Brevard County (FLA.) Sherriff calls for citizens to arm themselves....

[canoeguy]

Saw a news article where the Sherriff of Brevard County Florida calls for citizens to arm themselves in the wake of workplace shootings, nightclub shootings, etc. in Florida.

'This is war': Florida sheriff urges citizens to arm themselves in case of attack | Fox News

What I got the most out of in his statement was "If you have a concealed carry permit, carry your handgun with you all the time. It is of little use to you at home or in your car".

A refreshing take on citizens use of firearms for self defense. I'm sure that senior law enforcement officials in other states such as California and New York have a different take on this issue.

[American1776]

More than 30 years ago, Israel figured out how best to respond to random Jihad terror acts: arm the citizenry. Roughly 10 percent of the Israeli general public (most of whom are also citizen's who have served in the IDF) is authorized to carry in public. That's about the same as a typical shall issue USA state.

There are accounts of terrorists who were being carted off in an ambulance, who were absolutely indignant that they were shot down by armed Israeli women shopping in the mall that they tried to attack.

England and the rest of Europe can either learn to adapt, or perish in their misguided self righteousness.

[Arik]

People keep using Israel and Switzerland​ as examples. Neither are that good. Half of applicants in Israel are rejected. Only certain towns allow conceal carry (Golan and West Bank) the rest don't. Switzerland is pretty bad about it too, if not worse.

The two best countries in Europe are Czech Republic and Estonia. Both allow purchase and shall issue concealed carry permits. Only difference is Estonia does not allow a semi auto to be carried with a chambered round

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

[filipows]

He mentions this video in his message.

YouTube

Probably not news to those on the list, but would be good to share with the general public.

Originally Posted by canoeguy

Saw a news article where the Sherriff of Brevard County Florida calls for citizens to arm themselves in the wake of workplace shootings, nightclub shootings, etc. in Florida.

'This is war': Florida sheriff urges citizens to arm themselves in case of attack | Fox News

What I got the most out of in his statement was "If you have a concealed carry permit, carry your handgun with you all the time. It is of little use to you at home or in your car".

A refreshing take on citizens use of firearms for self defense. I'm sure that senior law enforcement officials in other states such as California and New York have a different take on this issue.

[Jack Flash]

Really, this is just common sense. Unfortunately, these days nothing is so uncommon as common sense.

[Watchdog]

I think (that means this is my opinion) Wayne Ivey's a publicity hound, pure and simple. He has to get his name in the papers every now and then to remind folks to keep putting him back in office.

An armed citizen is no defense against someone intent on ramming a vehicle into a crowd of people, nor is an armed citizen going to stop a bomb from detonating at a parade or in a shopping mall. And that will happen again in America, mark my words, so when it does, we can all ask Sheriff Ivey what we shoulda done to prevent it. Maybe he'll have some more helpful hints. I wonder if the name Tim McVeigh rings any bells with ol' Wayne? Or Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and Tamerlan Tsarnaev?

Any intelligent citizen who has a license to carry a concealed handgun, or has the right to constitutionally carry one, doesn't need a sheriff to remind them to carry every day. Or at least I don't.

[Triggernosis]

Originally Posted by Watchdog

I think (that means this is my opinion) Wayne Ivey's a publicity hound, pure and simple. He has to get his name in the papers every now and then to remind folks to keep putting him back in office.

An armed citizen is no defense against someone intent on ramming a vehicle into a crowd of people, nor is an armed citizen going to stop a bomb from detonating at a parade or in a shopping mall. And that will happen again in America, mark my words, so when it does, we can all ask Sheriff Ivey what we shoulda done to prevent it. Maybe he'll have some more helpful hints. I wonder if the name Tim McVeigh rings any bells with ol' Wayne? Or Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and Tamerlan Tsarnaev?

Any intelligent citizen who has a license to carry a concealed handgun, or has the right to constitutionally carry one, doesn't need a sheriff to remind them to carry every day. Or at least I don't.

It may not stop a vehicle from running over people, or prevent a bomb in a crowd of people, but it will damn sure likely put a stop to some of the workplace attacks, theater attacks, etc.

[Mistered]

An armed citizen is no defense against someone intent on ramming a vehicle into a crowd of people, nor is an armed citizen going to stop a bomb from detonating at a parade or in a shopping mall.

Yea - I wonder if the anti's or dems ever figured on this - I would like to hear a 'typical' anti or dem comment about the vehicle or bomb issue - considering vehicles are LEGAL for nearly everyone and bombs are ILLEGAL for everyone.

[flintsghost]

One thing to keep in mind is that if you are carrying concealed and you are in a place where alcohol may be sold/consumed, you need to not indulge as carrying while you are consuming alcohol is illegal in many states. Check local state laws to see if your state is one of them. Colorado certainly is.

[BC38]

Originally Posted by Watchdog

I think (that means this is my opinion) Wayne Ivey's a publicity hound, pure and simple. He has to get his name in the papers every now and then to remind folks to keep putting him back in office.

An armed citizen is no defense against someone intent on ramming a vehicle into a crowd of people, nor is an armed citizen going to stop a bomb from detonating at a parade or in a shopping mall. And that will happen again in America, mark my words, so when it does, we can all ask Sheriff Ivey what we shoulda done to prevent it. Maybe he'll have some more helpful hints. I wonder if the name Tim McVeigh rings any bells with ol' Wayne? Or Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and Tamerlan Tsarnaev?

Any intelligent citizen who has a license to carry a concealed handgun, or has the right to constitutionally carry one, doesn't need a sheriff to remind them to carry every day. Or at least I don't.

Just curious, but why on EARTH would anyone on this forum want to run down one of the minute minority of public officials who is willing to be outspokenly on our side in the 2a and concealed carry debate?

Personally I feel that it takes some moxie for him to take such a vocal stand against the politically correct who refuse to call a terrorist a terrorist.

If it helps him in his efforts at re-election, is that somehow a bad thing? As long as he's not just paying lip service to the constitution, then his re-election seems like a good thing to me.

What am I missing here?

[vortex360]

Originally Posted by BC38

What am I missing here?

Pistols rock!

[tlawler]

Originally Posted by BC38

If it helps him in his efforts at re-election, is that somehow a bad thing? As long as he's not just paying lip service to the constitution, then his re-election seems like a good thing to me.

Much better him getting re-elected than some Lib-tard Dem getting in there. Sure he's just reiterating what we all know to be true, but it's good for the non-gun savvy general public to hear coming from an elected Sheriff.
As for bombings: yeah there's not much we can do about that, except stay alert. Remember Richard Jewel saving all those people in Atlanta when he saw something suspicious?
I think we have some defense against a vehicle being used as a weapon. An armed citizen may not be able to prevent it, but one should be able to end it with less loss of life than otherwise not being there.
But bombings and vehicle mayhem, for now, are a small percentage of terror attacks, though I think we will see an increase in those as time goes on.
I saw a video from the Yankee Marshal that made a good point. He postulated that the reason there are way more bombings in Euroland is because bombs are easier to make than guns are to get. I agree with his thought that I would rather find myself facing an active shooter situation than be a bomb victim. At least you (and family) stand a chance being armed facing a gunman as opposed to being blown up by a bomb.

To paraphrase the good Sheriff: 1. Stay alert 2. Be armed

[wingriderz]

I spent 48 years in Brevard I saw this on a facebook link . Brevard has a mix of pro 2nd and in the last say 20 years a ton of snowflakes. Brevard had declined in last 10 years. due to space program . Its very hard to make a liveing there if you are not in white collar or health care. But I am with this sheriff 110 %.

[KSDeputy]

The sheriff is correct. I admire him for telling the truth, we are at war. We can only do our best, of course being armed won't stop certain terrorist incidents. Nothing in this world is perfect.

[Targets Guy]

something along the line of "arm yourself stupid cause they intend to do you bodily harm"

but for some reason it seems the more popular reaction to armed villains attacking us is

1. run and scream and video the attack to facebook
2. sit and scream
3. call 911 and then scream
4. cry into the camera when being asked by an idiot reporter "how did you feel?"
5. complain about the inability of the police to protect you

and on and on and on

[Professor Frink]

Quite a bit different from the British policy of "Run, Hide, Tell".

So glad God blessed me to be born in the USA.

[CH4]

Originally Posted by Mistered

Yea - I wonder if the anti's or dems ever figured on this - I would like to hear a 'typical' anti or dem comment about the vehicle or bomb issue - considering vehicles are LEGAL for nearly everyone and bombs are ILLEGAL for everyone.

Yep, nothing stopping violent felons, illegal aliens, unlicensed drivers or those convicted of DUI(s) from purchasing a vehicle. The only argument antis have is that cars have greater utility; moreover, they refuse to discuss trying to control any of the infinite inanimate objects that often serve as deadly weapons.

[italiansport]

Originally Posted by tlawler

Much better him getting re-elected than some Lib-tard Dem getting in there. Sure he's just reiterating what we all know to be true, but it's good for the non-gun savvy general public to hear coming from an elected Sheriff.
As for bombings: yeah there's not much we can do about that, except stay alert. Remember Richard Jewel saving all those people in Atlanta when he saw something suspicious?
I think we have some defense against a vehicle being used as a weapon. An armed citizen may not be able to prevent it, but one should be able to end it with less loss of life than otherwise not being there.
But bombings and vehicle mayhem, for now, are a small percentage of terror attacks, though I think we will see an increase in those as time goes on.
I saw a video from the Yankee Marshal that made a good point. He postulated that the reason there are way more bombings in Euroland is because bombs are easier to make than guns are to get. I agree with his thought that I would rather find myself facing an active shooter situation than be a bomb victim. At least you (and family) stand a chance being armed facing a gunman as opposed to being blown up by a bomb.

To paraphrase the good Sheriff: 1. Stay alert 2. Be armed

George Soros spent millions here in Arizona to get our Sheriff Arpaio defeated in the last election. We will pay the price for this travesty for years. He was a strong advocate of firearms ownership and when I did a Cl III transfer I got a thank you letter from his office!
Why ANYONE would put down an officer of the law from reminding people that they're better off armed is beyond me.
IMO: Having a firearm is NOT the solution to all acts of violence but it beats the hell of whatever is in second place!
Jim

[Watchdog]

Originally Posted by BC38

Just curious, but why on EARTH would anyone on this forum want to run down one of the minute minority of public officials who is willing to be outspokenly on our side in the 2a and concealed carry debate?

Oh, I get it. Because I'm a member of this forum, I should just blindly agree with what's said by a Florida sheriff I've never even heard of? That's not gonna happen.

Originally Posted by BC38

What am I missing here?

I don't know the answer to that question.

[mauser9]

Gee haven't heard of any law enforcement official suggesting this in Ma. or New York!! LOL

[AimHigher]

Originally Posted by BC38

Just curious, but why on EARTH would anyone on this forum want to run down one of the minute minority of public officials who is willing to be outspokenly on our side in the 2a and concealed carry debate?

Personally I feel that it takes some moxie for him to take such a vocal stand against the politically correct who refuse to call a terrorist a terrorist.

If it helps him in his efforts at re-election, is that somehow a bad thing? As long as he's not just paying lip service to the constitution, then his re-election seems like a good thing to me.

What am I missing here?

Well, I am generally in support of his comments, however, he is also charging citizens $70 bucks to attend his mostly sold-out personal security and firearms training classes - being conducted by members of his department at department facilities. So, it could be argued that he is running a for profit business and using his office to promote the business? I don't know where the proceeds of the training classes are being directed. If he is donating proceeds to a charitable cause, then great! But, who is covering the potential liability for the public firearms shooting portion of the classes? This is a very interesting scenario that is unfolding here. Will other agencies follow suit? I can almost foresee a trend developing that will see sheriffs and police chiefs across the country, opening their facilities to the public for purposes of security and firearms training.

If this occurs, this could eventually open the potential of sheriffs grant "special deputy" status for citizens who have completed the a specific block of training - plus an added fee for the credential? Who Knows where this might lead??? Think about a medium-size county where there are 2,000+ armed and trained "Special Deputies" going about their private affairs throughout the county on a daily basis.

We live in interesting times!

[Jessie]

Originally Posted by Watchdog

I think (that means this is my opinion) Wayne Ivey's a publicity hound, pure and simple. He has to get his name in the papers every now and then to remind folks to keep putting him back in office.

An armed citizen is no defense against someone intent on ramming a vehicle into a crowd of people, nor is an armed citizen going to stop a bomb from detonating at a parade or in a shopping mall. And that will happen again in America, mark my words, so when it does, we can all ask Sheriff Ivey what we shoulda done to prevent it. Maybe he'll have some more helpful hints. I wonder if the name Tim McVeigh rings any bells with ol' Wayne? Or Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and Tamerlan Tsarnaev?

Any intelligent citizen who has a license to carry a concealed handgun, or has the right to constitutionally carry one, doesn't need a sheriff to remind them to carry every day. Or at least I don't.

What do you want him to say? "Don't worry about things, leave your guns at home, there's nothing you can do to help"?
I don't understand your take on this.
Nobobody needs him to say this, but I'm glad he is.

[BC38]

Originally Posted by Watchdog

Oh, I get it. Because I'm a member of this forum, I should just blindly agree with what's said by a Florida sheriff I've never even heard of? That's not gonna happen.

OK, so you admit to knowing absolutely nothing about him, except that he made statements that support and even encourage citizens to exercise their constitutional rights.

Basically he stated the old adage that "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun (or more specifically a bad guy bent on terrorism) is a good guy with a gun" - and therefore that those licensed to carry should do so whenever they can.

Your response to this was to post negative comments about him questioning his motives and assuming the worst about him. NICE! Way to show support for that rare public official who is standing up and publicly taking a stance that pretty much ANY pro-second amendment advocate would agree with and support.

From that are we then to conclude that your whole point was just to be negative and contrary? I guess that must be what I missed....

As others have stated, we gun enthusiasts may not need his admonitions or encouragement, but there are a lot of folks on the fence - maybe even in this very forum - who might benefit from his advice. At least as long as some negative Nancy doesn't cause them to dismiss what the Sheriff said out of hand - because he is either wrong, or full of "it", or just a self-serving blowhard.

[BC38]

Originally Posted by Jessie

What do you want him to say? "Don't worry about things, leave your guns at home, there's nothing you can do to help"?
I don't understand your take on this.

EXACTLY my point...

[tlawler]

Originally Posted by Professor Frink

So glad God blessed me to be born in the USA.

Amen to that brother!

[Jessie]

Originally Posted by AimHigher

Well, I am generally in support of his comments, however, he is also charging citizens $70 bucks to attend his mostly sold-out personal security and firearms training classes - being conducted by members of his department at department facilities. So, it could be argued that he is running a for profit business and using his office to promote the business? I don't know where the proceeds of the training classes are being directed. If he is donating proceeds to a charitable cause, then great! But, who is covering the potential liability for the public firearms shooting portion of the classes? This is a very interesting scenario that is unfolding here. Will other agencies follow suit? I can almost foresee a trend developing that will see sheriffs and police chiefs across the country, opening their facilities to the public for purposes of security and firearms training.

If this occurs, this could eventually open the potential of sheriffs grant "special deputy" status for citizens who have completed the a specific block of training - plus an added fee for the credential? Who Knows where this might lead??? Think about a medium-size county where there are 2,000+ armed and trained "Special Deputies" going about their private affairs throughout the county on a daily basis.

We live in interesting times!

It almost sounds like a win- win situation. As long as funds are accounted for in a proper manner.

[Drm50]

We need more people like this Sherriff in our country. Anyone who is sticking up for the 2nd adm should be supported by all law
abiding citizens. Making negative statements about a person who
you don't know is stupid and unproductive. This is what comes
with the Internet. Little sour people that wouldn't dare pop off in
public can sit home in their parents basement and take shots at
anyone or anything they please. They wouldn't do such out in
world or they would get their beak bent.

[MJB]

That's my sheriff. Bless his heart.

[sbowenjr]

In the world were our media is so anti gun , I find it encouraging that law enforcement is advocating for concealed weapons carriers to carry. Weither it be for a personal agenda or not. We should all carry and hope and pray we never need to use our weapons. But any time I see a government / law enforcement official promote safety awareness and prepardness as well as carrying . Recognizing that our protection is up to us, ill applaud it and promote it because it is the truth.

[adwjc]

Originally Posted by mauser9

Gee haven't heard of any law enforcement official suggesting this in Ma. or New York!! LOL

Then you have been hiding under a rock! This POV was publicized by one of the sheriffs in the upstate / upper Hudson Valley area last year.

Can't speak for MA.

[adwjc]

Originally Posted by Watchdog

I think (that means this is my opinion) Wayne Ivey's a publicity hound, pure and simple. He has to get his name in the papers every now and then to remind folks to keep putting him back in office.

An armed citizen is no defense against someone intent on ramming a vehicle into a crowd of people, nor is an armed citizen going to stop a bomb from detonating at a parade or in a shopping mall. And that will happen again in America, mark my words, so when it does, we can all ask Sheriff Ivey what we shoulda done to prevent it. Maybe he'll have some more helpful hints. I wonder if the name Tim McVeigh rings any bells with ol' Wayne? Or Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and Tamerlan Tsarnaev?

Any intelligent citizen who has a license to carry a concealed handgun, or has the right to constitutionally carry one, doesn't need a sheriff to remind them to carry every day. Or at least I don't.

Hmmm, may not help with the bomb scenarios, but sure would have been helpful when those three terrorists ran all those people down and then attacked survivors with 12" knives. Rather have a firearm than throwing glasses or chairs at them.

[pharmer]

Originally Posted by Watchdog

I think (that means this is my opinion) Wayne Ivey's a publicity hound, pure and simple. He has to get his name in the papers every now and then to remind folks to keep putting him back in office.

Having lived here for the most part of the last 40 years, most Sheriffs (outside of the big cities) are regular folks. They are as exasperated by criminal behavior as is possible and are only "solution oriented." A few years back the Polk County Sheriff's men shot a violent murderous perp about 150 times. When the "talking head posse" asked him "Why?" He replied "That's all the ammo they had." Except for the "urban morons" lawmen in Florida are a level headed bunch. Joe

[ExcitableBoy]

So, I guess the conclusion is: Sheriffs advising their constituency to carry is pretty much useless against vehicle attacks and we all may as well go prostrate, wring our hands and wail, then just take it in the neck. Very helpful.

My counter-proposal: Issue all qualified drivers a 1974 Dodge Monaco ex-squad car (pretty much armored vehicles in themselves), train up the drivers and load the back seats with crates of LAWS, and send them out on patrol. And perhaps mount a pair of Ma Deuces on the fenders for use against those REALLY pesky Jihadis...

Oh, I almost forgot the mini Rome plow replacing the front bumper, for those who would wish to take a milder approach in stopping homicidal vehicular terrorists. Then we could capture the playful rascals and spend millions on really entertaining show trials and worry about their Constitutional rights.

See... I can be reasonable, too!

[TomkinsSP]

Originally Posted by Jack Flash

Really, this is just common sense. Unfortunately, these days nothing is so uncommon as common sense.

Funny, I am old enough to remember similar sentiments from Benjamin Franklin, Samuel Clemens and Frank L Wright... Grampa says he remembers Solomon saying something like the more things change, the more they stay the same.

[ISCS Yoda]

There is a difference in "common sense" between people who live in the real world and people who live in the world of swirling snow. So, without debating the sheriff issue, or one state versus another, let's just look at the statement.

"This is war."

Does anyone really disagree with that? We live in a culture war, no doubt of that, and that culture war has now spread wings. Free speech is in jeopardy. And, along with that, unity is in jeopardy. Alexandria, VA, just yesterday, is indicative of this point. Bernie Sanders might denounce violence but the snowflakes that are so wildly angry that he lost and that the Queen also lost have created an atmosphere of violence across the nation. It's not just the obvious terrorists anymore.

Where would those folks have been yesterday had they not been fortunate enough to have a senior official with them who is entitled to around the clock police protection?

If this is not a "war" in the typical sense it is a war in a new, smaller, but still very dangerous sense. Enemies walk the streets, terrorists, of course, then the obvious criminals, and now the new breed, colloquially known as "haters".

In that atmosphere why would those of you who can ever consider being anywhere without a gun as long as its legal to have one with you?

[ExcitableBoy]

"This is war."

You are 100% correct, sir! To clarify, though, the domestic "Jihadi" problem in the U.S. is NOT the most imminent of threats to all of our lives, as many are assuming. This has been illustrated by yesterday's horrific shooting on a baseball diamond, which is only the most recent (and having an exponentially higher profile) of attacks on sanity and domestic tranquility. The "haters" have been around for a goodly amount of time, now. We know who they are, we know what they have done, and we know to what extent they will go...

A "quiet" Civil War has been simmering for a few decades. It is now naked, at the boiling point, and out in the open; the Power Play has begun.

Be prepared, be aware... and know who your real friends are.

May God help save our country.