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.
CatholicGeek1 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Then why are you advocating against “assault” weapons?
 
CatholicGeek1 said:
This is a point that we disagree on. You think the restrictions currently in place are enough. I do not.
Click to expand...
What would banning AR15’s and limiting rounds do to reduce the vast majority of gun murders which are actually committed with HAND GUNS?

Your logic is circling the drain.
 
CatholicGeek1 said:
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.
Click to expand...
The AR15 fires a very underpowered round. Ask anyone who has carried it in combat. The .223 is only .003 bigger than a .22 rifle.

People don’t “need” an AR, but they are accurate, have low recoil, and are very handy with small game. They are also popular for sport shooting and “3 gun” competitions due to their accuracy.

A gun is just a tool for firing a round. So far, the definition of “assault rifle” has revolved around the accessories of firing that round.
40.png
CatholicGeek1:
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.
Click to expand...
Guns are not “made to kill”. They are made to fire a projectile. What that projectile is fired at is up to the operator.
 
scipio337 said:
The AR15 fires a very underpowered round. Ask anyone who has carried it in combat. The .223 is only .003 bigger than a .22 rifle.

People don’t “need” an AR, but they are accurate, have low recoil, and are very handy with small game. They are also popular for sport shooting and “3 gun” competitions due to their accuracy.

A gun is just a tool for firing a round. So far, the definition of “assault rifle” has revolved around the accessories of firing that round.

Guns are not “made to kill”. They are made to fire a projectile. What that projectile is fired at is up to the operator.
Click to expand...
Why were guns invented?
 
Cor_Cordis said:
What would banning AR15’s and limiting rounds do to reduce the vast majority of gun murders which are actually committed with HAND GUNS?

Your logic is circling the drain.
Click to expand...
Note: “Assault Weapons” were ALREADY banned in Conneticut.
Sec. 53-202b. Sale or transfer of assault weapon prohibited. Class C felony. (a)(1) Any person who, within this state, distributes, transports or imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives any assault weapon, except as provided by sections 29-37j and 53-202a to 53-202k, inclusive, and subsection (h) of section 53a-46a, shall be guilty of a class C felony and shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of which two years may not be suspended or reduced.
Click to expand...
Code: 
  (2) Any person who transfers, sells or gives any assault weapon to a person under eighteen years of age in violation of subdivision (1) of this subsection shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of six years, which shall not be suspended or reduced and shall be in addition and consecutive to the term of imprisonment imposed under subdivision (1) of this subsection.
Click to expand...
Code: 
  (b) The provisions of subsection (a) of this section shall not apply to:
Click to expand...
Code: 
  (1) The sale of assault weapons to the Department of Public Safety, police departments, the Department of Correction or the military or naval forces of this state or of the United States for use in the discharge of their official duties;
Click to expand...
Code: 
  (2) A person who is the executor or administrator of an estate that includes an assault weapon for which a certificate of possession has been issued under section 53-202d which is disposed of as authorized by the Probate Court, if the disposition is otherwise permitted by sections 29-37j and 53-202a to 53-202k, inclusive, and subsection (h) of section 53a-46a;
Click to expand...
Code: 
  (3) The transfer by bequest or intestate succession of an assault weapon for which a certificate of possession has been issued under section 53-202d.....
Click to expand...
Sec. 53-202c. Possession of assault weapon prohibited. Class D felony. (a) Except as provided in section 53-202e, any person who, within this state, possesses any assault weapon, except as provided in sections 29-37j, 53-202a to 53-202k, inclusive, and 53-202o and subsection (h) of section 53a-46a, shall be guilty of a class D felony and shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of which one year may not be suspended or reduced; except that a first-time violation of this subsection shall be a class A misdemeanor if (1) the person presents proof that he lawfully possessed the assault weapon prior to October 1, 1993, and (2) the person has otherwise possessed the firearm in compliance with subsection (d) of section 53-202d.
Click to expand...
cga.ct.gov/current/pub/Chap943.htm#Sec53-202a.htm
 
Cor_Cordis said:
Lanza stole the guns from his mother.

How would your new restrictions prevent that?
Click to expand...
The statement was to show that the ‘assault weapons were already banned in Connecticut’ is flawed. What would have been the outcome if the ban had included all AR15s in Connecticut?
 
Cor_Cordis said:
BTW have I mentioned this?

According to FBI data, in 2010:

6,009 murders were committed with HAND GUNS

358 were committed with rifles (of various types not limited to “assault” rifles)

washingtonexaminer.com/if-you-want-to-end-gun-deaths-dont-start-with-rifles/article/2516536
Click to expand...
Enough times it should be considered SPAM.

Handguns in certain areas are as much, or as you show more, a problem in some areas as the assault weapon. Showing how controls are failing on other guns seems an ironic way of defending these guns.

Your posting style seems familiar? Did you used to post under another name? :onpatrol:
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
But those that were there prior to the ban were grandfathered, like the one Lanza used.
Click to expand...
As was the 1994 ban. As is Fienstein’s new proposal.

Are you suggesting that such a ban be accompanied with mandatory confiscation (as proposed in MO and WI)??
 
scipio337 said:
Are you suggesting that such a ban be accompanied with mandatory confiscation (as proposed in MO and WI)??
Click to expand...
I would not be opposed to such a ban, even though I doubt it has enough merit to actually become federal law; at this time.

What was the purpose guns were invented?
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
The statement was to show that the ‘assault weapons were already banned in Connecticut’ is flawed. What would have been the outcome if the ban had included all AR15s in Connecticut?
Click to expand...
The outcome would be you’d have an UnConstitutional law, confiscating private property from law abiding citizens, ex post facto.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
The statement was to show that the ‘assault weapons were already banned in Connecticut’ is flawed. What would have been the outcome if the ban had included all AR15s in Connecticut?
Click to expand...
It would have removed the AR15’s from law abiding citizens and criminals would still possess them.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Enough times it should be considered SPAM.

Handguns in certain areas are as much, or as you show more, a problem in some areas as the assault weapon. Showing how controls are failing on other guns seems an ironic way of defending these guns.

Your posting style seems familiar? Did you used to post under another name? :onpatrol:
Click to expand...
Actually HAND GUNS are responsible for far more murders.

But since you are predictably headed in this direction - you would be open to ban ALL guns. Wouldn’t you.

And no, I’ve never posted under any other name in here. You’re paranoid.
 
scipio337 said:
The outcome would be you’d have an UnConstitutional law, confiscating private property from law abiding citizens, ex post facto.
Click to expand...
Would the outcome have possibly been that 26, plus the shooter and his mother, would still be alive?
 
scipio337 said:
As was the 1994 ban. As is Fienstein’s new proposal.

Are you suggesting that such a ban be accompanied with mandatory confiscation (as proposed in MO and WI)??
Click to expand...
Excellent question.

Are you proposing mandatory confiscation PS1?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top