100% of Florida Sheriffs Refuse to Enforce federal Gun Bans

[Cor_Cordis]

The way messages are given indicates the spirit in which they are given and how they should be received and discerned. I see a lack of charity in the tone from some. Some have nothing worthwhile to consider. It makes one look to the bishops for guidance all the more.

Depart from me Oh Lord, I’m a sinful man.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

There is a difference between indefensible and ignored.

So are you finally “done” … for the fifth time?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I’m sorry. So I’m supposed to care about your sin or not? Is it now my business or isn’t it?

Make up my mind already.

God Bless.

I thought through the great commission that we are all called to be concerned over everyone’s sins.

Your mind was made up from the beginning.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

The way messages are given indicates the spirit in which they are given and how they should be received and discerned. I see a lack of charity in the tone from some. Some have nothing worthwhile to consider. It makes one look to the bishops for guidance all the more.

You mean, as long as the Bishops are in spoken and or silently implied unity - of course.

Otherwise, everything is up to your own personal “Magisterium” of personal discernment based on your politically motived precepts of a “good” conscious.

Or something or other…

 

[Cor_Cordis]

I thought through the great commission that we are all called to be concerned over everyone’s sins.

Your mind was made up from the beginning.

I am answerable to only one for my ‘sins’.

 

[Gricken]

I’m seeing a lot of spite right now. Can’t we all dsicuss the facts in a civl manner? We should save the Bishop’s opinons for after we get the facts straight, and we should be avoiding insults altogether. If we don’t stick on one argument at a time, no agreement will be reached.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

I’m seeing a lot of spite right now. Can’t we all dsicuss the facts in a civl manner? We should save the Bishop’s opinons for after we get the facts straight, and we should be avoiding insults altogether. If we don’t stick on one argument at a time, no agreement will be reached.

I presented several facts which PS1 thusly ignored. Repeatedly.

So no, no civil discussion can take place when one side is disingenuously cherry-picking and politically prioritizing their own version of “facts” and “trends” while hypocritically hiding behind the veil of supercilious sanctimony.

Please forgive me, but I’m simply not strong enough to turn the other cheek on this disingenuous political hackery.

 

[Gricken]

Fair enough.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I presented several facts which PS1 thusly ignored. Repeatedly.

So no, no civil discussion can take place when one side is disingenuously cherry-picking and politically prioritizing their own version of “facts” and “trends” while hypocritically hiding behind the veil of supercilious sanctimony.

Please forgive me, but I’m simply not strong enough to turn the other cheek on this disingenuous political hackery.

Nothing was ignored. You didn’t like the view. There was no veil. I try to view all things through the light of Christ and His Church.

 

[CatholicGeek1]

Then why regulate the current magazine capacities?

OR, why not limit fire-arms to single shot muskets?

BETTER YET, why not just ban fire-arms all together - starting with HAND GUNS?

Because I believe that people have a right to have firearms to protect themselves. I draw the line at what is needed for protection versus what is excessive.

 

[CatholicGeek1]

Uhm … pssst. Most of these mass shooters had MULTIPLE weapons.

And uhm … carrying several 10 round capacity HAND GUNS and simply disposing of the spent one and grabbing a fresh one would actually be faster than reloading - wouldn’t it?

OR, even carrying several hand guns and re-loading with fresh clips is also a pretty fast and efficient method to conduct a mass killing - no?

So what have you really solved?

It is a matter of time. Any time that it takes to change magazines/clips, reload, change guns, etc is time that a trigger is not being pulled.

 

[CatholicGeek1]

Actually more people are killed by malpractice or automobile accidents - than guns.

And I’m not the one limiting it to rifles. Which leads to the next point:

You actually want to ban ALL fire-arms … right?

No, I do not. I want to ban high capacity clips and I want mandatory background checks. I also want to ban certain weapons. I do NOT want to ban all guns.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

Nothing was ignored. You didn’t like the view.

You repeatedly ignored 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

"Myth: Mass shootings are on the rise.

Reality: Over the past three decades, there has been an average of 20 mass shootings a year in the United States, each with at least four victims killed by gunfire. Occasionally, and mostly by sheer coincidence, several episodes have been clustered closely in time. Over all, however, there has not been an upward trajectory. To the contrary, the real growth has been in the style and pervasiveness of news-media coverage, thanks in large part to technological advances in reporting."

chronicle.com/blogs/conversation/2012/12/18/top-10-myths-about-mass-shootings/

And like I said:

“There was no veil. I try to view all things through the light of Christ and His Church.”

… hypocritically hiding behind the veil of supercilious sanctimony.

 

[shipwrkd]

Perhaps those insistent on continuing should take a minute to splash some cold water on their face’s and then re read the title of the post:shrug:

 

[CatholicGeek1]

Uhm … psst:

Guns are also used for maiming and deterring.

In other words:

KILLING is not just for murderers - it’s also for self defense and PREVENTION of murders - no?

Are you seriously that detached from reality?

I never said that they were not used for self-defense. I said the INTENT and PURPOSE of a gun by its design is to kill. Whether that is for murder or self-defense, the purpose is still to kill. I was simply pointing out a difference between a body part or knife, that have other primary intents and purposes and a gun.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

I do NOT want to ban all guns.

Why not?

 

[CatholicGeek1]

How a defender know the number of attackers ahead of time?

Would you support the 10 round limit for police as well. You seem to imply that, as you said "I believe ten rounds is sufficient in the case of someone trained for using the firearm "

This is not a good comparison. The odds of having a gang break into your house are pretty slim. In most cases it would be one or two people. The odds of the police having to raid a house that has 10-15 drug dealers in it are much higher. Therefore, it would make sense for them to have larger capacity magazines.

 

[iamrefreshed]

It is a matter of time. Any time that it takes to change magazines/clips, reload, change guns, etc is time that a trigger is not being pulled.

Are you aware that it is very common for a 30 round magazine to jam more often that a 10 round magazine?

 

[CatholicGeek1]

Someone is breaking into the bedroom of your child.

You have a fully loaded 17 round Walther within your reach.

What do you do?

I would have my fully loaded 6 shot revolver within reach and would shoot the intruder. That does not go against anything that I am arguing for.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

I never said that they were not used for self-defense. I said the INTENT and PURPOSE of a gun by its design is to kill. Whether that is for murder or self-defense, the purpose is still to kill. I was simply pointing out a difference between a body part or knife, that have other primary intents and purposes and a gun.

So there are other primary purposes for knives and body parts, and yet guns have only one primary purpose - to kill.

So why not ban all guns?