100% of Florida Sheriffs Refuse to Enforce federal Gun Bans

[SamH]

Not the same thing. I understand that there are a good deal of people that want to get rid of all private gun ownership. I am not one of them. I am not just ok with this because it is not targeting the guns that I own. I am ok with it, because I think that it is good policy. Going further into other types of guns would not be good policy and I would not be in favor of it, not because they were coming after the guns that I owned, but because I think that it would not be good public policy.

So you’ll feed others to the gators hoping they’ll be satisfied before they get to you?

 

[shipwrkd]

I want guns. Not assault weapons, and quite frankly, no I will not leave it alone because I do not want anyone else to have assault weapons either. I have never heard a single compelling argument for why a private citizen needs an assault weapon. Not wants one, needs one.

Semantics are important. Many ranchers own the top rifle, a Mini 14, for it’s lightness, reliability and ease of getting it out of a saddle scabbard. Now tell me the real difference between these guns. There is none, they are the same “car” with different “options”.

 

[CatholicGeek1]

So you’ll feed others to the gators hoping they’ll be satisfied before they get to you?

You are completely missing my point. It is not feeding others to the gators as you say hoping they stop before getting to me.

The point is not protecting my guns. The point is that there are certain types of guns that I believe the public has a right to own, and certain types of guns that I do not believe the public has a right to own. Therefore, I draw the line on that basis, not on the basis of protecting what I have chosen to own.

 

[CatholicGeek1]

Semantics are important. Many ranchers own the top rifle, a Mini 14, for it’s lightness, reliability and ease of getting it out of a saddle scabbard. Now tell me the real difference between these guns. There is none, they are the same “car” with different “options”.

Without having the time right now to look into the specs of each of the guns you showed, which is something I will attempt to do later, I cannot say for certain what the difference is. However, obviously there are differences, or they wouldn’t have different models.

 

[CatholicGeek1]

Actually it is. An “assault weapon” is a political term with no rational/factual basis. What constitutes an “assault weapon” changes with each conversation. The “sniper rifle” has been high on the list at times, so has the common shotgun.

The problem is that while you are technically correct in what you describe as a sniper rifle, that is not what most people think of as being a sniper rifle.

Beyond that, I would not be in favor of banning these types of weapons. The weapons that I am talking about banning are ones that are capable of very quickly killing a large number of people without requiring the person firing the gun to have any significant skill.

Furthermore, what about the other points beyond banning certain types of guns. What is wrong with mandatory background checks for all gun sales? What is wrong with making it harder (note I did not say making it impossible, just harder) for criminals and the mentally ill to get their hands on firearms?

 

[jc4751]

This is not even a logical argument. This is making false comparisons.

As to the quote about England, they have very low rates of gun crime.

Sorry, but you’re kinda thick-headed here. Anyone can make a justification for banning other types of guns – it’s just a matter of how people want to spin it. You’re just incredibly selfish and willing to throw other gun owners over the side because you’re hoping that your own guns will not be banned.

 

[SamH]

The problem is that while you are technically correct in what you describe as a sniper rifle, that is not what most people think of as being a sniper rifle.

When people say “Technically Correct” they usually mean the person is right but they just don’t want to admit it.

For decades the Army used the Remington 700 rifle (Remington’s top selling bolt action) for sniper duty as the M24 Sniper Weapon System and the Marines called it the M40 sniper weapon. Basically its a hunting rifle with glass bedding.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

You are completely missing my point. It is not feeding others to the gators as you say hoping they stop before getting to me.

The point is not protecting my guns. The point is that there are certain types of guns that I believe the public has a right to own, and certain types of guns that I do not believe the public has a right to own. Therefore, I draw the line on that basis, not on the basis of protecting what I have chosen to own.

I use as my criteria the initial precept:

Other people are not my property, therefore I have no right to tell them what they can and cannot own or what to do with it once they own it, as long as what they do doesn’t violate my rights. Someone owning a machine guns doesn’t affect me whatsoever. What affects me is when a mentally unstable person gets his hands on it, or a hammer, or a chainsaw, or a blowtorch.

Using the “State” to impose your own view of the world on other people is tyranny by proxy. You elect people who promise to make rules that you like, give agents of the state guns to enforce your view of the world. I can’t see it any other way.

 

[iamrefreshed]

In common usage, at least where I live the terms clip and magazine are interchangeable. Beyond that point, I consider all of this talk of terminology an argument that is pointless and meant to detract from the point of the real debate.

Terminology is quite revelant when the majority people misuse the term “assault weapon”!

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I’m really unclear how you refer to soda relates to gun safety?

"Just push this little button thingiee, then you pull on this curvy thing and presto, a cartridge comes out of this hole, see??

It was an attempt to demonstrate semantics. The poster evidently understood what was meant when he responded with:

‘You own guns and yet you don’t know the proper name for what holds your ammo?’

Terminology is quite revelant when the majority people misuse the term “assault weapon”!

The term is so widely misused, if indeed it truly is being misused, that I don’t think anyone is misunderstanding what type weapon is being discussed. Law enforcement, politicians, news media, etc. all refer to the AR15 as such a weapon.

 

[shipwrkd]

Without having the time right now to look into the specs of each of the guns you showed, which is something I will attempt to do later, I cannot say for certain what the difference is. However, obviously there are differences, or they wouldn’t have different models.

I can save you some time. The part that shoot (the receiver and barrel) are identical. The part you hold is different but interchangeable. The one that has the scary looking barrel with what you may think is a silencer is actually a target model with a muzzle brake and that’s the only different one. All can accept any magazine of any capacity made for any of them. In other words, looks are the only difference. Same car, different trim package.

 

[shipwrkd]

I want guns. Not assault weapons, and quite frankly, no I will not leave it alone because I do not want anyone else to have assault weapons either. I have never heard a single compelling argument for why a private citizen needs an assault weapon. Not wants one, needs one.

youtube.com/watch?v=N-36SMjAUCc

Anything that is used to “assault” someone is an “assault weapon”…or is it???

 

[styrgwillidar]

I am a gun owner and I want to keep my guns. However, I do not own any guns that could be considered and assault weapon nor do I own any clips over ten rounds. Why? I don’t need them. The guns I own are to protect my family and my property and I can do that with a ten round clip and a semi-automatic.

Well, is the 10 round magazine fixed or detachable. If it’s detachable than your weapon of choice does now fall into the definition of an assault weapon in some jurisdictions.

If your weapon of choice is a semi-auto shotgun with a detachable magazine (of any capacity), again, in some jurisdictions it falls under the definition of an assault weapon.

If it’s a SPAS 12 (fixed magazine capacity of 8 rounds) its an assault weapon in some jurisdictions.

If your weapon of choice is a shotgun with a ‘drum’ i.e rotary magazine, its an assault weapon in some jurisdictions.

For those who don’t understand why terminology is important.

Assault weapon is a legal term, it was deliberately chosen and used by anti-gun folks to try and confuse the semi automatic weapons with the full auto weapons, that is Assault Rifles, medium power infantry rifles capable of being selected between semi auto and automatic fire (be it limited burst or full). What pro-gun folks try to differentiate by terminology is that new machine guns have been banned since 1986, and this discussion of ‘Assault Weapon’ bans comes down to what the legal definition of an assault weapon will be. Again, folks want to use Assault Weapon to invoke the imagery of military full-auto weapons.

It’s similar to people who want to use ‘undocumented’, ‘migrant’ workers instead of the actual legal term-- illegal immigrant. Because they want to avoid the actual issue- the violation of the law, and instead try to portray the issues as something else- race or class discrimination vice inability or unwillingness of government to enforce the law.

Now, CatholicGeek1, we need the general public to be armed sufficiently to present a credible threat to the government. That was the intent of the founding fathers and is one of the integral checks and balances in our system of government. I don’t necessarily need or want an AR or AK etc., but I do want that check and balance on the government to dissuade tyranny. Something they really have to think about and consider as a damper on their ambitions. Kind of like the nuclear deterrent, I don’t ever want it used-- but it’s existence alone is critical to discouraging catastrophe.

Our founding fathers concerns have been proven to be valid given the history of the world over the last century. Slaughter of people disarmed by their own governments has proven to be a considerable risk over the last 100-120 years, estimates vary from 100-200 million killed… Places like;

• Armenia
• Germany
• Russsia
• China
• Cambodia

etc. etc. etc.

I do not believe that US politicians are some superior breed of human being, radically different and more evolved than people around the globe. Our founding fathers didn’t suffer under the delusion our government would be run by saints immune to the temptations of power.

ETA: BTW, the goal is in fact total confiscation. The folks pushing this admit, as you did, the laws really won’t have an effect on crime. When this ban isn’t effective, their solution isn’t going to be to repeal the ban. Already did that with the 1994 ban since the repeal was built into the bill itself, and the FBI data showed it had no effect on crime. The solution will always be, as it was in the UK, more and more limitations and confiscations. They will get to your guns, whatever they are, eventually.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

It was an attempt to demonstrate semantics. The poster evidently understood what was meant when he responded with:

The term is so widely misused, if indeed it truly is being misused, that I don’t think anyone is misunderstanding what type weapon is being discussed. Law enforcement, politicians, news media, etc. all refer to the AR15 as such a weapon.

Define “assault” weapon please.

 

[shipwrkd]

Define “assault” weapon please.

See post #52

 

[iamrefreshed]

I do not believe that US politicians are some superior breed of human being, radically different and more evolved than people around the globe. Our founding fathers didn’t suffer under the delusion our government would be run by saints immune to the temptations of power.

This is what most people just don’t get. Every generation thinks they are more enlightened and that those type of things couldn’t possibly happen here.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

See post #52

Does Prodigal Son1 agree with that definition?

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

It was an attempt to demonstrate semantics. The poster evidently understood what was meant when he responded with:

The term is so widely misused, if indeed it truly is being misused, that I don’t think anyone is misunderstanding what type weapon is being discussed. Law enforcement, politicians, news media, etc. all refer to the AR15 as such a weapon.

A commercially available AR-15 is not an assault rifle. Anything that is used to cause bodily injury to another person is, legally speaking, an “Assault weapon”. It is most accurately considered a “Sporting rifle”. Just because politicians misuse words (a tactic known as sophistry) to gain political capital doesn’t mean their right.

You can call an ostrich and eagle. It still won’t make it fly.

 

[Ender]

The point is that there are certain types of guns that I believe the public has a right to own, and certain types of guns that I do not believe the public has a right to own.

Can you define the types of guns you feel people should not own and explain why they should be denied that right?

Ender

 

[CatholicGeek1]

Sorry, but you’re kinda thick-headed here. Anyone can make a justification for banning other types of guns – it’s just a matter of how people want to spin it. You’re just incredibly selfish and willing to throw other gun owners over the side because you’re hoping that your own guns will not be banned.

That is simply not true. I have explained my position and the distinction numerous times. You are of course entitled to your opinion but this is simply not true.