Skip to main content

View Diary: Gun control foes resurrect Confederate Constitution (66 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  You don't see any problem with (4+ / 0-)
    declaring all law-abiding gun owners in their jurisdiction to be county deputies
    The law-abiding not abiding the law by becoming phony county deputies ?
    What would happen when that B.S. was challenged in court ?
    What would happen when a phony county deputy gets in trouble ?
    Does a victim get to sue the "smart sheriff" ?

    It would be justice if all the phony county deputies lost their rights to own guns because they didn't comply with gun laws ? Or don't you agree that people who willfully disregard gun laws should lose their right to possess guns ?

    "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

    by indycam on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 02:49:38 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  None at all. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      FrankRose

      Answering your questions, in order:

      1. The law-abiding not abiding by the law cease to be law-abiding, obviously.

      2. Challenged on what grounds?

      3. Same thing that happens to any official getting in trouble when not on duty.

      4. If the deputy is acting under the color of the sheriff's authority, yeah.

      But I'll ease your mind.  You setup a reserve or an auxiliary, just like many sheriffs today without uproar, and you secure police powers to those on active duty.  Problem solved.

      I believe people who willfully disregard gun laws should have their day in court, particularly gun laws as onerous as proposed in S.150.  And what would you charge these deputies with?

      •  ... (2+ / 0-)

        1) "cease to be law-abiding" .
        2) Interesting question , never on duty , no pay , no insurance , etc etc etc ...
        3) When would they be on duty ? Never ?
        4) If they are never on duty ...

        But I'll ease your mind.
        Not so much , that's just the same BS reworded . Fake phony county deputy , reserve or auxiliary set up for the avoidance of the necessity of compliance with gun laws .

        Does the name Sheriff Joseph M. "Joe" Arpaio ring any bell with you ?

        You would advise games to be played so that people could avoid compiling with the laws re guns . That's not a respectable position to take .

        "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

        by indycam on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 03:28:56 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's a very respectable position to take. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          FrankRose

          These deputies would be complying with the law.  It's not their fault that gun control lobby is displeased with the result.

          There are over 3,000 counties in the United States, and the first one that pops in your mind is Maricopa?  That's your problem, not ours.

          Now to your responses:

          1. Glad we agree on that.
          2. Oh, they could be conceivable called up, paid, and placed on county insurance for the duration of their duty.  But what does that matter?  How are those grounds for challenging the sheriff's prerogative to appoint deputies?
          3. Does that matter?
          4. Again, does that matter?

          •  "not ours" ? Are you more than one person ? (0+ / 0-)
            and the first one that pops in your mind is Maricopa?
            Did I mention a county ?
            Does the name Sheriff Joseph M. "Joe" Arpaio ring any bell with you ?
            These deputies would be complying with the law.
            If they are "complying with the law" then why do the phony run around ?
            It's not their fault that gun control lobby is displeased with the result.
            Its not a "gun control lobby" problem , its a "complying with the law" problem .

            "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

            by indycam on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 03:54:34 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Gun owners. We're more than one person, yes. (0+ / 0-)

              You mentioned Maricopa's lunatic sheriff.  I assumed you knew what county he runs.

              It's not a complying with the law problem.  These proposed deputies would be in full compliance with the law.  I ask you to show otherwise.

              •  So do I get to post in the "plural" also ? (0+ / 0-)
                You mentioned Maricopa's lunatic sheriff.  I assumed you knew what county he runs.
                But I did not mention the county ? You jumped to
                There are over 3,000 counties in the United States, and the first one that pops in your mind is Maricopa?
                I still don't see any explanation of why you jumped from "Sheriff Joseph M. "Joe" Arpaio" to "There are over 3,000 counties in the United States, and the first one that pops in your mind is Maricopa?" Is it just some sort of game ?

                "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

                by indycam on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 04:18:14 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  You can post however you want. (0+ / 0-)

                  Counties have these things called sheriffs.  You picked that one out of a hat. I'm asking why.

                  •  ... (0+ / 0-)
                    Counties have these things called sheriffs.
                    And you are pointing that out because ...
                    You picked that one out of a hat.
                    Really ? That's an interesting claim .
                    I'm asking why.
                    You are asking why I picked one out of a hat ? First you say I picked one out of a hat and then you ask why ?

                    "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

                    by indycam on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 04:42:17 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  FYI (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      CA wildwoman

                      I think you're dealing with a troll, so I wouldn't bother engaging any further.  This user has been a member of DK less than a week and from what I can see of his/her comment history, has done nothing other than comment in diaries or posts regarding gun control.  All of the comments are, not surprisingly, opposed to gun regulation, and a number of them are full of ad hom about anyone who disagrees with the user.

                      I suspect this one will be gone before too long, but for the moment, I'd just suggest not feeding it.

                      "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

                      by FogCityJohn on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 05:56:53 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

    •  owning a gun is MY Constitutional right...and so.. (0+ / 0-)
      Or don't you agree that people who willfully disregard gun laws should lose their right to possess guns ?
      Guess it would depend on the law, if it is a law designed to deny a constitutional right, and with that law it meant I wouldn't have my rights anymore, I would certainly disobey it.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site