A New Sheriff In Town Who Has Nothing Against Guns

Then clarify it for me please.

 

Actually it is not the fault of Liberals it is the fault of conservatives who refuse to allow proceedures such as universal background checks and temporarily taking weapons from people who are mentally ill or a direct threat to someone. I make no excuses for people who kill innocent people that is a misrepresentation of what almost all liberals feel and say.
We have a problem with the deaths of innocent people, but you seem to want to blame others for it and do nothing to try to help with the situation. I suggest that under your intrepretation of gun laws "Queers" loners, and the mentally ill have just as much right to carry a gun as you or I.
Yes it is people that kill people, but society is makes the tool to do so readily available.
If you wish to ignore the problem then it would be better to not try to blame others for it.

 

I'm pretty sure this was the same Sheriff that announced early in the scamdemic that he would NOT enforce any mask 'mandates'. A good man.

 

I don't care what "tool" is used to murder an innocent person. What I do care about is blaming the killer, and I want the killer severely punished. What I don't do, as most liberals do, is want to remove the "tool" from society, nor do I try to coddle the killer and make excuses for them. A perfect example is the fact so many states have eliminated the death penalty. Why?

 

Punishing him after the fact is necessary; but it doesn't change the fact that the killing(s) took place.
Perhaps some people fell that the death Penalty violates the 6th Commandment.
If we want to see how conservatines really feel about punishing killers we will watch Texas for the next few days.

 

The point being that no guns doesn't automatically ensure a loss of fundamental rights for citizenry but no guns can quite possibly cause a loss of fundamental freedoms for citizenry considering the crisis or tyrannical nature of government.

Why tempt fate with no guns? Especially when no guns doesn't prevent guns nor does no guns prevent loss of life.

 

The fact is no one is calling for no guns.

 

There are people right here on this board that do. Dianne feinstein has.

 

Many massacres have been accomplished without AR15s for example. Are you saying you don't care about prevention of massacres?

 

When these folks realize that banning automatic guns doesn't prevent massacres, they'll move to ban more conventional guns

 

No one is for massacres. But intelligent people know massacres are caused by people. It's the people we need to focus on, ie, our culture, which has changed in many ways over the years.

 

The Left wants to disarm the Right so that they can control them.

Nationwide Support For Assault Weapons Ban Slides, New Poll Finds

'Americans are less interested than ever in imposing an "assault weapons" ban.'

If the folks screaming about gun control actually cared about victims, they would support locking up and disarming illegally armed violent felons in Blue Cities that are responsible for most of the illegal gun killings in the US.

America is buying what the liars are selling.


Prepared, Capable.

 

And while Mexican citizens can own guns, there is only ONE gun store in the entire nation; run by government, in Mexico city..

They have a population of basically unarmed citizens along with a massive underworld armed to the teeth that they can't control, an underworld that has become so powerful with drug money it owns many politicians and cops, even builds it's own tanks, submarines and .50 caliber rifles.....

 

I guess that settles it, huh?. Canada and Australia don't have the diversity we have. They would have a lower gun violence rate than ours even if every person had a gun. It isn't about guns. It is about people.

 

They can own guns, but it's illegal to carry a gun outside of their home.

 

Funny how their criminal element seems to be ignore that law.... and how our anti-gun people think similar laws would regulate our criminals.

 

So you want all laws eliminated. Got it.

 

Where did they say that?

 

And yet, I would bet my last dollar that the owner of the firearms who had them in those vehicles did not report the firearms stolen. Reported the car burglarized yes, but not stolen. So again, how do you prevent someone from using or owning the firearms when they are not suppose to if you get rid of common sense laws that prevent such a thing. Again, the sheriff is talking more on politics than actual policing because we all know that most gun owners never report their firearms stolen to the police even though they are required to in some states.

 

And it gets way worse.

https://www.click2houston.com/news/...-assistant-principal-to-hospital-family-says/

 

No reason to not report the theft of an owned gun, except the hassle. And due to the various no-gun zones, too many guns must be left in cars in the first place- creating the opportunity.
By the way, if you report your gun stolen- in most places it will be considered a petty theft. That means it gets the serial number put on a list, but usually not actively investigated or pursued, and the chances you might get it back are near zero. The more likely benefit is that if you gun is used in a crime and surfaces, there is a record of it's theft and you don't wind up a suspect.

 

I did watch the video and read the article. Nowhere did the article say who the original owners of the firearms were? But the sheriff was talking out of his ass, trying the machoism in full display for some odd reason, like a bully on a playground. And they probably won't know. Care to guess why? The firearms were stolen at some point and the owner never reported them stolen. Second, once they are stolen and no one reports them, they, in turn, become community guns in the area. Third, the teens did do burglaries, but this was their first time getting caught. They were suspected in a few others after the police caught them in this burglary.

You have a 12-year-old. There is no criminal history of a 12-year-old. He is a juvenile and juvenile records are sealed to police in most cases. You have a 15 and 16-year-old, again, with no substantial past criminal record. And yet, they have access to firearms. There is no law currently on the books that prevent 100% of any teen of any race, color, creed, religion, national origin, etc, from obtaining a firearm in this country. None whatsoever. So, "following the current laws" still won't have prevented this sort of thing from happening at any one time. Those of you who think that is the case have never, ever been in law enforcement of any scale whatsoever. And the cold hard reality is this is one group of friends who killed another group of friends, allegedly over some sort of gang issue, or at least that is the theory. No matter how they obtained the firearm, the current laws on the books do not prevent this sort of thing, hence why I was asking the questions and trying to get you guys to think for once, instead of reacting that you normally do without any forethought or consequence.

 

Then it is part of the problem. Firearms can cost a pretty penny, and if you are smart, you have the firearm as part of your personal belongings with your homeowners insurance. If you report the theft, at least you might be able to get some money back from the insurance depending on what your deductible is.

But again, the same thing can be said of watches, jewelry, and other valuables, especially electronic devices if those were stolen too. But somehow, you would report that to the police if your home was burglarized when you came home from a trip, wouldn't you? Even if the firearms were stolen from a gun safe in your home.

 

Ah....the old " we all know " and " I bet "....

 

It is already illegal for teens to purchase guns.
You do not know whether the guns were reported stolen or not and you do not know the extent or lack thereof of these juveniles records.

But if I'm wrong in this information is publicly available, please feel free to point out where you got this information.