Florida Gov. Rick Scott signs gun bill

[JonNC]

In other words, you don’t know. Okay - not a problem.

If you click on the link, it shows you, and it includes a bunch of semiautomatics. By your standard,

Nevertheless, you shouldn’t need a weapon that is more lethal than what the police carry.

Actually, the standard should be I might not need a weapon more lethal than criminals have illegal access to. So,target the illegal guns and the criminals, then come talk to me about what I might need or not need.

 

[JonNC]

The erosion of rights occurs when rights are detached from the common good. The welfare of the State. When individual rights take precedence over the rights of the innocent whole… we are nothing but a survival of the fittest culture.

A remarkable lack of understanding of rights. Rights erode only under the weight of growing power of the state.
Rights never give someone the power over others. So, again, the cause and effect is faulty. By definition, individual rights are never contrary to the common good. I fact, the common good is only augmented by a strong cultural dedication to the preservation of individual rights. Increased government power is far more likely to hurt the common good.

But your post, again, does point out the difference between conservatives and progressives. Boiled down, conservatives value the rights of the individual, while progressives value the power of the state. The 2nd amendment is only a skirmish in that philosophical debate.

 

[Luke6_37]

The question I asked was…

What are the standard issue weapons carried by police officers where you live?

The standard issue weapon for a police officer where I live is a semi-automatic handgun that can hold about 15 bullets. It can definitely kill a lot of people, but not scores of them without reloading.

I found that out by reading this article about the guns that cops in the 10 biggest police departments in the United States carry. It’s from a gun magazine, so posting it is like posting statistics from the Guttmacher institute. Accurate, but tainted by the culture of death.

https://www.tactical-life.com/firearms/big-10-protection-duty-guns-americas-largest-police-departments/

In addition, because of their lower velocity, bullets shot from a typical handgun give the victim a dramatically greater chance of survival than those shot from a higher velocity AR-15 style rifle.

This article is a must read for anyone who cares to understand the damage inflicted upon the human body by a bullet from a high velocity AR-15 style assault rifle in comparison to a semi-automatic handgun.

The AR-15 Is Different: What I Learned Treating Parkland Victims - The Atlantic

 

[Luke6_37]

Lev:

The erosion of rights occurs when rights are detached from the common good. The welfare of the State. When individual rights take precedence over the rights of the innocent whole… we are nothing but a survival of the fittest culture.

A remarkable lack of understanding of rights. Rights erode only under the weight of growing power of the state.
Rights never give someone the power over others. So, again, the cause and effect is faulty. By definition, individual rights are never contrary to the common good. I fact, the common good is only augmented by a strong cultural dedication to the preservation of individual rights. Increased government power is far more likely to hurt the common good.

But your post, again, does point out the difference between conservatives and progressives. Boiled down, conservatives value the rights of the individual, while progressives value the power of the state. The 2nd amendment is only a skirmish in that philosophical debate.

Given this is a Catholic forum, one would think you’d consider what Catholics might value - like obeying Jesus and believing in the Gospel.

 

[Lev]

Lev:

The erosion of rights occurs when rights are detached from the common good. The welfare of the State. When individual rights take precedence over the rights of the innocent whole… we are nothing but a survival of the fittest culture.

A remarkable lack of understanding of rights. Rights erode only under the weight of growing power of the state.
Rights never give someone the power over others. So, again, the cause and effect is faulty. By definition, individual rights are never contrary to the common good. I fact, the common good is only augmented by a strong cultural dedication to the preservation of individual rights. Increased government power is far more likely to hurt the common good.

But your post, again, does point out the difference between conservatives and progressives. Boiled down, conservatives value the rights of the individual, while progressives value the power of the state. The 2nd amendment is only a skirmish in that philosophical debate.

This conservative law abiding gun owner demonstrates the true dichotomy. It isn’t conservative vs progressive at all. It is pro-life vs pro-choice.

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1993509594242800&id=100007513365065

 

[Cathoholic]

Luke6_37:

.

My definition of an assault weapon is any weapon that is designed to kill scores of people in a few minutes in the hands of an untrained novice.

.

What if somebody else’s definition is different?

WHO gets to IMPOSE their will and THEIR definition upon the law-abiding citizens?

Why do you think the definition should center around YOU and what YOU think?

 

[Cathoholic]

exnihilo:

This is disappointing. Florida has had decent gun laws for a long time like most southern states. This probably reflects more the influence of Northerners and other immigrants to the state who like all powerful government, but feel compelled to move away from its implementation as it crushes life.

.

I was just talking with someone the other day who said the same thing.

People we know from New Hampshire have told us many from Massachusetts have moved there to escape the suffocating liberal climate from Massachusetts.

They move to New Hampshire and bring their liberal politics with them (not understanding that their liberal politics are a big part of the reason for them leaving in the first place).

Perhaps the same is going on in Florida?

 

[Luke6_37]

Luke6_37:

.

My definition of an assault weapon is any weapon that is designed to kill scores of people in a few minutes in the hands of an untrained novice.

Because I’m right.

 

[Luke6_37]

exnihilo:

This is disappointing. Florida has had decent gun laws for a long time like most southern states. This probably reflects more the influence of Northerners and other immigrants to the state who like all powerful government, but feel compelled to move away from its implementation as it crushes life.

I know many New Hampshire residents who work in Massachusetts in order to to take advantage of its superior health care system and economic opportunities. They are like greedy carpetbaggers who don’t want to support the system, but will do whatever they can to take advantage of it.

 

[Cathoholic]

Luke6_37:

My definition of an assault weapon is any weapon that is designed to kill scores of people in a few minutes in the hands of an untrained novice.

.

Cathoholic to Luke6_37:

What if somebody else’s definition is different?
.
WHO gets to IMPOSE their will and THEIR definition upon the law-abiding citizens?
.
Why do you think the definition should center around YOU and what YOU think?

.

Luke6_37:

Because I’m right.

.

To the people of this thread.

There you have it.

 

[Cathoholic]

Lev:

This conservative law abiding gun owner demonstrates the true dichotomy. It isn’t conservative vs progressive at all. It is pro-life vs pro-choice.

.

Then why don’t you just believe him when he said “this is not for everybody” and “this is not going to solve gun violence”?

And if it is not “pro-life” WHY aren’t you opposing these types of guns for the police and military? Don’t you want them to be “pro-life” too? Why the “selective” . . . “pro-life” label?

The whole point was “this gun” (he said) is not going to be used in such an aggressive fashion.

But he forgot that now “this gun” will never be used to defend someone either.

Defend people like this good guy with an AR-15 used against the bad guy . . . .

In Texas, a good guy with a gun took on a bad guy with a gun, feeding both sides of the gun control debate

The killer wore a bulletproof vest and a mask with a white skull on it. Devin P.

www.latimes.com

(Just ignore the patently false line of . . . . “Gun control opponents have long said an armed citizenry can help stop massacres. In this case, possibly for the first time, that’s partly what happened.”

This bogus assertion wasn’t in the story and I am not sure why someone at the LA Times added it to the link byline.

There are defensive gun uses that occur all the time.)

 

[JonNC]

The standard issue weapon for a police officer where I live is a semi-automatic handgun that can hold about 15 bullets. It can definitely kill a lot of people, but not scores of them without reloading.

I found that out by reading this article about the guns that cops in the 10 biggest police departments in the United States carry. It’s from a gun magazine, so posting it is like posting statistics from the Guttmacher institute. Accurate, but tainted by the culture of death.

Well first, you are attacking the source and not the information, but that’s to be expected, I guess.
The article proves that your assertion, faulty though it is in the first place since it is not the standard of the 2nd amendment, would allow for up to and including the Colt mentioned unless you want to change the parameters, which of course you do.

This article is a must read for anyone who cares to understand the damage inflicted upon the human body by a bullet from a high velocity AR-15 style assault rifle in comparison to a semi-automatic handgun.

Indeed, and that is why 99.9999% of all AR-15 rifles have not been used to kill someone, since the owners are acting responsibly.

 

[JonNC]

Luke6_37:

Because I’m right.

.

To the people of this thread.

There you have it.

It sounds almost like an authoritarian mindset to me.

 

[pnewton]

I would hope that all of those who talk about how much firepower they need to defend their home from super villains also have taken the more sensible precaution of a state-or-the-art alarm system in their preparation for the criminal invasion.

 

[MonteRCMS]

Give this is a Catholic forum, one would think you’d consider what Catholics might value - like obeying Jesus and believing in the Gospel.

Jesus said “Buy a sword.”

 

[dvdjs]

Jesus said “Buy a sword.”

Sure, if your aim is to fulfill prophecy about being numbered among the transgressors.
If, on the contrary, your plan is to use it as a weapon, see Luke 23:47 ff

 

[pnewton]

Luke6_37:

Give this is a Catholic forum, one would think you’d consider what Catholics might value - like obeying Jesus and believing in the Gospel.

Jesus said “Buy a sword.”

LOL. He also said “topknot, come down.” Context is important.

 

[Cathoholic]

pnewton

I would hope that all of those who talk about how much firepower they need to defend their home from super villains . . .

If you REALLY think this pnewton, you are missing the point.

The point is . . . . WHO gets to decide for law-abiding citizens?

Themselves?

Or Government?

You KNOW these amounts of “firepower” are reasonable.

If they were NOT “reasonable” the police wouldn’t utilize it.

(And a citizen done-in by a bad guy, is just as “done-in” as a police officer “done-in” by a bad guy. And the citizen and the police BOTH have the right to NOT be defenselessly “done-in”).

But if someone wants the freedom of NO firearms I am OK with that.

If another person thinks she needs a pistol SOON because she is threatened by her “ex” and there is not a good reason to deny her and “infringe” upon her (like “arbitrary” waiting periods are not even close), then that is HER call.

If someone else thinks THEY want MORE, it is THEIR decision pnewton. Not pnewton’s decision, not Cathoholic’s decision, and not the Government’s decision.

As long as they are not harming people with it, they are entitled to their FREEDOM to make those decisions for themselves, “unmolested” by Government “infringements” that DISOBEY the law (by disobeying the Constitution)!

 

[JonNC]

This conservative law abiding gun owner demonstrates the true dichotomy. It isn’t conservative vs progressive at all. It is pro-life vs pro-choice.

That’s fine. I’ve always said that the right does not exclude the choice not to own one. The true dichotomy here is between this guy who made a choice, and those who want to use the power of government to force their choice on others. His was acting on individual rights, the other being an authoritarian use of government power

 

[Lev]

Lev:

This conservative law abiding gun owner demonstrates the true dichotomy. It isn’t conservative vs progressive at all. It is pro-life vs pro-choice.

That’s fine. I’ve always said that the right does not exclude the choice not to own one. The true dichotomy here is between this guy who made a choice, and those who want to use the power of government to force their choice on others. His was acting on individual rights, the other being an authoritarian use of government power

If government has no authority to act for the rights of the innocent and weak, we are effectively given over to anarchy. That fact that the NRA has so much power and influence in Congress, refusing to allow conscience and humanity a voice in gun policy, proves how organised anarchy is the norm when the authority of the government is limited enough.