100% of Florida Sheriffs Refuse to Enforce federal Gun Bans

[Cor_Cordis]

You obviously don’t understand the independent nature of the majority in the “fly-over states”.

The mindset you’ve described is uniquely left of center. Those of the more Conservative philosophy are by their very nature independent, resourceful, and contrary-ian to their core. And telling them to just “lay down” “it’s all hopeless”. “You’re out-matched. You NEED the Big Gov!” “Just make it easy on yourself and roll over.” Does nothing but make them even more fiercely independent.

And many of those “colonists” make of the majority of the law enforcement and military ranks. And based on my professional and personal experience, I would be willing to bet that there are a fair number in the medical and engineering professions as well.

Why do you think gun ownership has sky-rocketed since the Left started flogging the Newtown tragedy? People are already planning for the worst. Far fewer people in this country are blind sheep than you would suspect.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

This is not necessarily true. If children are trained as to the dangers, they are less dangerous to themselves and each other then adults. My son (the cop) has had guns in the house all his children’s lives and they are more respectful of their dangers then most adults. It’s all in the training. If you owned a boat, would you keep your kids away or would you make sure they knew how to swim?

I’m sorry, I wouldn’t consider all children on the same level as say your son’s children. The type training it would take for all children would be daily training, and even then there’s going to be the child who feels trained enough to be empowered to pick it up. Think of the accidental shootings that happen, not only from children, but adults who make mistakes. It’s just adding a new risk to combat other risks, in my honest opinion. I’m not opposed to resource officers being at schools, but officers get taken down in the line of duty, and breaches can still happen. Then there’s going to be getting the country behind funding this new security. Would placing a new tax on guns and ammo be acceptable to raise a fund for such a security?

 

[CatholicGeek1]

This is the last post that I am going to make in this thread. I am just tired of beating my head against the wall.

The constitution does not grant you a right to own any weapon you want. That is a false interpretation. The constitution guaranteed the right to possess weapons in order to be part of a well regulated militia. Well regulated is right in the wording, which a lot of people opposed to gun control seem to forget.

Although I cannot convince anyone of it, I am not in favor of banning all guns. I am in favor of mandatory background checks, that are not happening for 40% of gun sales right now due to loop holes in the law.

I am in favor of having smaller clips/magazines, because I believe it would slow the time that people could fire and would save lives.

I am not a liberal that wants to take everyone’s guns away and I do not believe in huge government regulation. I believe in government regulation when needed for public safety and the common defense and I believe that this falls under that.

I do not believe that reasonable gun control leads to a police state, and I am not interested in listening to wild conspiracy theories about the government taking over.

Finally as I have said, we have the 17th highest rate of gun homicides in the world. We have the 11th highest rate of overall gun deaths in the world.

These are the points that I have been trying to make through the whole thread. No one wants to listen to them. People simply want to attach a false motive or agenda to what I am saying and/or respond to my arguments not with logic but with a knee jerk emotional response based on their love of guns and/or their inherent distrust (in some cases bordering on paranoia) of government regulation. You can take or leave what I have to say. You can believe me or not. You are not going to change my opinion and I am obviously not going to change yours, so I will move on with my life.

 

[pnewton]

Then what would be the sheriff’s response to legislation that would put them in control of background checks and registrations, with the potential of an additional income going to their departments? Would they refuse that enforcement if it were legislated at a federal level? Let’s also remember, their refusal is at a ‘federal level’. There’s no changes to state level legislations, current or future.

I think these question would have to wait further development. I do not see how this could happen without state involvement. Each state’s database would have to be utilized. Normally these unfunded federal mandates are directed to be implemented by the individual states.

 

[pnewton]

This is the last post that I am going to make in this thread.

FYI - Your post is a reflection of my position as well, with the one exception I am not all that fixed in it and am willing to consider new data as it comes up in the future. I haven’t seen new arguments here for a while though.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

And herein is our VERY different interpretation:

Self defense (or LIFE, per the Catechism) is NOT a “right” given by Caesar. It’s a right given by God. Caesar’s only role is to “secure” that right.

I can’t stress this point enough.

So you use a document of men to show me that the right is from God? The greatest majority of politician all state they are Christians right now. Do you believe all of them? The document you read from is not for the good of ALL people, worldwide. It is a document from government, of men. It is promises of ‘Caesar.’

What about the victims rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Does one group’s right to bear arms outweigh the rest of the population’s rights, that you listed?

We, Catholics/Christians, have our commissions from the God breathed word, and through His Church. The men of the Church are speaking on the subject, but it’s being said they are inexperienced, or speaking outside their authority. Which men do we accept guidance from?

 

[Cor_Cordis]

Surely we wouldn’t put taxes above attempts to save lives, and I really think taxes is a reach of the real reasons of regulating private parities. In Florida, and I imagine the rest of the country, one cannot ship a gun legally without going through licensed gun dealers. Background checks and registrations of private sales would more than likely go through the licensed system, or possibly a state government system.

…The eleventh rule is: If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside.

…The twelth rule: The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.

…The thirteenth rule: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

rightwingnews.com/quotes/the-best-quotes-from-saul-alinskys-rules-for-radicals/

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

I think these question would have to wait further development. I do not see how this could happen without state involvement. Each state’s database would have to be utilized. Normally these unfunded federal mandates are directed to be implemented by the individual states.

States should get smart and say “we aren’t implementing any mandates without the funding to implement them” and then proceed to ignore unfunded mandates.

 

[pnewton]

States are implementing Firearms Freedom Acts all over the country. Basically, they are saying that any gun that is made and sold in the same state are not subject to federal regulation.

This is a novel approach, if it can be done. It prevents action based on that gigantic monster, the COMMERCE CLAUSE (cue music - da-da-dun)

 

[Cor_Cordis]

This is the last post that I am going to make in this thread. I am just tired of beating my head against the wall.

Maybe use should stop using your head as a battering ram?

 

[pnewton]

States should get smart and say “we aren’t implementing any mandates without the funding to implement them” and then proceed to ignore unfunded mandates.

I am skeptical that this will ever be an issue. The Feds do not even trust the states to take care of passports and draft registration but use (of all people) the postal workers.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

The men of the Church are speaking on the subject, but it’s being said they are inexperienced, or speaking outside their authority. Which men do we accept guidance from?

They also supported ObamaCare. And how did that work out for them?

How did it work out for the Church as a whole?

Church leaders who supported ObamaCare now outraged:

seeingredaz.wordpress.com/2012/02/07/church-leaders-who-supported-obamacare-now-outraged/

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I thought you made some very good points and nobody take this wrong, I’ve found that sometimes when one is complimented, others might object. I’m so much a novice on guns, I readily admit, this is one subject where I can only watch mostly as to what is being said. But you did put up some very compelling statements… to show a hint of possibly being a bit aggravated.

Thanks. It is a bit aggravating to be personally attacked through the use of spins, false accusations, or ad hominems, when you’re trying to stay on topic and express the depths of your heart and conscience. I apologize for my stumbling, and the example it gives.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

This is a novel approach, if it can be done. It prevents action based on that gigantic monster, the COMMERCE CLAUSE (cue music - da-da-dun)

Correction, the Interstate Commerce Clause.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

Thanks. It is a bit aggravating to be personally attacked through the use of spins, false accusations, or ad hominems, when you’re trying to stay on topic and express the depths of your heart and conscience. I apologize for my stumbling, and the example it gives.

Yes, I have experienced this abuse too.

Maybe we can all learn something.

 

[scipio337]

So you use a document of men to show me that the right is from God? The greatest majority of politician all state they are Christians right now. Do you believe all of them? The document you read from is not for the good of ALL people, worldwide. It is a document from government, of men. It is promises of ‘Caesar.’

The document is based (at least) in a Deist view, based on ideas on Universal (and God given) rights. You can see the same philosphy in the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Governments don’t grant rights. PERIOD.
Prodigal Son1:

What about the victims rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Does one group’s right to bear arms outweigh the rest of the population’s rights, that you listed?

Rights only extend as far as they don’t infringe upon others. Once you show that my right to peacefully own a firearm infringes on any of your rights, you have a valid argument. In the meantime, you have empty platitudes of “we have to do something!”, when those very laws were either A) in place in Conneticut, or B) have failed to stop mass shootings or bring down crime in the past.

 

[pnewton]

They also supported ObamaCare. And how did that work out for them?

If you want to debate this lie, let us move it elsewhere. Here is a timeline and copies of the actual letters.

old.usccb.org/healthcare/2010-USCCB-health-care-reform-summary.pdf

Here is a whole slew of letters opposed to the actual proposal that came up for vote.

old.usccb.org/healthcare/

Can we please quit the ad hominem attacks aimed at Church leaders?

 

[Cor_Cordis]

If you want to debate this lie, let us move it elsewhere. Here is a timeline and copies of the actual letters.

old.usccb.org/healthcare/2010-USCCB-health-care-reform-summary.pdf

Here is a whole slew of letters opposed to the actual proposal that came up for vote.

old.usccb.org/healthcare/

Did they not support Universal Health Care?

 

[Cor_Cordis]

If you want to debate this lie, let us move it elsewhere. Here is a timeline and copies of the actual letters.

old.usccb.org/healthcare/2010-USCCB-health-care-reform-summary.pdf

Here is a whole slew of letters opposed to the actual proposal that came up for vote.

old.usccb.org/healthcare/

Can we please quit the ad hominem attacks aimed at Church leaders?

While they didn’t support the final proposal - did they not support the overall theory? And much like they are with “gun regulation”?

Is there not legitimate parallels?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The document is based (at least) in a Deist view, based on ideas on Universal (and God given) rights. You can see the same philosphy in the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Governments don’t grant rights. PERIOD.

Rights only extend as far as they don’t infringe upon others. Once you show that my right to peacefully own a firearm infringes on any of your rights, you have a valid argument. In the meantime, you have empty platitudes of “we have to do something!”, when those very laws were either A) in place in Conneticut, or B) have failed to stop mass shootings or bring down crime in the past.

Can’t something be a ‘deist’ view and still not a Catholic view?

In my honest view, gun rights have infringed on the rights of victims of mass shootings. As Christians, I would think it minor sacrifices, or inconveniences, to contribute constructively to solutions, or possible solutions, to assure an equal right for all. How would closing the private sale loopholes impede your rights? That’s one possible solution. Yes, it may have been a law somewhere, but laws are often amended in an attempt to work better. You’ve mentioned that the assault weapons were already illegal; however, the grandfather status caught us in an ugly way. Now, honestly, do we need address that ‘loophole?’ It cost us dearly, and the families left behind more dearly.

We have failed in stopping ANY crime, but we don’t just stop and say, ‘well, that didn’t work.’