Oregon Sheriff to VP: I won't enforce any new gun laws.

page: 3
50
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by VikingWarlord
 



That sucks to hear man, you guys have (...or had from the sounds of it...) something really good going!




posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Djayed
reply to post by VikingWarlord
 

I do not feel comfortable that my neighbor is allowed to have 3000 guns.....no one person should own that much firepower.


Jay Leno owns over 100 cars. How many do you think he can drive at once?



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 02:17 PM
link   
I refuse to follow any new gun laws so take that government!



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 03:40 PM
link   
I, as a Canadian observer, have always seen the Second Amendment as the natural born right of every American to enforce all other constitutional amendments when a dictatorship style government gains power. It's a fundamental corner stone of the U.S. constitution and any half decent unbiased American history book explains why. As a natural born Canadian I have *ZERO* written rights guaranteed to me *ANYWHERE* on *ANY* historical document in terms of being able to keep and bear arms. My pathetic government, and British style of governing, see's gun ownership as a "privilege" in this country. As a free man I beg to differ as the use of my firearms puts food on my table. Hell, we don't even have "castle doctrine" laws in this country and citizens who choose to defend themselves from criminals are often charged by police who are following asinine outdated laws that have existed since before our Dominion.

This Sheriff in Oregon is *technically* not exceptional, he is simply *doing his job* as he had sworn to do so when becoming Sheriff. However, in this day and age where rampant police corruption and abuse is common practice, this Sheriff is a true American Patriot. Hopefully more police officers like him will uphold the U.S. constitution as *EVERY* American police officer swore to do so before becoming a LEO.
edit on 16-1-2013 by Jocko Flocko because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Jocko Flocko
 


Jocko, please take a moment to see my thread on this topic here.

I would live to see your opinion!

Cheers,



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by VikingWarlord
LINK
I found this letter to be a well written response to the reactionary rush to push through new gun legislation. This Sheriff has served this country in the military, and continued to serve the public for 28 years in the Sheriff's office. He took an oath to defend the constitution, and he is dead serious about keeping it. I hope more law enforcement and military personnel step up to the plate and let their voices be heard!




As a resident of Linn County, I support the sheriff's decisions. It's ludicrous to disarm law abiding citizens because of a gun crime. So when a gun crime happens again are we supposed to beg for our lives now?



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 09:52 PM
link   
The fact that the Sheriff wrote the letter to Biden instead of Obama speaks volumes. After all, Biden won't be signing any executive orders.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 10:33 PM
link   
Phase 1 Complete.....Soon we will be coming for your guns and your religion...there is no where to hide!! LOL I'm just going to throw this out there, but we have done an assault weapons ban before and nothing happened. No big uproar, no chants of 1776...What is different now.....Black President. Yup..I went there.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 10:39 PM
link   
reply to post by ltheghost
 
His mother was white. That makes him of mixed race, and has no bearing on the current status of the country. There, I went there.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 09:21 AM
link   
On the truly positive side of the confiscation issue ..whereas a citizen might feel bad about shooting a local police officer that they might have gone to school with and thereby hesitating and losing their guns. Mercs and foreign troops don't have that position to help them. Can't say about anyone else but i would have absolutely no qualms against 12 gauging some foreigner in the face for busting into my home. Shooting center mass does nothing for intruders wearing armor remember that when the time comes.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by AwakeinNM

Originally posted by Djayed
reply to post by VikingWarlord
 

I do not feel comfortable that my neighbor is allowed to have 3000 guns.....no one person should own that much firepower.


Jay Leno owns over 100 cars. How many do you think he can drive at once?


Leno cant strap 20 cars to his back and walk into a High school, church, store, etc.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 02:15 PM
link   
Good ole Tim Muller. Makes me proud to be a resident of linn county.

If only he would change his mind about cannabis lol



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by VikingWarlord
 


No worries. Send in the Feds, file suit, arrest the Sheriff . . . many options.

So the employees, the Sheriffs, think they get to decide what laws to enforce.

Conservatism is making it SO easy to destroy it



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 08:06 PM
link   
More Oregon Sheriffs are chiming in. The message? They are not going to enforce new unconstitutional gun laws. This is getting good! Link



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 11:09 PM
link   
here's one from columbia county.



hope more speakup. unfortunately looks like i governer is siding obama.
LINK



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 11:16 PM
link   
reply to post by ishum
 

Thanks for the letter, this is very refreshing to see Law enforcement standing up for the constitution. I admit that I did have my doubts, due to some bad apples abusing their powers as of late. It seems there are still some that take their oaths seriously. Great find.



BTW: I agree, Kitzhaber is a complete tool, and he is trying to destroy this once great state from within.
edit on 1/18/13 by VikingWarlord because: added content



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 12:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by VikingWarlord
LINK
I found this letter to be a well written response to the reactionary rush to push through new gun legislation. This Sheriff has served this country in the military, and continued to serve the public for 28 years in the Sheriff's office. He took an oath to defend the constitution, and he is dead serious about keeping it. I hope more law enforcement and military personnel step up to the plate and let their voices be heard!




Folks, this right here is what a sheriff is SUPPOSED to do.



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
The only realistic way they can do it is something even the good Sheriff can't do much about or stop. They can institute graduated federally based buy-back programs on weapons. What isn't turned in out of greed of owners will be stolen to be turned in by criminals or tipped by others looking for a cheap reward. That would take the numbers down by orders of magnitude before anyone has to talk a bit of force.

Even 15 years ago, such an idea would have been doomed to even mention. No possibility, in my opinion and citizens would more likely turn on those few who would turn each other in just for money.

That was then.... Now we have chronic unemployment well into double figures in entirely too many places. Actual hunger exists and a polarization that can be played like a tuned piano which didn't exist back then is the norm today.

It would probably work.


not to mention the vast majority of people living in urban areas are idiots who trust the government, and buy into the "see something, say something" syndrome. but you're right about the unemployment, and hunger, and a lot of people are dependent on federal assistance, maybe those people feel beholden to the government?

a federal buyback program WOULD be disastrous though, and would almost certainly CREATE more crime, possibly violent crime, possibly with guns, thus giving them more ammunition to take shots at the constitution with. if not, it would more than likely show a rise in people spying on their neighbors, and traitorously turning them in for having "those ugly, awful guns"



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Djayed
reply to post by VikingWarlord
 


People should not be allowed to own assault rifles or clips that that have more then 12 bullets in them. That is my opinion. I think hand guns are fine, which I own one (1). I am not going to war, I do not need an arsenal, I do not feel comfortable that my neighbor is allowed to have 3000 guns.....no one person should own that much firepower.

If these type of gun laws were in place.....maybe some deaths could have been avoided!


OK, firstly..."assault weapon", as used in common nomenclature, is a stupid, politically correct term for "scary guns"...most "assault weapons" don't even meet the military's minimum requirements for that classification, and they do have requirements to for a weapon to bo so classified...that's what's also commonly referred to as a "definition of the word"

Secondly, if you owned a handgun, i would hope you took proper courses on safety, handling, maintenance, and marksmanship, and i would hope that SOMEWHERE in there, your instructor would have made you aware of the fact that it is a "MAGAZINE", not a "CLIP" clips haven't been used to load a firearm in decades...sadly, i doubt you took proper courses, in which case, you either don't really own one, or you really should go take courses.

Lastly, Standard magazine sizes for an AR-15 (not an assault weapon, BTW), or any other kind of long arms should be left alone. as should standard mag sizes for pistols. the only thing reducing mag size does is ensure you have a disadvantage against criminals that would seek to do you harm. i really don't understand the logic behind reducing the stop depth of a magazine's feeder ramp spring...

a Beretta M92FS has a standard magazine capacity of 15 rounds of 9MM ammunition. The proposed limit is 10..with one loaded in the pipe, you can currently have 16 rounds at the ready. after the limitation, with one loaded in the pipe, you would have 11 at the ready. if you run into a particularly nasty situation, and you don't have any additional magazines with you, you'll mostly likely find yourself desperately wishing like you've never wished before, that you had those missing 5-6 rounds at your disposal..

simmer on it a bit..



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Djayed

Originally posted by AwakeinNM

Originally posted by Djayed
reply to post by VikingWarlord
 

I do not feel comfortable that my neighbor is allowed to have 3000 guns.....no one person should own that much firepower.


Jay Leno owns over 100 cars. How many do you think he can drive at once?


Leno cant strap 20 cars to his back and walk into a High school, church, store, etc.


i see what you did there.....

i doubt YOU, or I, or ANYONE ELSE could strap 20 guns to our backs, and walk into a place either.....firstly. ill assume we're talking about a combination of rifles, carbines, pistols, and shotguns.....firstly, they're heavy, so you wouldn't get anywhere fast...secondly, you cant drive with all that hardware on you, so you would hafta load up outside the place, and someone would no doubt see you, and call police. and they would be there before you, could actually DO any killing...carrying enough ammunition for each weapon would be next to impossible due to weight, and bulk...and here's the most important bit of this farcical scenario...what exactly the # is the point of having THAT many guns?, THAT many REDUNDANT guns of multiple types?. what's the point? I never understood all these idiots who allegedly shoot up schools...they have multiple handguns...whats the goddamn point? one pistol, multiple mags...its easier that way..

are you seeing how ridiculous your statement was?





new topics

top topics



 
50
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join