Florida Gov. Rick Scott signs gun bill

  • Thread starter Thread starter Stephen_C
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Lev said:
If government has no authority to act for the rights of the innocent and weak, we are effectively given over to anarchy
Click to expand...
Government absolutely does have such authority. No one has said it doesn’t. It doesn’t have the authority to blame and confiscate thecrights of the innocent law abiding citizens who are not harming others.
Lev said:
That fact that the NRA has so much power and influence in Congress,
Click to expand...
They have no power. It’s called influence, based on the strength of the voters they represent, which includes many more than the actual members. Without that voting block, they have no influence.
Lev said:
refusing to allow conscience and humanity a voice in gun policy, proves how organised anarchy is the norm when the authority of the government is limited enough.
Click to expand...
This is absolute nonsense. Conscience and humanity are best represented in our republic when individual rights and strongly upheld, even under the threat of imposing tyranny by government power.
 
Last edited:
Lev . . .
If government has no authority to act for the rights of the innocent and weak . . .
Click to expand...
I was just about to point out that NOBODY says the Government has “NO” authority.

Then I saw JonNC beat me to it.

By the way, the Government has really dropped the ball defending the MOST “innocent and weak”, that is, the unborn.

They dropped the ball at Parkland too (and are now in some cases attacking other victims eminating from the sins and crimes committed at Parkland–the good law-abiding citizens).
 
Last edited:
Cathoholic said:
They dropped the ball at Parkland too (and are now in some cases attacking other victims eminating from the sins and crimes committed at Parkland–the good law-abiding citizens).
Click to expand...
The “other victims.”

Good God. So the good law-abiding citizens, by whom I assume you mean gun owners, are victims, too, just like those who died in that building?
 
Good law-abiding citizens are being vilified by people like you Inisfallen.

You (not you personally) are blaming them and attempting to hurt them based upon the sins and crimes of Nikolas Cruz.

You are taking this crisis, and attempting to use it to besmirch them, the NRA, “conservatives”, etc.

This is divisive and false.

You (frequently) ignore Nikolas Cruz.
You (frequently) ignore the cascade of Government errors at Parkland (and the plethora of Government failures that led up to Parkland).
You (frequently) ignore that Coach was forced to be disarmed, yet he died attempting to save lives anyway.

And now you want me to look the other way when I call you out on it.

I stand by what I said. These are YOUR policies, not mine. You guys are the ones who came up with the “Gun-Free Zone” sticker idea.

Your “solution”?

More Government.
More programs.
More Government dependency.
More rules and regulations and laws.
More disarming of people like Coach.
More need to enforce those new infringing rules.
More blaming innocent citizens for YOUR failures and YOUR failed policies.
 
Last edited:
Lev said:
If government has no authority to act for the rights of the innocent and weak, we are effectively given over to anarchy. That fact that the NRA has so much power and influence in Congress, refusing to allow conscience and humanity a voice in gun policy, proves how organised anarchy is the norm when the authority of the government is limited enough.
Click to expand...
When SECONDS count, the government is only minutes away.

[And/ or, they are cowering behind their patrol cars.]

[AND, they hide behind their full pensions.]
 
Last edited:
JonNC said:
Assault weapons are already very difficult to get, with strict licensing, etc
Click to expand...
My brother-in-law order one online without any problems. It came disassembled in multiple packages.
 
The NRA argues people who are 18 years old are considered adults “for almost all purposes and certainly for the purposes of the exercise of fundamental constitutional rights.”
Click to expand...
Yet Florida Law and most State Laws put the Legal Drinking age at 21.
 
JonNC said:
Government absolutely does have such authority. No one has said it doesn’t. It doesn’t have the authority to blame and confiscate thecrights of the innocent law abiding citizens who are not harming others.
Click to expand...
Yup. It has that right too.
 
Yepper, he has some connections. He is an ex-USMC.
It there is a will, there is always a way.
 
Last edited:
Cathoholic said:
Good law-abiding citizens are being vilified by people like you Inisfallen.
Click to expand...
Inisfallen did not vilify good law-abiding citizens.
You (not you personally) are blaming them and attempting to hurt them based upon the sins and crimes of Nikolas Cruz.
Click to expand...
Restricting their access to some guns is not attempting to hurt them.
You are taking this crisis, and attempting to use it to besmirch them, the NRA, “conservatives”, etc.
This is divisive and false.
Click to expand...
The NRA has been one of the most divisive organizations on the planet since 1977. (It was a fine organization before that.)
You (frequently) ignore Nikolas Cruz.
You (frequently) ignore the cascade of Government errors at Parkland (and the plethora of Government failures that led up to Parkland).
Click to expand...
If the government had acted against Nikolas Cruz and took away his guns without due process, the NRA would have filed suit over that. If they had notified Cruz that to appear in court on Friday to show cause why his guns should not be taken away, it is likely he would have committed his crime on Thursday. So don’t talk about government errors unless you are willing to support instant Risk Protective Orders too (as Trump seemed to support - briefly).
 
JonNC said:
Assault weapons are already very difficult to get, with strict licensing, etc
Click to expand...
I am not sure how this fits in with your view of the 2nd amendment. If you think the 2nd amendment does protect the right to own assault weapons, you should be opposing the strict licensing, etc. that you mention. If you think the 2nd amendment does not protect the right to own assault weapons, you should not have any constitutional objection to their being totally banned. Either way, I see no way you could be satisfied with this middle ground on anything other than practical grounds.
 
Cathoholic said:
The point is . . . . WHO gets to decide for law-abiding citizens?

Themselves?

Or Government?
Click to expand...
When deciding one something that affects only them, the citizens should decide for themselves. But when deciding on something that also affects the common good, legitimate authority may have a role in that decision.
If another person thinks she needs a pistol SOON because she is threatened by her “ex” and there is not a good reason to deny her and “infringe” upon her (like “arbitrary” waiting periods are not even close), then that is HER call.
Click to expand...
Subject to reasonable conditions.
 
LeafByNiggle:
Restricting their access to some guns is not attempting to hurt them.
Click to expand...
This is just false.

Why don’t you explain which rights a Government can infringe upon and NOT hurt citizens. What other freedoms removed is OK with you?
Restricting their access to some guns is not attempting to hurt them.
Click to expand...
Tell that to the police too. Tell them they ONLY can have LeafByNiggle-approved firearms and see how THAT goes.

Remind them how it’s not going to hurt them to take away what THEY (or at least their chief) choose. And remind them that YOU say it will be OK if they need “more” from their fire arm buy cannot get it because it is a LeafByNiggle-restricted arm.

And HOW does LeafByNiggle KNOW such things?

Because LeafByNiggle proclaims it so! That’s how!

So people are to risk their lives based on a fallacy of ipse dixit from LeafByNiggle huh?

Look LeafByNiggle. This is all fine for decisions for YOU!

But it’s NOT fine when YOU think you can impose YOUR selective infringements upon the good law-abiding free people of this country.
 
LeafByNiggle:
When deciding one something that affects only them, the citizens should decide for themselves. But when deciding on something that also affects the common good,
Click to expand...
You are MAKING my point LeafByNiggle.

You are “Exhibit A” in proclaiming all good law-abiding citizens a “risk” when its just not true.

Criminals are a risk, but not the good people.

If you want to deal with criminals OK, but that’s not what you want LeafByNiggle.
 
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle:
The NRA has been one of the most divisive organizations on the planet since 1977. (It was a fine organization before that.)
Click to expand...
You are using this in the context of when I was critical of people BLAMING the NRA.

You are making my point about people griping about the NRA in the context of Parkland.

Besmirch the NRA.

It is not going to work.
 
Last edited:
When deciding one something that affects only them, the citizens should decide for themselves. But when deciding on something that also affects the common good, legitimate authority may have a role in that decision.
Click to expand...
The people HAVE “decided for themselves”!

It’s called the Second Amendment.

And people who think like you, assert if they can ram enough political muscle down upon the good law abiding citizens, then it’s OK to ignore the Second Amendment.

The problem with THAT leafByNiggle, it makes ALL the Constitution up for grabs by others with differing agendas.

It turns ALL the Constitution into a “food fight” by people who think “might makes right” as long as it’s Government.

That’s why some of them love (the late) Che so much or fawn over kim jong un.

It is a USURPATION of power. The citizens are left having to pick up a mess in the courts that should never have occurred in the first place.

The politicians who caused the mess will long be retired and never held accountable.

I’ve said it before:

You don’t bomb Costa Rica because of North Korean aggressions.

You don’t attack the good law abiding citizens because of the criminals.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top