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.
iamrefreshed said:
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:
Click to expand...
Just because some people use a term a certain way, does not mean that everyone does. When you are debating with someone, it is important to focus on their meaning of the term so that you are talking on the same page.
 
CatholicGeek1 said:
There are a lot of public places that have police on site or close by. So every situation is different. This is not a problem that is going to be solved with a one size fits all solution and trying to boil it down to that just isn’t going to work.
Click to expand...
How does that help the average person protect his home and family?
 
Geist said:
What happens when its a cop shooting people?

The worlds most successful spree killer (until Breivek came along) was a South Korean on duty police officer named Woo Bum-Kon. 57 dead 35 wounded in 1982. He used an m2 carbine and hand grenades.

Plenty of other instances of trigger happy cops blowing almost always unarmed people away.

Why would you trust them with weapons and not me?
Click to expand...
Because there are FAR more instances of non-cops killing people than there are cops killing people.
 
CatholicGeek1 said:
For your second question, I am not sure what you are asking. Are you saying limit handguns to one round per trigger pull? If so, yes, limit all civilian guns to one shot per trigger pull. I believe that this is already the case. I am not aware of any automatic weapons that are currently legal unless they had been purchased before 1987 I believe.
Click to expand...
Let me clarify:

Magazine size is one of the politically designated features of the diabolical “assault weapon”.

Should we also limit the number of rounds for HAND GUNS?
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
Gun deaths are actually one of the least common causes of death in the country. More people die from malpractice than from gun violence every year. Are you ready to ban doctors?
Click to expand...
But they are one of the most common causes of HOMICIDE.

Also, as I have said time and time again, I am not talking about banning all guns. I am not even that concerned with banning any guns (although I would like to see some made illegal). I am far more concerned with laws that make it more difficult for criminals and people with mental illness to get their hands on guns. In addition, I think smaller clip/magazine sizes would help with mass shooting situations.
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
Sure, why not? What makes people in the government so inherently trustworthy that only they can have this stuff?
Click to expand...
Why not? Really?

Let’s turn the question around, what makes the person next door to you or I more trustworthy than the government to have this stuff?
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
Sure, why not? What makes people in the government so inherently trustworthy that only they can have this stuff?
Click to expand...
This is the point where this thread truly jumped the shark for me. Statements like this make it clear that their are pro-gun people that for whatever reason, have just as big an agenda for keeping very dangerous weapons around as the agenda of those that want to ban all guns.

I am not on either side. I do not want to ban all guns, and I do not want people to have any weapons that they want. I want moderate reforms to gun laws.
 
CatholicGeek1 said:
I think this is one of the worst things that I have heard. I am opposed to Obama on everything, everything except guns.

I am a gun owner and I want to keep my guns. However, I do not own any guns that could be considered and [sic] 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…
Click to expand...
I carry a model 22 Glock, CatholicGeek. The standard magazine that comes with that handgun holds 15 rounds. It takes me about one full second to drop an empty magazine and replace it with a fully loaded magazine. If Obama’s silly proposal to limit magazines to 10 rounds were to actually become law, it would take me one full second longer to fire 30 rounds using 3 magazines instead of two. Will that extra second make you sleep soundly at night?

Incidentally, any weapon that is used against you is an “assault weapon.” Just saying …
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
I remember when I was in the army. We were not allowed to refer to our weapon as a ‘gun’. When I lived up North, I drank ‘pop’. Now, in the South, I drink ‘soft’, or ‘cold’ drinks.
Click to expand...
Up in Michigan we call it Soda 👍
 
Rand_Al_Thor said:
Yes, because one Korean officer did that once, all police are trigger happy and want to shoot innocent people. :rolleyes: Do you really believe that “almost always” the police shoot unarmed people? Keep living in your own little world.
Click to expand...
👍👍👍
 
CatholicGeek1 said:
I would not consider that an assault weapon, but I do think anything over a ten round clip/magazine should be illegal. Handgun or not.
Click to expand...
Really?

So 17 rounds in a HAND GUN is not currently an “assault weapon”.

HOWEVER anything over 10 rounds in a rifle currently makes it more “assault weapon-ish”

Really?

And in light of these statistics?

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…6#.UNOSLrb4-pF
 
SamH said:
Except it puts you in with the group that does.
Click to expand...
Only to those that do not understand that you can be in favor of one part of any particular group’s argument and not other parts.
 
Irish_Cabbie said:
I carry a model 22 Glock, CatholicGeek. The standard magazine that comes with that handgun holds 15 rounds. It takes me about one full second to drop an empty magazine and replace it with a fully loaded magazine. If Obama’s silly proposal to limit magazines to 10 rounds were to actually become law, it would take me one full second longer to fire 30 rounds using 3 magazines instead of two. Will that extra second make you sleep soundly at night?

Incidentally, any weapon that is used against you is an “assault weapon.” Just saying …
Click to expand...
Yes it would make me sleep better, because if you are a skilled shooter, that extra second is likely 2-3 rounds that you haven’t been able to get off.
 
Cor_Cordis said:
Really?

So 17 rounds in a HAND GUN is not currently an “assault weapon”.

HOWEVER anything over 10 rounds in a rifle currently makes it more “assault weapon-ish”

Really?

And in light of these statistics?

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…6#.UNOSLrb4-pF
Click to expand...
Never said that the size of the clip/magazine made it assault weaponish. Perhaps others did/have, but I did not. I simply stated that I thought it should not be allowed. That is based on the size of the magazine, not based on some theoretical definition of what is or is not an assault weapon.
 
CatholicGeek1 said:
Never said that the size of the clip/magazine made it assault weaponish. Perhaps others did/have, but I did not. I simply stated that I thought it should not be allowed. That is based on the size of the magazine, not based on some theoretical definition of what is or is not an assault weapon.
Click to expand...
Ah, so you don’t recognize the definition of “assault weapon”?

However - the number 10 is morally acceptable for you?

Why?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top