States (and cities) propose legislation to nullify federal gun legislation

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**DutchKillsRambo**

I would call saying one state is better than the other is arrogance more than an advertising slogan.

All politicians say their state is the bestest but to go out of your way to criticize another while having so many glaring errors in your own is just pompous.

**dogma**

DutchKillsRambo wrote:
I would call saying one state is better than the other is arrogance more than an advertising slogan.

All politicians say their state is the bestest but to go out of your way to criticize another while having so many glaring errors in your own is just pompous.

Advertising slogans are built on pomp, circumstance, and arrogance.

**DutchKillsRambo**

I highly doubt people from NY have such thin skins its more that many of us did not support this legislation and had zero say in it before it was passed. It has little to do with being rankled at another politician, at least in my case.

Or maybe you're right, and its just salt in a stupid wound that I don't like.

I just find it interesting that when it comes to territorial pride NYC and TX folk are much closer than the Pace salsa commercials would have you believe. Both think the entire world revolves around their small segment of the universe.

**Seaward**

dogma wrote:
Barfolomew wrote:
The 223 is used because any idiot off the street (like the General) can fire it fairly accurately without hurting themselves or feeling a little recoil.

Are we really calling Stanley McChystal "any idiot off the street"? That's an interesting position.

At any rate, 5.56 NATO is used for a number of reasons, not just ease of training. The same low recoil that enables people to quickly take to the round also enables good accuracy in controlled bursts, which is extremely important in squad combat scenarios. There's also an element of institutional standardization and, of course, net cost; which is important when you use 1.8 billion rounds of small arms ammunition in a year of military action.

At any rate, what makes 5.56 NATO a useful military cartridge has little to do with civilian applications; different situations call for different capabilities. What the General is doing here is falling into the trap of assuming that military weapons are automatically superior to civilian weapons, even when placed in civilian circumstances; which is simply not the case.

Barfolomew wrote:

223 is considered to by under powered by several states and it is ILLEGAL to hunt deer with that caliber.

Many states also don't allow deer hunting with 9mm. As I said above, different application entail different ideal specifications, so bringing out what states will permit in the course of deer hunting really isn't appropriate.

5.56 was chosen primarily because it's light. Ammo is heavy. Its terminal ballistic performance is "good enough," essentially, but it's by no means the monster cartridge that the general was making it out to be. It'd be like saying 9mm's a round that needs to go away because it's what the military primarily carries, despite the fact that 9mm ball is not at all what anyone would consider an impressive round.

I think this was a political statement more than anything, though it's certainly possible that, when it comes to terminal ballistics, the general very well could be an idiot off the street. He hasn't been in anything that could remotely be considered a pipehitting billet for decades.

**Kilkrazy**

5.56mm is the standard NATO round and is used by pretty much all western aligned countries and others such as Peru and Indonesia.

It would be shockingly expensive to replace stocks of rifles and ammunition throughout.

7.62mm is still used in medium machine guns for longer range shooting, and troops also have access to vehicle mounted weapons and artillery, helicopters, etc.

**Seaward**

Kilkrazy wrote:
5.56mm is the standard NATO round and is used by pretty much all western aligned countries and others such as Peru and Indonesia.

It would be shockingly expensive to replace stocks of rifles and ammunition throughout.

7.62mm is still used in medium machine guns for longer range shooting, and troops also have access to vehicle mounted weapons and artillery, helicopters, etc.

Okay.

I'm not sure what else to say.

**sebster**

Seaward wrote:
And if you think that's not largely restricted to one side of the debate, then you're simply wrong.

And now, once again, we get to the point where it becomes very obvious that you just aren't reading what I am saying.

Both sides are failing to focus on the most important parts of the issue. Both sides. Yes, both are to blame. I've said it probably a dozen times in this thread. And yet here you are, responding to me completely oblivious to that.

Pathetic.

You didn't, actually. You demonstrated that you don't believe them, and attacked the methodology of using a survey rather than an FBI reported crimes statistic to document unreported uses of a handgun, but that doesn't make it so.

It was demonstrated very fething clearly through the government link I provided. That explained quite clearly that any random phone poll asking about an event with a very small incident rate will be swamped with false positives. And which then pointed out the cited figures simply made no sense at all (reporting that the number of rapes stopped by firearms was actually greater than the total number of rapes and attempted rapes that occurred that year).

You ignored this, because it didn't fit into your little set of beliefs. And the only facts that Seaward will dare let into his brain are the ones that agree with whatever political positions he already holds.

I disagree, and when I've got more time, I'll troll the FBI's numbers, because I know their own claim is around 80%.

Read the link I already posted. fething learn something.

**Seaward**

sebster wrote:
And now, once again, we get to the point where it becomes very obvious that you just aren't reading what I am saying.

Both sides are failing to focus on the most important parts of the issue. Both sides. Yes, both are to blame. I've said it probably a dozen times in this thread. And yet here you are, responding to me completely oblivious to that.

Pathetic.

You have yet to learn, apparently, that repetition doesn't make you correct. But hey, keep trying.

It was demonstrated very fething clearly through the government link I provided. That explained quite clearly that any random phone poll asking about an event with a very small incident rate will be swamped with false positives. And which then pointed out the cited figures simply made no sense at all (reporting that the number of rapes stopped by firearms was actually greater than the total number of rapes and attempted rapes that occurred that year)

Look, if you're unable to figure this out on your own, I'm not sure why I'm bothering. You don't understand how numbers work? That's fine. But quit pretending like you do, and then getting all nerd-ragey when someone points it out.

How could a number of crimes stopped by a firearm be higher than the number of attempts reported? Because most DGUs aren't reported to the cops, as we've told you about a thousand times now. There's no incentive to do so, on either side of the crime.

Read. Learn. Quit swimming in ignorance.

**sebster**

Seaward wrote:
You have yet to learn, apparently, that repetition doesn't make you correct. But hey, keep trying.

That reply doesn't even make any sense. I explained a bunch of times that both sides need to improve a lot. You responded by saying that applies to both sides.

And then to my comment that you didn't even read my post... you respond by talking about repetition... making it clear you're still not reading this. Unbelievable. Why do you even bother? You don't think about what you type, you don't read other posts... you just turn up, spam your bs and if someone responds you spam more bs without actually reading the reply.

What in the hell do you get out of posting here?

Look, if you're unable to figure this out on your own, I'm not sure why I'm bothering. You don't understand how numbers work? That's fine. But quit pretending like you do, and then getting all nerd-ragey when someone points it out.

How could a number of crimes stopped by a firearm be higher than the number of attempts reported? Because most DGUs aren't reported to the cops, as we've told you about a thousand times now. There's no incentive to do so, on either side of the crime.

Uh, instances of rape include estimates of unreported rapes. Even if it didn't, the number is so stupidly high as to be immediately dismissed as ludicrous. But we've been through all this the last time I pointed out how stupid that statistic was.

**Seaward**

Text removed.
Reds8n

**KalashnikovMarine**

http://m.sltrib.com/sltrib/mobile2/55662685-218/gun-utah-sheriffs-association.html.csp

In the bitter cold Saturday afternoon, the crowd at the Utah Capitol was mostly packing heat and defiantly daring the federal government to try to take away any gun rights.

They also discovered they had picked up two allies — a newly elected Utah state lawmaker and the Utah Sheriffs’ Association.

Republican Brian Greene drew some of the biggest cheers from the 1,500-strong crowd, saying he would unveil legislation next week giving local sheriffs the power to arrest any federal agent attempting to seize firearms from Utah residents.

The Utah Sheriffs’ Association also pushed back on President Barack Obama’s proposal last week seeking to restrict the size of magazines, reinstitute the assault weapons ban and provide tougher background checks on gun buyers.

"No federal official will be permitted to descend upon our constituents and take from them what the Bill of Rights — in particular our Amendment II — has given them," the association’s letter dated Jan. 17 read. "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."

Clunk

Those gauntlets are really starting to pile up.

http://fromthetrenchesworldreport.com/list-of-sheriffs-standing-up-against-obamas-gun-control-updated/31948/

Especially with 50+ Sheriffs on the books (not counting the State Sheriff's Associations for New Mexico and Utah) standing up and formally flipping the bird towards DC.

**Frazzled**

dogma wrote:
KalashnikovMarine wrote:

You can't grow a plant in New York either, so we could say that Texas is freerer then NY, making their statement mostly true.

It is a matter of fact that taxes are lower in Texas than they are in New York, at least if we refer only to state taxes. However, what constitutes "greater opportunities" is subjective.

The statement was "mostly true" only in the sense that part of it was factual, and the other part was just short of an advertising slogan.

I'll put our economy against theirs any time any day.

Bring it NY. WE have our own air force, battleship, and Tex Mex. You have...pizza.

**whembly**

KK... add another gauntlet:
http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2013/01/21/missouri-sheriffs-pledge-to-not-enforce-obamas-gun-control-laws/

JOHNSON COUNTY, Mo (KMOX) – As President Barack Obama continues to push gun control proposals in Washington D.C., Sheriff Charles M. Heiss, R-Johnson County is asking fellow law enforcers to sign and send this letter to the president.

The letter expresses concern with the Obama administration and the president’s gun control laws he laid out before Congress last week.

“It appears to me and many Americans that there is a genuine desire on the part of your administration to restrict the Second Amendment rights of law abiding American citizens in the interest of curbing gun violence in our nation,” Heiss wrote. “Any attempt to restrict these Second Amendment rights through executive order is unconstitutional and tantamount to an all-out assault on the United States Constitution.”

In the letter Heiss tells the president that he has a duty to protect his constituents from incidents of crime, and has the responsibility to protect and preserve their rights and liberties.

Newly elected Sheriff Michael Dixon, R-Osage County is one of about a dozen sheriffs in Missouri to have signed and sent Heiss’ letter.

“On the same day the President is taking his oath to uphold the Constitution, he continues to attack our 2nd Amendment rights,” Dixon said. “As Osage County Sheriff, I also took an Oath to the Constitution; but unlike Obama, I intend to uphold mine.”

Dixon also announced his support of Missouri house bill (HB 170). The bill, introduced last week, would make criminals of any law enforcement official, local, state or federal, who tried to enforce any of President Obama’s gun control initiatives, whether executive orders or passed by Congress.

“President Obama should quit his attempts to take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens and instead focus on stopping the criminals that will get them no matter what. It is imperative we strengthen the penalty for criminals who use weapons in the commission of a crime or to cause bodily harm.”

Dixon said his office will not enforce any gun control proposals that Obama passes if they violate the Constitution and points to gun control efforts and crime statistics as proof gun bans do not work.

“The President comes from Chicago, the city with the strictest gun laws and worst gun violence in the country. It has been proven time and time again that taking guns from law abiding citizens only emboldens thugs, thieves, and rapists, not stop them from committing crimes,” Dixon said.

**Ahtman**

whembly wrote:
Newly elected Sheriff Michael Dixon, R-Osage County

What are the odds that all the politicians, sorry, Sheriffs, that signed the letter have 'R- location' at the end of the name? It is almost as if it might be a partisan political maneuver. Almost.

**Grey Templar**

Ahtman wrote:
whembly wrote:
Newly elected Sheriff Michael Dixon, R-Osage County

What are the odds that all the politicians, sorry, Sheriffs, that signed the letter have 'R- location' at the end of the name? It is almost as if it might be a partisan political maneuver. Almost.

And why would that in any way effect its legitimacy?

**Ahtman**

I don't know, why would hyper partisan grandstanding by politicians on a contentious issue affect policy and public opinion?

**Grey Templar**

A person who supports gun freedom is more likely to be a Republican(or a Libertarian) than a Democrat. Just sayin

**Ahtman**

Grey Templar wrote:
A person who supports gun freedom is more likely to be a Republican(or a Libertarian) than a Democrat. Just sayin

'Gun freedom' is a nonsensical, loaded phrase. Republican's are more likely to pander to people who think that unfettered access to all weapons. Libertarians are more likely to actually want unfettered access to all weapons. Democrats are more likely to want to see some gun regulation. Only the fringe, which has no real political power, wants an outright ban on weapons.

**Hordini**

Ahtman wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
A person who supports gun freedom is more likely to be a Republican(or a Libertarian) than a Democrat. Just sayin

'Gun freedom' is a nonsensical, loaded phrase. Republican's are more likely to pander to people who think that unfettered access to all weapons. Libertarians are more likely to actually want unfettered access to all weapons. Democrats are more likely to want to see some gun regulation. Only the fringe, which has no real political power, wants an outright ban on weapons.

We already have some gun regulation. Some states have a lot more than some.

Obama and many other Democrats favor an assault weapons ban based on what mostly boils down to aesthetic features, but I wouldn't say that those Democrats are part of a fringe with no real political power.

**dogma**

Grey Templar wrote:
A person who supports gun freedom is more likely to be a Republican(or a Libertarian) than a Democrat. Just sayin

I support the ability of American citizens to access firearms by way of legal purchase, but I also support regulations on what constitutes a legal purchase. Do I support "gun freedom"?

**d-usa**

I'm just not surprised that the idiots that cry about unconstitutional laws are either ignorant of the constitution or are willfully ignoring it to pander to other igorant idiots by pretending that any of this has any legal backbone. States cannot stop federal agents from doing their jobs. Pretty damn simple really and pretty well established.

But hey, it's okay to wipe their behinds with the very constitution that they pretend to worship when it suits their goals as long as it gets them elected. I would not be surprised if this is the same crap that was spewed when women got the right to vote, slavery was outlawed, and segregation became outlawed as well.

Fething idiots.

**Grey Templar**

Better define "regulations"

If the regulations are too strict, no you don't support gun freedom.

**Frazzled**

dogma wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
A person who supports gun freedom is more likely to be a Republican(or a Libertarian) than a Democrat. Just sayin

I support the ability of American citizens to access firearms by way of legal purchase, but I also support regulations on what constitutes a legal purchase. Do I support "gun freedom"?

Depends on what your regulations are.

**Ahtman**

Hordini wrote:
but I wouldn't say that those Democrats are part of a fringe with no real political power.

Neither would I, which is why I didn't refer to the Democrats as being on the fringe. People who want a complete ban on guns are the ones that are out in the field. Dems aren't calling for a total ban either.

I agree that 'assault weapon ban' is to vague to be much use, and titled as such to be more of an appeal to emotion then to reason.

Spoiler:

**whembly**

d-usa wrote:
I'm just not surprised that the idiots that cry about unconstitutional laws are either ignorant of the constitution or are willfully ignoring it to pander to other igorant idiots by pretending that any of this has any legal backbone. States cannot stop federal agents from doing their jobs. Pretty damn simple really and pretty well established.

But hey, it's okay to wipe their behinds with the very constitution that they pretend to worship when it suits their goals as long as it gets them elected. I would not be surprised if this is the same crap that was spewed when women got the right to vote, slavery was outlawed, and segregation became outlawed as well.

Fething idiots.

er... this happens all the time man... keep up!

Have you not seen what CO and WA has done recently?

**d-usa**

whembly wrote:
d-usa wrote:
I'm just not surprised that the idiots that cry about unconstitutional laws are either ignorant of the constitution or are willfully ignoring it to pander to other igorant idiots by pretending that any of this has any legal backbone. States cannot stop federal agents from doing their jobs. Pretty damn simple really and pretty well established.

But hey, it's okay to wipe their behinds with the very constitution that they pretend to worship when it suits their goals as long as it gets them elected. I would not be surprised if this is the same crap that was spewed when women got the right to vote, slavery was outlawed, and segregation became outlawed as well.

Fething idiots.

er... this happens all the time man... keep up!

Have you not seen what CO and WA has done recently?

Yes I have, and unless you are willfully ignorant of what actually happened then you do as well. it's a shame when pot-heads are smarter than self-proclaimed constitutional experts.

**whembly**

d-usa wrote:
whembly wrote:
d-usa wrote:
I'm just not surprised that the idiots that cry about unconstitutional laws are either ignorant of the constitution or are willfully ignoring it to pander to other igorant idiots by pretending that any of this has any legal backbone. States cannot stop federal agents from doing their jobs. Pretty damn simple really and pretty well established.

But hey, it's okay to wipe their behinds with the very constitution that they pretend to worship when it suits their goals as long as it gets them elected. I would not be surprised if this is the same crap that was spewed when women got the right to vote, slavery was outlawed, and segregation became outlawed as well.

Fething idiots.

er... this happens all the time man... keep up!

Have you not seen what CO and WA has done recently?

Yes I have, and unless you are willfully ignorant of what actually happened then you do as well. it's a shame when pot-heads are smarter than self-proclaimed constitutional experts.

Are you implying that I'm a "self-proclaimed constitutional expert"? I did stay at the Holiday Inn Express recently... but I wouldn't go that far.

My point being is that conflicts between States vs Federal happens all the time... and this is just another one of those. Again, referring to what CO/WA passed, the local authoritiy won't enforce the federal laws... same thing with this.

**d-usa**

whembly wrote:
d-usa wrote:
whembly wrote:
d-usa wrote:
I'm just not surprised that the idiots that cry about unconstitutional laws are either ignorant of the constitution or are willfully ignoring it to pander to other igorant idiots by pretending that any of this has any legal backbone. States cannot stop federal agents from doing their jobs. Pretty damn simple really and pretty well established.

But hey, it's okay to wipe their behinds with the very constitution that they pretend to worship when it suits their goals as long as it gets them elected. I would not be surprised if this is the same crap that was spewed when women got the right to vote, slavery was outlawed, and segregation became outlawed as well.

Fething idiots.

er... this happens all the time man... keep up!

Have you not seen what CO and WA has done recently?

Yes I have, and unless you are willfully ignorant of what actually happened then you do as well. it's a shame when pot-heads are smarter than self-proclaimed constitutional experts.

Are you implying that I'm a "self-proclaimed constitutional expert"? I did stay at the Holiday Inn Express recently... but I wouldn't go that far.

My point being is that conflicts between States vs Federal happens all the time... and this is just another one of those. Again, referring to what CO/WA passed, the local authoritiy won't enforce the federal laws... same thing with this.

Are you saying you are not educated enough on the issues to recognize the difference between the CO/WA laws and the laws being considered now?

**whembly**

d-usa wrote:
whembly wrote:
d-usa wrote:
whembly wrote:
d-usa wrote:
I'm just not surprised that the idiots that cry about unconstitutional laws are either ignorant of the constitution or are willfully ignoring it to pander to other igorant idiots by pretending that any of this has any legal backbone. States cannot stop federal agents from doing their jobs. Pretty damn simple really and pretty well established.

But hey, it's okay to wipe their behinds with the very constitution that they pretend to worship when it suits their goals as long as it gets them elected. I would not be surprised if this is the same crap that was spewed when women got the right to vote, slavery was outlawed, and segregation became outlawed as well.

Fething idiots.

er... this happens all the time man... keep up!

Have you not seen what CO and WA has done recently?

Yes I have, and unless you are willfully ignorant of what actually happened then you do as well. it's a shame when pot-heads are smarter than self-proclaimed constitutional experts.

Are you implying that I'm a "self-proclaimed constitutional expert"? I did stay at the Holiday Inn Express recently... but I wouldn't go that far.

My point being is that conflicts between States vs Federal happens all the time... and this is just another one of those. Again, referring to what CO/WA passed, the local authoritiy won't enforce the federal laws... same thing with this.

Are you saying you are not educated enough on the issues to recognize the difference between the CO/WA laws and the laws being considered now?

Of course they're not the same thing... but, you're missing my point.

States do challenge the Feds on laws... like in this case. That's all I was pointing out.

**d-usa**

There is a minor difference between a state not enforcing federal laws, and a state threatening to arrest federal agents for enforcing federal laws.

But I am sure you already know that.