Chief, took an oath of office to uphold the Constitution, yet he actively
disregards DOMA. He actively disregards his duty to secure our boarders. He
actively disregards his duty to evict those who entered the United States
illegally. He actively gives machine guns to gangs in Mexico. He actively
selects tax cheats to serve on his cabinet.You may follow Obama but
your oath as a soldier to protect the Constitution is in direct conflict with
your desire to support Obama.No, I would never serve as a solder
under Obama. I value my word. When I take an oath, I keep that oath.
Circumstances will never dictate to me where my allegiance should be."Shall not infringed" has not changed since the Constitution was
ratified notwithstanding you or Obama.
@Mike RichardsNo, your view of the constitution is the one that is
incorrect since all of the justices including Scalia believe that the 2nd
Amendment allows for regulation on guns, just not a total ban (this is noted in
the Heller case that overturned the DC/Chicago total gun bans).
@alt134,Your assumption that the Court has upheld laws that infringe
on our right to keep and bear arms is totally false. The Court has not upheld a
law that infringes on our right to keep and bear arms. No law that they have
ruled on takes away a citizen's right to keep and bear arms or to infringe
on that right. You have read into a ruling something that is not there. You
may wish that they restricted our right to keep and bear arms, but your wish is
not their command.Saying that someone may be prosecuted for shouting
"fire" in a crowded theater is not the same as restricting a
person's right to shout "fire" in a crowded theater. There is a
huge difference between censorship and prosecution. There is a huge difference
between infringement before a criminal act takes place and prosecuting for
committing a criminal act after the fact.We are not a pre-emptive
society where government prosecutes us before we commit a felony. We are a
nation of people who have agency to act without government pre-authorization.
Mike,DOMA is NOT part of the constitution.It is a law
passed by the congress that it looks like was unconstitutional. We'll know
Time to put your money where your mouth is, conservatives. If you truly believe
your right to guns "shall not be infringed" then please grab all your
guns, arm yourself to the hilt, and walk into your nearest elementary school.
Shoot off a couple of rounds to demonstrate your disgust w/ socialized education
(1st Amendment) and then sit... and wait. When you're
arrested, let's see whether you can win in court based on your "shall
not be infringed" argument. Come on, show some conviction in
your side of the argument.
Chief Burbank should consider having his officers leave their weapons at the
office and wear a shirt that reads "This Officer is a Gun Free Zone!"
Re JoeBlow...Mike,JoeBlow is right. The Constitution
doesn't mean what is written in it... it only means what the Supreme Court
says it says. That's why it is so important that we not let
"Progressives" take over the Supreme Court and start morphing it into
something you would never recognize as our founding document and out "bill
of rights".Your rights can be taken away with a simple opinion
by a group of activist judges. So don't take your government for granted.
They don't GIVE these rights (they are natural rights). But they can
sure TAKE them away.Keep bringing up the Constitution! I LIKE
people who use the "Constititional" argument every day. I don't
like opinions that are consistenly contrary to our Constitution and our Bill Of
Rights (ala JoeBlow). Anyone that would CRITICIZE you for citing the
Constitution isn't on the right track IMO.The Constitution is
fairly direct and simple to understand on this topic.
@ Lany Myer,DOMA was passed September 21, 1996 and signed by Bill
Clinton, long before Obama was elected as President. Obama knew, before running
for office, that DOMA was the law of the land. He knew that he had no authority
to NOT enforce that. As President, he is not authorized to pick and choose which
laws he will execute. His oath of office requires him to faithfully execute ALL
of the laws of the United States, not just those laws that he deems
Constitutional nor those laws that you deem to be Constitutional.He
swore an oath under false pretense. He had no intention of keeping that oath.
He misrepresented himself to the people of America, who have every right to
expect him to FAITHFULLY execute the duties of his office.Read his
oath of office. "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully
execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my
Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United
States.”If he disagrees with the law, he needs to step down or
Congress needs to remove him.
@J Thompson"Your assumption that the Court has upheld laws that
infringe on our right to keep and bear arms is totally false. "Then how about..."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. [United States v.] 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."From the Heller brief written by
airnautThe Supreme Court has already ruled and did not agree with your
presumption that Militia means Police, National Guard, etc... in their decision
ruling the Washington DC law "UnConstitutional" that limited gun
ownership to police and military.You can say that militia = national
guard, but that doesn't make it true (and the Supreme Court didn't
agree with your presumption). "Militia" CAN mean many things (not just
National Guard). The neighborhood militias that existed and acted during the
Revolutionary War were not "National Guard" units. They were self
organized nieghborhood entitites that the government did not form, fund, or
control. They were groups of concernd people (call them MOBS if you want but
you owe the contry we have today to them).There was the "Mormon
Militia" organized by Joseph Smith back in the day. They were not a
National Guard unit.There are nieghborhoods today that have
organized militias because they do not take their security for granted and want
to be prepared to HELP the government if outsiders threaten their
neighborhood... and are also prepared in the unimaginable case that the
government should turn on it's own people some day in the distant future.
Many are talking about the 2nd Amendment only applying to those in a militia.That is not correct as is also spelled out in the Heller ruling The Heller ruling's main point was that the 2nd Amendment did not
limit the right to bear arms to only those in Militias.Overall,
Heller was a win for gun advocates.Like it or not, the SCOTUS
interprets the constitution. Those interpretations ARE constitutional. You
cannot separate the SCOTUS rulings from the Constitution.In the
Heller case, the majority opinion was written by and joined by the most
conservative of the court. Even the parts where they explicitly
spell out that the 2nd Amendment DOES allow for limiting- Who can
Carry- Where they can Carry- What they can CarryAnd to
Procur. What I posted was excerpts form the DECISION. Not
atl134,Exactly whose rights were infringed by the Heller brief?
Does the Heller brief REQUIRE a background check? Does the Heller brief REQUIRE
that semi-automatic firearms be turned in to the government? Does the Heller
brief REQUIRE high capacity magazines to be turned in? Does the Heller brief
ALLOW States to NOT allow you to keep and bear arms? You are putting
restrictions where no restriction exists. You are pretending that the Heller
brief upheld some non-existent government "right" to take away our
firearms. That's just wistful thinking on your part.Until the
Court upholds a SPECIFIC law passed by Congress that allows infringement on our
right to keep and bear arms, we, the people, have the guaranteed right to keep
and bear arms. "Might", "maybe" and perhaps don't count.
"Shall not" does count.
2 bitsCottonwood Heights, UT=========The
"National Guard" - wasn't enacted until the Militia Act of 1903.The National Guard still holds and maintains the "Minute Man"
icon, as it always has since 1775.Regular guys/gasl - 9 to 5,
friends and neighbors -- who are duly sworn, trained, certified, drilled, and
ready to serve at a "Minutes notice".In 1842 (pre-civil war)
- The Nauvoo Legion was fully State chartered, State sanctioned, regularly
drilled, and trained.I maintain you "militia wanna
be's" - not meeting ANY of the Constitutional requirements of being
"well-regulated" are nothing more than armed thugs and mobs.Keep your guns and protect your homes if you must,But 2nd Amendment
Constitutionally defined “well-regulated militia” you most certainly
are NOT.In other news -- Minnesota: A Domestic terrorist
suspect was arrest. Buford Rogers (24) is the founder of the "Black Snake
Militia".I rest my case....
Again and again we hear the bleating cry that anyone who supports the idea of
sensible gun laws including background checks must somehow be "anti
gun."False.But as long as the NRA claims it is,
people who are easily deluded and confused will continue their bleating.
JThompson -- you mean like Bush's "signing statements" that said
"Okay, I'll sign this law, but won't obey or enforce it."Is that what you're talking about?
@J ThompsonI am arguing that the brief notes that policies we have in
place regarding limits on guns for felons, background checks, and assault
weapons bans, are regulations that can be considered constitutional. If there were no regulations on guns that could ever be allowed we
wouldn't have a ban on machine guns. We wouldn't have background
checks on purchases from gun manufacturers. We wouldn't have any of the
requirements the states currently put on guns. But we do, because they're
We have to find somewhere where one isn't either 'anti gun' or
'anything goes, anywhere, anytime'.
Re: Mike Richards"Our Constitution protects us against police
chiefs and presidents who think that the Supreme Law of the Land can be changed
because they don't like the way that it is written."The
Supreme Law can be changed because we don't like the way it is written. If
it couldn't, black people would still be 3/5 of a person and women would
still have no standing or rights as citizens."Obama, the
Commander in Chief, took an oath of office to uphold the Constitution, yet he
actively disregards DOMA."How so? Has he been giving federal
benefits to same-sex unions that no one has noticed? Where in the Constitution
is marriage even mentioned, let alone defined?"He actively
disregards his duty to secure our boarders."How so? Have we
lost territory to Canada and Mexico recently? "He actively
disregards his duty to evict those who entered the United States
illegally."His deportation numbers have been widely reported and
documented as higher than any previous president in the modern era. Your friend, procuradorfiscal, likes to call out so-called liberals for
"sophistry." You tell me Mike, who's really being deliberately
dishonest in his speech?
LDS Liberal, "The Nauvoo Legion was fully State chartered, State sanctioned,
regularly drilled, and trained."And (it should be mentioned)
armed by the state of Illinois, which is why they accepted Governor Ford's
demand that they lay down their (state-supplied!) arms after Carthage. Many here seem to be buying into the romantic mythos of the militia.
The reality is that they were poorly trained, poorly led, poorly disciplined,
and rightly held in contempt by regulars. That view is consistently
backed up by their performance in the colonial period, the Revolution, the War
of 1812, the Civil War, and a laundry list of minor Indian conflicts.The militia's apogee was on the green at Concord. The rest of the time
their performance ranged from poor to disgraceful.Assembling a group
of armed people together and to call themselves a "militia" confers
neither self-legitimization nor color of law. From some of the arguments here
about the definition of a militia, the Bloods and the Crips have every right to
quit being gangs and call themselves militias, and the LAPD wouldn't be
able to do anything to stop them.
Re: J Thompson"DOMA was passed September 21, 1996 and signed by
Bill Clinton, long before Obama was elected as President. Obama knew, before
running for office, that DOMA was the law of the land. He knew that he had no
authority to NOT enforce that. As President, he is not authorized to pick and
choose which laws he will execute. His oath of office requires him to faithfully
execute ALL of the laws of the United States, not just those laws that he deems
Constitutional nor those laws that you deem to be Constitutional."Andrew Jackson, Martin Van Buren, Abraham Lincoln, Andrew Johnson, Teddy
Roosevelt, FDR, Harry Truman, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, and
George W Bush also performed what you term "unauthorized action."
There's a concept called departmentalism, look it up. Chadha v. INS is the
most recent example, excluding the DOMA cases, where the POTUS refused to defend
a law because he believed it was unconstitutional. P.S. The SCOTUS agreed."He swore an oath under false pretense. He had no intention of
keeping that oath."And you know that, how? What evidence of
fraud do you alone have that we are all oblivious to?
Re JoeBlow"like it or not the supreme court interprets the
constitution". ++++++No where in the constitution
does it give the Supreme Court the authority to go against what the constitution
actually says. Where the constitution is ambiguous, a court may clarify its
meaning. For example the constitution says "no cruel or unusual
punishment" , this is a perfect example of where a court may clarify. In
cases where the constitution is clear the court has no authority to rule against
what the constitution actually says.
to Mike R (May 6 @ 7:29a)... Its when people such as yourself think
they *have the right* to be armed as well as the police & military that I
start to worry.
to cjb May 6th4:56 p.m. May 6,Contextually speaking, interpret &
clarify are synonyms.
"If you are a federally licensed gun dealer and your license is revoked
because you've engaged in misconduct ... your entire inventory under
prevailing law is deemed your personal collection. You then can sell it free
from any background checks." (politifact)
"The majority of Americans say that we have enough gun laws and we only need
to enforce them to take criminals off of the streets."Mr Pollei
you are wrong on two accounts. We already have more people in jail than any
other country, but yet we still kill more people with guns than anyone else. By
the way a majority of Americans believe in better background checks and more
restrictions on assault type weapons. My suggestion is to read, learn and think
about the issues as it relates to risk to our children and us as a society.
He supports a reasonable not a hysterical approach.
I find it curious that police chiefs tend to be anti 2nd Ammendment while
sheriffs tend to be pro.Police chiefs have to move up through the
ranks and please their superiors which requires political skills. Sheriffs get
their position by appealing directly to the people.No particular
point here, but it's a little interesting.
All this Constitutional argument is why I cringe at the idea that judges are
given the power to "interpret" the Constution, rather than
"apply" it. With the power of interpretation, one can do almost
anything. The power of interpretation is the power to do anything without
guidelines. I don't believe the constitution should be given that much
lattitude. If it needs change or updating, as has happened many times, then do
it the right way. Judges who on their own whim "find" a right where one
was not written, are rendering the Constitution meaningless.
procuradorfiscal "nothing in the Second Amendment magically
makes the words "shall not be infringed" mean "shall" or
"may be infringed""nothing in my time as a cop"Oh. So you were a cop. So tell me Officer Procuradorfiscal,
when you had a suspect in custody and you took away their weapon. . . what gave
you that right? After all, "nothing in the Second Amendment magically makes
the words "shall not be infringed" mean "shall" or "may be
infringed" "Tell me by what authority did you infringe on
someone's right to keep and bear arms?
markSalt Lake City, UTSo tell me Officer Procuradorfiscal,
when you had a suspect in custody and you took away their weapon. . . what gave
you that right? After all, "nothing in the Second Amendment magically makes
the words "shall not be infringed" mean "shall" or "may be
infringed" "Tell me by what authority did you infringe on
someone's right to keep and bear arms?"============ Beautiful come-back!Agreed.Officer Procuradorfiscal,
what say you?
LDS LiberalI thought you respected the rulings of the Supreme Court. The
SC recently ruled that the 2nd amendment doesn't only apply to police or
military (ref the Washington DC ruling) and that YES it does apply to ME, and
ALL American Citizens (not the National Guard).,Some groups that
call themselvs "militias" are just thugs. But that doesn't mean
all are. You can't group people you don't know in with the radical
"Black Snake Militia" just because you paint with a broad brush and have
this stereotype for anybody involved in neighborhood security that isn't in
the National Guard. You should know something about them before you stereotype
them. I don't know you and you don't know me so don't judge
me.I think there is a place for the National Guard. And also a
place for prepared families and neighborhoods. We may be a mob... I'm OK
with that label. The people who stood up to the British in Concord were
considered a "Mob" by some. So I'm good with that.
@cjb"I find it curious that police chiefs tend to be anti 2nd
Ammendment while sheriffs tend to be pro.Police chiefs have to move
up through the ranks and please their superiors which requires political skills.
Sheriffs get their position by appealing directly to the people."If you're looking for some sort of correlation, I suggest that police
chiefs are from urban areas where crime, including gun violence, is higher,
whereas sheriffs are predominately from rural parts of the country where it
isn't as great an issue. I suspect that having to deal with the impact of
guns on a daily basis colors police officers' views on gun control far more
than whatever shady politics you're implying.
Police Chiefs are 100% politicians (not police officers). That's why the
drastic difference. POLITICS controls their every word and every decision.
They have to worry about votes and polls (not the people the meet on the street
and deal with their problems).
2 bitsCottonwood Heights, UTPolice Chiefs are 100% politicians (not
police officers). That's why the drastic difference. POLITICS controls
their every word and every decision. They have to worry about votes and polls
(not the people the meet on the street and deal with their problems).10:49 a.m. May 8, 2013========== I disagree.I think he's a COP, just trying to do his job, i.e., trying to keep
citizens safe and his officers from being shot at by keeping guns out of
the hands of criminals and the mentally ill.Republicans and the NRA
are making this 100% political.