Kentucky Sheriff to Obama: No Gun Control in My County

...but images of jay walking, violence etc. are not. So that argument is moot.

[add] Also owning a gun for certain individuals is against the law and also in certain places.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
..but permits and registrations are against the amendment. So how bout other nasty stuff. Like tanks, napalm bombs, biological weapons etc.etc.? Nuke was just an example I threw in because it is the most extreme one. Also I don't believe that anyone can build their own nuke in US unless you can cite some source.

We would like tank,bombs and all that other stuff.But we would like to keep them in a well regulated CIVILIAN controled milita.But we will keep our guns at home thank you.Kentucky is one of only 4 commonwealth states in the U.S.A.God bless the commonwealth!!!

I live in Kentucky and we pratice common sense law per the term "Commonweath".A good example of this is The U.S supreme court case Taylor vs Tainor giving federal law on bounty hunting (Bail bond retrevial).KY is the only State to not allow it it to apply within it's borders.

It sounds to me that the Sheriff has used common sense and chosen to apply common law.Which is in his rights in this state as a County Offical.

yeah

big talk

do they sell fully automatic assault weapons in his town ?

didn't think so

lol

reply to post by Doc Gator


In fact I posted instructions for building a very dirty "basement nuke" on alt 2,600 in 1998.
I don't mind if my neighbor has a fully loaded and operational tank idling on his front lawn.
And I don't mind the "Civil" war cannon he has now either...we fire it a few times (all powder, no ball) every 4TH of July.

reply to post by DarKPenguiN


That's why folks in the south don't have sex standing up...they are afraid somebody will see them and think they are dancing.

Third.

Originally posted by gladtobehere
reply to post by exitusstatuquo

 

But seriously, the Sheriff is the last line of defense against government tyranny.

Here is an example of a Sheriff honoring his sworn oath to the Constitution:

Would not surprise me if both these Sheriffs are oath keepers.

I used to be down on all police officers but I have found over time and research that my view on that subject was naive, ill informed and short sighted. I still feel officers on a local level tend to be the worst offenders but I now understand that you can not classify any group as a whole and to do so, is closing your mind and heart to the truth.

People are people, some are good and some are bad, I think this is true not only of average people around the world but people who hold authority positions as well, no matter how high or low that authority reaches, the officer in this video obviously knows what actual rights people have and that is rare these days, his actions to be honest are to me, nothing less than heroic, a true depiction of what I think every police officer should strive for.

Know the law, the one that matters, the one you swore an oath to uphold and then do your job, even if you sometimes have to tell the "big guy" go stand over there because these people are allowed to do what there doing. We should all get together, figure something out and honor this guy for his actions that day and i'm serious about that!

reply to post by luciddream


Are rocket launchers and the weapons mentioned bye that last guy available in stores ? Any cop that upholds the constitution is a good cop and the kind we need.

Great responses to Piers' tactics. I just wish that at the end of the video when Piers says something along the lines of I commend you for protecting your freedom. The marine even looked like he wanted to say I FOUGHT FOR THIS VERY FREEDOM OF THE 2ND AMENDMENT ALONG WITH THE OTHERS... jack wagon limey douche.

Wow alot of themes get thrown in (some to support but mostly to deflect) to the discussion on gun RIGHTS.

Let me see if I can answer each one seperately and not muddy the waters like some try to do.

1. The second amendment says NOTHING about if a weapon is for hunting, if someone has to justify a need for it, or if it LOOKS like a military weapon

In the colonial days the idea you could not have a rifle that looked like a military weapon was not even a thought.
Much like just because a ex bushmaster looks like a M-16 negates you having the right to own it.

If someone can SHOW in the constitution that only "approved" hunting weapons are a right Id love to see it.

2. No one (except someone who is an extreamest) has EVER SAID the second amendment applies to napalm, nukes, tanks, missles, machine guns, automatic weapons, flame throwers, ect.

Nor has the NRA EVER fought to have unfettered or unregulated access to such weapons. In fact the NRA has never supported any legislation that repeals class III licence requirements for automatic weapons or other distructive devices.

3. The argument ky is backwater or somehow ignorant due to some silly laws (like dancing).
I defy you to find any state, county, or city that does not have some outdated/rediculous/or silly laws on the books.
I also defy you to find anyone who went to jail in the last 10 years for "just dancing".

4. The checkpoint issues.

While I can see some of the concerns for safety/dui checkpoints, I don't see the "police state" presented in any of them. Note the only exception is the TSA and that is so blatent it is behond justification.

Most of the people who complain the loudest about these road side checkpoints is those who (quite frankly) GET CAUGHT doing something illegal or being wanted on a warrant.

If anyone cares to see the results of these checkpoints that there has been very little (if any) amount of "innocent" people going to jail. What you do see is hundreds if not thousands of drunks, illegal drug posession (yes verginia pot is illegal in alot of places), people WITHOUT LICENCES, wanted on warrants, and others doing things that could/have/ or already hurt people.

Unless you CHOOSE to a loud mouth jerk or are doing/wanted for something illegal you go on your way with no hassles.

5. The core of the term Millita is a citizen who comes to the defense of his nation or against a tyranical (ex england during the revolution) government. It is NOT the national guard, If one cares to be open minded and look at the facts the national guard had never or ment to be a millitia. Yes you are technically a part time soldier. But if the US government wants to activate you, you are FULL TIME military under whatever branch your unit is. In fact except for the texas national guard the governor of a state only has nominal control over their states national guard. The very second the president or his designates want that unit the state governor has NO SAY/CONTROL whatsoever.

Lastly is this argument I keep hearing is there is no justify use for (ex) a bushmaster.
Not only does the second amendment not stipulate a "approved/justify" use of a particular firearm, does ANYONE REALIZE what can of worms you are opening up for this?

Lets look at some common things you take for granted that this now would apply to.

Do you need a car to go over 65 MPH if the max speed limit is such? If you want to go faster you need to get a special permit and only use it on approved race tracks?

How about a motorcycle that can go over 65?

Or how about your freedom of speech? Why do you need more that one hour to protest?

I could go on but you get my point.

The cold hard truth is the right to bear arms (as long as not distructive devices or automatic weapons) is not baised on need, looks, magazine capacity, what LEGAL USE you choose (target shoot, hunt, or it just looks cool) IS A RIGHT UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.

If you really have a beef with it you also have the right to pass an amendment to change it. Like they did with prohibition.

Just be careful what you try to do or wish for.

You could easily find yourself on the wrong end when someone questions the FIRST AMENDMENT for example.

Must carry a million dollar insurance policy. Yeah I am sure they would really like that.

Originally posted by scrounger
1. The second amendment says NOTHING about if a weapon is for hunting, if someone has to justify a need for it, or if it LOOKS like a military weapon

and then you contradict that point completely:

2. No one (except someone who is an extreamest) has EVER SAID the second amendment applies to napalm, nukes, tanks, missles, machine guns, automatic weapons, flame throwers, ect.

You are absolutely right about one thing. 2nd amendment doesn't classify weapons at all.

Originally posted by PsykoOps

Originally posted by scrounger
1. The second amendment says NOTHING about if a weapon is for hunting, if someone has to justify a need for it, or if it LOOKS like a military weapon

and then you contradict that point completely:

2. No one (except someone who is an extreamest) has EVER SAID the second amendment applies to napalm, nukes, tanks, missles, machine guns, automatic weapons, flame throwers, ect.

You are absolutely right about one thing. 2nd amendment doesn't classify weapons at all.

Are you kidding me or are you so desperate to make your point you go to the level of complete nonsense?

The second amendment does specifically say (now read closely) GUNS/FIREARMS. Hence the term ARMS.

In the time the amendment was written a cannon (the heaviest thing available then) was classified as ARTILLERY not a ARM/GUN.

So back then cannons, mines, and warships were not covered or even looked at as the same way as a rifle/pistol.

Now go today the term arm may not be as common or used anymore.

But if you think a gun (aka worded as ARM in the second amendment) as the same as tank, napalm,, rocket launcher, missle, tank, nuc, or any other military distructive device I suggest you buy a dictionary (or go on WIKI for pictures).

Even the supreme court does not classify those items as guns/arms nor protect them under the second amendment.

Even the most hated by liberals NRA had NEVER tried to classify above destructive devices as under the second amendment much less wanting them available without restriction.

The NRA also has supported the Class III federal licencing laws on automatic weapons.

Even the supreme court does not have said above destructive devices covered under the second amendment.

So again let me type s l o w l y so you understand

I stated the second amendment does not requrire how a weapon looks (ex military LOOKING), that it is only for hunting or require anyone to justify WHY they want a gun or particular gun.

It clearly does not apply to distructive devices or says laws applying to AUTOMATIC WEAPONS (those that shoot more than one bullet per one trigger pull) are unconstitutional (also supported by the NRA).

So are you so anti-gun that you cannot use logic much less common sense to make your point?

I

Originally posted by PsykoOps
So he supports illicit images of children? I mean it's free speech after all. Posession and distributing that is. Not making. How bout nukes for the people too? Those amendments have been adjusted to modern times for good reasons.

Where is there a law that states anyone has to support illicit images of children?

Because I think he said that he won't uphold a law that VIOLATES the constitution. So again where is there a law about illicit images of children that VIOLATES the constitution?


-Alien

reply to post by scrounger

arm 2 (ärm)
n.
1. A weapon, especially a firearm: troops bearing arms; ICBMs, bombs, and other nuclear arms.
2. A branch of a military force: infantry, armor, and other combat arms.

Source. Say again?

reply to post by Alien Abduct


You quote me but you didn't read what I wrote?

reply to post by PsykoOps


I read it and replied to it. Maybe I didn't get some hidden meaning in your post? If that's the case would you mind clarifying?


-Alien

It was hardly hidden. I said it right there. "Free speech". The founding fathers as wise as they might have been they didn't foresee such an phenomenon. As I said those amendments have then been adjusted to compensate. Society put their wise heads together and did "that's morally objectionable, we should ban it".

reply to post by PsykoOps


Okay well then back to your first comment.

Show where he supports the illicit images of children through free speech?

Or where free speech supports the illicit images of children for that matter?

I just need a little more clarification on this here, I'm having a hard time connecting the dots you proposed.


-Alien

Jackson County Kentucky Sheriff Denny Peyman is making it clear that no law that violates the Constitution will be upheld in his county.

1st amendment. I threw that example there because it's the harshest. There are other limits. Libel for example.

reply to post by DarKPenguiN


I live in Kentucky and completely agree with everything you said.