Um, what? I had to read that twice. You think because other countries have gun control we aren't as free as the US? OMG. You have no idea what you are talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by GloriaInTX
Printable View
Um, what? I had to read that twice. You think because other countries have gun control we aren't as free as the US? OMG. You have no idea what you are talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by GloriaInTX
In Mass. you can only have 1 or 2 unregistered cars on your property unless you are an auto mechanic (I forget which number it is).Quote:
Originally Posted by GloriaInTX
In California you have to get a planned non-operational permit every year that the car isn't registered for use. Otherwise you'll be liable for the full registration fees and late fees whenever the car is re-registered or sold. And if it's been more than 6 months and the car isn't registered, it can be towed.Quote:
Originally Posted by GloriaInTX
ETA: quick Google search shows similar NPO requirements for Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Nevada and that's just on the first page.
And a very useful car it is, confined to your driveway. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by GloriaInTX
Gloria, you can't give your son lots of things. You cant give him your prescription drugs, does that limit your freedom? You cant gift him more than $14,000 of your money without taxes having to be paid on it. Again, does that bother you? You can't really just "give" him a car, unless you want to be liable for it as it would still be registered under your name. Ditto a house. And now, a gun. All people want is the same liabilities to follow with a gun. I believe that if someone sells or "gifts" someone a gun they should be 100% liable for what happens with that gun. That would be a quick way to stop these "private sales" and this whole sleazy method of getting around background checking. A gun should always be registered to the proper owner, who has undergone a background check, and who (IMO) should have to carry insurance on it.
You should like, travel outside of the U.S.Quote:
Originally Posted by GloriaInTX
If it's an unconstitutional federal law, I can't imagine they are going to get fired by the very people who pay their salaries and want to retain their rights. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Alissa_Sal
Quote:
Originally Posted by wlillie
Its a bit of a double standard that you would say this here about taxpayers in relation to these public servants, yet say this last week in the "Guardian Plan" thread about taxpayers and yourself being a public servant:
There is a reason that the average enlistee takes an oath and the average hick sheriff takes an oath of office that is different than a Supreme court Justice takes. Neither one is charged with interpreting the law, they are charged with enforcing it or protecting it. If they refuse to enforce it, they will be fired or discharged. Pretty simple.Quote:
You aren't paying my salary, nor is anyone who is able to vote today. It's just getting added to our kids debt.
Sheriffs aren't paid by the federal government. It depends on which state and/or county/parish they are in. ;)
Their bosses are people who agree with them or the letters wouldn't be in national news. Just like the cops who won't have illegal immigrants vehicles towed because they don't think it's fair they can't get licenses over in California.
Not a doubt in my mind there are quite a few of those letters where you wouldn't be able to find someone else to enforce a law that "hicks" think is illegal. Doesn't matter what the Supreme Court says to those with integrity; if they are wrong they are wrong. They are wrong about abortion being murder, they are wrong about the healthcare law being Constitutional, and they would be wrong if they tried to take guns out of law-abiding citizens hands, but I honestly am not that concerned about it. Hopefully the nitwits start working on our economy and foreign policy and get off the gun kick.
eta- Oh, and here is the oath. Not that much different. Just obeying the officers and the Presidents ACCORDING TO THE LAW AND REGULATIONS. Not what someone else interprets them as. ;)
http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgov...f_office_3.htm
http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgov...f_office_3.htm
They are positions paid by fellow americans, just like yours, that was my point. And these guys no more are qualified to interpret the constitution than you are. You think that your "Ingegrity" keeps you from following the law of the land/the Surpreme Court? WHY do you work for the military again? My lord. That is crazy talk.
The letters aren't really in the National news, did you see most of the sites Gloria quoted from? Fringe right wing wacko ones. Not to mention if you read in the comments many of the sherrifs themselves are speaking up and being quite clear that they themselves made NO such comment
Quote:
Tim Rodenberg ?Well, hardly surprising that in the clamor about this issue things are confused and misinformation is swirling around. I am one of the Sheriffs listed in the above article who supposedly has stated I will not enforce any of Obama's gun laws. I have have made no such statements indicating this although I did prepare and post a statement concerning the issue on my Facebook page which can be accessed by the public. After reading it you too may wonder how my name got on the above list. Sheriff A.J. "Tim" Rodenberg, Clermont County OH.
If I wasn't running out to work out I'd love to do more research into how much of these "news" stories from these biased stories have much merit to them.
Follow