100% of Florida Sheriffs Refuse to Enforce federal Gun Bans

  • Thread starter Thread starter Geist
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
scipio337 said:
Because Nancy Lanza used a “gun show loophole”. No, wait…

Because Adam Lanza would have been forced to pass a background check to steal his mother’s guns. No, wait…

Because if Conneticut had stronger laws banning “assault rifles”, or laws requiring secured storage, Adam Lanza would have never have had access to those guns. No, wait…

Maybe because the previous assault weapons ban didn’t lower crime (or mass shootings)? Maybe because we have seen over a decade of lower violent crime rates, accompanied with a drastic increase in the amount of gun ownership and concealed carry?

I don’t understand people’s emotional response.
Click to expand...
heh heh heh 😃
 
CatholicGeek1 said:
Because this is not a question of beliefs. It is a question of responsible and reasonable public safety.
Click to expand...
One man’s “reasonsible” is another man’s “tyranny”.

As iamrefreshed posted (hat tip to Ann Coulter), no one “needs” to burn a flag in protest, but it is Constitutionally protected speech.

Once we start “needs-testing” things to ban, we can run into a variety of problems.
 
scipio337 said:
One man’s “reasonsible” is another man’s “tyranny”.

As iamrefreshed posted (hat tip to Ann Coulter), no one “needs” to burn a flag in protest, but it is Constitutionally protected speech.
Click to expand...
:DFigured I’d skip the source as I didn’t quote it directly. And you know how liberal ears go suddenly deaf at the mention of her name.😉
 
iamrefreshed said:
:DFigured I’d skip the source as I didn’t quote it directly. And you know how liberal ears go suddenly deaf at the mention of her name.😉
Click to expand...
It’s nice to know someone out there is as nerdy reading articles as me. It was a good article, and a good point. When one uses the word “needs”, it immediately turns into something subjective, ie, “***I ***don’t need this, why would anyone else??”

When we involve government, that can get very, very dangerous.
 
scipio337 said:
One man’s “reasonsible” is another man’s “tyranny”.

As iamrefreshed posted (hat tip to Ann Coulter), no one “needs” to burn a flag in protest, but it is Constitutionally protected speech.

Once we start “needs-testing” things to ban, we can run into a variety of problems.
Click to expand...
The Patriot Act and warrantless wiretapping were attacked because they were perceived to be a violaion of constitutional rights. Whether or not they were “effective” was not a concern of those opposed (nor should it have been, if you are looking at Constitutional law.)

Why in this case, does the end justify the means when it comes to the Constitution?
 
scipio337 said:
Because Nancy Lanza used a “gun show loophole”. No, wait…

Because Adam Lanza would have been forced to pass a background check to steal his mother’s guns. No, wait…

Because if Conneticut had stronger laws banning “assault rifles”, or laws requiring secured storage, Adam Lanza would have never have had access to those guns. No, wait…

Maybe because the previous assault weapons ban didn’t lower crime (or mass shootings)? Maybe because we have seen over a decade of lower violent crime rates, accompanied with a drastic increase in the amount of gun ownership and concealed carry?

I don’t understand people’s emotional response.
Click to expand...
I don’t understand why we are limiting the discussion to one mass shooting, or one shooting in general. I stated that I knew it would not eliminate these things. I do think it will reduce them, however.
 
iamrefreshed said:
:DFigured I’d skip the source as I didn’t quote it directly. And you know how liberal ears go suddenly deaf at the mention of her name.😉
Click to expand...
I’ve voted Republican in every election since I turned 18 and I go deaf at the mention of her name. She gives conservatives a bad name.
 
CatholicGeek1 said:
I don’t understand why we are limiting the discussion to one mass shooting, or one shooting in general. I stated that I knew it would not eliminate these things. I do think it will reduce them, however.
Click to expand...
But history doesn’t bear that out. There were more (and deadlier) mass shootings during the recent “assault weapons” and high capacity mag ban.
 
CatholicGeek1 said:
I’ve voted Republican in every election since I turned 18 and I go deaf at the mention of her name. She gives conservatives a bad name.
Click to expand...
It doesn’t preclude her from making a good point.

We should always be willing to listen to all sides.

Otherwise we prove our ignorance.🤷
 
CatholicGeek1 said:
I’ve voted Republican in every election since I turned 18 and I go deaf at the mention of her name. She gives conservatives a bad name.
Click to expand...
She’s a satirist and a very talented writer. She is over the top, but it’s all part of the packaging. She’s one of the best living political writers, IMHO, since her mentor Joe Sobran passed on.
 
CatholicGeek1 said:
I don’t understand why we are limiting the discussion to one mass shooting, or one shooting in general. I stated that I knew it would not eliminate these things. I do think it will reduce them, however.
Click to expand...
I don’t understand why YOU are focusing on mass shootings at all since they are only a small percentage of murders.

So why ARE you focusing on them?

And why are you advocating far-reaching legislation based on them?:rolleyes:
 
CatholicGeek1 said:
I’ve voted Republican in every election since I turned 18 and I go deaf at the mention of her name. She gives conservatives a bad name.
Click to expand...
Then why all the fuss over warrantless wiretapping, voter IDs, and the Patriot Act?
 
Why is it that everyone who is in favor of gun control reform is automatically considered to be a left-wing liberal?

Why is it that everyone who is in favor of gun control reform is automatically considered to be a person that wants to ban all guns?

I am not a liberal and I do not want to ban all guns.

In fact, I do not care about gun bans that much at all. I do think there are some guns that it makes sense to ban. But whether or not they are, I really do not care that much about.

What I care most about is enacting reasonable restrictions that would help to reduce the ridiculous levels of gun violence in our society. Smaller clips/magazines and mandatory background checks. Please someone tell me why mandatory background checks are a bad thing!

We are currently 17th in the world in the number of gun homicides per capita. We are 11th in the world in total gun deaths per capita. How can this not be considered a problem?

Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
 
Frank_Drebin said:
Then why all the fuss over warrantless wiretapping, voter IDs, and the Patriot Act?
Click to expand...
I fail to see the connection. Requiring an ID to vote is common sense, and is actually something that the left is against, not conservatives. Warrantless wiretapping and the Patriot Act raise real legitimate concerns but are not germane to this thread.
 
CatholicGeek1 said:
Why is it that everyone who is in favor of gun control reform is automatically considered to be a left-wing liberal?

Why is it that everyone who is in favor of gun control reform is automatically considered to be a person that wants to ban all guns?

I am not a liberal and I do not want to ban all guns.
Click to expand...
Gee, I dunno?

Why would anyone assume that a person who reasons like a liberal might possibly be a liberal?

Crazy huh.
 
CatholicGeek1 said:
I fail to see the connection. Requiring an ID to vote is common sense, and is actually something that the left is against, not conservatives. Warrantless wiretapping and the Patriot Act raise real legitimate concerns but are not germane to this thread.
Click to expand...
So you trust the Obama Administration with “background” checks.

Right?
 
CatholicGeek1 said:
I don’t understand why we are limiting the discussion to one mass shooting, or one shooting in general. I stated that I knew it would not eliminate these things. I do think it will reduce them, however.
Click to expand...
I don’t understand why YOU are focusing on mass shootings at all since they are only a small percentage of murders.

So why ARE you focusing on them?

And why are you advocating far-reaching legislation based on them?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top