Posted on 12/03/2015 12:41:30 PM PST by BlatherNaut
Sheriff Joe Arpaio is calling on Arizona's 250,000 concealed weapons permit holders to fight terrorism in the homeland.
On Dec. 1, one day before 14 died in a San Bernadino, California massacre involving 28-year-old Syed Farook, the man known as the "toughest sheriff in America" said he could not guarantee the public's safety and said legally armed citizens should take matters into their own hands if necessary.
"I'm just talking about the areas where you have large crowds and someone pulls out the gun and starts shooting. Maybe somebody with a concealed weapon takes the guy down," the Maricopa County sheriff said. In the wake of recent terror attacks in Paris, Beirut and Mali, a CBS poll found 69 percent of Americans believe an attack by jihadists in the U.S. is likely. Arpaio also said an armed citizen could have stopped the Colorado man accused of killing three people at a Planned Parenthood facility.
"I'm concerned about what's going on. Just think about Colorado. If there was someone in there with a concealed weapon that guy would have been shot down," he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldtribune.com ...
We need more politicians like this man. Organized militia’s led by this type of man all without PC controlling membership.
I’m game.
What would it be like if all Sheriff’s were to deputize citizens. Police are allowed to carry anywhere. Eliminates the gun free zones.
We are being overrun with druggies, thugs, and terrorists. We are not controlling the border and we are bringing in questionable refugees. What other advice is a sheriff supposed to give other than be legal and be aware.
I would love to see a full blown Sheriff led rebellion against the DC corrupters when it comes to permits and their damn “gun control laws”.
I’m in
A step further: were the likes of him to issue properly-worded letters, BATFE would be obligated to approve widespread civilian purchase of new select-fire M4s via an exception to law 922(o).
(There’s hints it’s happened for the very well-connected. BATFE is adamant about not revealing more.)
Notice that Sheriff Joe did NOT say somebody with a concealed weapon PERMIT. He appears to be a Constitutionalist.
Arizona is a state which honors open or concealed carry without government permission for those who may legally possess firearms. No government permit required while in this state. Permits for concealed carry are for the purpose of lawfully carrying concealed in states which recognize our CCW permits.
Your mileage may vary.
Permits are not required to carry openly or concealed in Arizona.
No permits? Good to know.
Anyone who can not LEGALLY possess a firearm should not be running around loose.
Expanding on the comment above, I see nothing in the second amendment that excludes freed criminals or crazies from the right to self defense. Anyone who should not be armed should be locked away.
Absolutely.
And given the choice between violating the Second Amendment by banning arms or violating the First Amendment by banning the Koran, I know which I would choose.
Islam should not be recognized as a religion. It is a totalitarian socio-political system masquerading as a religion. To ban it under that definition would not be a first amendment violation.
It has to be done carefully, though, to prevent some future tyrant from trying to do the same to Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, etc.
Absolutely!
Trump said he’d work to eliminate gun free zones.
In the beginning America had zero, zilch, NO gun free zones!
When we were in Arizona, there were some sections of the state where there were signs up recommending that everyone be armed.
Today is my birthday and I gave myself Sig.380. My husband liked it so well that he bought one for himself, too. Can’t wait for tomorrow. I also bought 250 rounds of ammo and plenty of targets. :)
“Anyone who can not LEGALLY possess a firearm should not be running around loose.”
A bumper-sticker response seldom if ever addresses the multifaceted aspects of any issue. I am surprised you posted it.
Lautenberg amendment? Those convicted of misdemeanor battery lose their right to own firearms and are incarcerated for life in your view? Those convicted or admitting to misdemeanor spousal battery regardless of the true circumstances are to be incarcerated for life in your view? They are prohibited from possessing firearms by numerous state laws not to mention the federal restriction regardless of having served their sentences for misdemeanor crimes. Does a conviction for a non-violent “white collar” felony crime justify restricting firearm possession and a loss of other rights and therefore justification for life imprisonment in your view?
It’s just a matter of time before the net closes around us all and reasons are found to prohibit anyone from possessing a firearm due to commission of the new and improved infraction to justify doing so.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.