GUNS & AMMO

[Joe94xj]

There might be a few 5's and or a 6 in there

 

[in4aride]

im good with it. It was legal, and he went beyond being courtious to inform the police. Thoughts?
http://news.yahoo.com/video/photo-man-jc-penney-shopper-230414356.html

 

[DrMoab]

It's been a pretty big story here.

I think the guy was an idiot. He obviously only did it to get a rise out of people.

I just don't see the need. That being said...I have no problem with the legalities of him doing it.

 

[xj-grin]

I think the idea of calling law enforcement ahead of time to tell them that you might decide to exercise your 2nd amendment rights is retarded... that was a fairly evenhanded media report, though, which is unusual.

 

[in4aride]

Ya I agree it was for attention. But aside from that, was legit.

 

[YELLAHEEP]

The story says the rifle was unloaded....... but it appears loaded as it has a 30 rnd magazine in it..... And what's the point of carrying such a weapon unloaded? It's useless unloaded.

I dunno. I'm all for open carry, but that seems pretty inflamatory. Does not make me feel safer as you have no idea when you see a guy like that, what his intentions are.

If you have to call the cops ahead of time to keep yourself out of trouble in order to toss a rifle over your shoulder and make a return at a department store... I don't think that's embracing your rights...... that's making an ass of yourself.

I don't think things are "there" yet where we gun rights advocates/supporters need to bring that kind of attention to our position.

 

[DrMoab]

Like a buddy of mine said though... Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.

This is going to do nothing to further the good guys cause. It makes us look bad to the people who don't know. In a lot of peoples eyes, this little stunt did way more to hurt the opinion of gun owners than help.

 

[Frank Z]

http://shr.elpasoco.com/

A Message from the El Paso County Sheriff's Office . . . . .

Gun Control: A Superficial Approach to a Complex Problem

Sheriff Terry Maketa​

Most citizens throughout El Paso County are well aware of my second amendment stance. I have recently received several emails asking my position on this subject as well as my position on gun control and weapons bans. In response, I felt obligated to take a few minutes and reaffirm my position on firearms ownership and offer a few of my concerns with the wrongful approach I see championed and pushed upon us by elected leaders at the State and Federal level. First and foremost, I absolutely believe in and stand firmly against, any effort that infringes on the rights of law abiding citizens to own and posses firearms of their choice. Furthermore, I will actively oppose any effort that infringes upon your second amendment rights.

Like every elected official in the state, I took an oath to support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Colorado. This means all rights. Prior to being elected as Sheriff, I took the same oath as a Deputy Sheriff and prior to my law enforcement career, I was a firearms enthusiast and sportsman. I am among the millions of Americans who chooses to exercise their right to bear arms and I avoid judgment of those who choose not to. Today and everyday into the future, I will continue to not only exercise this right but insure that our law abiding citizens’ right to bear arms is protected. I personally believe this right among others is non-negotiable. Some have suggested this is a political issue or a right and left issue. I strongly oppose that suggestion. This is a constitutional rights issue and we should all stand by this document which is the foundation of this nation.

It is very disturbing to witness so many that have taken the same oath I have, to now flip flop and use tragedies such as the Sandy Hook school shooting to further their personal agenda and very flawed thought process. Bans such as those that have been discussed and proposed in this state and other states will not make our schools any safer. Emotionally labeling “scary looking” weapons as assault weapons and banning them will not make our schools and communities any safer. Sadly enough, those who propose these restrictions never would or could guarantee that by imposing such restrictions will ensure the safety of our communities. It does however, target law abiding citizens and chips away at our constitutional rights. The flawed thinking that the criminal or an individual intending harm will obey these laws is unrealistic and statistics have proven this year after year. The notion that restricting ammunition or requiring any form of registration is factually illogical and emotionally driven to achieve one agenda and that agenda is control. This is precisely why our forefathers had elected to give every law abiding citizen these absolute rights and why they restricted the power and authority of the government.

We as a civilized society should focus our collective efforts on the real factors contributing to the violence against children. The silent issue that society and our elected delegation refuse to address at the national and local level is how mental illness is affecting our society and the lack of resources available to address these illnesses. We should be sharing information concerning those diagnosed individuals who demonstrate violent or homicidal ideations. We should insure our mental health systems are available to all those afflicted with disorders or illnesses.

We also need to be focusing on our children and the influences they are exposed to and who and what is shaping their conceptual and analytical skills. They should be exposed to positive role models that increase their respect and appreciation for human life. They should not be consumed with influences or activities that devalue a human life. A seven or eight year old child should never be consumed with graphic and destructive video games that measure the player’s success by how many people or things they can kill. This is an element that did not exist 30 years ago. Thirty years ago children played outside in the fresh air; today they sit with a remote, a mouse or toggle in their hand. They have become desensitized from constant stimulus and don’t comprehend the value of human life or the finality of the loss of it.

Instead of the Federal Government, mainly Congress, continuing to engage in activities of which they have no authority and erodes our constitutional rights, we should focus on criminals and those who are most likely to commit acts of violence and not target the law abiding patriots of our nation.

- Sheriff Terry Maketa

 

[xj-grin]

That is absolutely not the same as -- shall not enforce. We all oppose the effort, but if he is willing as a sworn officer of the law to for all practical purposes disobey the "law" (should the feds gut the 2nd), and not enforce it, that is a much higher standard. It is the standard I would hope he would hold himself to, but his statement is not nearly as straightforward and brave as his counterpart in Ft. Fun.

 

[jdxj]

That is a nice statement of his apparent personal opinions on this issue, with which I agree. It is not, however, a statement that he will refuse to enforce laws that are unconstitutional/illegal in their origin. Big difference - Its one thing for state representatives/employees to advocate state's rights, its another to take an active step to nullify federal power grabs by legislating to invalidate them, or refusing to enforce them... as I've said, Maketa always strikes me as being a bit of a politician.eace:

Exactly my thoughts...... but I did email him amd straight out asked why he didnt say that he would refuse to enforce the laws.:hang: We'll see what and if he responds!

 

[jdxj]

but his statement is not nearly as straightforward and brave as his counterpart in Ft. Fun.

X10000 but still its good to hear him stand up even if its just a little hunched over! :yelclap::yelclap::yelclap::yelclap::yelclap::yelclap::yelclap::yelclap:

 

[Frank Z]

First para, in bold.
Seems clear enough to me.....

 

[jdxj]

First para, in bold.
Seems clear enough to me.....

Dont get me wrong Frank i really appreciate our Sheriff and what he does and stands for, but it does lack the "I WILL NOT ENFORCE" part that so many others have said!

Again Maybe he's just being poltically correct but this isnt the time for that!

Just my $.02

 

[WTF_LOL]

I agree it does not seem as outspoken or firm as the others, but what exactly does "I will actively oppose" mean if it does not mean he would not enforce such?

Great job following up with him, jdxj. I am really curious to hear his response!

 

[jdxj]

Just seems a little too polititanish to me! but I know that his heart is in the right place and I'm fairly certain what he means just want it to be more clear!

 

[xj-grin]

I think "actively oppose" is what we all do when we write our congressmen and vocally express our opinions. The next step is the civil disobedience of not obeying unjust law -- that is what seems to be lacking from Maketa's statement thus far, and hey, that's OK if that's where he's at, its just not the brave statement that some of his colleagues are risking.

 

[jdxj]

exactly, im good with his stance, I know he wont be coming up to my door looking for my guns, and i know several of his deputies that have told me that that will never happen, but it'd be nice to have some clarification!

 

[WTF_LOL]

Just seems a little too polititanish to me!

I think you are right. Now that I reread his message it does seem as though he wants to say he will not enforce unconstitutional laws, but is afraid to outright say it...kind of hinting at it for those that want to hear it, but not solid enough to scare away people that don't care about civil liberties, doesn't it?

 

[DrMoab]

GUNS & AMMO

My buddy wrote this today. Makes a good point I think.

If King Obama's orders from on high require anyone purchasing a gun to disclose medical, prescription and mental health history...

Doesn't anyone realize that will make many people refuse counseling, medication and treatment for fear of their rights being infringed? For fear of being labeled and deemed unworthy to have 2nd amendment rights? Unworthy to protect their families or even to hunt? Some people that his holy excellencyness would deem unworthy to buy a gun, use one to feed their families.

Will this lead to more people in a good frame of mind or less people in a good frame of mind?

If more people are in a good frame of mind, less people get hurt.
If more are in a poor frame of mind, more will hurt and suffer around them.

And I'm not just talking about mass shootings, I'm talking about every day life for tens of millions of people and their families.

We will have vets returning from war refusing treatment or acknowledgement of their symptoms in fear of our forced nationwide healthcare system labeling them for life, stripping them of their 2nd amendment rights.

Isn't anyone listening to the doctors and care professionals already saying they will stop documenting certain things if it requires them to breach their patient/client's privacy and force them to report it to the government?

And who will be appointed to make the distinction of who is worthy and who is not? Which medications will label you for life and which will not? This is the most unfathomable violation of human rights I've ever heard of in our country.

This is a very bad idea and we'll see people who need treatment most, avoiding it like the plague. People who would have otherwise been stable, healthy and working through any situations they have will now go untreated in fear of being marked.

The stigma associated with mental health that people have worked so hard to overcome? It will be undone in short order as individuals are labeled unworthy and stripped of rights.

Some measures of security that at a glance seem simple, and a very good idea, have very far reaching implications that can be worse than what the measure was trying to avoid in the first place.

This is not tinfoil hat conspiracy talk, this is simple logic.

This entire movement is not about safety, it's about control. If anyone feels differently, I feel sorry for you.

 

[WTF_LOL]

Your friend wrote a great post DrMoab!

While the assault weapons ban isn't necessarily a direct hit to the 2nd amendment, it certainly infringes on rights (which is really just as bad)

However, when it comes to some of these Executive Orders, they seem straight up unconstitutional. While I agree some of those people owning guns wouldn't be good, going about it by taking away rights from everybody is just outright unconstitutional. George Washington said it the most clearly with fewer words:

It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition he may abuse it.
George Washington