Sherrif Joe Arpaio to surround schools with armed posse.

[exdeath]

I think I am beginning to understand the delusions of the gun nuts.
Apparently they disregard things like the vast majority of Americans living in cities. And that the vast majority of gun owners have them for home protection. And the vast majority of those maybe go to the gun range a few times just til they get the hang of how to use it.

Have you ever been to a large commercial shooting range? I've been to some outdoor ranges with 50+ lanes where I had to wait in line for 30-60 mins for a lane to open up. And that was BEFORE Obama and Democratic majorities made shooting even more popular in recent years.

See Ben Avery Shooting Range in Phoenix, AZ, a city as you so put it.

You're the one living in a pretend world.

I'm not just talking about handling firearms either. Media in general has brainwashed the populace into believing they can't tie their own shoes without some "authority" getting involved or approving it or 60 minutes of commentary from self appointed "experts" weighing in.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

You know what? You came back with bullshit 4 times in that thread. Posting crap from old laws that were changed more than once since they were passed.

You're a liar. Again.

Here is the current US Code. Right from the website of the House of Representatives.

It says exactly what I and others have been saying:

(2) It shall be unlawful for any person who is a juvenile to knowingly possess - (A) a handgun; or (B) ammunition that is suitable for use only in a handgun.

Period.

Your signature is a lie.

Who the fuck has time to debate someone who is too dumb to understand what a fact is?

There's nothing to debate. You've been quoted the current US law which says clearly that it is illegal for under-18s to own handguns. You're ignoring that with nonsense about "old laws" when you've been shown current US code.

I am not even going to look at the "site of Congress".

Of course not, lol.

Hell, I can read in the Congressional record thousands of things that are NOT true.

The congressional record is not the same thing as the US code. Duh.

Congress is not where I go to find out the laws.

You were also given references to Findlaw and I believe Cornell's copy of the current statute. All of them said the same thing.

But okay, humor us. Where DO you go to find out current law? Let me guess -- random websites that tell you what you want to hear?

Congressman put tons of bullishit in the Congressional record.

Well, good thing I never referred to the Congressional record then, right?

So, the fact that you are wrong, and even the mod who you complained to like a whiny bitch agrees, tells me you are either mentally deficient or psycho or just playing games.

Apparently there is no rule here against people posting lies in their signatures. That doesn't change the fact that it's a lie.

I am not changing my thread because it is factually accurate, I proved it, and YOU LOST YOUR COMPLAINT.

You're not changing your signature because you're an asshole. That's pretty much it.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I am not changing my thread because it is factually accurate, I proved it, and YOU LOST YOUR COMPLAINT.

You are wrong, from page 9 of 9 Vermont handgun laws.

http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/vermont.pdf

Minimum Age for Possessing and Transporting of Handguns.
Vermont 16 Y/O Title 13, Chapter 85, § 4007 and § 4008 This is the minimum age for possessing and transporting a handgun unloaded and secured in a vehicle without any type of permit/license to carry firearms.

Note: In some states Possession and Transportation CAN be very restrictive in that you can ONLY possess and transport a handgun to and from a Shooting Range, Gun Shop, property you own or other places you can legally possess a handgun. Some states do not have this restriction. This is not the last word on possession and transporting of handguns in this, or any other state. Study your state law further for more information. See “RV/Car Carry” Section Above for more information.

(18 USC § 922(x) Federal Law on selling, possession, delivery, or otherwise transferring a firearm to a juvenile.)

Please note the quoted above, Vermont defers to Federal Law when it comes to the sale and transfer of arms to a juvenile. Please note the highlighted areas below.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922

(x)
(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to sell, deliver, or otherwise transfer to a person who the transferor knows or has reasonable cause to believe is a juvenile—
(A) a handgun; or
(B) ammunition that is suitable for use only in a handgun.
(2) It shall be unlawful for any person who is a juvenile to knowingly possess—
(A) a handgun; or
(B) ammunition that is suitable for use only in a handgun.
(3) This subsection does not apply to—
(A) a temporary transfer of a handgun or ammunition to a juvenile or to the possession or use of a handgun or ammunition by a juvenile if the handgun and ammunition are possessed and used by the juvenile—
(i) in the course of employment, in the course of ranching or farming related to activities at the residence of the juvenile (or on property used for ranching or farming at which the juvenile, with the permission of the property owner or lessee, is performing activities related to the operation of the farm or ranch), target practice, hunting, or a course of instruction in the safe and lawful use of a handgun;
(ii) with the prior written consent of the juvenile’s parent or guardian who is not prohibited by Federal, State, or local law from possessing a firearm, except—
(I) during transportation by the juvenile of an unloaded handgun in a locked container directly from the place of transfer to a place at which an activity described in clause (i) is to take place and transportation by the juvenile of that handgun, unloaded and in a locked container, directly from the place at which such an activity took place to the transferor; or
(II) with respect to ranching or farming activities as described in clause (i), a juvenile may possess and use a handgun or ammunition with the prior written approval of the juvenile’s parent or legal guardian and at the direction of an adult who is not prohibited by Federal, State or local law from possessing a firearm;
(iii) the juvenile has the prior written consent in the juvenile’s possession at all times when a handgun is in the possession of the juvenile; and
(iv) in accordance with State and local law;
(B) a juvenile who is a member of the Armed Forces of the United States or the National Guard who possesses or is armed with a handgun in the line of duty;
(C) a transfer by inheritance of title (but not possession) of a handgun or ammunition to a juvenile; or
(D) the possession of a handgun or ammunition by a juvenile taken in defense of the juvenile or other persons against an intruder into the residence of the juvenile or a residence in which the juvenile is an invited guest.
(4) A handgun or ammunition, the possession of which is transferred to a juvenile in circumstances in which the transferor is not in violation of this subsection shall not be subject to permanent confiscation by the Government if its possession by the juvenile subsequently becomes unlawful because of the conduct of the juvenile, but shall be returned to the lawful owner when such handgun or ammunition is no longer required by the Government for the purposes of investigation or prosecution.
(5) For purposes of this subsection, the term “juvenile” means a person who is less than 18 years of age.
(6)
(A) In a prosecution of a violation of this subsection, the court shall require the presence of a juvenile defendant’s parent or legal guardian at all proceedings.
(B) The court may use the contempt power to enforce subparagraph (A).
(C) The court may excuse attendance of a parent or legal guardian of a juvenile defendant at a proceeding in a prosecution of a violation of this subsection for good cause shown.

Now, either correct your sig or remove it.

 

[conehead433]

The last fucking thing this country needs is a bunch of George Zimmermans patrolling our schools' halls.

 

[Lanyap]

This will be interesting. I am sure members of the Minutemen will be amongst the first to volunteer. Untrained civilians around schools with guns? This will not end well.

So, it would appear that he intends to use unemployed (nothing else to do during the day), wannabe cops (probably already rejected by local forces) in street clothes (no uniforms to indicate they are the good guys), and no training or communications as guards. And if they have no arrest powers, their only options when confronting someone will be to let them pass, or shoot them.

Should be fun when they mistake an umbrella or a sub sandwich for a gun.

Well, at least it's a way for all those folks to justify why they bought that shiny new 50 cal. barret-style scoped rifle, and that pretty Korth Combat .357, and all of that camo bdu's and tactical accessories, and that double holster and really cool looking ballistic vest they never had a reason to buy before. It's good for business. The NRA executives must be very pleased.

I'm just wondering how long these volunteers will volunteer their time from standing 24 hr. watch being all eagle-eyed and suspiciously alert, clearing out the classrooms with sniffer dogs early every morning to make sure somebody that's better armed than they are didn't sneak in during the nightwatch or over the weekends and holidays.

At some point, they're going to think they're unappreciated and want to get paid for their services At some point in their lonely watch they're going to ponder how hard it is to defend a bunch of buildings that were never designed to be easily secured. At some point they're going to realize they're risking life and limb from becoming the highest priority target while they're standing out in the open looking all preventive and stuff. At some point they're going to realize they'd rather be hunting, fishing, bar-brawling or watching the Super Bowl on that 60 in. screen they just bought for themselves. It's human nature.

The last fucking thing this country needs is a bunch of George Zimmermans patrolling our schools' halls.

You guys obviously didn't read the articles or watch the videos posted by the OP. Even the OP didn't read them. You can see him swearing in some members of his posse. Most have uniforms and were former LEOs.

Arpaio first started using his posse to protect malls during the holiday shopping season in 1993 in response to violent incidents in prior years. Since then he said malls where his posse members are on patrol have had zero violent re-occurrences and patrols by his all-volunteer squad during the 2012 shopping season netted a record 31 arrests.

The sheriff didn't talk logistics but said he'll use members of his 3,000 strong posse to patrol schools in towns that fall under sole jurisdiction of the sheriff's office

The posse has the same training regarding guns as our regular deputy sheriffs, over 100 hours of training, plus refresher courses…

 

[werepossum]

What? You expected him to engage in posse comentatus.

+1

I support this if you can find enough volunteers and I would like each to be vetted in some manner, don't need to welcome too much crazy to hang around a school with weapons.

Yup. Could be a good idea, but difficult to pull off correctly.

Didn't Columbine and Fort Hood have guards with guns?

Columbine had an armed cop. You know, exactly what you guys feel should be our ONLY protection. He exchanged fire after they had killed two students and wounded several more, but he didn't enter the building. Many more cops showed up; none entered the building. No cops did until the SWAT team entered an hour after shooting began. During that hour the shooters killed ten more students and a teacher, wounded roughly a dozen more, and at least the teacher then bled to death while the cops spent more than three hours clearing the school, even though the shooters had already offed themselves about the same time SWAT entered the building. Then the cops took the security video and set it to music as a "training video". I simply cannot imagine how someone could mention Columbine in an argument about how we should disarm and let the cops protect us. The only possible worse argument would be to select an example where cops actually did the killing.

Fort Hood had MANY guards with guns; they got there as quickly as possible and put down the rabid animal, who had avoided those with guns in favor of murdering those who were unarmed. (To this day many people still believe that is a wiser course of action than allowing the killers to continue murdering at will while "proper procedure" is followed. Go figure.) Considering that we have a fair number of ex-military civilians, I don't see how this is necessarily an argument against arming civilians, provided the civilians are selected and supervised wisely.

 

[Incorruptible]

Another backfire on techs, love this, he is getting owned

 

[shortylickens]

Trying to get back on topic:


My little cousins didnt wanna go back to school after the shootings.
Uncle Dave had to explain to them "we're Canadian, that doesnt happen here". He was probably lying but it worked in any case.