Parkinson asks Biden not to support new gun laws

February 25, 2013
Ian Parkinson

Ian Parkinson

San Luis Obsipo County Sheriff Ian Parkinson issued a letter to Vice President Joe Biden requesting that he address the country’s flawed mental health system, rather than lobbying for stricter gun control measures in response to recent shooting tragedies.

In the Feb. 9 letter, Parkinson said that he supports the 2nd Amendment and that he will not enforce any laws that take firearms out of the hands of law-abiding citizens.

“I believe that every law abiding citizen has the right to acquire, own, possess, use, keep and bear firearms under the 2nd Amendment,” Parkinson wrote. “I will not take firearms from law abiding citizens and turn law abiding citizens into criminals by enforcing gun control legislation that will not solve or prevent tragedy.”

Parkinson said that new gun laws in response to the recent Connecticut school shooting would be “reactionary and cosmetic.”

“Many people’s first reaction after a tragedy, like what occurred in Connecticut, is to try and pass more restrictive laws and look for a quick solution, rather than address the real problem.”

The sheriff instead requested that Biden work to allocate more federal funding for mental health facilities and services.

“I do not believe that passing more gun laws is the solution to this problem. Many of these shootings and many of the homicides in my county, over the past few years, have been related to mental illness. I believe that it is very clear that we must address and put more attention to the mentally ill and the mental health systems in this country.”

Parkinson authored the letter to Biden in support of the 2nd Amendment after the North County Tea Party circulated a petition requesting he do so. Approximately 20 California sheriffs have taken public stances against stricter gun laws proposed by the White House. Several of the sheriffs have, also, written letters to Biden opposing more gun laws.

The North County Tea Party announced the Parkinson letter at a 2nd Amendment rally Saturday in Atascadero. Assemblyman Katcho Achadjian and former Congresswoman Andrea Seastrand each spoke at the rally, as did executive director of Gun Owners of California Sam Paredes.

Parkinson did not appear at the event.

 


103 Comments

  1. ncountypop says:

    North SLO County Tea Party will have copy of letter on their website at northcountyteaparty.org
    Sheriff Parkinson can also be reached to thank him for standing up for our rights at vokeffe@co.slo.ca.us He also will be speaking at North County Tea Party general meeting next Monday the 4th of March at 6pm. Location is ABC Church in Atascadero. Thanks Sheriff !!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2

  2. Harley says:

    I for one, as a gun owner, support the universal back ground checks. We’ve had them in California for many years. It’s now a 10 day wait but I remember in the pre-computer days, it was 20 (or 21?).

    It’s no big deal if you have nothing to hide. I myself have had to fill out and pay for five of them since last September. My only issue is that if you buy a gun on Monday and another on Tuesday, you still have to fill out another form and pay another fee.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4

  3. Ted Slanders says:

    DowntownBob,

    Hey, we were in discussion on the 2nd page of this thread about gun show loop holes, and that you said didn’t exist. Your silence subsequent to my followup question to you on this topic was deafening. You’ve been posting everywhere else in this thread, but not answering Brother Slanders.

    Anyway, did you ever get to call your Republican Congress representative about why the GOP is defying NRA lobbyists by going ahead with wanting mandatory screening at gun shows to close a loophole that you said really doesn’t exist in the first place? Since you and the GOP are at odds, who is correct?

    http://www.sfgate.com/business/bloomberg/article/Background-Checks-Gain-Ground-as-Republicans-Defy-4289734.php

    Maybe you could explain it to us so we will be as enlightened as you seemingly are on this subject so we won’t become fools in your eyes, okay?

    Thanks

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6

  4. CommonSenseMama says:

    The majority of arguments in favor of more restrictive gun laws could also be used to make the case for completely outlawing gun ownership (accidental shootings, going “postal”, well regulated militias, etc). It is a slippery slope.

    If my home is invaded, I should have every right to protect myself and my innocent children- not just hope that the criminal has no intention to kill us. If left to rely solely on my physical strength, the odds are in favor of the intruder. If I have a gun, the odds are now much closer to equal.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1

  5. hotdog says:

    The last crooked sheriff we had was a real bum, Pat Hedges. We thought that in the general election for a new one we had two good candidates, Ian Prkinson and Joe Cortez. We were wrong; Ian, apparently, has decided to show his true colors as just another two bit crook. He has decided to violate his oath of office and only enforce those laws he agrees with; that is the same sort of greedy and self serving attitude criminals subscribe to. And the same attitude that many regular citizens would like to embrace but cannot because of the Sheriff who is supposed to enforce all the laws.

    This tea party fruitcake has even cheated his own industry (law enforcement) from rudimentary safety concerns. Many cops are killed with guns, just two yesterday in Santa Cruz. Most responsible LE would not want a bunch of yahoo citizens blasting away at the slightest provocation. Parkinson is just another crook with a gun.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 19

  6. Scipio Africanus says:

    During his election campaign Ian Parkinson gave every appearance of supporting common sense progressive measures to assure that the right to bear arms was exercised responsibly by responsible people. Parkinson’s letter to Vice President Biden is not quoted as containing any support for universal background checks. Was that measure mentioned?

    President Obama is already supporting improved mental health service as part of a way to reduce irresponsible use of weapons. What is Parkinson’s position on a national law requiring background checks to practically prevent sale of a gun to someone who has been found to be a danger to themselves and other? Does Parkinson seriously think weapons should be sold to convicted felons, convicted child abusers, or convicted wife beaters?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 12

    • SpeakTruth says:

      It doesn’t matter if guns are sold to “convicted felons, convicted child abusers, or convicted wife beaters”. Criminals that want a weapon are going to get one whether it’s legal for them to do so or not. No law will prevent that. Gun laws only affect the lawful – and the lawful aren’t the ones you need to be worried about. Let that little slice of reality sink in for a moment. Disarming good people only serves to embolden bad people. The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 7

      • Homer says:

        Criminals who want to drive fast will drive fast. No law will prevent that. Criminals who want to rob banks will rob banks. No law will prevent that. Criminals who want to (choose your crime) will (choose your crime). No law will prevent that. Sound logic.

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1

      • bobfromsanluis says:

        “The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun.” And what do you do about the good guy with a gun when he either snaps and goes off all “postal”, or perhaps, like Oscar Pistorius, he makes a really bad decision and shoots someone without knowing who he is shooting?

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4

        • Harley says:

          Do you honestly believe that BS defense story that PISStorius is using??

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1

          • paragon says:

            Do you honestly believe that no one has ever accidentally killed a loved one with a firearm? There have been at least a couple cases in this county in the last few years.

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4

      • paragon says:

        “Gun laws only affect the lawful” That’s a nice sound bite, but it fails to consider reality. Your statement makes it sound like gun control laws are based on the honor system and the only checkpoint to prevent a criminal from getting a gun is that criminals own respect for the law, rather than the laws dealing with the supply chain that could provide him with the gun.

        Yes, criminals will break the law, but most of the gun control laws are aimed at gun dealers, sellers, and manufacturers, not the criminal on the street. An insane person can want to get an assault rifle with an extended magazine all he wants, but if he cannot find a dealer willing to break the law and risk jailtime to sell one to him, he will not get it. Same with background checks.

        Yes, there will always be a black market for these things, but if you make it more difficult, there will be criminals that will be stopped from obtaining a weapon, without affecting law abiding citizens.

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5

  7. bobfromsanluis says:

    If Sheriff Parkinson is so concerned about the federal government “over-regulating” firearms, why does he only allow such a small number of CCW permits? If federal regulation is such an over-reach, if back ground checks and registration is a “government take over”, shouldn’t an elected official such as Sheriff Parkinson do all he can to make sure that there are as many gun owners walking around with loaded weapons? Sheriff Parkinson, either you are trying to “talk out of both sides of your mouth” by decrying the Vice-President’s remarks as “taking away citizen’s rights” (which isn’t the case; none of the proposed legislation is directed at requiring citizens to either turn in certain weapons or have any law enforcement agency on any level actually “take” any weapons away from anyone anywhere, period.), but at the same time Sheriff Parkinson seemingly makes the case that he is somehow protecting the population or maybe just his deputies by not allowing very many CCW permits to be issued. Ian, you need to step up; either admit that there needs to be some sensible legislation that attempts to control the access to weapons that far exceed the needs of the average citizen to protect themselves (reinstating a ban on private citizens being able to purchase military grade weapons with high volume loading systems, extremely high muzzle velocity or firing projectiles that can penetrate armored protection as well as bullets designed to pierce bullet proof vests) or admit that Americans know what is best for themselves and they should be able to purchase and carry absolutely anything that is available, and carry them anywhere they want any time they want. What is wrong with having multiple persons of unknown training carrying concealed weapons into churches, city council meetings, the state capital, court houses or anywhere else? What could go wrong?

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 18 Thumb down 45

    • FineWine says:

      Again Bob you need to get your facts straight. You listen to much about what they say and not what the feinstein bill actually does. http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/feinsteins-plan-bans-any-gun-with-a-grip/ She is not talking about military grade arms. Military grade arms are fully automatic. Those were banned years ago. She is talking about everyday weapons people use for self defense. She is talking about limiting law abiding citizens the right to defend themselves and/or use for sport. Most hunting rifles will shoot through a bullet proof vest . Many handguns will too. You want to outlaw all of those. While the ban states some guns will be grandfathered in so as to keep from having to confiscate them. She specifically states all are to be registered and monitored by the feds (they will take them the next chance they get) and that the clips you owned over 10 rounds cannot be sold or transferred and the law is vague about if you can use the older magazines or not. How can you prove you owned them before the ban. The bill is poorly written as it describes the features that are banned than names weapons that are not banned but according to the description are banned. Which portion will be enforced? This is nothing more than another government power grab. The law doesn’t even mention criminals. It’s about controlling law abiding citizens. Go Ian!

      Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 50 Thumb down 10

      • Jack L says:

        “The law doesn’t even mention criminals. It’s about controlling law abiding citizens. Go Ian!”

        ^^^ THIS ^^^

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 6

      • bobfromsanluis says:

        “Military grade arms are fully automatic.” Um, not all military weapons are “fully automatic”; there are handguns that the military contracts to have made to their specifications that are basically “normal” handguns, but are upgraded to be more durable, more dependable, but still function like any basic handgun, just built to a higher degree of tolerances reliability, but not “fully automatic”. Do you “need” a handgun built to military grade specifications? Not really, but if you can afford one and it is the one you lust for, you will spend the money for it. Sniper rifles are not “fully automatic” either; clearly you do not know what you are talking about (/snark).
        “You want to outlaw all of those.” No, you are attempting to put words into my mouth, I never said that, period.
        “(they will take them the next chance they get)” Again, no, you are fear mongering. Any politician, any elected official, any government agency at any level anywhere that attempts to take any firearms from any citizen that is not being arrested for some crime will find themselves at the center of a near-revolution; it will not be pretty, it will never happen, period.

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 6

        • Downtown Bob says:

          Damn right we need the highest quality ammunition and weapons.

          When you must use a weapon, it will either work as designed or not. If a gun does now work when you need it to, you most likely will not survive.

          Are you saying that the Government deserves better, more reliable guns that they superiors (the citizens)? You are forgetting the the main reason for the 2nd amendment is to protect us from tyrants both from the Government and in society. I can think of no logical reason not to want high grade weapons in the hands of law abiding patriots unless you want to oppress people.

          Look at the situation in Mexico currently, and in the past consider the horrible circumstances in Cambodia, China, Russia, Cuba, Scotland, and every other dictatorship that has trampled people throughout history.

          Lastly, the main difference between military and civilian guns is the finish and some basic testing to confirm their performance.

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 4

          • bobfromsanluis says:

            Bob: Jeepers dude; I cannot express my amusement enough at those of you who crow about the Second Amendment supposedly protecting us from a tyrannical government. I understand this is a basic, fundamental difference between conservative/ libertarian views of government and those of us who have a more liberal, left leaning view of government. IMO, there is no weapon you can own that will enable you to “defend yourself” from our government; the “weapon” that we are all supposed to have access to is our Constitution, the Bill of Rights (all of them, not just the 2nd) and the court of law. If we have elected leaders performing in a manner we do not like, we vote them out of office. If a government agency is attempting to take away any of our rights, violating the Constitution, we are able to pursue justice through the legal system. There is not now, nor has there ever been any justification to pick up arms against our own government; to do so is anarchy, to try and destroy our government is treason.
            Keep all of the weapons you currently own; no government agency is going to show up at your door specifically to take any of your weapons unless they suspect you have committed a crime. Buy all of the weapons you wish to own; no one is telling you that you cannot buy those weapons, unless those weapons are classified as not being for usual citizen ownership, like fully automatic weapons (and even those can be owned in certain areas with certain restrictions). My wish for all of you who almost worship firearms? Stop fantasizing about having to rise up and overthrow the government; it is not going to happen, and if you ever do act out on a deluded belief that the government is “coming to get you” and you retreat to your bunker and load every firearm you own, the rest of us will read about either your arrest or your death; it will not end well for you (not you specifically, Bob, but any of the “you”s that think you can shoot your way past any government agency that might confront you for any reason.

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 7

            • Downtown Bob says:

              If they decide they need to round up and re-educate people,, you would see a revolution. The nut Dorner who was kicked out of the LAPD cult went bananas and terrorized the state for days…can you imagine what would happen if the government moves on gun confiscation and 1% go Dorner and resist…1.5 million people resisting? Yes, we, law abiding citizens still wield power that globalist a, the UN, and even the almighty police state that DHS has become will never succeed in oppressing.

              Why has the DHS purchased over 2BILLION hollow point bullets (not legal under Geneva Conventions)? Do you even think that it could be for civil unrest? Do you find it an impossibility that they want another civil war? Is in within the realm that a natural or man made disaster could precipitate chaos and a breakdown where 911 will be useless and martial law will be imposed?

              People are not any less horrible than they were during the early 70′s when they killed millions. The same people (socialist and communists) have killed untold millions and there is nothing stoping them from doing it again Bob except the US and Switzerland. The UN wants to destroy freedom in my opinion.

              Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6

              • bobfromsanluis says:

                “The UN wants to destroy freedom in my opinion.” Oh, so you are also an “Agenda 21″ conspiracy theorist as well? That explains quite a bit.
                There is never going to be a “round up and re-education” of the American people. Ever. And yes, I can imagine what would happen if “the government” ever tried to confiscate guns, that is why I stated that it will NEVER happen, ever. Get over yourself; our government in not going to start a civil war; our government is not going to round up Americans; our government is not going to allow the UN or any other organization to undermine our government, our way of life- IT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN, PERIOD. Let go of your fantasies about having to fight our government; Glen Beck, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh et al have no clue what they are talking about, other than to sell advertising for their shows or to enrich themselves with the products they advertise.

                Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6

                • zaphod says:

                  “This is a solemn but a glorious hour. I only wish Franklin Delano Roosevelt had lived to witness this day.
                  General Eisenhower informs me that the forces of Germany have surrendered to THE UNITED NATIONS
                  The flags of freedom fly all over Europe”
                  Now if what I have quoted is true what does that make you out to be?

                  Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

                • Downtown Bob says:

                  IMO, there is no weapon you can own that will enable you to “defend yourself” from our government; the “weapon” that we are all supposed to have access to is our Constitution, the Bill of Rights (all of them, not just the 2nd) and the court of law. If we have elected leaders performing in a manner we do not like, we vote them out of office. If a government agency is attempting to take away any of our rights, violating the Constitution, we are able to pursue justice through the legal system. There is not now, nor has there ever been any justification to pick up arms against our own government; to do so is anarchy, to try and destroy our government is treason.

                  Really..so on one hand there is no weapon to defend yourself from the government, and on the other hand they would never confiscate guns because they know they would face 1.5 million “Dorners”?

                  There is no Agenda 21? Seriously?

                  There is no 2 billion hollow point bullets pruchased by DHS?

                  There were not 2 million dollars worth of civilian targets of pregnant women and senior citizens holding guns to be shot for training?

                  There are no DOJ memos admitting assault weapon bans will not work and confiscation is the only option?

                  Fast and Furious did not occur?

                  Obama did not grow up around and was not mentored by devout socialists and domestic terrorists?

                  Obama is not spying on us more and more without any oversight?

                  Obama has not ordered anyone “killed”, even US Citizens without a trial or due process because they are “terrorists”.

                  The Bin Laden myth is as exactly as the several different versions were given?

                  200 women and children are acceptable to be killed I. Order to kill one so called “high value” target?

                  Bob, I believe your childlike faith I these globalist corrupt power icons is very sad and delusional. Be willing to look beyond your fear and recognize that those running our government do not have our best interests in mind.

                  Please. And no, Rush Limbaugh is nit where I get my info from. glen Beck is a tool. Sean Hannity republican tool. Sure, they all have some good ideas but they believe too much in the current two party system where no one is willing to do anything substantive

                  Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

                • zaphod says:

                  LOL oh my Gawd Obama the socialist is going to kill us all with hollow points to spare !
                  See what happens when you rely on WND and Alex Jones as your primary reality set.?

                  Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

            • OnTheOtherHand says:

              I consider myself a political moderate — or rather one who has views that are sometimes “conservative”, sometimes “liberal” and sometimes neither. I agree with the Libertarians and Conservatives on this issue. Neither I nor any small group will be successful if the government targets us as individuals and comes after us. That is one reason why so many of us oppose “registration” schemes. If they don’t know who we are, they can’t operate that way and, that would give us time to rebel en masse.

              Obviously, you have far more faith than many of us do in the benevolence of our government. Why this is so, I don’t know. The continued existence of the “War on Drugs” is proof positive that they aren’t. This “War” alone has led to deterioration of other constitutional rights beginning with the Fourth Amendment. Even gun owners who hate potheads are starting to realize that the precedents set in suppressing them can be used in the future against us. (Parkinson’s cooperation with Federally-inspired actions against state-legal Marijuana Cooperatives makes me less inclined to trust that his statement on gun rights is anything but a political show.)

              As for using the power of the vote to get rid of tyrants, that has become a laugh. With people of both major parties forming their views based on political propaganda disguised as news, we end up having little more than a choice of “right-wing” or “left-wing” hypocrites for which to vote on national, state and (often) local levels. They tell us what we want to hear, adding their own spin in the process, and bombard us with it until we pick one hoping in vain that they might actually follow through on their promises. But they only really care about the interests of the people who provide the big money that funds their campaigns and give little more than lip-service to populist causes from either side. Ms. Feinstein (Plutocrat -CA) is a prime example of this whole situation. As long as this situation prevails, the success of media manipulation of the majority of voters makes a mockery of our system.

              We can’t afford to allow further weakening of the protections offered in the Bill of Rights if we are to maintain individual liberties in this country. The slide into a totalitarian plutocracy may not be as fast as some think but it has started and must be stopped before it gains too much momentum.

              Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3

              • bobfromsanluis says:

                I do not have any faith that our government is “benevolent” in any way; the so-called “war on drugs” is an absolute over reach by agencies in the government that I believe have no relationship to either the right or the left, the “war” is about control, power and money.

                I absolutely feared for a totalitarian take over when President Obama was elected and held my breath (in a manner of speaking) from the time that Obama was declared the winner of the election until he was sworn in; I feared that there might be some sort of coup. Silly, paranoid, almost delusional? Yes, yes and yes; I cannot tell you how relieved I was that I was so wrong. The conservatives who fear President Obama as some sort of Communist or as a conspirator with the “Agenda 21″ agenda are as deluded as someone who thought that some portion of George W. Bush’s cabinet or other group was planning to do what I feared. I am glad that I was wrong, all of those conservatives who fear President Obama on the same level need to wake up; it is not going to happen.

                Now, as far as a slide into “totalitarian plutocracy”; on that, I think we can have a level of agreement. Media complying with the government on most issues? That same media not reporting on actual news if it isn’t convenient for the government (usually)? Check. Politicians working to protect the richest of us above all others? Check. Politicians not caring about the effects of so-called “austerity” plans to gut most programs that benefit the most vulnerable among us? Check.

                What is happening is that we do have some politicians who do care about “the rest of us”; we do have leaders who want to keep our country strong, our economy on the road to recovery; but for the life of me, I just cannot seem to recognize any who feel that way that also happen to belong to the Republican Party. I understand that we have plenty of Democrats who contribute to the slide towards totalitarian plutocracy; but not all of them; can’t really say the same about the Republicans.

                Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

                • OnTheOtherHand says:

                  I largely agree with your analysis although i didn’t fear Obama at first because I thought he had his hands too full with the economic crisis to waste his time and energy on things like gun control. Despite his current rhetoric, I don’t think he will force through much here either, but every little bit contributes.

                  As for the Democrats who do care for “the rest of us,” I find that most of them “care” in the same manner as an authoritarian parent “caring” for there children. They don’t respect their “child’s” judgment enough to give real consideration to points with which they disagree. The “caring”ones who do listen respectfully on the national level are so rare as to be totally ineffective.

                  Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  8. Homer says:

    Danika: Where in 27 words of this Amendment did you read limiting capacity?

    First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

    Where in those 45 words does it say anything about libel? Or slander? Or shouting fire in a crowded theater?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 6

    • danika says:

      Homer, perhaps you should consider the topic being the 2nd Amendment. That is what Parkinson’s letter and the majority of posts here are referencing. Perhaps next week CCN will do a story on your favorite Amendment, hmmm?

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 4

      • Homer says:

        I didn’t think you could stretch much intellectually. The topic is the government’s ability to pass laws to promote public safety — probably the single most important role the government has. Just as the Supreme Court ruled that free speech isn’t unlimited — notwithstanding the language, “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech” — so, too, public safety trumps the language of any amendment. Never mind the fact that a “well-regulated militia” certainly suggests that the Founding Fathers intended to, well, regulate firearms.

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 14

        • danika says:

          Speaking of not being able to stretch much intellectually, “…suggests that the Founding Fathers intended to, well, regulate firearms.” Perhaps in the mind of Homer. The intent was to allow the people the right to self defense and to protect against oppressive regulation.

          In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled on District of Colombia vs. Heller, precisely what “well reguated militia” meant.

          “Further, the Court found that the phrase “well regulated Militia” referred not to formally organized state or federal militias, but to the pool of “able-bodied men” who were available for conscription.5 Finally, the Court reviewed contemporaneous state constitutions, post-enactment commentary, and subsequent case law to conclude that the purpose of the right to keep and bear arms extended beyond the context of militia service to include self-defense. ”

          And again in McDonald vs Chicago, they went further:

          “the Court suggested that the right to keep and bear arms became valued principally for purposes of self-defense, so that the passage of Fourteenth Amendment, in part, was intended to protect the right of ex-slaves to keep and bear arms. While it was argued by the dissent that this protection would most logically be provided by the Equal Protection Clause, not by the Due Process Clause,14 the plurality also found enough evidence of then-existent concerns regarding the treatment of blacks by the state militia to conclude that the right to bear arms was also intended to protect against generally-applicable state regulation.”

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 4

          • Homer says:

            Really?? The Supreme Court ruled on this in 2008? Wow. Had no idea. That changes everything. Of course, SCOTUS has ruled on 2nd Amendment before. In fact, in 1939 the Court reaffirmed the “collective right” interpretation that the court followed since 1791. That interpretation remained the law until the Bush court.
            All that aside, though, your most recent comment suggests you don’t believe in the sanctity of Constitutional language. You are okay with it being interpreted. “…Shall make no law” doesn’t really mean no laws. I mean, c’mon.
            Or, as Justice Scalia said in the 2008 rulilng: “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited, (including) laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4

            • danika says:

              Homer, go read the cases I provided for you.

              You CLEARLY have no idea about me at all by making your statement that I don’t believe in the sanctity of the Constitutional language. But, I won’t waste any more energy addressing the issue with you. You want to argue and insult. I prefer fact.

              Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1

              • Homer says:

                Ah, you prefer fact. Okay, let’s try this again. Here’s your comment: Where in 27 words of this Amendment did you read limiting capacity? Now, where in those 27 words did you read submachine guns? Flamethrowers? Handguns? Nuclear arms? So, should I assume your interpretation of the amendment means because something isn’t specifically written, it cannot be regulated? Which, again, leads back to the first amendment, where it specifically states the Congress shall make “no law…abridging the freedom of speech.” Laws prohibiting libel and slander would certainly seem to abridge the freedom of speech. Enough facts for you?

                Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

  9. Jack L says:

    Ian is ahead of the curve. A+

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 5

    • paragon says:

      More like behind the curve as usual. It was over a month ago that stories came out about some Sheriffs vowing not to enforce gun control laws. As usual, Parkinson is arriving a month late and many dollars short. Although perhaps we shouldn’t be too hard on him – it probably took him a month to write and edit his letter without his brother to help him with it like he did with his promotion essay.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

Comments are closed.