i realize they dont have to wear rags on their heads. but i would at least think they should be caucasian. somalis are negroes. do you refer to farrakan as a raghead?

no because i mean bad guys like terrorists, and for the most part american black muslims are not terrorists and are not dangerous at all. 'cept for that dc sniper dude.

[SIZE=-1]

What I find interesting is that appointed Chiefs oppose while elected Sheriffs support.[/SIZE]

Appointed Chiefs don't give a fk about what the people want.

and the elected just want to get reelected.

and if the writer looked, i'll be he could find mabny police chiefs that say differently. it says several. not all

that tells me all i need to know. just as elected officials can be voted out, appointed officials can be pushed out.
[/SIZE]

The Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police is an association of many Chiefs of Police. I would expect the Association's position would reflect the views of the majority of it's membership. Majority does not mean all. Likewise the Arizona Sheriff's Association is an association of sheriffs and I wouldn't expect all of them to agree either. Some things really don't need to be said.

Duh! Why do you think they take into account the will of the people. Obama is the only idiot that doesn't understand that.

i dont want elected officials to do what people want them to do. i want them to do what is best for the electorate. there is often a difference.

The most fundamental meaning of a "right" is that which protects you from the will of the people. The implementation of this law cannot be separated from race. I've provided ample evidence that citizens are being harrassed now, that they will continue to be harrassed, that there is no justification for the separate treatment and that others will copy the harrassment techniques because it is the will of the people. These citizens have the right to not be harrassed for no good reason. If the "will of the people" was to ban guns in an area, would you go along with that?