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.
Cor_Cordis said:
Gee, I dunno?

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

Crazy huh.
Click to expand...
I am actually using my ability to reason independent of partisan affiliation. I have clearly stated what I actually want numerous times, but no one seems to want to talk about that. Everyone just wants to keep going with what they think I am trying to achieve which is simply not the case.

No one political party has a monopoly on good ideas. No one political party has a monopoly on bad ideas.

We need to step back as a nation and look at issues from the perspective of what makes sense, not from the perspective of “this is what my party of choice thinks so therefore it must be correct.” The only group in the world that is protected from error is the Church.
 
Cor_Cordis said:
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?
Click to expand...
I’m not. I am advocating legislation to reduce gun crime in general. Mass shootings are just one element of them.
 
CatholicGeek1 said:
I am actually using my ability to reason independent of partisan affiliation. I have clearly stated what I actually want numerous times, but no one seems to want to talk about that. Everyone just wants to keep going with what they think I am trying to achieve which is simply not the case.

No one political party has a monopoly on good ideas. No one political party has a monopoly on bad ideas.

We need to step back as a nation and look at issues from the perspective of what makes sense, not from the perspective of “this is what my party of choice thinks so therefore it must be correct.” The only group in the world that is protected from error is the Church.
Click to expand...
Gee, that sounds very liberal.

Tell me, what was the Founding Fathers primary reasoning for gun rights?
 
CatholicGeek1 said:
This is what both sides are doing.

No one has answered the point I brought up about mandatory background checks. No one answered the question that I asked regarding what good reason a person has for owning an AR-15. Why are these not being answered?
Click to expand...
I don’t think anyone has posted against background checks. As for your question regarding a good reason for owning an AR15, it’s been answered, you just refuse to accept it. Seems I posted a picture of 4 mechanically identical guns and asked what the difference was and you were going to check into it…well?
I’ll give my answer again. It’s called progress. Why would the military give a soldier this “type” of firearm for no reason.I’m sure they have a bunch of old M1’s. Is progress limited to the military? If you’ve ever hunted with an old heavy, but pretty, rifle for several days you would find it rather pleasurable to carry something that doesn’t have nice looking, heavy wood but rather a carbon fiber stock that weighs 3-4 pounds less. Another way…have you ever ridden a new carbon fiber bicycle? If you have you’d never ride an old steel one again.If you still have the old steel one, I’m sorry. Cops used to carry six shooters but since the Glocks and SIG’s have proven faster and more reliable a cop can no longer use a pretty looking Smith and Wesson with nice wood handles, he’s forced to carry the ugly plastic looking Glock. The bolt action Springfield was replaced by the lever action Winchester which was replaced by the M1 which was replaced by the M16. All were designed for the military and adapted for civilian use. Would you drive a model T on the freeway if you could drive a Prius instead? And what would the big deal be if a Corvette pulled up beside your Prius but never broke the law. Should he not be able to own the Corvette? If you need more, let me know bur for now my fingers are getting sore.

BTW, “they were made to kill” don’t hold water because you have that six shooter and guess what it was made to do. The only weapons I have were made for animals and one is called a Mini14…it would be the top one in the pic I showed ya a while back.I wouldn’t trade it for an AR15 and it’s every bit as deadly. Hope I helped
 
CatholicGeek1 said:
I’m not. I am advocating legislation to reduce gun crime in general. Mass shootings are just one element of them.
Click to expand...
Correction: Mass shootings are a small fraction of them.

And even within that small fraction the legislation you are proposing would have little effect.

So what is your point?
 
Cor_Cordis said:
Correction: Mass shootings are a small fraction of them.

And even within that small fraction the legislation you are proposing would have little effect.

So what is your point?
Click to expand...
My point is that we are 17th in the world in gun homicides, and 11th in the world in overall gun deaths. I believe that there are common sense gun control reforms that could be made that would improve that situation and I am advocating for them.
 
CatholicGeek1 said:
My point is that we are 17th in the world in gun homicides, and 11th in the world in overall gun deaths. I believe that there are common sense gun control reforms that could be made that would improve that situation and I am advocating for them.
Click to expand...
Er uhm … let’s try this again - shall we?

Mass shootings are a small fraction of them.

And even within that small fraction the legislation you are proposing would have little effect.

So what is your point?
 
CatholicGeek1 said:
My point is that we are 17th in the world in gun homicides, and 11th in the world in overall gun deaths. I believe that there are common sense gun control reforms that could be made that would improve that situation and I am advocating for them.
Click to expand...
BTW that response in the context of the question … was very Liberal in it’s tactic.
 
shipwrkd said:
I don’t think anyone has posted against background checks. As for your question regarding a good reason for owning an AR15, it’s been answered, you just refuse to accept it. Seems I posted a picture of 4 mechanically identical guns and asked what the difference was and you were going to check into it…well?
I’ll give my answer again. It’s called progress. Why would the military give a soldier this “type” of firearm for no reason.I’m sure they have a bunch of old M1’s. Is progress limited to the military? If you’ve ever hunted with an old heavy, but pretty, rifle for several days you would find it rather pleasurable to carry something that doesn’t have nice looking, heavy wood but rather a carbon fiber stock that weighs 3-4 pounds less. Another way…have you ever ridden a new carbon fiber bicycle? If you have you’d never ride an old steel one again.If you still have the old steel one, I’m sorry. Cops used to carry six shooters but since the Glocks and SIG’s have proven faster and more reliable a cop can no longer use a pretty looking Smith and Wesson with nice wood handles, he’s forced to carry the ugly plastic looking Glock. The bolt action Springfield was replaced by the lever action Winchester which was replaced by the M1 which was replaced by the M16. All were designed for the military and adapted for civilian use. Would you drive a model T on the freeway if you could drive a Prius instead? And what would the big deal be if a Corvette pulled up beside your Prius but never broke the law. Should he not be able to own the Corvette? If you need more, let me know bur for now my fingers are getting sore.

BTW, “they were made to kill” don’t hold water because you have that six shooter and guess what it was made to do. The only weapons I have were made for animals and one is called a Mini14…it would be the top one in the pic I showed ya a while back.I wouldn’t trade it for an AR15 and it’s every bit as deadly. Hope I helped
Click to expand...
It was more of a rhetorical question in response to another post stating that only one side was not answering the question. Prior to this response, you never gave a reason for someone needing an AR-15 or other weapon of that type. You merely pointed out different weapons that could be banned under some of the proposed legislation. It was not an answer to my question. At least I did not take it that way. If I misunderstood, than I stand corrected.

The “they were made to kill” comment has nothing to do with the type of gun. All guns are made to kill. Therefore, there should be reasonable limits on what people own and what procedures are required for them to be owned legally.
 
Cor_Cordis said:
Er uhm … let’s try this again - shall we?

Mass shootings are a small fraction of them.

And even within that small fraction the legislation you are proposing would have little effect.

So what is your point?
Click to expand...
You are framing the argument to be about mass shootings. I am not. I am framing the argument to be about shootings in general. That is why I am advocating what I am.
 
CatholicGeek1 said:
My point is that we are 17th in the world in gun homicides, and 11th in the world in overall gun deaths. I believe that there are common sense gun control reforms that could be made that would improve that situation and I am advocating for them.
Click to expand...
And as the wiki article posted shows, some countries with loose gun restrictions have lower homicide rates (N. Europe), and some with very tight (even outright bans) have higher murder rates (S. America, C. America, Mexico). At the turn of the 20th century, London had virtually no gun restrictions, while New Yord had the Sullivan Act. Guess which had the higher murder rate?

This data, along with the 1994-2004 ban having no effect on crime or mass shootings, provide enough empirical evidence for me NOT to support suspending rights in the hope of some safety.
 
CatholicGeek1 said:
Prior to this response, you never gave a reason for someone needing an AR-15 or other weapon of that type. .
Click to expand...
As was pointed out to you already and ignored, who defines need?

Why does one have to defend a constitutional right with a need?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top