Civil War Soon? Utah Sheriffs threaten War against the Federal Government If they Try to Seize Gun V - Polidicks

[url]http://washingtonexaminer.com/utah-sheriffs-warn-obama-of-deadly-war-over-guns/article/2519176#.UP5SRWckN1M[/url] [IMG]http://trent.sltrib.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/SWAT-117-ss-866x635.jpeg[/IMG] [QUOTE]In the most strident warning over gun control to President Obama yet, the Utah Sheriffs' Association is pledging to go to war over any administration plan to take guns away, even if it means losing their lives. Calling the Second Amendment a sacred right of citizens to protect themselves from "tyrannical subjugation," the association state elected sheriffs said in a new letter, "we are prepared to trade our lives for the preservation of its traditional interpretation." Theirs is the first meaningful proof that some in law enforcement and the military are preparing to fight federal forces if the president wins his goal of sweeping gun control. In a direct warning to Obama, the FBI and other agencies, the sheriffs wrote: "Make no mistake, as the duly-elected sheriffs our our respective counties, we will enforce the rights guaranteed to our citizens by the Constitution. No federal official will be permitted to descend upon our constituents and take from them what the Bill of Rights--in particular Amendment II--has given them." While he wants an assault weapons ban and limits on ammo magazines, the president has not yet suggested he wants to confiscate guns. The association revealed their concerns in a letter to the president just made public. It was sent on January 17. It opens by decrying the recent shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. But the group argued that guns are simply "instruments," and that they are needed by law-abiding citizens to sometimes subdue killers. "The citizenry must continue its ability to keep and bear arms, including arms that adequately protect them from all types of illegality," said the letter. Several groups have argued that assault weapons and high-capacity magazines are needed for self defense. The association also called on Obama to push his efforts through Congress, not executive orders with no debate. "Please remember that the Founders of this great nation created the Constitution, and its accompanying Bill of Rights, an effort to protect citizens from all forms of tyrannical subjugation."[/QUOTE] Fun times.

GG, now you're just further promoting taking guns away if you're ready to jump the gun instead of proper political action.

The limits obama wants to put on are pathetic, shit happens when you put a killing device into peoples hands. Leave the people be.

[QUOTE=Van-man;39313359]GG, now you're just further promoting taking guns away if you're ready to jump the gun instead of proper political action.[/QUOTE] Well if they attempt a gun confiscation it would be far from jumping the gun. EDIT: Note that they won't attempt a gun confiscation. Everyone knows how awful a plan that would be. This is just political maneuvering.

but Obama has already done away with the politics of it van-man his tyranny has already taken over and the Zionist global government will take there move soon.

Gotta love this country sometimes. [sp]On an unrelated note that picture is kinda funny. The way he's eying that sign.[/sp]

I don't really get how threatening to kickstart a civil war that could end in numerous deaths would convince ANYONE to let you keep your guns

There's also a Texas lawmaker authoring a bill that would make federal firearms laws unenforceable in the state. [quote]Rep. Steve Toth, R-The Woodlands, is authoring the Firearm Protection Act, which he says would "make any federal law banning semiautomatic firearms or limiting the size of gun magazines unenforceable within the state's boundaries." The bill would also make it a felony to enforce any such federal law.[/quote] [url]http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Texas-Bill-Would-Make-Federal-Firearms-Ban-Unenforceable-187217601.html[/url] All this gun shit is really getting people ansy.

[QUOTE=OvB;39313475]There's also a Texas lawmaker authoring a bill that would make federal firearms laws unenforceable in the state. [url]http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Texas-Bill-Would-Make-Federal-Firearms-Ban-Unenforceable-187217601.html[/url] All this gun shit is really getting people ansy.[/QUOTE] How does this even make sense

[QUOTE=OvB;39313475]There's also a Texas lawmaker authoring a bill that would make federal firearms laws unenforceable in the state. [url]http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Texas-Bill-Would-Make-Federal-Firearms-Ban-Unenforceable-187217601.html[/url] All this gun shit is really getting people ansy.[/QUOTE] I'm fairly certain federal laws overrule the individual states' laws You know Because otherwise federations wouldn't make sense

Fact is the constitution was written hundreds of years ago. Times change.

[QUOTE=Hatley;39313507]Fact is the constitution was written hundreds of years ago. Times change.[/QUOTE] Fact is, you have no idea what you're talking about.

[QUOTE=OvB;39313475]There's also a Texas lawmaker authoring a bill that would make federal firearms laws unenforceable in the state. [url]http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Texas-Bill-Would-Make-Federal-Firearms-Ban-Unenforceable-187217601.html[/url] All this gun shit is really getting people ansy.[/QUOTE] I find it funny that the guns are what people are willing to take a stand on. Not gay marriage, not keeping the Internet uncensored, not anything like that - THIS is meant to be the straw that's gonna break the camel's back. Either I'm putting way too much faith in what people actually give a shit about, or some people just have their priorities out of wack. I mean, if you can just override federal law any time you want - not that you can of course, but this dude certainly seems to think so - then why not focus on something a bit more unambiguously good?

[QUOTE=deltasquid;39313494]I'm fairly certain federal laws overrule the individual states' laws You know Because otherwise federations wouldn't make sense[/QUOTE] Technically they have grounds to do so. Montana has already made the law and is still hashing it out. The Federal government can ONLY do what is allowed in the constitution. Anything not explicitly given to the federal government is explicitly reserved for the states. Legally, they control firearms through the ability of the federal government to regulate interstate trade. So, technically speaking, and this is what the law in Montana is based on, if the object in question never actually leaves the state and is manufactured locally, the federal government can't legally control it.

[QUOTE=Milkyway M16;39313515]Fact is, you have no idea what you're talking about.[/QUOTE] All I'm saying is that you can't always live your life going by words written hundreds of years ago.

[QUOTE=Hatley;39313507]Fact is the constitution was written hundreds of years ago. Times change.[/QUOTE] Well it sets a good basis of laws, or so. But I agree that laws and constitutional laws should be edited/removed for the better, as times change. [editline]22nd January 2013[/editline] then again I don't really give a shit about politics so I'm an idiot in that regard.

[QUOTE=Gekkosan;39313538]Well it sets a good basis of laws, or so. But I agree that laws and constitutional laws should be edited/removed for the better, as times change.[/QUOTE] That's what I meant, that things like that need to be adapted to move with the times.

[QUOTE=Hatley;39313537]All I'm saying is that you can't always live your life going by words written hundreds of years ago.[/QUOTE] And what, pray tell, is no longer applicable?

[QUOTE=OvB;39313475]There's also a Texas lawmaker authoring a bill that would make federal firearms laws unenforceable in the state. [url]http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Texas-Bill-Would-Make-Federal-Firearms-Ban-Unenforceable-187217601.html[/url] All this gun shit is really getting people ansy.[/QUOTE] Lmao, like that's legal AT ALL. It'll just open up for cherrypicking even more laws.

[QUOTE=GunFox;39313520]Technically they have grounds to do so. Montana has already made the law and is still hashing it out. The Federal government can ONLY do what is allowed in the constitution. Anything not explicitly given to the federal government is explicitly reserved for the states. Legally, they control firearms through the ability of the federal government to regulate interstate trade. So, technically speaking, and this is what the law in Montana is based on, if the object in question never actually leaves the state and is manufactured locally, the federal government can't legally control it.[/QUOTE] by that logic the medicinal marijuana laws don't violate federal law either.

[QUOTE=GunFox;39313552]And what, pray tell, is no longer applicable?[/QUOTE] you don't have one constitution, you have two. a written one, and an unwritten one. it's the difference between what the bible says and what the catholic church does.

[QUOTE=GunFox;39313552]And what, pray tell, is no longer applicable?[/QUOTE] Women need to be separated from society during the time of their periods. thats a CENTURY old law (Leviticus 15:19) dictated by the bible. So where did all the menses huts go?

[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;39313691]you don't have one constitution, you have two. a written one, and an unwritten one. it's the difference between what the bible says and what the catholic church does.[/QUOTE] There's only one Constitution, and English law for matters not covered by the constitution.

why are people so stupid

Slow children at play.

I read this headline and did a double take, thinking that the bloodsheds were vowing guns.

[QUOTE=deltasquid;39313494]I'm fairly certain federal laws overrule the individual states' laws You know Because otherwise federations wouldn't make sense[/QUOTE] Actually, it was a safeguard to ensure the federal government would never have too much power. It's been used to good effect several times, see here: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentucky_and_Virginia_Resolutions[/url]

[QUOTE=Cone;39313440]I don't really get how threatening to kickstart a civil war that could end in numerous deaths would convince ANYONE to let you keep your guns[/QUOTE] Kickstart a civil war? Does that mean I get a making-of documentary if I donate $50?

The sort of people that threaten this are the sort of people that should have guns taken away. It also means that as a Sheriff I'm assuming he would pass a test on his mental health if he's retaining a position of authority, thereby creating a moral panic about anyone having a gun having the potential to snap for no reason and blow up a school.

Its always going to be hard for people without guns to control the people with guns.