Quote of the Day: Big Brother Edition

1mEF1H.So.70

“We know things that the computer can’t tell us. We know things about our citizens. We know who’s going through a divorce. We know who’s in a bad time, who may be drinking too much, who may be abusive, but hasn’t necessarily crossed the line of a crime. But in our opinion, they don’t need a pistol permit.” – Russell County Sheriff Heath Taylor in Ala. Sheriff wants to control pistol permits: ‘We know things about our citizens’ [at yellowhammernews.com]

comments

  1. avatar Chip in Florida says:

    “…but hasn’t necessarily crossed the line of a crime. But in our opinion, they don’t need a pistol permit.”

    Pre-crime controls…. got it.

    Do any of these people realize that movie (and original story) Minority Report was a warning, not a guidebook?

    1. avatar Tex300BLK says:

      I think for most of the assholes it was more like a porno mag.

    2. avatar JSJ says:

      Probably the same crowd that used to defend redlining in the mortgage industry. “we know that neighborhood is full of deadbeats” thus no loans will made there. Based on the usual factors- social status and skin color.

  2. avatar peirsonb says:

    Uh huh. And the people know things about their elected officials…

    1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

      Nice find.

      Looks like this guy epitomizes every complaint about cops:

      –Thin blue line
      –No accountability…shouldn’t HAVE accountability
      –We know better than everyone else
      –We are in charge, we get to say how others live

      etc.

      Scumbag.

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        Mskes you kind of wonder how many blacks in his county “don’t need guns.”

  3. avatar LarryinTX says:

    Lying, snotty piece of poo. Needs to become one of the subjects at the next election. I wonder what party he identifies with, what’cha think?

    1. avatar Katy says:

      Seeing that he was re-elected last year without opposition, does it matter? If the opposition can’t be bothered to field a candidate, there is no justification for complaining about his party.

      1. avatar SteveInCO says:

        It matters to those who follow the notion that party affiliation is a reliable indicator of someone’s stance on gun rights. This could either confirm this idea, or explode it.

        1. avatar Another Robert says:

          You probably won’t believe I’m the one making this post–but seriously, a single example will hardly “confirm” or “explode” any theory, generally speaking.

        2. avatar SteveInCO says:

          In general, yes…but if someone is phrasing their theory as an absolute, iron-clad law–and many here have done precisely that, for precisely this issue, e.g. stating there’s no such thing as a pro gun democrat or a pro gun liberal–then a counter-example can certainly be used to point out to them that maybe their thinking is just a wee bit too absolutist. (To be sure, I’ve never heard anyone here claim that all Rs are good on the issue.)

          It’s moot, because this guy seems to confirm the stereotype anyway.

      2. avatar Curtis in IL says:

        It’s common for local elected officials to build enough political capital over the years that they become basically unbeatable. Running against them amounts to an expensive exercise in futility.

        That’s not an excuse, just an explanation.

        1. avatar Katy says:

          It may be futile, and it may be expensive, but if a party doesn’t field a candidate, even if for no reason other than to remind the politically set incumbent that there are people opposed, then they lose the right to complain. No different than people who don’t vote complaining about bad laws being passed.

          I ran for my state assembly once. It was in 2006, a year that stood in strong contrast to 2014, in a very liberal jurisdiction. I didn’t have the money to do anything more than campaign online and make a few speeches, especially with working a temp job and dealing with the pregnancy that led up to our first kid. Did I get beat like a drum in the generals? Sure.

        2. avatar Roymond says:

          People wouldn’t run against our last sheriff because, as a WWII vet here put it, “I have grandchildren who live here”. That’s the power a scumbag sheriff has over potential opponents: unless they’re single and have no friends, they are vulnerable to LEO harassment.

    2. avatar Charles Ray says:

      He’s a baby killing Democrat. Enough said.

      1. avatar SteveInCO says:

        Can’t be. Can’t possibly be. No democrat would ever endorse guilty until proven innocent, or any other violation of civil rights, which, by the way, don’t include the right to a gun, you ammosexual.

        /sarc.

      2. avatar SteveInCO says:

        He’s also the chaplain of the Alabama Sheriff’s Association. I wouldn’t be in the least bit surprised if he’s pro-life.

        1. avatar Another Robert says:

          If he’s an Alabama Dem, I wouldn’t be surprised either way. But if he’s a Dem with any kind of national ambitions, my educated guess is any “pro-life” predilections he claims will be nothing but a pose.

        2. avatar SteveInCO says:

          @Another Robert

          Or he could “grow” while in office. Any and all of what you said there could be spot on.

          But my point was to argue against stereotyping him as a “baby killer” simply because he’s a Democrat.

        3. avatar Another Robert says:

          And I do see your point. (here is where I throw in my usual disclaimer about local/state level Dems vs national-level Dems. And I’ll even throw in another “no such rule is without exceptions” disclaimer).

  4. avatar Shire-man says:

    We heard the same tripe in NH.
    All the “we know best” tripe aside the truth is they don’t know us at all. How many people in a relatively small town of 4,000-6,000 does a part-time force of 8 cops actually know? Know well enough that they should be the final arbiters of what rights you get to enjoy?
    Cops spend half their time justifying armored troop carriers and SWAT teams to protect against an unknown public saying Andy Griffith is no more and they spend the other half of their time saying no, really, Andy Griffith is alive and well walking your streets, shaking your hands and judging you intimately.

    The common denominator between the two lies is control. All they want is control however they have to justify it.

  5. avatar C.Rogers says:

    That’s sheriff Karnak.
    Johnny Carson used to do impressions of him on The Tonight Show.
    He can tell if you’re going to commit a crime by holding an envelope with you carry license application in it up to his forehead.

  6. avatar Chris T from KY says:

    From atop high mount Olympus we know more than you. We know everything. We are watching you. We will tell you when you are ready. We will tell you when the time is right. Now go away. The great gods in the sky have spoken.

  7. avatar Martin says:

    And how many sheriffs and police are going through a divorce or are abusive lets take their pistols

    1. avatar Bob says:

      ^ This. A lot of police go thru that kind of stuff.

      1. avatar Gunr says:

        And you can bet their still packing!

  8. avatar bontai Joe says:

    So he feels HIS opinion should be more important than any citizen’s rights or state or federal law? Okay then, in MY opinion, he should be sent to a re-education camp in North Korea to be indoctrinated on what supreme opinion feels like when applied from “dear leader”. How can he not realize what he is saying sounds like egotistical stupidity? I’ve lived in a rural county in PA for almost 25 years. I have never met the sheriff. If my sheriff has an opinion of me, then his psychic powers must be amazing. I am constantly amazed at how power hungry these little low level gubmint minions are.

    1. avatar Bob says:

      Isn’t that what a ruling class is for?

  9. As someone who has never even once MET my local sheriff… How would he “know things about me”? Does this guy seriously think he’s “knows” even a small fraction of his constituents well enough to form an accurate assesment of their character?

    1. avatar John L. says:

      Scary thing is, he just might think that.

  10. avatar DaveL says:

    In my opinion, my rights aren’t dependent on your opinion.

  11. avatar Gregolas says:

    What a load of crap. Many AL sheriffs, like mine and the one in the next county over, are pro 2A.
    How about this guy shows us the actual stats of AL permit holders committing crimes, and I’ll bet the rate is far lower than cops.

    1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

      Shoot, might well be lower than the rate for THIS AL cop…if one does a little digging.

      He fits the profile, anyway.

      Wait, what? Can’t “convict” the man without anything more than suspicion? Well, that’s what he’s advocating…denial of rights without due process.

      He’s certainly a “one set of rules for me, another set for thee” type. That much is clear.

  12. avatar Wiregrass says:

    I don’t remember seeing anything about our rights being subject to gossip. This guy needs to go, Russell County Alabama!

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      I wonder how much the job of Sheriff pays? Maybe I should submit my resumé?

      1. avatar Another Robert says:

        For many, many years in Texas, the county sheriff didn’t even have to be licensed by the state as a peace officer. Get yourself elected in some one-horse county (and we have our share and more) and you had all the rights, privileges, and perogatives of a cop without the expense and effort of going thru any kind of police academy. Truthfully, I’m not sure whether that’s still the case or not. Wouldn’t be surprised if Texas wasn’t the only state like that.

  13. avatar Ed says:

    ya right, you know everyone in your county?…I think not….you would have too much power and the 2nd amendment does not give you that power.

  14. avatar SteveInCO says:

    Fits a lot of stereotypes people in the entertainment industry (i.e., liberals/leftists) push about Southern sheriffs being the local corrupt tinpot dictator, yet wants fewer guns on the street. They probably think it’s a bit contradictory, because this man is “enlightened” re: guns borne by “ordinary” (i.e., non LEO) people. Well, that’s not really a contradiction, and we understand that. If they (the liberals) ever figure it out, they might have to make a decision themselves as to what it is they really want. Are they themselves tinpot dictator wannabes, or are they willing to embrace gun rights for the sake of the other freedoms they approve of?

    1. avatar Another Robert says:

      My observation is that leftists generally manage to confront those dilemmas without making such a decision; they have a unique talent for embracing the most mind-bending intellectual contradictions without batting an eye.

      1. avatar MarkPA says:

        Very well put.

        That’s why I think we are wasting our time agonizing over what the gun-grabbers are saying. Only a minuscule percentage of them would ever have an euphony and reconsider their position. By that time, it’s apt to be too late for them to make an impact on earth.

        Instead, we ought to be concentrating our energy on figuring out how to have an impact on the undecided or uncommitted. We have finally achieved about break-even with the number of people polled placing importance on gun-rights vs. gun-control just tipped in our favor. It could wiggle back and forth for a while; but, if we present our case cleverly it might build to a strong majority in our favor.

        The survival of any right depends – ultimately – on a strong popular majority deciding that that right is really worth defending. If that happens with gun-rights as it did for civil rights for Blacks, then we are home-free. We would then have an opportunity to start rolling-back the gun-control laws.

  15. avatar Joe R. says:

    We know things about our police and sheriff forces. THEY ARE (obviously) NOT CITIZENS.

    And they are a bunch of cack-sackers.

  16. avatar Cloudbuster says:

    My Sheriff doesn’t know Jack about me, and his opinions don’t trump my rights.

  17. avatar steve says:

    Coming from a state where this is the norm already

    We have :

    Over 300 different requirement for a CC license , pretty much each town can do what it pleases

    We have COPs who bow to the selectman and they say what goes

    They can restrict you for no other reason then they don’t like you or better yet take your license take your shit and its all legal

    Once you let may issue happen there’s no way to fix it. The only way to fix it is to sue and sue often , but they don’t care its not their money .

  18. avatar Danny Griffin says:

    I know more about my sheriff than he knows about me. He’s an alky, you can see it. And I’ve been in his house. It puts an old time Chicago speakeasy to shame.

  19. avatar Silentbrick says:

    I suggest this petty wannabe tyrant look up the Battle of Athens TN. He seems to need the history lesson.

    1. avatar SteveInCO says:

      I’ll bet he’s a piss-poor “book learner” and needs the hands-on actual experience to figure it out.

      1. avatar Dustin says:

        Too bad nobody is willing to get their hands dirty, and he knows it…

  20. avatar SteveInCO says:

    “…a swaggering, overbearing, tin-plated dictator with delusions of godhood.”

    Fits this guy. Didn’t fit Captain Kirk.

    His cop car probably ought to be hauled away as garbage. Preferably with him in it.

    (Note: If you’re scratching your head wondering what the heck I’m alluding to, it’s “The Trouble With Tribbles” from the original Star Trek series.)

    1. avatar Chris T from KY says:

      Nice to see someone remember the original 1966 star trek.

  21. avatar Rightie says:

    Oh that’s a classic. So, YOUR “OPINION” of someone should be the deciding factor as to which of their Constitutional rights they are permitted to exercise then, Sheriff? Is that really what you just said??? Oh, because “YOU KNOW” right? …and because someone is going through a divorce, you want to treat them like potential murderers??? Does that work both for the woman AND the man – or just the man???

    OK, my counter proposal then is: I KNOW who stupid people are. People like YOU who spout retarded communist bullshit like that, in my OPINION, should not be permitted to exercise their First Amendment rights of Free Speech and spout the stupid bullshit that you just did. How do you like them apples, Chief?

    Oh, and you might want to remember that you are in an elected position. I can’t imagine most of your constituents are going to love your wonderful new idea that makes YOU the decider of whom gets to exercise which of their rights based on your OPINION. Especially any one that has ever gone through a divorce.

  22. avatar SteveInCO says:

    This guy is a real piece of…work (I had a different four letter word in mind, actually).

    http://www.guns.com/2015/08/12/alabama-sheriffs-unite-against-gun-reform-measure/

    Doesn’t want you carrying in your vehicles either, and he claims to speak for all AL Sheriffs.

  23. avatar Andrew Lias says:

    He’s actually Sauron. They have the eye on top of the police station. I take that back he’s probably Santa. No presents for any of you naughty people!

    Seems more like a control thing than a gun thing.

    1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

      “Seems more like a control thing than a gun thing.”

      That’s ALL gun control. Everything from Shannon or Bloomberg or any Hollywood or academia twit that makes a comment about guns…it’s all about what the proles should be “allowed” to do/say.

  24. avatar MarkPA says:

    Suppose, for only a moment, we grant his point. There are a few people out there who are not yet prohibited-persons but whose pattern of behavior or some other circumstance indicated that it would be imprudent to give him a permit.
    How have our public servants, entrusted with such discretion, performed? Have they used this discretion sparingly and only with considerable justification? Or, have they abused their discretion, granting permits only to their cronies?
    No doubt, there have been a few public safety officials – occasionally – throughout history who really have used this discretion sparingly. Unfortunately, most have abused it. And so, we ought not be surprised that our founding fathers wisely proscribed exercise of discretion by public officials. (E.g., the 3A proscription allowed for quartering of troops in time of war “in a manner prescribed by law.” This right against quartering stands-out as unique in making an exception but the delegation of power is to Congress, not a single official.)
    So, NO. Sheriff Taylor, you and your fellow sheriffs and chiefs have abused discretion unconstitutionally delegated to you. You have shown yourselves unworthy as the founders anticipated. If prior restraint of 2A rights are Constitutional at all (a point not conceded) they must be Shall-Issue in such a way as not to “infringe”. That is the standard, not your discretion.

  25. avatar BrightBoy says:

    How anybody like that can continue to hold an elected position in the state of Alabama is beyond me. (Shame on Russell County). He needs to be sent packing to New York.

  26. avatar SteveInCO says:

    The full context is, his department once denied a permit to the guy who shot up the theater in Louisiana last month, and he’s crowing that he could see issues where the computer couldn’t. Expect to see him approvingly quoted by the antis, a LOT. Of course they’d be implicitly admitting that background checks can fail, but I expected them to anyway someday, since once they succeed in making them “universal” they will need some excuse to further restrict our rights. “Those background checks we swore were all we wanted? Uh, they’re not enough. Turn ’em in! For the children!”

    1. avatar Heartland Patriot says:

      The same leftist antis will quote him but at the same time chant “Black lives matter” and “cops suck”. All leftist political bullshit.

  27. avatar PeterK says:

    He forgot:

    “We want to deny random citizens fundamental rights on a whim.” :p

  28. avatar Coffee Addict says:

    I’d be puzzled if his name didn’t surface in an Ashley Madison search…

    1. avatar Another Robert says:

      I’d be surprised if it did. If he’s really the Boss Hogg type he’s trying hard to look like, he probably doesn’t care about discretion in such matters.

  29. avatar Stinkeye says:

    I hope when Sheriff Santa here is making his list of who’s naughty and who’s nice, he at least has the decency to check it twice.

  30. avatar Hill Country Dog says:

    From the Russell County website “Russell County’s population is 52,262”. So this one sheriff knows all 52k+ residents with thorough knowledge and can evaluate each even-handedly? No, he just wants to have power and control.

    1. avatar Stinkeye says:

      It’s worse than that; he’s arguing for all county sheriffs to have this authority. So we’re to believe that the sheriff of Jefferson county knows which of the 650,000 residents there is a potential danger? That the sheriff of Mobile county knows which of his 400,000 residents is an abusive drunk? It’s patently ridiculous. Forget about all the residents of their counties, most sheriffs probably don’t even know what’s going on in the personal lives of all of their deputies and employees!

  31. avatar Chris Meissen says:

    When I saw that he won reelection without opposition after that video exposure that was all I needed to know he is a Democrat. We had a sheriff like the here in southern Missouri in the county next door to where I’m living. Sheriff Ward was the law; he actually told me to my face once, “That may be the way the law reads but that’s not how we do it here in Oregon county.” Nobody dared to run against him because to do so and lose meant essentially resigning oneself to moving out of the county or being pulled over for Mickey Mouse reasons whenever one left one’s house. He finally did manage to anger enough people, especially residents to the county, that someone got the courage to run against him in the Democrat primary and beat him handily. But Roscoe P. Coltrane is more than a TV caricature — in much of the southern U.S. he’s real.

    1. avatar Chris Meissen says:

      First, I meant to say *new* residents of Oregon county got the nerve to run someone against Sheriff Ward. And what really pushed him out was his policy regarding permits to purchase handguns, the issue about which he said “his” county did things differently. State law (at that time) required an applicant provide certain personally identifying information and a $10 fee. The sheriff had a week to do a background check and either deny (with cause) or issue the permit. The applicant then had thirty days to find a gun and *the seller* was required by law to fill out make, model, barrel length, and serial number and return the completed permit to the sheriff. But this particular sheriff required all of that information on the original application which meant buying the gun, then applying for the permit, then going back and taking delivery. With no FFL in his county, that meant a round trip of at least fifty miles. When we passed CCW, that inconvenienced a LOT of residents of his county and that’s what finally resulted in him being booted out of office.

      Hopefully this sheriff in Russell county, Alabama will generate similar outrage and find himself out of a job.

  32. avatar Ralph says:

    An arrogant cop? Wow, that’s hard to believe.

    1. avatar Dustin says:

      No, he’s not arrogant. Arrogance is when you think you’re a god and you’re wrong. He’s outlined his omnipotence very well, so, he isn’t arrogant, because he really is a god. Just ask the media boot-lickers…

      He knows, man, he knows… He can read you mind! Magic!

      http://i1.wp.com/barcelonablonde.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Shia-Labeouf-Magic-gif.gif?resize=700%2C393

  33. avatar EJQ says:

    The county has 50,000+ residents, however Phenix City has 32,000 +, over half of the population.

    I kinda have the feeling this “sheriff” doesn’t want to be assassinated, by some lady’s husband who just got beat up. The only way to lower that risk is to get rid of legal carry. But, legal or not, he’s at high risk, and if it should happen, I’m predicting a light sentence for the husband.

  34. avatar Sammy^ says:

    And you don’t need to hold the office of Sheriff

  35. avatar LongPurple says:

    Nothing new here. It’s an old rationalization of unchecked “police powers”.
    I have often heard the rationalization of “may issue” pistol permits as “The police know who the bad people are, even if they have managed to avoid getting caught. The cops have to be able to veto the issue of a pistol permit.”
    About a dozen of the hoods rounded up at the Apalachin, NY “crime convention” were holders of pistol permits. The host, Joe (The Barber) Barbara, had a character reference written by a local chief of police as part of the application for his permit. Corrupt police are only too willing to arm their “business partners”. They are not so willing to “permit” those citizens (who employ them) to be armed. They consider that to be the exclusive right of the police and selected “friends”.
    All that “may issue” permit laws do is encourage police corruption by increasing police powers.

    “Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

  36. avatar Galtha58 says:

    From a linked article: “Taylor cited a 2006 instance where an Alabama sheriff declined to grant a permit to John “Rusty” Houser, who later went on to open fire in the Grand Theatre in Lafayette, Louisiana last month, killing two. The lawman argued that under current state law, a sheriff might not have as much discretion”.
    If you try to follow the logic of what Sheriff Taylor says in this article it may make you scratch your head. Permit was denied to someone who opened fire in a theater and killed 2 people. Taylor says a Sheriff may not have as much discretion under current law. What the heck is he saying here ? He is arguing against a proposed law, not the current law. And the Perp in that incident had never been issued a permit. So, nothing the Sheriff had done or could have done under the current or the proposed law would have prevented this incident. Guessing this guy does not know the meaning of logic. And he wants to continue to be the one who decides who can carry a gun and who cannot in his county. Unbelievable.

  37. avatar Former Water Walker says:

    Um red-neck in Alabama-do ‘ya suppose bosshogg dislikes armed colored and homer-sexuals too?

  38. avatar Dustin says:

    Trash pretending to be omnipotent for the camera… He thinks he’s a god. So do the media and at least half the people in that county…

    He’s only a reflection of the people…

  39. avatar GunGeek says:

    Just donate to the sheriff’s reelection campaign. That’s how it’s done in Santa Clara County, CA – http://www.mercurynews.com/bay-area-news/ci_19521214

  40. avatar Mike says:

    Battle of Athens 1946, look it up. This type of thing might be needed in the future.

  41. avatar Edward Jaffe says:

    The Sheriff CLEARLY needs to be in jail for ANGER MGT ISSUES.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email