comment: >
  
  
  Something tells me that so-called "assault weapons" have almost no impact on the crime in that county and a ban would do nothing at all to help.
  
  If it helps them incarcerate minorities, it's a win in the minds of the pushers of the law.
context: "I hate Illinois Nazis." Blues Brothers. >
  
  First, not as many people in Germany in 1930's carried guns as a form of self defense. Most gun owners were people who hunted for sport or to sell wild game at market.
  Second, even if every German Jew was armed they still wouldn't have been able to stop the NAZI's. They had the police, military and their own paramilitary forces that were better armed and trained.
  Third, this doesn't strip anyone of any Constitutional rights. >
  
  
  Second, even if every German Jew was armed they still wouldn't have been able to stop the NAZI's. They had the police, military and their own paramilitary forces that were better armed and trained.
  
  You're going to ruin someone's fantasies with talk like that. >
  
  They legit rolled over entire standing militaries in short order and these fucking inbred hillbillies practicing on stationary PBR cans here at home think they'd be able to do a goddamn thing to our military if they ever backed a despot. It's not 1776 and any fascist at the helm of U.S. forces wouldn't have them playing with kids gloves like we were in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq. It'd be scorched Earth. >
  
  To be fair, the United States just lost a war to a bunch of goat farmers. But I don't think the average American is anywhere near as brave or experienced as your average Taliban insurgent. >
  
  The difference here is the Taliban was well armed and trained by both the US military and the Russian military. They were formed from the remnants of the competing groups in the region during the 80s when the US was arming the Mujahideen to fave the Russian backed groups. Taliban, isil, all of the current groups are in power because of us.
  The US military just helps make guns available here in the states. They're not directly training the hillbillies. The military hillbillies are coming back and training their own groups of hillbillies. But I wouldn't call that as effective as being trained by the richest nations in the world to overtake existing government systems like the radicals in the middle east got. >
  
  I do not understand the distinction between police and sheriffs…except that sheriffs are elected?  Can someone explain this to me? >
  
  Police are city mostly. They are sworn officers and "employees" 
  Sheriffs are usually elected and work for the County they are sheriffs of.  Deputy sheriffs work under the elected sheriff and the county and are unelected. >
  
  Many thanks for the clarification. >
  
  Basically police departments have no jurisdiction outside of their city. Sheriffs are there to enforce the laws outside of city limits. >
  
  But, police can break laws right? Cause is that not what there doing, going against what is said? >
  
  Sure they can. Weed is still federally illegal. All places where police and sheriffs don't arrest for it are technically breaking the law. 
  The only real reason you don't have the marshalls and fbi kicking in pot shop doors is that it would be inconvenient without local support. >
  
  Bad news... Sheriffs are not in the constitution. >
  
  I think he pretty clearly meant the U.S. Constitution. >
  
  Then he's unaware of the fact that states are bound by the US Constitution and their state constitution. >
  
  I don’t think so. The sheriffs are claiming the law is a violation of the 2nd Amendment to the US constitution, not the state constitution. The US constitution doesn’t give them this power, in fact they aren’t even mentioned, as the poster said. >
  
  Probably because the sheriffs of yore in Europe were massive pieces of shit that the Founding Fathers felt were best left out of the United States’s legal system >
  
  Why should a sheriff obey laws? >
  
  They don’t believe they have to. No really. Parallel to the independent state legislature theory, many sheriffs believe they are exempt from the law, simply because their job title is not mentioned in the constitution. There is a legal “theory” becoming more popular, and has even been mentioned by sheriffs associations. >
  
  They call themselves "constitutional sheriffs" and they're evil. >
  
  And they stop reading the constitution when it gets to the third amendment >
  
  Ironically, the 3rd amendment seems to be the only thing we virtually all agree on.
  GOP pushing forced quartering of soldiers in civilian homes to "reduce spending" isn't on my bingo card until 2028. >
  
  Christ, don't give our current Conservative Chaos Caucus any new ideas. >
  
  Every single one of them should be fired, pensions lost, tried, convicted and jailed. >
  
  So, vow to not do their jobs then?
  Edit: there's a lot of comparison to drug or immigration enforcement. The role of the police, as I understands it, is to both enforce the law, and serve and protect society. They use their discretion, as is their purview, to balance those two and may be more lenient if they feel a warning will suffice. But saying an immigrant (literally everyone or their family at one point) or marijuana (with no recorded fatalities) is as dangerous to society as an assault weapon, I find to be an intellectually dishonest comparison >
  
  For years cops did not enforce marijuana laws; waste of police resources…or some didn’t agree with Class 1 designation. How did you feel about that? One must be consistent if they hold the view “the law is the law;” it must be enforced by law enforcement without exception, and until it is no longer “the law.” >
  
  
  For years cops did not enforce marijuana laws
  
  They sure did if you belonged to certain demographics. >
  
  But doesn't that make this worse? Who do you think these new gun laws will be mostly enforced against? Rich white people? >
  
  Do poor people own $1000 rifles? I'd think they'd choose a $200 shotgun if the needed protection. >
  
  You can buy an AR for $400 these days. I assure you, plenty of poor people own them. >
  
  This is a myth just to prop up gun cutlism
  Sherifs should resign in disgrace >
  
  Are you saying it's a myth that law enforcement selectively enforces laws against minorities? >
  
  No it’s a myth that this ban will disproportionately affect them
  Stop making gun excuses
  Sherifs aren’t enforcing the law.
  Lock them up. >
  
  Why do you think that gun laws are the only laws that won't be primarily enforced on minorities?
  Do you feel the same about sheriffs that don't enforce marijuana laws? Should they be locked up? >
  
  And here I thought that law enforcement’s job was to enforce laws. I’m so stupid. >
  
  Tell that to the sanctuary cities, or cities not enforcing drug laws. Or letting shoplifters go. >
  
  Cities and states are not required to enforce federal law with their resources. Sheriffs and police are there specifically to enforce state law. So different issues entirely. >
  
  The executive has always had the power to choose which laws to enforce. Drugs are also illegal under state laws, that's why Oregon changed their law to decriminalize possession of most drugs and why in Seattle the prosecutor decided to just not prosecute people arrested for possession. So now they just don't get arrested. >
  
  So, people who’s job is enforcing the law are like “nope.”  Got it. Fire the lot of them I say. >
  
  How much you want to wager all those departments are run by republican sheriffs.  
  Just goes to show republicans don't mind weaponized politicized law enforcement as long as it's biased in their favor. >
  
  But it is not even in their favor. As police officers they may find themselves in gun fights with these types of weapons. Why wouldn’t they want it banned? I think they are just pure political animals and incredibly stupid people. >
  
  Because the use of rifles of any type in crimes is extremely rare, though disproportionately reported on. >
  
  
  disproportionately reported on
  
  Because they make up a disproportionate amount of weapons used in mass casualty events. >
  
  And those are rare, and would be done with handguns anyway, as is traditional. >
  
  The majority of the deadliest mass shootings in the US have been with the AR-15. >
  
  6 of the 15 dealiest were carried out with an AR-15, which is a minority. If you add in other semiautomatic rifles the number rises but your statement is still incorrect. Also, the deadliest mass killings in US history didn't involve guns. >
  
  I would love to see your sources on that. >
  
  Let's start with your sources for AR15s being used in a majority of the deadliest mass shootings then we can do mine. >
  
  Winnebago county, home of Rockford, the most dangerous city in Illinois per capita, doesn't want an assault weapons ban. Go figure. >
  
  Something tells me that so-called "assault weapons" have almost no impact on the crime in that county and a ban would do nothing at all to help.