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.
Scott_Lafrance said:
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. 🤷
Click to expand...
Well that is the way you see it, and I am obviously not going to be able to change your mind. However, when as many people are dying from guns as they are today, there is a moral obligation to do something.

Please someone give me a good reason that a private citizen needs an assault weapon beyond the fact that they think it is cool.
 
iamrefreshed said:
Terminology is quite revelant when the majority people misuse the term “assault weapon”!😉
Click to expand...
Yet, no one has yet indicated that I am using assault weapon incorrectly.

When I say assault weapon I am talking about a rapid fire weapon with a high-capacity clip/magazine.
 
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.
Click to expand...
So are you saying that the public should have fighter planes, tanks, bombs, etc. Because if not, then the general public has not been a sufficient threat to the government for quite some time.
 
CatholicGeek1 said:
Please someone give me a good reason that a private citizen needs an assault weapon beyond the fact that they think it is cool.
Click to expand...
This is already regulated and requires a special license.

The trouble here is that you don’t know what an assault weapons is and you refuse to listen.
 
CatholicGeek1 said:
So are you saying that the public should have fighter planes, tanks, bombs, etc. Because if not, then the general public has not been a sufficient threat to the government for quite some time.
Click to expand...
Wrong again. Less than 5% of the population of one very famous English Colony expelled the world’s greatest fighting force at the time with simple hunting arms.
 
Ender said:
Can you define the types of guns you feel people should not own and explain why they should be denied that right?

Ender
Click to expand...
An AR-15 comes to mind right off the bat.

Personally, I am less interested in what guns people can and cannot own and I am far more interested in having mandatory background checks for all gun sales. I am also more concerned about limiting the size of the clip/magazine so that a person trying to kill alot of people as quickly as possible will be forced to change the clip/magazine and therefore, be slowed down for at least a second or two. In a true emergency/attack situation a second or two can be the difference between life and death. Between a good guy such as a cop with a gun getting a shot off to stop the shooter and the cop being taken out before he can fire. These are my main concerns.
 
CatholicGeek1 said:
Personally, I am less interested in what guns people can and cannot own and I am far more interested in having mandatory background checks for all gun sales. I am also more concerned about limiting the size of the clip/magazine so that a person trying to kill alot of people as quickly as possible will be forced to change the clip/magazine and therefore, be slowed down for at least a second or two. In a true emergency/attack situation a second or two can be the difference between life and death. Between a good guy such as a cop with a gun getting a shot off to stop the shooter and the cop being taken out before he can fire. These are my main concerns.
Click to expand...
The Newtown shooter was in the school for 1’200 seconds. Do you really think a couple seconds would have made any difference whatsoever?
 
Have any of these folks who want to ban guns ever heard of a little experiment called “Prohibition”? If the liberals think whiskey was a problem, they better forget about guns. I mean, who is gonna be crazy enough to try to take away something we can shoot revenuers with?
I think of my grandfathers–the one was a bootlegger & the other was a moonshiner. (Now that I think about it, the nearest gunshop is owned by the bootlegger’s descendants. Guess what that wee :Dbusiness started as ??)
 
CatholicGeek1 said:
An AR-15 comes to mind right off the bat.

Personally, I am less interested in what guns people can and cannot own and I am far more interested in having mandatory background checks for all gun sales. I am also more concerned about limiting the size of the clip/magazine so that a person trying to kill alot of people as quickly as possible will be forced to change the clip/magazine and therefore, be slowed down for at least a second or two. In a true emergency/attack situation a second or two can be the difference between life and death. Between a good guy such as a cop with a gun getting a shot off to stop the shooter and the cop being taken out before he can fire. These are my main concerns.
Click to expand...
Provided that there is anyone left alive after the multiple minutes it takes the police to actually arrive.

I assume you would also like to limit HAND GUNS to one single shot per fire - right?
 
CatholicGeek1 said:
Yet, no one has yet indicated that I am using assault weapon incorrectly.

When I say assault weapon I am talking about a rapid fire weapon with a high-capacity clip/magazine.
Click to expand...
Which to some means anything that shoots a bullet.
 
shipwrkd said:
The Newtown shooter was in the school for 1’200 seconds. Do you really think a couple seconds would have made any difference whatsoever?
Click to expand...
Yes. Because the Newtown shooter could have just been dropped in the parking lot without ever breathing the air inside the school.
🤷
 
iamrefreshed said:
This is already regulated and requires a special license.

The trouble here is that you don’t know what an assault weapons is and you refuse to listen.
Click to expand...
Your wrong on this point. An “assault rifle” is a highly regulated , full automatic weapon. An “assault weapon” is a name generally given to a semi automatic rifle with a plastic stock and a pistol grip.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon
 
shipwrkd said:
Your wrong on this point. An “assault rifle” is a highly regulated , full automatic weapon. An “assault weapon” is a name generally given to a semi automatic rifle with a plastic stock and a pistol grip.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon
Click to expand...
Because it’s in Wiki does not make it true.

“Assualt Weapons” are used as everyday hunting weapons. This is a term coined by the left. A .22 can be considered an “Assualt Weapon” by some leftists.

Don’t use their term againt yourself.😉

That’s how they make abortion bearable to most. Just think fetus.:mad:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top