100% of Florida Sheriffs Refuse to Enforce federal Gun Bans

[torch621]

Gives me good incentive to consider retiring in Florida

 

[CatholicGeek1]

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 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.

It is far too easy for people with criminal intent or mental issues to get their hands on a firearm that will allow them to cause great harm to a great number of people in a tiny amount of time.

Do I think that legislation will eliminate the gun problem, no. Do I think that all of the criminals will stop having guns, no. I am not naive. What I do think though is that if it is harder for criminals or the mentally ill to get guns, we will have less gun crime and save lives. To me that is a worthy goal.

The bottom line is that the status quo is not working and we have to do something. Banning guns is not the answer. But calling for limited sized clips, not having civilians armed like they are going off to fight in Afghanistan with weapons whose only purpose is killing a lot of people quickly, and mandating that if you want to own a gun, you need to pass a check to make sure you are not a criminal or mentally ill, are all reasonable measures in my opinion.

 

[PaulinePresbytr]

One interesting group that Obama has united.

He’s also united the dead in voting democratic, tons of them. They rise from the dead ever four years and head to the nearest polling station in order to vote for Barry and co.

 

[spartan_cop]

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 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.

It is far too easy for people with criminal intent or mental issues to get their hands on a firearm that will allow them to cause great harm to a great number of people in a tiny amount of time.

Do I think that legislation will eliminate the gun problem, no. Do I think that all of the criminals will stop having guns, no. I am not naive. What I do think though is that if it is harder for criminals or the mentally ill to get guns, we will have less gun crime and save lives. To me that is a worthy goal.

The bottom line is that the status quo is not working and we have to do something. Banning guns is not the answer. But calling for limited sized clips, not having civilians armed like they are going off to fight in Afghanistan with weapons whose only purpose is killing a lot of people quickly, and mandating that if you want to own a gun, you need to pass a check to make sure you are not a criminal or mentally ill, are all reasonable measures in my opinion.

You own guns and yet you don’t know the proper name for what holds your ammo? You sure you know which side is the dangerous side of a gun?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You own guns and yet you don’t know the proper name for what holds your ammo? You sure you know which side is the dangerous side of a gun?

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.

Soon after the adoption of the M1911 pistol, the term “magazine” was settled on by the military and firearms experts, though the term “clip” is often used in its place (though only for detachable magazines, never fixed).

(Ad hominems are unnecessary.)

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

You own guns and yet you don’t know the proper name for what holds your ammo? You sure you know which side is the dangerous side of a gun?

Right, unless someone here is using an M1 Garand, modern rifles don’t use “clips”. ANd the M1 Garand is a very popular sporting and hunting rifle today…and was considered the deadliest “assault rifle” of WW2.

 

[spartan_cop]

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.

(Ad hominems are unnecessary.)

Uhm knowledge and proper terms are necessary! It’s the lack of education that has started all this. Most people pushing these laws are completely ignorant of the fact. It’s like calling mass a mere service. The proper terms are mass and liturgy. “Service” is just vague and can by apply to anything.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Uhm knowledge and proper terms are necessary! It’s the lack of education that has started all this. Most people pushing these laws are completely ignorant of the fact. It’s like calling mass a mere service. The proper terms are mass and liturgy. “Service” is just vague and can by apply to anything.

Seems like semantics, especially if you understood the person’s point. I assume you did, since you stated, ‘You own guns and yet you don’t know the proper name for what holds your ammo?’

 

[Bill_Martin]

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 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.

It is far too easy for people with criminal intent or mental issues to get their hands on a firearm that will allow them to cause great harm to a great number of people in a tiny amount of time.

Do I think that legislation will eliminate the gun problem, no. Do I think that all of the criminals will stop having guns, no. I am not naive. What I do think though is that if it is harder for criminals or the mentally ill to get guns, we will have less gun crime and save lives. To me that is a worthy goal.

The bottom line is that the status quo is not working and we have to do something. Banning guns is not the answer. But calling for limited sized clips, not having civilians armed like they are going off to fight in Afghanistan with weapons whose only purpose is killing a lot of people quickly, and mandating that if you want to own a gun, you need to pass a check to make sure you are not a criminal or mentally ill, are all reasonable measures in my opinion.

If you don’t want them, then don’t buy them. Leave the rest of us alone.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

My sheriff is an elected official whose primary job is collecting property taxes.

I’ve never heard of a sheriff in the United States that has the job of collecting property taxes. That was the original purpose of the Shire Reeve in England during the Middle Ages. In the US, the purpose of the sheriff is normally twofold: maintaining the county jail and conserving the peace in his county (enforcing the law).

 

[jc4751]

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 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.

It is far too easy for people with criminal intent or mental issues to get their hands on a firearm that will allow them to cause great harm to a great number of people in a tiny amount of time.

Do I think that legislation will eliminate the gun problem, no. Do I think that all of the criminals will stop having guns, no. I am not naive. What I do think though is that if it is harder for criminals or the mentally ill to get guns, we will have less gun crime and save lives. To me that is a worthy goal.

The bottom line is that the status quo is not working and we have to do something. Banning guns is not the answer. But calling for limited sized clips, not having civilians armed like they are going off to fight in Afghanistan with weapons whose only purpose is killing a lot of people quickly, and mandating that if you want to own a gun, you need to pass a check to make sure you are not a criminal or mentally ill, are all reasonable measures in my opinion.

If you don’t believe Obama on everything else, why agree with his position on guns? It’s like saying, “Well, I don’t really like what Al Capone says about crime and bootlegging, but when it comes to tax evasion, he’s all right with me!”

Anyway, speaking of “reasonable” – do you own a bolt action rifle that can mount a scope? Congratulations, you own a “sniper rifle.”

Do you own a handgun? They’re used in most gun homicides, so you own a weapon that criminals on the street prefer.

Do you have a shotgun? Then you have a weapon that can deliver SEVEN bullets with a single pull of the trigger (00 buckshot)

Do you just own .22’s? Well, then you have a weapon which has been used by the Mafia and various assassins.

Do you only have air rifles? Then why do you want to shoot silently? What are you trying to hide?

Do you just have knives with a point on them? These are used in stabbings!

“Reasonable” is in the eye of the beholder. I’d wager the same term was used in England before they pretty much did away with private ownership of firearms. Anyone who believes that the gun confiscation will stop short of their guns does not understand the big picture and is only selling everyone else out in order to try to save their own hide.

 

[SamH]

“Reasonable” is in the eye of the beholder. I’d wager the same term was used in England before they pretty much did away with private ownership of firearms. Anyone who believes that the gun confiscation will stop short of their guns does not understand the big picture and is only selling everyone else out in order to try to save their own hide.

First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Why do you think the liberals are always trying to be specific when they claim "we don’t want the “huntin rifles” or your “shotgun” we just want the scary pistol or assault weapon - they always forget to add “For now” at the end.

 

[Layp3rs0n]

Yay!! King Obama was told NO!!

 

[iamrefreshed]

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.

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??

 

[CatholicGeek1]

Uhm knowledge and proper terms are necessary! It’s the lack of education that has started all this. Most people pushing these laws are completely ignorant of the fact. It’s like calling mass a mere service. The proper terms are mass and liturgy. “Service” is just vague and can by apply to anything.

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.

 

[CatholicGeek1]

Seems like semantics, especially if you understood the person’s point. I assume you did, since you stated, ‘You own guns and yet you don’t know the proper name for what holds your ammo?’

 

[CatholicGeek1]

If you don’t want them, then don’t buy them. Leave the rest of us alone.

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.

 

[CatholicGeek1]

If you don’t believe Obama on everything else, why agree with his position on guns? It’s like saying, “Well, I don’t really like what Al Capone says about crime and bootlegging, but when it comes to tax evasion, he’s all right with me!”

Anyway, speaking of “reasonable” – do you own a bolt action rifle that can mount a scope? Congratulations, you own a “sniper rifle.”

Do you own a handgun? They’re used in most gun homicides, so you own a weapon that criminals on the street prefer.

Do you have a shotgun? Then you have a weapon that can deliver SEVEN bullets with a single pull of the trigger (00 buckshot)

Do you just own .22’s? Well, then you have a weapon which has been used by the Mafia and various assassins.

Do you only have air rifles? Then why do you want to shoot silently? What are you trying to hide?

Do you just have knives with a point on them? These are used in stabbings!

“Reasonable” is in the eye of the beholder. I’d wager the same term was used in England before they pretty much did away with private ownership of firearms. Anyone who believes that the gun confiscation will stop short of their guns does not understand the big picture and is only selling everyone else out in order to try to save their own hide.

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.

 

[CatholicGeek1]

First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Why do you think the liberals are always trying to be specific when they claim "we don’t want the “huntin rifles” or your “shotgun” we just want the scary pistol or assault weapon - they always forget to add “For now” at the end.

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.

 

[SamH]

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.

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.