635906248262304036-mike-wood

“I support the Second Amendment. I am not trying to restrict gun ownership in any fashion. But it’s important as a sheriff whose responsibility is public safety to lobby for responsible legislation. I think this is a public safety issue. Not only am I responsible for public safety, but I’m also responsible for the safety of my law enforcement.” – Leon County, Florida Sheriff Mike Wood in Hammer blasts Sheriff Wood over gun bills [at tallahassee.com]

Recommended For You

53 Responses to Quote of the Day: Leon County (FL) Sheriff Supports the Second Amendment, But . . .

  1. And I would like to blast auto play videos on mobile versions of this site, which began yesterday. Absolutely unacceptable. Please fix.

    Thank you.

    • Absolutely. It is kind of like saying “I support the 4th amendment, but…” This is why I am starting to believe that HR 218 and off-duty carry should be banned/overturned, and that retired and off-duty police officers should be forced to go through the same permitting process as We-The-People with no special consideration given based on their current or former employer. And that says a lot considering I qualify for HR 218. Generally, most police officers in this nation respect and support the 2nd amendment 100%. They know it works, and they fear that they could end up disarmed like us. The few police officers who work in liberal states and/or cities seem to have no respect for the rights of the people they reportedly serve, that they are the anointed protectors of the politically privileged, and it really pisses me off to no end.

      • I agree with you Bob. Never understood why retired leo got special treatment. Once you quit sucking off the public teet, you should return to civilian status. Then again, shouldn’t Obama and his band of parasites have Obama care?

    • I do not support the 26th amendment. No ifs, ands or buts. Come to think of it, I’m not all that happy with the 19th Amendment either.

  2. Wood, who was appointed sheriff last year

    A County with 7 supervisors – 6 being demtard. SHOCKING that when a responsible ELECTED progun sheriff assumes room temp the demtards dig up a Fudd and anoint him as sheriff.

  3. Well, Sheriff, that’s the funny thing about the Second Amendment – the right exists in two components. I get that you support the “keep” part of it, but it also says “bear” arms. Oh, yeah, and that pesky shall not be infringed bit. So it would be more accurate that you support part of the 2A, but certainly not all of it.

    • If you don’t support it all, then you are advocating violation of the Constitution. Which, for anyone employed by the government, should be a hanging offense.

    • 505markf,

      You beat me to it.

      It’s all well and good that Mr. Sheriff supports our unalienable right to own firearms. Unfortunately, he opposes our unalienable right to bear arms. That is in direct violation of his oath of office and the Supreme Law of the Land (United States Constitution, Second Amendment).

  4. I support the 2nd Amendment but i don’t think we all need nukes, tanks, fighter jets, incendiary grenades, etc…now full auto, flash grenades are acceptable

  5. “I support the 2nd Amendment but i don’t think we all need nukes, tanks, fighter jets, incendiary grenades, etc…”

    Well, you’re no fun 🙂

    The Fudd Sheriff needs to understand that Sheriff is elected. I suppose he doesn’t want to be elected? Be vigilant peeps, or you’ll end up in California, without moving an inch

  6. Appointed, not elected by the people. He’s 192k in the till and wants your vote denying lawful self protection on campus. Sheriff Woods needs a walk to the woodshed via the voters.

  7. I take it that “I own guns myself” is now the “I have black friends myself” of the gun-grabber crowd.

    • Yes, but with a twist. He’s anti- campus and open carry, but he’d be fine with his sister campus or open carrying.

  8. Allow me to paraphrase a bit. “I’m not trying to restrict gun ownership in any fashion. I am trying to get others to do it for me.”

    Gee. Thanks.

  9. I don’t think appointees to major offices like Sheriff should be legal. If someone dies, resigns, or otherwise departs or is unable to discharge the duties of an office, then hold a special election to replace them. If an administrator or legislator is oh so important that a even a vacancy of a few months is unacceptable, then fine, appoint an acting-whatever to run it during that period. However, no acting-Sheriff or whatever may run for that same office in the next special or regular election.

    These appointees to elected office should only serve to do the people’s business on an emergency basis. They should not be an end run around the Constitution to give political insiders the unearned advantages of incumbency in the upcoming election.

    Really, they got the appointment because it was an emergency and there was no time to wait for an election. Hmm….then how does the appointee have so much free time in his emergency appointed position to campaign in that same election that we didn’t have time to wait for? Scam.

  10. I don’t always support the 2nd Amendment (and thus every other unalienable right) with armed conflict,

    but when I do, it’s usually something spectacular.

    Stay vigilantly armed, my friends.

    • Bluelivesmatter (more than yours), even in Sheriff green. Because only your government can protect you when they cannot even protect themselves, and only your government has a Constitutional Right to protect you from your government.

  11. The election-time ads write themselves.

    This is great stuff… for the sheriff election, the sups election & the national election as both get out the vote local pr and fodder for the natiinal issue montage. Also for state elections setting the process for vacancies.

    The Stupid Party will do none of this, of course. They’re busy fragging each other while Camille Paglia is back in Salon (the Only teason to ever read Salon) taking a pitchfork to the entire D field, and the D’s are targeting Mia Love – announced today.

    What good is a party if theh cant operate the machinery of getting their folks elected?

    Issues activism, meaning we’re gonna have to do any of that P R if it is to be done. Where can I send my donation to the EFF-equivalent for guns?

  12. “I support the Second Amendment. I am not trying to restrict gun ownership in any fashion. ”

    How can you say that, then turn around and say you support sensible gun laws?

    Every gun law restricts gun ownership … At least it does for gun owners that are law abiding.

  13. Wrong sir, your job is to carry out the law of the land. Even a career public parasite like yourself posses the capacity to read the words “Shall not be infringed”, simple and straight forward.

  14. Sheriff Woodhead reminds me a bit of former Sheriff Lee Baca of the LASD (‘memba him?). You know, the old “I support the Second Amendment but it’s gonna cost you” guy.

    Guess what? Baca is on his way to prison. Too bad that it won’t be the same jail that he ran as his corrupt and brutal fiefdom. Now THAT would be karma.

  15. I’m not sure where this idea Cops are somehow magical pistol ninjas and your safety trumps mine. I don’t think so.

  16. “…it’s important as a sheriff … to lobby for responsible legislation.

    Um, no.

    – Your brief is implementation. Your brief is not advisory.

    – “Lobbying” is advocacy for a particular position. Your role is to make information available for people to form what opinion they will, not to tilt information toward the opinion you already prefer.

    – “Lobbying” is influencing “decisions makers” directly, vs. informing the people who are governed.

    – Budget allocated to you for implementing the preferences of the people who employ you is not allocated for lobbying, er – influencing, er – propagandizing, er – brain washing, those people. If you have a personal opinion, advocate for that on your own time. Professionally, in uniform, on your employers dime, do your job.

    – Influencing the legislative process using public funds is very illegal, depending on jurisdiction. Particulars aside, there’s a name for a system of using public money to promote allocation of more public money to your preferences. By whatever name it is at least distasteful.

    Were there any question about the dangers of law enforcement appointed by politicians in place, that one sentence should answer it. Interestingly, that one sentence embodies about half of the intrinsic, unmanageable problems with law enforcement appointed by politicians in place.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *