How can that be a felony?

But that's their dilemma isn't it? There is a need to cut spending, but in a time of high unemployment, to do so (and jeopardising more jobs in the process) would only serve to generate more economic instability and diminish investor confidence. And, as a result, the spiral down to recession and or economic depression accelerates.

7 January 2013

The Honorable Barack Obama
President of the United States of America
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear President Obama:

We, the elected sheriffs of Utah, like so many of our fellow Americans, are literally heartbroken for the loved ones of the murdered victims in Connecticut. As Utahans, we are not strangers to this kind of carnage – one of the latest being the 2007 Trolley Square murders wherein nine innocents were gunned down – five losing their lives.

We also recognize the scores of other recent domestic massacres, which have decimated countless honorable lives. As Americans, we value the sanctity of life. Furthermore, similar to our inspired Founders, we acknowledge our subservience to a higher power.

With the number of mass shootings America has endured, it is easy to demonize firearms; it is also foolish and prejudiced. Firearms are nothing more than instruments, valuable and potentially dangerous, but instruments nonetheless. Malevolent souls, like the criminals who commit mass murders, will always exploit valuable instruments in the pursuit of evil. As professional peace officers, if we understand nothing else, we understand this: lawful violence must sometimes be employed to deter and stop criminal violence. Consequently, the citizenry must continue its ability to keep and bear arms, including arms that adequately protect them from all types of illegality.

As your administration and Congress continue to grapple with the complex issue of firearm regulations, we pray that the Almighty will guide the People’s Representatives collectively. For that reason, it is imperative this discussion be had in Congress, not silenced unilaterally by executive orders. As you deliberate, please remember the Founders of this great nation created the Constitution, and its accompanying Bill of Rights, in an effort to protect citizens from all forms of tyrannical subjugation.

We respect the Office of the President of the United States of America. But, make no mistake, as the duly-elected sheriffs of our respective counties, we will enforce the rights guaranteed to our citizens by the Constitution. No federal official will be permitted to descend upon our constituents and take from them what the Bill of Rights-in particular Amendment II-has
given them. We, like you, swore a solemn oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and we are prepared to trade our lives for the preservation of its traditional interpretation.

You better check the funding on this one.

Anthony Watts
Watts Up With That?

One thing for sure.... if Gore says it's true, it's NOT!

Sounds like your typical CT to me.

This is just an observation, but it's interesting to me how so many of the people against gun control tend to be white male republicans.

There are already HIPAA laws on the books, as well as established doctor/patient confidentiality. The question, again, is why make that question illegal. The doctor can't really use it, except for possibly making a diagnosis, but otherwise, it's a completely harmless question. Were people getting arrested for admitting to their doctor that they did have a gun at home? I can't imagine a situation where we need such a law, except for super paranoid, gun-owning members of Congress dreamt it up.

to thinking people, its just a movie

to those inclined to believe in a world strictly as representend by media,,,,,their reality is easily impressed upon

Well, he can't be the one who takes away your right to own a gun. Just as you can't take away his right to free speech. So, wanting him deported for disagreeing with you is pretty lame.

<--- Future gun totin Doc everyone. If you are good boys and girls I'll invite ya to my shootin range. ( I guess i could integrate that into my eye exams and have insurance pay for the ammo! )

Seems like an odd question, but why would they even make a law that a doctor COULD NOT ask about guns at home? Seems like idle banter, unless, say, a child comes into the E.R. with a gunshot wound. Would that be violating your personal boundaries if the E.R. doctor says "How did that happen? Do you have guns at home?" Why throw the doctor in jail for that question?

the numbers dying have not changed, regardless of the method of delivery,,,thats my point

the outrage over those deaths because they are from 'drones', the insistence on making it unique to this administration, when those types of deaths have been occurring for DECADES around the world

He was attacking your constitutional rights? He wasn't using free speech, which is a constitutionally protected right?

fixed it for ya

Yes, that was pretty enlightening. It's sad how the Cons in Congress castrated government agencies on behalf of the NRA. Seriously, no more than annual inspections of gun sellers?! So, once the ATF guy walks out the door, the shop owner can start selling crew-served machine guns and nobody can even look but the customers.

"The ATF recommends that you conduct an firearms inventory at least once per year." LOL.

and most of the suggestions of President Obama make sense.

I wish we lived in a country that could handle our guns better, and for the vast majority of gun owners, we can.

this court is constrained by law, and under the law, I can only conclude that the government has not violated FOIA by refusing to turn over the documents sought in the FOIA requests, and so cannot be compelled by this court of law to explain in detail the reasons why its actions do not violate the Constitution and laws of the United States. The Alice-in-Wonderland nature of this pronouncement is not lost on me; but after careful and extensive consideration, I find myself stuck in a paradoxical situation in which I cannot solve a problem because of contradictory constraints and rules — a veritable catch-22. I can find no way around the thicket of laws and precedents that effectively allow the Executive Branch of our government to proclaim as perfectly lawful certain actions that seem on their face incompatible with our Constitution and laws, while keeping the reasons for their conclusion a secret.

judging from mingle posts,, ID say its fact,,,,

espeically since 'many' is a general and indefinite description

just like one child dying is too 'many'...