Sheriffs association just sent a letter to Obama about gun control...
http://www.utahsheriffs.org/USA-Home_files/2nd%20Amendment%20Letter.pdfThoughts? Interesting last line isn't it....
I made a post last week about this sort of thing, and they are not the only ones...
Again I ask, how much are gun control advocates willing to give up in this silly battle? The Sheriffs have said what THEY are willing to give up.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Elected Sheriffs in Utah! 
...Rachel who? What did she say? 
Thanks
thanks
when George Wallace was gonna show President Kennedy how "tough" he was by defying the Federal government and standing in the school house door to prevent desegregation to take place. He backed off quick when the Fed's showed up and let him know they meant business.
"You can't back off the tough talk now"
mandated it. 99.99999% of those gun owners would remain law-abiding, just like George Wallace did, and those guns would be the property of the ATF nationwide with little trouble: there would be very few "Wacos." Very interesting that you would allude to that, though....
"We'll (Sic), I will avoid the term you deserve"
Which is to say you don't have the courage of your convictions to say honestly what you mean - that's very telling. C'mon now, sport: spit it out. Got something to say? Why don't you just come out and say it?
"Tough talk," indeed...
Edit: typos.
frequently shifts the goalposts and attempts to change the premises upon which the debate is taking place. This standard operating procedure for our "pro gun progressives,"** as is the non-stop personal attacks mixed with pro-NRA talking points.
* http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=105655
**( )
they somehow get to pick and choose what Federal laws they have to obey.
Tell me, when you were in the Corps.*, did you get to pick and choose what orders you wanted to obey? I'll bet that would have over real well with your ranking NCO, huh?
*(...)
desegregation at the "school house door"...until he didn't.
Now listen to me, "virginia moutainman," and you listen good, sport: all this silly chatter about how those laws are simply not going to be enforceable if sweeping gun control legislation is signed into law is simply that - silly chatter. If tomorrow a law was passed outlawing ALL handguns for instance, no exceptions, just turn them in, the vast majority of handgun owners would dutifully trot down to the local ATF office and hand them over. Oh, they would scream and moan and whine to high heaven, but they would turn them in. A few Randy Weaver/Tim McVeigh types would insist on a showdown, of course, and they would no doubt get one. But pretty soon -within a decade at most - there would be very few firearms in civilian circulation in the United States.
There are several reasons for this, most importantly because the vast majority of Americans are law-abiding even if they don't like the particular law, and also because those who peddle the pro-NRA "come and take them"/molon labe line are just blowhards talking shit at gun shows and on the internet - 99.99999% of such specimens would piss their pants if the real men and women authorized to carry guns - i.e., law enforcement officers - showed up and said "hand them over or go to jail. Now." And they would start handing those firearms over post haste. This same kind of defiance ("come and take them" was parroted by any number of Southern retail and restaurant owners about their "White's Only" signs in the wake of the 1964 Civil Rights law, but that bravado quickly dissipated when the law passed and criminal and civil sanctions became not just possible, but probable.
So spare us this "they couldn't take all the guns" nonsense: YES, they could.
Now, that's not going to happen because those of us who want sensible gun control don't want all your handguns - though I emphasize again, if such legislation passed Congress and became law, you would turn them in, or go to prison - but what we do want, and what we're going to have, is Canadian, Australian, and West European style gun control. And we're going to have it. You can bank it.
Now, whether you like it or not, is not really my problem: those new laws and regulations are coming. But whether you are going to remain a "law abiding gun owner" when those laws are passed is very much up to you - and those Sheriff's you cited in that letter, who are, like George Wallace, mistakenly under the impression that they only have to enforce the laws they like. They don't have that option: and they will either enforce any new Federal gun control laws passed, or, just like Little Rock in 1957, higher authorities will step in and enforce it for them in their jurisdictions.
It is that simple. All this "we'll just ignore/disobey any new gun laws" crap on DU of all places is getting tiresome.
..Chuckles to himself quietly. while thinking of Meth, Moonshine, cocaine, fireworks, lawn darts,weed, removed catalytic converters, speed limits, 18 year olds dating 16 year olds, talking on a cell phone while driving, jaywalking, poker games, public smoking bans and gun free zones among many many other illegal things that people still widely do, own, or make.
O I almost forgot, they don't really enforce the law anyways....If he can get away with THAT on national TV, they clearly are not serious about enforcement.
Again, how is that "War on Drugs" working out for you?
Reality sucks don't it.
Not to mention gun bans in Chicago and DC are highly honored...
And we're the majority Party now, all your non-responsive silliness and irrelevant posters of David Gregory holding up a magazine on his morning show not-withstanding.
Sucks to be on the wrong side of history like George Wallace and Bull Connor, doesn't it?
strengthens the human right to live one's life without being a victim of violence. You know, like those kids at Sandy Hook? Kids who fell victim to the NRA gun culture you constantly peddle all over DU?
All the rest of your reply is simply non-responsive, diversionary jazz, per usual. 
that in your opinion - and that's all it would be, because the NRA's definition of the 2nd amendment isn't constitutional - "violated" the Second amendment?
Put your money where your breezy keyboard is, sport: will you defy a Federal gun control law that you felt "violated" the Second amendment? Yes or No.
Wait for it...wait for it...."blah blah blah...evasion...obfuscation...post a pic of David Gregory...blah blah blah...."
aphorism about the heat being too hot in certain kitchen's is starting to apply.
to start carrying on about "harassment," yah know it?
Pro-tip.
aphorism about the heat being too hot in certain kitchen's is starting to apply.
Now, you stop: no one is forcing you to reply to me.
Oh, well. My posts about the matter in this thread stand un-refuted, and true, regardless. That is exactly what the previous "incarnation" was, and we both know it.
Now, below you were complaining about being "harassed," even though it was you posting pro-NRA propaganda to me. This resulted, upon investigation, as you being exposed as...well...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=269047
That has been established to a near-factual certainty, and a DU jury (several, actually, as you alerted upon all four posts and all four alerts failed; but who's counting, right? 
), upon examining the evidence provided by me below, has already decided in my favor. That you want to keep bringing the subject up despite these facts doesn't really seem like the brightest thing to do but, hey, you go right ahead. Whatever floats your boat. 
Edit: typos.
the exact same number I had yesterday when I checked?
Uh-oh... 
you are not, for all sorts of reasons. It's funny stuff. Again, welcome back!
having claimed to put me on "ignore." Over and over.
More funny stuff.
can't even see the line of posts descending from the poster you are ignoring, nor your previous replies to them. So you are busted again - first, for returning to post with us after previously having been shown the door; now, after (falsely) claiming to have put me on *Ignore*. Funny stuff.
Civil Rights act passed - despite years of hard-line segregationists insisting they'd never "comply."
Unless you think American gun owners are inherently lawless and violent? Is that what you're saying?
Yes, "sport," they will turn them in - 99.999999% of them, anyway - if that's what the law says; and laws like that ARE coming. Bank it.
Something like magazine capacity restrictions (w/o "grandfathering" ? Yeah, mostly...although I think you're greatly underestimating the number of people who would simply hide away their high-capacity mags and do their shooting with legal ones for the time being. Most any genuinely reasonable regulation would be complied with...at least by those gun owners who are not habitual, career criminals. It should go without saying that those would continue as they have always done.
Extreme restrictions or an outright ban on civilian ownership? I'd be enormously surprised to see anything greater than about a 15% compliance, actually...
but I don't think any measure would fall to 15% compliance. Many more Americans than that complied with the restrictions of the ridiculous 18th amendment for crying out loud, and alcohol is/was much easier to produce, hide, and procure, besides being able to be converted, within hours, to legal usages of the time (i.e., a coolant) than firearms. Besides, when one uses alcohol as intended, all that happens is that a person gets drunk; using a firearm as intended tends to draw much attention, especially that of law enforcement, unless one is on a range or out in the boonies on a farm.
But you may be correct: I was using the "turn them all in" on handguns as an extreme outlier in any event, one that is not sought by anyone, even the most ardent pro-sensible gun control advocate. I believe the compliance rate for the President's recent recommendations to Congress, for example, will have 99.999999% compliance from gun owners if passed as is (this is a different thing from saying they will be passed "as is" , and I think even more sweeping measures would, too.
In the end, it all comes down to whether our "law abiding gun owners" wish to remain "law abiding." I think the vast majority of them do.
in the United States, and I think it should. The question before us is what can we do to reduce the level of gun violence in our society? I think both pro-gun citizens and those who advocate greater gun control can meet on middle ground, and have reasonable compromise that benefits every body in the country.
The two measures you propose are a good example. Better enforcement of current laws is also a must - I would advocate more efforts on that end if nothing else, at the very least.
end the law enforcement careers for those officers outside the confines of their specific counties. Among other legal pressures that would be well within the Federal government's right to bring to bear in the face of such defiance, just like had to happen in the Segregationist South when the governors and sheriffs down there refused to obey the law.
