Johnson County sheriff defends murder weapons
Yael T. AbouhalkahIn a disgusting public statement, Johnson County Sheriff Frank Denning has spoken out favorably for continued manufacturing of the high-capacity magazines used to mow down 20 children in December in Newtown, Conn.
He spoke out in favor of the high-capacity magazines used to murder a dozen people in Aurora, Colo., last year.
Denning wanted to make it clear where he stands: with the people who want to use high-speed magazines to kill as many people as possible.
President Barack Obama’s talk about outlawing the high-speed magazines really stuck in Denning’s craw. And the sheriff made it clear he didn’t favor any of that change - even going so far as to say he considered gun control “unilateral personal disarmament.”
“As sheriff, I will never support, nor advocate for, ANY legislation at ANY level (local, state or federal) that would restrict the legal possession or ownership of any type of firearm (or high-capacity magazine) by lawful, law-abiding, tax-paying citizens of Johnson County, Kansas and of the United States of America.”
Denning’s laughable statement is along the lines of some other law enforcement officials who have been cozying up to the NRA in recent weeks.
The outlawing of the high-speed magazines wouldn’t do anything to disarm Americans, and Denning knows that. Americans, who already own hundreds of millions of guns, can easily defend themselves from the occasional prowler who comes on to their property.
Hunters know that. So do reasonable members of the NRA.
They know Americans don’t need access to high-speed magazines to protect themselves. Cops know that. You would think a sheriff would, too.
Denning - who was just re-elected as sheriff - apparently has looked around and now considers Johnson County to be so right-wing that he can spout this kind of nonsense and get support for it from enough people to keep his job.
How sad for the sheriff. How sad for Johnson County that they have a sheriff in favor of continued manufacturing of high-speed magazines meant for one thing and one thing only - killing as many people as possible.
Matt Henry
3 months, 3 weeks ago“disgusting”
“mow-down”
“laughable”
“cozying up to the NRA” - you see, elected officials only believe in the rights of gun ownership if they are in the pockets of the NRA.
“reasonable” - by his definition? Not interested….
“nonsense”
“sad”
and the coup de grace….
“favor of the continued manufacture.. blah.blah.blah… killing as many people as possible.” - Yep. Believe what YTA insists upon or you are complicit in the desire to see people killed, and in fact as many of them as possible.
Keep bringing us together, you lover of mankind you….
Robert Carroll
3 months, 3 weeks agoWhat is a high speed magazine? Does it push the rounds out faster? 99.999% of the people that own a modern sporting rifle, with 30 round magazines will never kill anyone with it. They use them for target shooting, varment shooting,shooting competitions,ect. Did you know that knives kill more people a year than rifles of any kind, 30 round magazines or not If we banned everything that killed people nobody would drive or fly anywhere. If they want to cut down on violence then they need to go to the gang bangers and take thier guns away. Not law abiding citizens.
Ed Tomicich
3 months, 3 weeks agoWow another biased Libtard Editor. See pages of guns saving life and limb that the national media will never pick up. The armed citizen.
http://www.americanrifleman.org/BlogList.aspx?cid=25&id=21
Thanks God for sheriff Denning. Please go live in NY. Try for the urban areas not the forests or farms where real Americans live. You will like it and fit right in. I know. It’s your kind of ignorance that drove me from there to Kansas where the people are kinder and understand the constitution.
You Sir, disgust me.
Robert Copher
3 months, 3 weeks ago“defends murder weapons” ??? LOL. You sound like Sandra Bullock in Demilition Man. DO you listen to jingles for your radio station too? LOL. Yeal, I can imagine there is a principle in you reasoning somewhere, but you do not present it very well or show much respect for the principles that others are attempting to defend. You’re quick fix, knee jerk, reaction to this issue has been amusing.
Jed Hamilton
3 months, 3 weeks agoMr. Abouhalkah, don’t you ever feel bad for writing things like this? Where is the hard-hitting, FACTUAL journalism? I appreciate that this is an opinion column and this is the crap that sells and hey, it’s MLK day so non-violence, etc. but jeez… this is just a real bummer. Right-wing, left-wing, moderate, way out in loony land, I don’t care who you are, there’s such a thing as rational debate. This is a VERY POOR example of such.
Phil Cardarella
3 months, 3 weeks agoFirst of all, these clowns are not really “law enforcement officials”. They are grandstanding politicians. If the Johnson County, Ks. Sheriff went on vacation, no one would notice any actual decline in public safety unless he left the jail unlocked.
Ask Chief Forte — a real policeman — what he thinks of AKs and 30 round magazines filled with armor- piercing bullets.
Ther are occasions when some folks are in need of protection, or to hunt, or to shoot “varment”. None of those things should require more than ten rounds. If your varment of choice require more than ten rounds, it is too big to hunt alone — or you are such a poor shot you should take up bowling. Or maybe hit it with a bowling ball.
FYI: Before he decided on committing the mass murder of 20 children and six teachers, Adam Lanza WAS a law-abiding citizen — as are a large number (if not majority) of those who kill with guns.
Here is the hard-hitting fact the NRA wants to cover up: 20 children were murderd in a matter of minutes — and six adults died trying to save them — because a gunman could shoot as fast as he could pull the trigger, and never had to pause to reload. Because some Americans think the safety of our children is less important than being able to hear “Bang!” 30-100times without pause — or are scared of the UN’s non-existant Black Helicopters.
George Hunsucker
Northland
3 months, 3 weeks agophil the lawyer, still using children to promote his anti-gun cause…..
States should legislate gun laws AS THEY SEE FIT, not some dumbass bureaucrat……
Suzanne Conaway
3 months, 3 weeks agoI’m getting tired of people equating guns with knives, scissors, airplanes, cars, etc. Guns are the only one of the above mentioned items that are specifically made for killing.
I’ve heard people say they like the assault-type weapons with large clips because they’re “fun” to shoot. Wouldn’t you people be willing to give up a little “fun” if it saved people’s lives? Think about it.
PS Hi, Phil.
Matt Henry
3 months, 3 weeks agoI think it’s cute that Phil and Suzanne think a two to three second pause to reload would have saved lives.
Now if you would be intellectually honest and call for a full handgun ban that might ACTUALLY save the lives you claim to care about, perhaps it would be easier to take you seriously….
Robert Carroll
3 months, 3 weeks agoLibs get thier pantie in a bunch when 20 children are killed, but they celebrate it when 1.5 million babies are killed in the womb each year by calling it a choice. Do they care about children? Or are they just blowing smoke up each other.
Bill Mccwiliams
3 months, 3 weeks agoWhat are some of the other reasons for wanting these assault weapons, besides the obvious, target shooting, hunting, and home defense? Is it the feeling of security they bring to the owner, is it the paranoia that the government is going to come to your door and forcibly take your weapons? Do people actually believe they are going to fend off the US military in case citizens are attacked by their own government. Or is it just the fascination of owning military style hardware, since the military and police have assault weapons, the public should to!
Danny Ebersold
3 months, 3 weeks agoThe Sheriff wrote a logical and calm and reasonable statement. I am sure that those who oppose this Sheriff have some facts to back up your opposition? Stats…are you familiar with stats? Facts listed in statistical fashion about the annual crime information from the FBI show that gun deaths only account for about 0.34% of all deaths in the US… Rifles only account for 0.012% of all deaths in the US. In the last 60 or so mass killings in the US, when you are in a gun free zone or an area where no one has a gun prior to the police response, on average 14 people die per incident. IF there is a gun present in the form of a concealed carry permit holder, off duty police, or armed security guard, on average 2.5 people per incident. THOSE stats and facts are pretty telling.
Based on the stats about rifle deaths AND figuring in that those ‘evil’ assault rifles are not even used in these mass shootings very often. The most common weapon is a hand gun. So because the rate of RIFLE Deaths is so low and because they dont normally use the AR in these shootings, can you tell me how gun laws solve anything regarding actual real life causes of people wanting to conduct these mass killings? I sure would love to find out some stats that show that limiting the second amendment rights of law abiding citizens actually does anything to solve any gun crime. Heck… look to Chicago. They have strict gun laws and bans. And are always increasing them, making them stricter… YET they have more school age children die every MONTH than were killed in the CT school shooting…
Bill Mccwiliams
3 months, 3 weeks agoLet me ask you this Matt, why isn’t the NRA and all the States that believe there is no need to change any current gun laws, why aren’t they pushing congress to approve full auto assault weapons so the public can purchase them, along with higher capacity magazines, say 100 rounds?
Robert Copher
3 months, 3 weeks agoBill, I believe it very definitely is the glorification and publicity that we have given the invasions that we have orchestrated in the name of ???? capitalism? Deomcracy? For whatever reason we justified going in, we made it clear to our children that we were “supposed” to, or had to. What scares me is those that now believe they are armed welll enough and have enough justification for civil war. Do they not think Iran and other countries will take a side and be involved in any fighring that occurs on American soil. It is more important to squelch this issue with appeasing Americans than instigating more with a morally superior position on gun ownership. Let them have their guns for now. There is a large number of very narrow minded people controlling this issue right now and either do not see a larger picture, do not care, or are trying to start WWIII. This issue, like conspiracy theories, IMO, should be treated like a baby. Give it a little attention until they calm down. Keep pressing the issue and you risk more harm than good. I’m sorry to feel that way but it seems fairly obvious to me. And I could care less about owning a gun.
Danny Ebersold
3 months, 3 weeks agoSome one asked about why do we need assault rifles. Any time a person asks this question I have a ton of thoughts… The first one is that the person making those statements has absolutely no clue what makes up a REAL military assault rifle and what the definition of an assault rifle is for the anti gun movement.
ANYONE with a lick of sense and a basic understanding of the era during which the constitution was written, or has read the words of the founding fathers regarding the purpose and intent of the second amendment understand that the amendment has nothing to do with hunting or sporting events or target shooting or anything else OTHER THAN ensuring the government stays fearful of its citizenry.
Instead of questioning about people who believe in the second amendment being paranoid, a better question would be why are YOU so trusting of a government that is corrupt, easily corruptible, made up of human beings that are easily corruptible, who are corrupt when they get to DC? Only someone not grounded in reality would be trusting of a body of government, isolated away in DC, surrounded by corrupting money and power and special interest groups and their money….. What is sad is that when you ask questions or make statements that suggest only the paranoid think the government might ‘come get them or their guns’ as some sort of twisted justification for accepting the rights of some one else to be removed by the government… because it might just be something that YOU like that comes after all the guns are removed from law abiding citizens…
Danny Ebersold
3 months, 3 weeks agohere is an article about Gun rights per the second amendment… http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/01/howbigagundoesanyoneneed.html
Here is an article about those evil assault rifles that liberals refer to, but not based on educated information regarding the reality of what politicians call an assault rifle.. http://www.assaultweapon.info/
Michael Middleton
3 months, 3 weeks agoOk, Yael. While we’re at it, let’s outlaw swimming pools, which kill more children every year than guns. Let’s make the owners tear down the above-ground pools and fill in the in-ground pools. And then let’s go for sports cars, which no law-abiding citizen needs to have. They go way faster than any legal speed limit, most of them are gas guzzlers and serve no useful purpose. No civilian needs to go that fast. The sheriff has decided that if it comes to it, he will not waste resources depriving innocent citizens of their personal property, which after the Supreme Court’s Arizona immigration bill, he would be in his rights to do, since the court ruled that federal rules are the federal government’s responsibility to enforce, not local law enforcement.
Matt Henry
3 months, 3 weeks agoYou miss my point, Bill. YTA and the other ideological leftists who post on these boards don’t give two poops about “saving lives,” at least not one ounce more than the people they denounce. I have yet to hear a plausible explanation as to why an “assault” weapon or high-capacity mag ban would have saved any lives at Sandy Hook, be it because bad people can still get their hands on contraband or because a couple of handguns and a couple of extra clips would have done the job just as easily.
Now I respect the ones who call for outright handgun bans, anything semi-automatic. While it would cause untold ramifications in other ways, it might stand a chance of avoiding other Sandy Hooks (although there is still the illegal acquisition problem) and might actually make a dent in the 500 murders in Chicago. At least that position is intellectually honest if not misguided.
Thomas Sowell, being Thomas Sowell, was much more eloquent than I in a recent column about a position I have held to be true ever since I have been able to reason from A to B;
“…liberals take positions that make them look good and feel good — and show very little interest in the actual consequences for others, even when liberal policies are leaving havoc in their wake.” - http://www.humanevents.com/2013/01/15/thomas-sowell-liberalism-versus-blacks/
Robert Copher
3 months, 3 weeks agoMatt, you make a good point which is in line with my comments, however I don’t see it as a liberal thing any more. Its a snob thing. The GOP with abortion and religious liberty are doing the same thing leaving havoc in their wake championing positions that make them look good or feel good. Which is why I say it all has to stop. No one seems to care about the country any more, they are more concerned with their issue and flexing their right to object to the laws of the land. At some pont in time, somebody has to say BULL!!! sit down, shut up, obey the laws of the land and stop your complaining. We don’t need more gun laws, more abortion laws or more religious liberty laws. Stop the snobs from destroying this country. Just sit them down and turn it off for a while. Things may be able to settle down then. otherwise it is a continued fanning of the flames and it scares me and I’m tired of it.
Matt Henry
3 months, 3 weeks agoI agree in the sense that I would consider myself more a libertarian-conservative than what are considered “mainstream” Republicans, and too often BOTH PARTIES (yes, you self-righteous “progressives” included) have been guilty of trying to “legislate morality”. That is why I have advocated and will continue to advocate for an ideological re-shift toward federalism. Don’t like Texas’s gay marriage laws? Move to Delaware. And vice-versa.
That being said, I consider it my moral obligation to stand up, scream out loud and stamp my feet whenever the “law of the land” is unjust, or when others try to implement laws designed to reduce individual liberty because so many sit down, shut up and stop their complaining. What you ask for is a prescription for tyranny, especially when your federal government is hell-bent on controlling every aspect of our lives. I won’t let the “snobs” make decisions while I plug my ears with my fingers and say “lah lah lah.”
I get what you are saying. Don’t give them the power. The problem is they have it and they will use it whether we are watching or not, in fact much more likely if we are not.
Robert Copher
3 months, 3 weeks agoI think we agree on a number of levels. Fair enough. And I agree with shouting to the roof under the circumstances you describe. Unfortunately most of the screaming is coming from the scared that think their life is in danger by allowing us to keep our freedoms. And the morally self reightous that believe we need to behave more like them or give them the freedom to discriminate against others. Those are the people I wish would sit down and be quiet and who I believe we should tell just that.
Reginald Thornton
3 months, 3 weeks agoLet’s tak an activist approach to stalking future editorials and respond on a timely basis when someone hurls the following strawman argument to define “tyranny”: that the citizenry couldn’t hope to defend against their own government forces, let alone an invading army.
Tyranny is the opposite of individual freedom, period. Anything that infringes upon me living my life in ways that don’t impact others is tyrannical. So, tyranny would include being held up personally at gunpoint, or being unable to walk the streets safely in general. This lifestyle is commonly associated with the inner city.
My point is that I want to preserve gun ownership in my suburban neck of the woods so the inner city hoodlums keep their lifestyle at home. When our firepower becomes too limited, they will prey on the assets that can’t be found in their own neighborhood.
This is the tyranny of my own government that worries me, that it won’t protect me- and worse, will leave me defenseless- against the dangers that exist every day.
Robert Copher
3 months, 3 weeks agoWell said Reginald. And from my understanding the Australians will testify that what you fear is exactly what has happened there.
Matt Henry
3 months, 3 weeks agoThe truest thing I have heard on this board (and most others) is that the loudest voices are coming from people who will sacrifice their (and our) freedoms because they are scared to be free (I believe this summarizes your intent).
Phil Cardarella
3 months, 3 weeks agoIf you want an AK and a 100 round magazine just for the sheer fun of the noise, that is not enough. Buy a string of firecrackers of a really loud video game.
If you want those items because you fear the UN’s Black Helicopters? Use the money for a shrink, instead.
If you want those items so you can shoot at American law enforcement officers or American troops if you find that you disagree with our government? Take a civics class. Register to vote. And, PLEASE see a shrink.
No one can reasonably read the 2nd Amendment and conclude that its purpose was to enable sedition or rebellion.
Robert Copher
3 months, 3 weeks agoPhil, not to enable, to defend against. With the middle east conflict seemingly in our back yards now, people are concerned that their neighbor is going to attack. People are concerned. I am not a gun owner and have never wanted one other than a shotgun for sport hunting. But the conversations over this issue and the continued persecution from our own government and people with your opinion, now have me scared to the point of possibly wanting one. If we can’t stop the argument over it, our only recourse it to arm ourselves for fear that you will come and impose your will on us. So as soon as you realize that dropping the issue is the sane approach, what else are we to believe. And when there are examples around the world that demonstrate that your solution does not work why should we continue to hear it? You can make fun of gun nuts all you want but it isn’t helping.