yet another twist to the story in FL

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: Wolf359
Originally Posted By: grampi
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
This is why schools need trained armed people that reside inside the school and are nearly instantly ready for action, as that is the best place to be when someone tries to enter the school and shoot it up.


And this is the ONLY thing that'll stop school shootings...more gun laws will do nothing...


I'm not sure where that conclusion comes from. Look at Australia, Europe, et cetera.




I'm not sure why people continue to compare us to other countries on this issue...it's an invalid comparison...
 
Originally Posted By: Bladecutter
I know that the vast majority of you won't agree with my opinion that I am about to share, but its my opinion, and I believe it to be the truth:

- Not everyone needs to possess a weapon capable of inflicting as much damage as an AR-15 and its ilk.
- Owning a gun should be a privilege, not a right.
- Every citizen should have the right to earn that privilege.
- It should be earned, after proving proficiency and maturity.
You know, like a drivers license.
- And when the citizen becomes a threat to the public, they should be able to lose that privilege, just like they can lose their drivers license if they violate traffic laws, or lose their freedom if they are convicted of crimes.



I don't disagree with any of this. The people I disagree with are those who want to abolish all guns, or create blanket laws that make it difficult for EVERYONE to own and/or purchase guns, and there are many who do want just that...
 
A purely hypothetical question;

If one lives in a country with easy access to firearms, does one have a obligation or duty to remain armed at all times for the purpose of defense, or 'levelling the playing field' if you want to put it that way?

A related question;

Does the availability of bullet proof clothing equal the availability of firearms?
 
The genie is already out of the bottle; there' is ZERO CHANCE that we'll ever legally get all guns off the streets. This is the reality. So the theory of a "gun free" America is silly. I don't see it ever happening. My point? Let's not talk about a wishful way of life that will never happen. Guns are America; America is guns. Rather than try to wish that undone, let's focus on what can be done.

I do recognize we have a process to achieve this, legally. It's called amending the Constitution. If enough of the public wants it, it will happen. Until then, the 2A stands. We have a "right" to firearms. I remind many that we tried this with other "rights"; the 18th and 21st Amendments. And just so we're clear, Congress does not ratify the Constitution; the States do. Despite the influx of national wants, States themselves have been more and more gun-friendly over the last two decades. Lose the 2A? Not likely. So quit daydreaming.

Want to remove guns as a right? That's your opinion; I'm OK with some having this viewpoint. Removing guns as a "right" would make my life easier as a cop, but not as a citizen.

As a cop, not only would my life be easier without the 2A, but why don't we remove the 1A, 4A and 5A while we're at it? (I'm being facetious ...)
Should we need to prove that we can earn the "privilege" of free speech, or assembly, or faith?
Should we need to apply for a permit to NOT be stopped without cause, searched at random or have our home ransacked?
Should we be compelled to speak against our own good at trial?
Should our trials be delayed, and behind closed doors, so that no public accountability exists?


Naw - I like it the way it is.

I should not lose my right to speak my mind, juts because someone else says something others find objectionable.
I should not lose my right to gather publicly in protest, just because some riot.
I should not lose my right to practice faith, just because some chose not to.
I should not lose my right to privacy, just because some harbor evil in their homes.
I should not lose my right to silence, just because some want to beat it out of me.
And I should not lose my right to self-defense via arms, just because some have murder in their head.

The government has ZERO responsibility to protect you and me; that is abundantly clear via several SCOTUS decisions. Therefore, I choose to protect myself, family and friends. What you do in your home is of no consequence to me, until you presume that your way of life should befit me. Your willingness to not exercise a right is NOT (repeat N-O-T) a good cause to remove my ability to exercise that same right. There is a BIG difference between the choice of not exercising a right, versus taking it from others. And just because some don't see value in the 2A, does not mean their opinion fits my life. We have the BoR for a reason, after all.

By the way, we do have a means of removing guns away from dangerous people; it's called Due Process. Get convicted of a felony? Lose your 2A. Get convicted of violent domestic violence? Lose your 2A. Be adjudicated of mental illness? Lose your 2A. The problem here is that Due Process only works IF IT'S FOLLOWED. Just like this thread is all about, and I've said before, the SYSTEM failed here; the Constitution didn't fail here.
FBI, BSO, resource Deputy; their failure to act is NOT cause to remove my rights.


I'll give up my guns when others agree to give up their rights of free speech, public gatherings, warrant searches, and silence at public trial.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: grampi
Originally Posted By: Wolf359
Originally Posted By: grampi
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
This is why schools need trained armed people that reside inside the school and are nearly instantly ready for action, as that is the best place to be when someone tries to enter the school and shoot it up.


And this is the ONLY thing that'll stop school shootings...more gun laws will do nothing...


I'm not sure where that conclusion comes from. Look at Australia, Europe, et cetera.




I'm not sure why people continue to compare us to other countries on this issue...it's an invalid comparison...


I'm not sure why you think I was comparing the US to other countries. I was just offering you a rebuttal on how gun laws did achieve things in other countries.

Those types of laws probably won't pass in this country though.

Probably more accurate to say more proposed gun laws will do nothing because they won't pass.

Connecticut did pass some tough gun laws after Sandy Hook, death rate went down but still haven't gone to zero.
 
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
The genie is already out of the bottle; there' is ZERO CHANCE that we'll ever legally get all guns off the streets. This is the reality. So the theory of a "gun free" America is silly. I don't see it ever happening. My point? Let's not talk about a wishful way of life that will never happen. Guns are America; America is guns. Rather than try to wish that undone, let's focus on what can be done.

I do recognize we have a process to achieve this, legally. It's called amending the Constitution. If enough of the public wants it, it will happen. Until then, the 2A stands. We have a "right" to firearms. I remind many that we tried this with other "rights"; the 18th and 21st Amendments. And just so we're clear, Congress does not ratify the Constitution; the States do. Despite the influx of national wants, States themselves have been more and more gun-friendly over the last two decades. Lose the 2A? Not likely. So quit daydreaming.

Want to remove guns as a right? That's your opinion; I'm OK with some having this viewpoint. Removing guns as a "right" would make my life easier as a cop, but not as a citizen.

As a cop, not only would my life be easier without the 2A, but why don't we remove the 1A, 4A and 5A while we're at it? (I'm being facetious ...)
Should we need to prove that we can earn the "privilege" of free speech, or assembly, or faith?
Should we need to apply for a permit to NOT be stopped without cause, searched at random or have our home ransacked?
Should we be compelled to speak against our own good at trial?
Should our trials be delayed, and behind closed doors, so that no public accountability exists?


Naw - I like it the way it is.

I should not lose my right to speak my mind, juts because someone else says something others find objectionable.
I should not lose my right to gather publicly in protest, just because some riot.
I should not lose my right to practice faith, just because some chose not to.
I should not lose my right to privacy, just because some harbor evil in their homes.
I should not lose my right to silence, just because some want to beat it out of me.
And I should not lose my right to self-defense via arms, just because some have murder in their head.

The government has ZERO responsibility to protect you and me; that is abundantly clear via several SCOTUS decisions. Therefore, I choose to protect myself, family and friends. What you do in your home is of no consequence to me, until you presume that your way of life should befit me. Your willingness to not exercise a right is NOT (repeat N-O-T) a good cause to remove my ability to exercise that same right. There is a BIG difference between the choice of not exercising a right, versus taking it from others. And just because some don't see value in the 2A, does not mean their opinion fits my life. We have the BoR for a reason, after all.

By the way, we do have a means of removing guns away from dangerous people; it's called Due Process. Get convicted of a felony? Lose your 2A. Get convicted of violent domestic violence? Lose your 2A. Be adjudicated of mental illness? Lose your 2A. The problem here is that Due Process only works IF IT'S FOLLOWED. Just like this thread is all about, and I've said before, the SYSTEM failed here; the Constitution didn't fail here.
FBI, BSO, resource Deputy; their failure to act is NOT cause to remove my rights.


I'll give up my guns when others agree to give up their rights of free speech, public gatherings, warrant searches, and silence at public trial.




Best post in the thread!
 
Originally Posted By: Wolf359
I'm not sure why you think I was comparing the US to other countries. I was just offering you a rebuttal on how gun laws did achieve things in other countries.

Those types of laws probably won't pass in this country though.

Probably more accurate to say more proposed gun laws will do nothing because they won't pass.

Connecticut did pass some tough gun laws after Sandy Hook, death rate went down but still haven't gone to zero.


What gun law(s) would stop these killings?
 
Originally Posted By: Wolf359


I'm not sure why you think I was comparing the US to other countries. I was just offering you a rebuttal on how gun laws did achieve things in other countries.

Those types of laws probably won't pass in this country though.

Probably more accurate to say more proposed gun laws will do nothing because they won't pass.

Connecticut did pass some tough gun laws after Sandy Hook, death rate went down but still haven't gone to zero.


Connecticut (where I was born and where my brother lives now) passed some tough gun laws, instantly turning firearm owners into felons if they didn't register their magazines and firearms. They sent threatening letters to suspected gun owners.

And the death rate went down.

Other states did nothing.

And the death rate went down equally.

So... what did Connecticut accomplish? The only actual accomplishment was to vilify and threaten gun owners.

Do you honestly believe that one criminal registered their gun? Or magazines?

The only people who responded to the state's threats were law-abiding gun owners like my brother.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: bigj_16
There are a lot of younger people, below 30-ish, that do not believe in the right to free speech.


And I’m not listening to them when they don’t listen to me. And not listening to them when being used as pawns by agenda driven old people. The American news cycle is 24 hours of embarrassment when I travel abroad and hear the fabrications repeated like it is real …
 
Originally Posted By: Bladecutter

- Not everyone needs to possess a weapon capable of inflicting as much damage as an AR-15 and its ilk.

You do realize that the lowly Ruger 10-22 has been around since the 60's and is a semi auomatic like an AR?
You obviously have zero gun knowledge. Not slamming you. Just trying to educate.

1920px-Ruger-1022.jpg

The ArmaLite Rifle) doesn't stand for Assault Rile.

Did you know that any shotgun (holds 5 rounds) loaded with #1 Buck could do more damage than an AR 15.

Any one reasonably skilled in Pistols could bring in a 9mm and get off hundreds of shots in a minute.

Please educate yourself.

The only thing you said is correct is not "everyone" needs.... for instance: you
 
Last edited:
Seems reasonable. Certainly in the ball park. Probably the figure for today with so much more tech. I suspect back in WW2 it was closer to 3 for every 1. In the Army, Combat Arms were Infantry, Artillery, Armor and Air Defense Artillery and Aviation, IIRC. Seems like it's been 100 years since I got out, so my knowledge could be a bit rusty.

But think of it, you had what I was, Signal, you had the Ordnance units responsible for maintenance. You had Personnel, Intelligence, Military Police, Medical, Logistics, JAG,
Transportation, Food Service and that's just what I can think of off the top of my head.

A division has a long tail behind it when it goes into battle.


Originally Posted By: Mr Nice
Java,

Ive heard it takes around 7 soldiers in various support roles to have 1 soldier in combat actually doing the shooting.

Is that an approximate ratio of non combat / combat roles ?
 
Originally Posted By: 4WD
Originally Posted By: bigj_16
There are a lot of younger people, below 30-ish, that do not believe in the right to free speech.


And I’m not listening to them when they don’t listen to me. And not listening to them when being used as pawns by agenda driven old people. The American news cycle is 24 hours of embarrassment when I travel abroad and hear the fabrications repeated like it is real …

That isn't the point I was making.
We have a generation growing up here that a large percentage of don't agree with some aspects of the Constitution. Particularly the bedrock Amendments.
 
Originally Posted By: bigj_16
Originally Posted By: 4WD
Originally Posted By: bigj_16
There are a lot of younger people, below 30-ish, that do not believe in the right to free speech.


And I’m not listening to them when they don’t listen to me. And not listening to them when being used as pawns by agenda driven old people. The American news cycle is 24 hours of embarrassment when I travel abroad and hear the fabrications repeated like it is real …

That isn't the point I was making.
We have a generation growing up here that a large percentage of don't agree with some aspects of the Constitution. Particularly the bedrock Amendments.


They don't have to agree with it, they just have to abide by it...if they can't do that, then they should move to another country...
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Reddy45
Those of you who live in South FL - What was your perception of the Broward County Sheriffs prior to this incident?


The Sheriff's departments down here are generally excellent.

However, the FBI seems to have not done their job. Here is a transcript of just one of the phone calls they received on this guy: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/FBI-transcript-02-23-2018.pdf

My thoughts on the matter:


Bad things happen in isolated instances in a civilized armed populace. Horrific things happen to a disarmed populace.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: bigj_16
Originally Posted By: 4WD
Originally Posted By: bigj_16
There are a lot of younger people, below 30-ish, that do not believe in the right to free speech.


And I’m not listening to them when they don’t listen to me. And not listening to them when being used as pawns by agenda driven old people. The American news cycle is 24 hours of embarrassment when I travel abroad and hear the fabrications repeated like it is real …

That isn't the point I was making.
We have a generation growing up here that a large percentage of don't agree with some aspects of the Constitution. Particularly the bedrock Amendments.


It’s the same point to me … they are inexperienced people being indoctrinated to go against the constitution …
They’re programmed to “discredit” those with another point of view armed with prescription narratives …
They make a mockery of the “right to assemble” by shutting down others rights … then spinning the blame …
And of course some are paid or expenses paid … folks sure did not have that kind of disposable cash when I was a student …
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Connecticut (where I was born and where my brother lives now) passed some tough gun laws, instantly turning firearm owners into felons if they didn't register their magazines and firearms. They sent threatening letters to suspected gun owners.

And the death rate went down.

Other states did nothing.

And the death rate went down equally.

So... what did Connecticut accomplish? The only actual accomplishment was to vilify and threaten gun owners.

Do you honestly believe that one criminal registered their gun? Or magazines?

The only people who responded to the state's threats were law-abiding gun owners like my brother.


Which states are you referring to? Different states have different death rates. Some are 3-5 times higher than Connecticut.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_death_rates_in_the_United_States_by_state
 
Originally Posted By: Wolf359
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Connecticut (where I was born and where my brother lives now) passed some tough gun laws, instantly turning firearm owners into felons if they didn't register their magazines and firearms. They sent threatening letters to suspected gun owners.

And the death rate went down.

Other states did nothing.

And the death rate went down equally.

So... what did Connecticut accomplish? The only actual accomplishment was to vilify and threaten gun owners.

Do you honestly believe that one criminal registered their gun? Or magazines?

The only people who responded to the state's threats were law-abiding gun owners like my brother.


Which states are you referring to? Different states have different death rates. Some are 3-5 times higher than Connecticut.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_death_rates_in_the_United_States_by_state


Those are a static look.

You said , “death rates went down”.

And they did. They went down across the country when the “Assault Weapons Ban” was enacted.

They went down when it was repealed.

They went down in states that imposed new laws.

They went down in states that didn’t.

They went down after states enabled easier concealed carry.

They went down in Virginia when Virginia repealed the “one gun a month” law.

That’s the point: no correlation between new laws and public safety.

Except to feel good because “we had to do something!”
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top