Sheriffs refuse to enforce new Colorado gun laws

[chucky2]

Yes, language changes over time. If you believe that culture has changed significantly enough that the general population now takes the word 'invasion' to mean widespread illegal immigration please provide some support for this. (not links from nativist or right wing sites, but in general use for the population)

So first words have meaning, and now, they change over time. I really have little doubt significant portions of the US would characterize what has occurred over the past 30-40 years as an invasion as it relates to the US. Since I don't have a job that pays me to study polls and provide statistical spin for their pet political causes, I'd have to go Google to see what I could dig up. For me, I have a wide range of friends/family...from the hyper liberal to the staunch conservative. When the subject comes up at parties/get togethers, and I say we've been illegally invaded, about the only people that speak up against that characterization are the far far far left leaning people. And then, it's not to say that's not accurate, it's that the illegals are just looking for work, for better lives, they're people to, think of the children, etc. So basically they don't argue against the illegal invasion phrase, they just don't care. I'm sure you'll be along to tell me that I need a peer reviewed double blind statistically relevant study to find if people consider being illegally invaded by tens of millions of people is really an illegal invasion or not. I can save you the time and just reply ahead of time: I don't care. To me, and pretty much everyone I know (except as noted the extremely far left folks), the total affect to the US is an illegal invasion. You can call it whatever you want, happiness and joy, whatever, I really don't care.

This is why you need to put more thought into it. Now the next time someone is murdered no immigrants will talk to the police under any circumstances, so now murders go unsolved. There's a very specific reason that law enforcement professionals so frequently operate in this manner, and its because they find it to be much more effective.

The reason local LE does that is because they don't have the resources to deal with the massive problem the Feds willingly allowed to happen. They're stuck with a massive illegal problem and murders to solve. My response to this would be, and again, I know this is shocking given your soundbite, is to actually take steps at the Fed level, whose actual job it has been and is, to never have that level of illegals here in the first place.

My whole answer is that the law and the police exist to serve the community. What they want definitely matters, particularly when implementing limited police resources.

Well I've encountered basically no one in my life that thinks the speed limits on the highways should be what they are here. And yet, magically, Politicians have the police out giving "speeding" tickets for those unlucky enough to be caught doing 70 in a 55 that would be a 70-80 in any other state. You were saying what the public wanted matters?

So in other words you want him to spend his time actively attempting to stop rapes, and only enforcing immigration law incidentally along the way. In no way is that enforcing all laws equally. It's almost like that's what we already do and what you're complaining about.

He's local LE. If he needs to go stop rapes, he needs to go stop rapes. If in the course of his job someone blows a red light in front of him and he pulls him over, and the guy that can't speak english who has no license and no insurance can't prove who he is, I don't expect him to go, Well, I'm on my way to stop rapes, you have a nice day sir! I expect him to detain that man until his legal status can be verified, and he can be properly cited. If that means the vehicle is parked and locked there, and the man sits in the back of the squad until the wagon arrives to take him in, so be it. And I absolutely expect when it turns out, surprise surprise, that the guy is an illegal, that the illegal is turned over to ICE, who then deports him. Of course, I have this crazy idea that the border is secured, so the guy won' tbe coming back over in 2 months.

lol. When you have no argument try to impugn the motives of your opponent. It couldn't possibly be that you have bad ideas.

I get the feeling that you haven't put much thought into this.

More gold from you...

 

[Oldgamer]

So you think the POTUS and other elected Politicians should lose their jobs. Given your posting history, interesting.

That isn't even close to what I said. Good job for putting words in another's mouth! LOL

 

[fskimospy]

So first words have meaning, and now, they change over time.

Uhmm... yes? Words have meaning but that meaning is not static. I'm not sure what is confusing you here.

I really have little doubt significant portions of the US would characterize what has occurred over the past 30-40 years as an invasion as it relates to the US. Since I don't have a job that pays me to study polls and provide statistical spin for their pet political causes, I'd have to go Google to see what I could dig up. For me, I have a wide range of friends/family...from the hyper liberal to the staunch conservative. When the subject comes up at parties/get togethers, and I say we've been illegally invaded, about the only people that speak up against that characterization are the far far far left leaning people. And then, it's not to say that's not accurate, it's that the illegals are just looking for work, for better lives, they're people to, think of the children, etc. So basically they don't argue against the illegal invasion phrase, they just don't care. I'm sure you'll be along to tell me that I need a peer reviewed double blind statistically relevant study to find if people consider being illegally invaded by tens of millions of people is really an illegal invasion or not. I can save you the time and just reply ahead of time: I don't care. To me, and pretty much everyone I know (except as noted the extremely far left folks), the total affect to the US is an illegal invasion. You can call it whatever you want, happiness and joy, whatever, I really don't care.

Oh ok. The "I swear it's this way I just know" argument. Very convincing.

The reason local LE does that is because they don't have the resources to deal with the massive problem the Feds willingly allowed to happen. They're stuck with a massive illegal problem and murders to solve. My response to this would be, and again, I know this is shocking given your soundbite, is to actually take steps at the Fed level, whose actual job it has been and is, to never have that level of illegals here in the first place.

Ahhh, look at the retreat start. Before it was 'deport everyone'. Now it's 'well I get why they do it'. Which one is it?

Well I've encountered basically no one in my life that thinks the speed limits on the highways should be what they are here. And yet, magically, Politicians have the police out giving "speeding" tickets for those unlucky enough to be caught doing 70 in a 55 that would be a 70-80 in any other state. You were saying what the public wanted matters?

Clearly if you can offer an example of policy and public interests not matching up that means the public's interests don't matter. Wait, what?

He's local LE. If he needs to go stop rapes, he needs to go stop rapes. If in the course of his job someone blows a red light in front of him and he pulls him over, and the guy that can't speak english who has no license and no insurance can't prove who he is, I don't expect him to go, Well, I'm on my way to stop rapes, you have a nice day sir! I expect him to detain that man until his legal status can be verified, and he can be properly cited. If that means the vehicle is parked and locked there, and the man sits in the back of the squad until the wagon arrives to take him in, so be it. And I absolutely expect when it turns out, surprise surprise, that the guy is an illegal, that the illegal is turned over to ICE, who then deports him. Of course, I have this crazy idea that the border is secured, so the guy won' tbe coming back over in 2 months.

Yeah again so now you're implicitly accepting prioritized enforcement. Are you arguing just to argue at this point?

More gold from you...

Those two quotes were in no way contradictory. Jesus guy, read better.

 

[chucky2]

Uhmm... yes? Words have meaning but that meaning is not static. I'm not sure what is confusing you here.

Nothing. I just find it interesting you can't grasp why we've been illegally invaded because that's a meaning change but then accept the changing of the meaning of a word long understood to be one thing for thousands of years across multiple societys simply because a PC majority are influenced by a vocal whining minority. I guess you could say I'm entertained by you.

Oh ok. The "I swear it's this way I just know" argument. Very convincing.

Well, more like, the, Basically everyone I know accepts that characterization of our illegal situation, despite how uncomfortable that reality is to those who wish Open Borders. Really I'd look at it the other way. Convince me otherwise that tens of millions living here illegally isn't in Reality an illegal invasion in respect to their affect on the country and especially those locally. For every study conducted by a liberal professor sitting in his/her office, I'll give you 10 guys I know in the trades whose wages have been decimated by their greedy employer exploiting illegals. Or a bunch of out of work people who could be doing jobs they otherwise wouldn't do but can't because illegals are doing them. I don't need to do any convincing on this, your side does.

The reason local LE does that is because they don't have the resources to deal with the massive problem the Feds willingly allowed to happen. They're stuck with a massive illegal problem and murders to solve. My response to this would be, and again, I know this is shocking given your soundbite, is to actually take steps at the Fed level, whose actual job it has been and is, to never have that level of illegals here in the first place.

Ahhh, look at the retreat start. Before it was 'deport everyone'. Now it's 'well I get why they do it'. Which one is it?

Your retreat that is. You wanted an A or B, I gave a C. That's not retreat, that's doing both. I can't help it if you can't grasp that.

Clearly if you can offer an example of policy and public interests not matching up that means the public's interests don't matter. Wait, what?

So you're saying you were wrong, that what the public wants isn't what always matters. Wait, Brown vs Board of Ed? Doh! The public didn't want blackie going to their white school...but the police enforced anyways. Let me guess...it was OK then right, but not now? And, this only assumes you are right and the public wants Open Boarders/Amnesty. I understand in your limited Progressive circle, everyone wants it...well, as long as they don't have to live right by them, amirite? In the rest of the US, we want the borders locked down. Then we can talk about what to do with the remaining illegals.

Yeah again so now you're implicitly accepting prioritized enforcement. Are you arguing just to argue at this point?

I don't know, are you? I'm accepting local LE has to prioritize when then need to prioritize. And when they don't, they don't. None of that matters in respect to ICE/Border Patrol. Their priority is keeping illegals out, and deporting ones that are here illegally. Well, it should be at least. We know how that's going in non-soundbite land...

Those two quotes were in no way contradictory. Jesus guy, read better.

I like it!:thumbsup: First say 'I get the feeling...' at a weak attempt at argument diminishment, and then, complain about it and then make another attempt at argument diminishment. Clinton, is that you?

 

[fskimospy]

Nothing. I just find it interesting you can't grasp why we've been illegally invaded because that's a meaning change but then accept the changing of the meaning of a word long understood to be one thing for thousands of years across multiple societys simply because a PC majority are influenced by a vocal whining minority. I guess you could say I'm entertained by you.

No, I'm just saying you're making up new definitions for words and so you need to provide some evidence for it. It's not hard to understand, you just can't do it so you're trying to find a way out.

Well, more like, the, Basically everyone I know accepts that characterization of our illegal situation, despite how uncomfortable that reality is to those who wish Open Borders. Really I'd look at it the other way. Convince me otherwise that tens of millions living here illegally isn't in Reality an illegal invasion in respect to their affect on the country and especially those locally. For every study conducted by a liberal professor sitting in his/her office, I'll give you 10 guys I know in the trades whose wages have been decimated by their greedy employer exploiting illegals. Or a bunch of out of work people who could be doing jobs they otherwise wouldn't do but can't because illegals are doing them. I don't need to do any convincing on this, your side does.

Oooh! Nice new tack. You decide to change the meaning of a word and then say it's MY job to show you it HASN'T changed. Not even an 8th grader is fooled by that kind of attempt to shift the burden of proof. Like I said, your argument is "I JUST KNOW". Very convincing.

Your retreat that is. You wanted an A or B, I gave a C. That's not retreat, that's doing both. I can't help it if you can't grasp that.

So you're saying you were wrong, that what the public wants isn't what always matters. Wait, Brown vs Board of Ed? Doh! The public didn't want blackie going to their white school...but the police enforced anyways. Let me guess...it was OK then right, but not now? And, this only assumes you are right and the public wants Open Boarders/Amnesty. I understand in your limited Progressive circle, everyone wants it...well, as long as they don't have to live right by them, amirite? In the rest of the US, we want the borders locked down. Then we can talk about what to do with the remaining illegals.

Nice try at a straw man.

I don't know, are you? I'm accepting local LE has to prioritize when then need to prioritize. And when they don't, they don't. None of that matters in respect to ICE/Border Patrol. Their priority is keeping illegals out, and deporting ones that are here illegally. Well, it should be at least. We know how that's going in non-soundbite land...

All law enforcement agencies need to prioritize at all times.

I like it!:thumbsup: First say 'I get the feeling...' at a weak attempt at argument diminishment, and then, complain about it and then make another attempt at argument diminishment. Clinton, is that you?

My comment was a description of the poor state of your argument, yours was an attempt to impugn my character. This is basic stuff. Are you making up some more new definitions of words?

 

[werepossum]

I had to laugh, because they showed on ABC news and on MSNBC that these same Sheriffs who are saying they are not going to enforce the gun laws, are the same ones who are "secessionists".

But I have a question, if these various law enforcements are deciding which laws they are going to enforce and not enforce based on their own beliefs, then they could just as easily ignore civil rights laws.

Honestly I think they should lose their jobs.

But on the other hand, NOT deciding which laws they are going to enforce gives us Dred Scott and Jim Crowe, or ruining someone's life over a joint. SCOTUS and Congress did not change the morality of slavery or segregation when they changed the laws.

It's a thorny question and there are no easy answers. Only people who start with the desired conclusion and contort their way backward find easy answers here.

 

[monovillage]

I had to laugh, because they showed on ABC news and on MSNBC that these same Sheriffs who are saying they are not going to enforce the gun laws, are the same ones who are "secessionists".

But I have a question, if these various law enforcements are deciding which laws they are going to enforce and not enforce based on their own beliefs, then they could just as easily ignore civil rights laws.

Honestly I think they should lose their jobs.

It's not a crime when the President of the United States refuses to enforce immigration laws, but when a Sheriff upholds the Constitution and refuses to enforce a faulty firearm law they should lose their jobs?

 

[Incorruptible]

It's not a crime when the President of the United States refuses to enforce immigration laws, but when a Sheriff upholds the Constitution and refuses to enforce a faulty firearm law they should lose their jobs?

Gotta love the hypocrisy of the left. These idiots are alright when it comes to immigration since they can grow the welfare state and get votes but suddenly have a problem when it comes to idiotic gun laws these morons have a problem.

 

[BUnit1701]

Im curious, if 'invasion' doesn't mean 'large numbers of foreign nationals entering your nation's territory without permission', what does it mean?

 

[Moonbeam]

But on the other hand, NOT deciding which laws they are going to enforce gives us Dred Scott and Jim Crowe, or ruining someone's life over a joint. SCOTUS and Congress did not change the morality of slavery or segregation when they changed the laws.

It's a thorny question and there are no easy answers. Only people who start with the desired conclusion and contort their way backward find easy answers here.

However you want to cut it, they will have to resign or be fired. You have to yield to the powers that be right up to the day you become them. You can always opt for a altered reality but you can't make the powers that be subscribe to it. Pick your battles well.

 

[monovillage]

However you want to cut it, they will have to resign or be fired. You have to yield to the powers that be right up to the day you become them. You can always opt for a altered reality but you can't make the powers that be subscribe to it. Pick your battles well.

Sheriffs are elected. Did you mean they need to be recalled or replaced next election cycle? Why should they resign when they are upholding their States and the federal Constitution?

 

[TerryMathews]

I had to laugh, because they showed on ABC news and on MSNBC that these same Sheriffs who are saying they are not going to enforce the gun laws, are the same ones who are "secessionists".

But I have a question, if these various law enforcements are deciding which laws they are going to enforce and not enforce based on their own beliefs, then they could just as easily ignore civil rights laws.

Honestly I think they should lose their jobs.

Let me know when Obama loses his over choosing to not enforce DOMA.

 

[Moonbeam]

Let me know when Obama loses his over choosing to not enforce DOMA.

Let me know when this becomes an issue.

 

[Moonbeam]

Sheriffs are elected. Did you mean they need to be recalled or replaced next election cycle? Why should they resign when they are upholding their States and the federal Constitution?

There is the state and federal constitution and there is your interpretation of what it is. If you are a sheriff you don't get to decide yourself what the law is if you are told to do something you don't agree with. You require an altered reality to impose your interpretations so that's what you've created.

 

[monovillage]

There is the state and federal constitution and there is your interpretation of what it is. If you are a sheriff you don't get to decide yourself what the law is if you are told to do something you don't agree with. You require an altered reality to impose your interpretations so that's what you've created.

If you had read the article you'd know why the law is unenforceable as written.

 

[Moonbeam]

If you had read the article you'd know why the law is unenforceable as written.

When and if the courts say so and not until.

 

[TerryMathews]

When and if the courts say so and not until.

And why aren't you holding Obama to the same standard?

You ducked the analogy, instead of answering it in an intelligent fashion.

 

[TerryMathews]

There is the state and federal constitution and there is your interpretation of what it is. If you are a sheriff you don't get to decide yourself what the law is if you are told to do something you don't agree with. You require an altered reality to impose your interpretations so that's what you've created.

The sheer magnitude intellectual dishonesty in this post could stun a team of oxen.

 

[werepossum]

However you want to cut it, they will have to resign or be fired. You have to yield to the powers that be right up to the day you become them. You can always opt for a altered reality but you can't make the powers that be subscribe to it. Pick your battles well.

I'm up for this - just as soon as Obama and EVERY elected official ignoring immigration law resign.

 

[TerryMathews]

I'm up for this - just as soon as Obama and EVERY elected official ignoring immigration law resign.

We should make a list of every law that Obama and Holder chose to not enforce.