Sheriff''s Pro-Gun Stance Bites Him In His Butt

.
It is not unusual for law enforcement officials to oppose gun control regulations. Perhaps they see easily obtained firearms for loonies as a potential opportunity to kill them off.

After mass killings in the past, Douglas County Sheriff John Hanlin, has remained a strong advocate for the Second Amendment. But he has been strangely quiet since the mass killing that occurred in his own Oregon jurisdiction, and has so far refused to comment on the gun control debate .

Sheriff Hanlin did, however, take time to criticize press coverage of the incident, saying, "Media and community members who publicize his name [Christopher Harper-Mercer] will only glorify his horrific actions. And eventually, this will only serve to inspire future shooters." Hanlin's statement implies the shooter was influenced by coverage of previous mass killings and would not have acted if not for media reports. Yeah, right.

Hanlin’s assertions are typical of Second Amendment fanatics, transferring blame for gun violence to give the gun owner/perpetrator victim status. It's either that, or they use their go-to excuse of blaming the liberals.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/03/us-usa-shooting-oregon-idUSKCN0RV5EP20151003


.

 

Yup, blame that "liberal media" ....when his mother was a stockpiling , gun toting, jerk who kept an arsenal in her home...

 

Just shows he has more class than Obama or Hillary.

 

The sheriff is a gun nut. One has to wonder why so many gunlovers are attracted to a career law enforcement.

 

It is always the liberal playbook to blame someone else.

 

The Sherriff is correct. As I told you all before, please feel free to review the historical posts. When the media gives these scum wall to wall coverage and the President comes out and gives the crime presidential coverage, all they have done is inspire, inform and instruct the next deranged person on how to get the most attention. The gun grabbers who politicize these events for their selfish warped ideology are far more culpable than gun owners as they are the ones inspiring the next deranged person to commit mass murder in a school because that's what will make them the most infamous. Like I told you all after seeing the blanket coverage of Sandy Hook and the worldwide media attention, you've just instructed the next killer on the best possible way to become infamous. A deranged person doesn't care about the difference of being famous or infamous.
Gun grabbers are no different than the video game people they criticize about glorifying violence. They are doing the same thing only one is doing it for money and the other is doing it to further an agenda. This gun grabbing ideology is causing more deaths just like I said it would.
Its like when Jaime Foxx had the gall to speak out against guns after starring in Django Unchained, one of the most gun glorifying movies ever made. BTW, after Obama got angry about our guns it appears he bombed a hospital for 30 minutes after being informed the hospital was being hit. He criticizes us for being numb to violence as he (as I said yesterday) reigns million dollar death from his armchair. Who's going to give the "we need more Obama drone control laws" speech on national TV? Review my posts from the last two days on this specific scenario. The proverbial ink wasn't even dry before hypocrite Obama after criticizing law abiding citizens for their lack of gumption to add more gun control laws, went on to bomb a hospital and kill innocent people 2 days later.

 

Was it not stated that the individual responsible studied out the coverage of other mass shooters beforehand?

 

And speaks from experience as opposed to Obama or Hillary.

 

There is nothing like the light of day to keep the public informed in the hope that some day the likes of this sheriff will get the boot from the community he failed to protect.

 

out of respect for the deceased, he is not gun say he thought the gunman had the right to own guns

every American has that right, just cause he misused the guns in a criminal way doesn't mean he did not have the right to own a gun

what he did not have the right to do was use the guns for criminal purposes, no one has that right

an other example of a right used in a criminal way would be

Charles Manson did not actually kill anyone... he used speech to get others to do it... but no one was mentioning free speech.... because he used the speech in a criminal way

.

 

Yes, crazy people have the right to own guns guaranteed by the Second Amendment, but is that a wise policy to keep in place? Before anyone responds, first ask the families of the victims of the ever-growing number of mass murderers.

 

without changing the constitution it's the law of the land, trust me, if the gov could ban people for mental issue, even being depressed at a family member funeral would be used by some to ban gun ownership for life

the only way to legally ban them today would be to commit them as being to dangerous to be in society... but then that would mean free mental health care as someone has to pay for it

once released back into society, they would get all their rights back again, do they and their families not have a right to have a gun in the house to protect themselves too

ban people for owning guns for mental issues, more incentive for them not to tel anyone they have mental issues and seek help... catch 22

.

 

There you go repeating the hype instead of the facts. There is no 'ever growing number of mass murderers' as the FBI stats show no 'ever growing number'.

 

Thanks for clearing that up, few Americans knew that mass shootings every few months is normal. Well, there you have it, the most important reason for the Second Amendment, to maintain the required number of mass murders. This must be gratifying for conservatives, neoconservatives, and other Second Amendment fanatics.

 

No mass murders ever happen anywhere else. Got it.

 

When the idea of self-possession first entered public discourse in Europe it was derided as "everyone is a king thinking". What is at stake is not merely private property, liberty or even self-defense; what's at stake is self-possession. The right to bears arms is instrumental to securing self-possession. Don't forget that, until 1776, almost everyone who ever lived was owned by someone else. We are eroding our way right back to that futile state. I will not go peacefully.

 

Link. Please show us these stats you're speaking of.

 

Every time there is a widespread disaster, man made or natural, generally those with guns get to keep their goods those without a gun don't.

 

Who first said that and when? I googled it and got nothing on it specifically.

I think maybe you're oversimplifying here in any case. Many people in many places by 1776 were as free or "self-possessed" (if that's what you mean) as we are today. Indeed, many people were individually free to a very great extent going all the way back to antiquity and beyond. The relationships people have had vis a vis themselves and the government or other individuals were complex throughout history and many have no modern analogues but no, IMO most people did not see themselves as "owned' by others, even when slavery was accepted and widespread.

Perhaps if you could elaborate a little on where you got the term "self-possessed" from

 

If it is not the gun-toting sheriff's job to protect the community, what is his job?

 

Gee, sorry to see you have no clue what the word "class" means, because you clearly have it reversed. I guess we need to adopt a opposite universe mentality to even communicate, establishing right is left, up is down, and evil is good?

As for that stupid sheriff, he even went so far as to claim the Sandy Hooks shooting was a "hoax", which just exemplifies how irrational and dangerously out of touch with reality people like him really are. If that's what anyone calls "class", then that person deserves to share a padded room with him.

 

If 1 out of every 4 or 5 Americans have some form of mental illness, how do you propose they be identified? Are you sure that you are not one of them? Is anyone sure? Shall we lock up 1/5th of the population to keep them from getting guns? How far are you willing to take this 2nd Amendment nonsense?

 

No it isn't and that has been decided by court.

 

Actrually yes it is who knows when one may need to defend themselves from a mental case especially those from the government. And ask the families what, why their loved ones thought so little of self defense they stood up for violence?

 

At what point did I say anything about locking people up? Being declared mentally unfit has NOTHING to do with locking people up. >>>RULE 3<<<[