Republicans telling Galvano to quit pushing gun control
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17

Thread: Republicans telling Galvano to quit pushing gun control

  1. #1

    Thumbs up Republicans telling Galvano to quit pushing gun control

    This is nice, but where were they in 2018 when Rick Scott was doing the same thing?



    https://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/po...55q-story.html

  2. #2
    Distinguished Member BrianB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    New Skyview (Pinellas)
    Posts
    7,484
    A quote from the story:

    Gun control advocates, though, say voters overwhelmingly support expanded background checks, and nothing in the bill would ban any type of firearms. A Florida Atlantic University poll conducted shortly after the Feb. 14, 2018, Parkland school shooting found 87% of Florida voters supported universal background checks.

    That's cute, but what the gun control advocates know is that universal background checks are also de facto registration of firearms. Once there are universal background checks it will no longer be possible to become a gun owner without the government knowing about it (without breaking the law). Though I do believe that the gun control advocates genuinely want universal background checks to keep the very tiny fraction of prohibited persons that buy guns from private sellers at gun shows from doing so, I think their larger goal is the universal registration aspect.

    So if they repeated that survey that "found 87% of Florida voters supported universal background checks", and instead asked if they support universal firearms registration, I wonder what the result would be? I believe it would not be 87% in favor. And this is why we have a representative form of government, not a democracy - the average person is too stupid to make well-informed legislative decisions. Yeah, I'm not saying our elected representatives are great at it, but it's a helluvalot better than mob rule.
    NRA Certified Instructor (Pistol, Rifle, HFS, PPITH, PPOTH) and Chief Range Safety Officer
    Florida Carry Life Member, SAF Life Member, NRA Endowment Life Member
    Front Sight Distinguished Graduate, Defensive Handgun, Glock 35 and Glock 23
    FFL Type 7, Class 2 SOT (Licensed NFA Firearms Manufacturer)

  3. #3
    Distinguished Member racer88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    9,914
    Quote Originally Posted by BrianB View Post
    A quote from the story:

    Gun control advocates, though, say voters overwhelmingly support expanded background checks, and nothing in the bill would ban any type of firearms. A Florida Atlantic University poll conducted shortly after the Feb. 14, 2018, Parkland school shooting found 87% of Florida voters supported universal background checks.

    That's cute, but what the gun control advocates know is that universal background checks are also de facto registration of firearms. Once there are universal background checks it will no longer be possible to become a gun owner without the government knowing about it (without breaking the law). Though I do believe that the gun control advocates genuinely want universal background checks to keep the very tiny fraction of prohibited persons that buy guns from private sellers at gun shows from doing so, I think their larger goal is the universal registration aspect.

    So if they repeated that survey that "found 87% of Florida voters supported universal background checks", and instead asked if they support universal firearms registration, I wonder what the result would be? I believe it would not be 87% in favor. And this is why we have a representative form of government, not a democracy - the average person is too stupid to make well-informed legislative decisions. Yeah, I'm not saying our elected representatives are great at it, but it's a helluvalot better than mob rule.
    NONE of that matters. It doesn't matter what surveys say. It doesn't matter if 99.99% of the people surveyed think about unconstitutional gun control laws.

    Likewise, it doesn't matter if 99% of the people surveyed think there should be limits on speech.... or limits on the press.... or limits on who has access to Due Process.... or whether cruel and unusual punishment is sometimes warranted, depending on what the bad guy did. And, so on. It. Doesn't. Matter. What. They. Think.

    Our Constitutional Rights are subject neither to the democratic process nor to arguments grounded in social utility.

    If they want to do ANY of that, they MUST amend the constitution. Period. Do that, FIRST. Otherwise, the proposed laws are null and void, as they are unconstitutional.
    NRA Certified Pistol Instructor
    NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
    NRA Life Member

    "Dances with guns."

  4. Remove Advertisements
    FloridaConcealedCarry.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #4
    Distinguished Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Ocala
    Posts
    3,065
    Quote Originally Posted by BrianB View Post
    A quote from the story:

    Gun control advocates, though, say voters overwhelmingly support expanded background checks, and nothing in the bill would ban any type of firearms. A Florida Atlantic University poll conducted shortly after the Feb. 14, 2018, Parkland school shooting found 87% of Florida voters supported universal background checks.

    That's cute, but what the gun control advocates know is that universal background checks are also de facto registration of firearms. Once there are universal background checks it will no longer be possible to become a gun owner without the government knowing about it (without breaking the law). Though I do believe that the gun control advocates genuinely want universal background checks to keep the very tiny fraction of prohibited persons that buy guns from private sellers at gun shows from doing so, I think their larger goal is the universal registration aspect.

    So if they repeated that survey that "found 87% of Florida voters supported universal background checks", and instead asked if they support universal firearms registration, I wonder what the result would be? I believe it would not be 87% in favor. And this is why we have a representative form of government, not a democracy - the average person is too stupid to make well-informed legislative decisions. Yeah, I'm not saying our elected representatives are great at it, but it's a helluvalot better than mob rule.
    Good post, and quite on point.
    "The right to buy weapons is the right to be free." A. E. van Vogt

  6. #5
    Distinguished Member BrianB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    New Skyview (Pinellas)
    Posts
    7,484
    Quote Originally Posted by racer88 View Post
    NONE of that matters. It doesn't matter what surveys say. It doesn't matter if 99.99% of the people surveyed think about unconstitutional gun control laws.

    Likewise, it doesn't matter if 99% of the people surveyed think there should be limits on speech.... or limits on the press.... or limits on who has access to Due Process.... or whether cruel and unusual punishment is sometimes warranted, depending on what the bad guy did. And, so on. It. Doesn't. Matter. What. They. Think.

    Our Constitutional Rights are subject neither to the democratic process nor to arguments grounded in social utility.

    If they want to do ANY of that, they MUST amend the constitution. Period. Do that, FIRST. Otherwise, the proposed laws are null and void, as they are unconstitutional.
    Oh, I agree with you 1000%. Our fundamental rights are not subject to discussion or a vote or anything else. In fact, little secret, even if they repealed the second amendment one could argue that we still have the fundamental right to keep and bear arms because the second amendment simply recognized a pre-existing right. Repealing the second amendment doesn't change the fact that during the founding era the right was recognized to exist. I believe that in order to eliminate our right to keep and bear arms you would have to both repeal the second amendment AND ratify a new amendment that specifically abolishes the right. Good luck getting that ratified.
    NRA Certified Instructor (Pistol, Rifle, HFS, PPITH, PPOTH) and Chief Range Safety Officer
    Florida Carry Life Member, SAF Life Member, NRA Endowment Life Member
    Front Sight Distinguished Graduate, Defensive Handgun, Glock 35 and Glock 23
    FFL Type 7, Class 2 SOT (Licensed NFA Firearms Manufacturer)

  7. #6
    Distinguished Member racer88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    9,914
    Quote Originally Posted by BrianB View Post
    Oh, I agree with you 1000%. Our fundamental rights are not subject to discussion or a vote or anything else. In fact, little secret, even if they repealed the second amendment one could argue that we still have the fundamental right to keep and bear arms because the second amendment simply recognized a pre-existing right. Repealing the second amendment doesn't change the fact that during the founding era the right was recognized to exist. I believe that in order to eliminate our right to keep and bear arms you would have to both repeal the second amendment AND ratify a new amendment that specifically abolishes the right. Good luck getting that ratified.
    I agree, of course. The Constitution doesn't grant us our Rights.

    That said... IF they were able to amend it to eliminate the 2A, THEN they could at least claim the new law is "constitutional."

    But, as it stands NOW, the 2A exists. My challenge to them to change it VIA AMENDMENT is a challenge I know they can't realistically achieve. So, while your point is true, it's unnecessary and really irrelevant other than a philosophical discussion. I'm having a LEGAL discussion, based in facts, as they exist right now. Right NOW, 2A protections for our RKBA exist. Accordingly, any law that contradicts the 2A is unconstitutional. Period. The ONLY first step the gun-grabbers can LEGITIMATELY take is to AMEND the Constitution. Until they take that FIRST STEP, they can't do $hit... legally / Constitutionally... to infringe our Rights. Until THEN, we can and should DEFY any such laws.
    NRA Certified Pistol Instructor
    NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
    NRA Life Member

    "Dances with guns."

  8. #7
    Super Moderator
    BeerHunter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    PBC
    Posts
    25,322
    Quote Originally Posted by BrianB View Post
    Oh, I agree with you 1000%. Our fundamental rights are not subject to discussion or a vote or anything else. In fact, little secret, even if they repealed the second amendment one could argue that we still have the fundamental right to keep and bear arms because the second amendment simply recognized a pre-existing right. Repealing the second amendment doesn't change the fact that during the founding era the right was recognized to exist. I believe that in order to eliminate our right to keep and bear arms you would have to both repeal the second amendment AND ratify a new amendment that specifically abolishes the right. Good luck getting that ratified.
    Quote Originally Posted by racer88 View Post
    I agree, of course. The Constitution doesn't grant us our Rights.

    That said... IF they were able to amend it to eliminate the 2A, THEN they could at least claim the new law is "constitutional."

    But, as it stands NOW, the 2A exists. My challenge to them to change it VIA AMENDMENT is a challenge I know they can't realistically achieve. So, while your point is true, it's unnecessary and really irrelevant other than a philosophical discussion. I'm having a LEGAL discussion, based in facts, as they exist right now. Right NOW, 2A protections for our RKBA exist. Accordingly, any law that contradicts the 2A is unconstitutional. Period. The ONLY first step the gun-grabbers can LEGITIMATELY take is to AMEND the Constitution. Until they take that FIRST STEP, they can't do $hit... legally / Constitutionally... to infringe our Rights. Until THEN, we can and should DEFY any such laws.
    BrianB and racer nailed it!
    :
    -BH

    Member: Florida Carry, COTEP 766, SAF, GOA, NRA Endowment Life
    FFL 03, NRA CRSO & CI: P-R-S-PPITH
    Former USAF NCO 1980-1984, DoD 1987-Present
    Please consider joining NRA at www.nra.org and Florida Carry at www.floridacarry.org

    “The greatest danger to American freedom is a government that ignores the Constitution.”
    -- Thomas Jefferson, Third President of the United States

    "Those who 'abjure' violence can only do so because others are commuting violence on their behalf."
    -- George Orwell


    "The ultimate result of shielding men from folly is to fill the world with fools."
    -- Herbert Spencer

  9. #8
    Distinguished Member Rick McC.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Weeki Wachee, Fl.
    Posts
    7,492
    Rick

    "Sights are for the unenlightened."

    http://www.guntipsandtalk.com/

    IDPA Certified Safety Officer

  10. #9
    Distinguished Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    3,490
    More and more, reverse secession, aka the Split, as Kurt Schlichter would have it - is looking more appealing. I want to push the blue states out of the Union and that way the "wall" means they have to go through the immigration process to move to a red state. Current "blue" residents of a red state would be given ample time to leave or assimilate, and vice versa.

    A ***** to implement, but it needs to be done.
    http://regularguyguns.com/ - my no-frills gun blog.

  11. #10
    Senior Member mike_1950's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Gainesville, Fl
    Posts
    1,203
    The 2nd Amendment states...A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Infringe as defined in the dictionary;
    vb
    1. (tr) to violate or break (a law, an agreement, etc)
    2. (intr; foll by on or upon) to encroach or trespass

    I was not an English major nor am I an attorney, so I do wonder where the word infringe comes into play when we discuss gun registration or laws concerning the private selling of firearms. The Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision that held the amendment protects an individual's right to keep a gun for self-defense. In the Heller case this was the first time the Court had ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to own a gun and then in Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016), the Supreme Court reiterated its earlier rulings that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" and that its protection is not limited to "only those weapons useful in warfare." Mind you I am NOT arguing or debating anything here, I am simply asking where the premise came from that the word infringed means that no gun registration , private sales, unlimited number of firearms owned is allowed, no restrictions on type of ammo....etc, is allowed or guaranteed under the 2nd Amendment. My take is that the Supreme Court has side stepped rulings in favor of or against many arguments on either side because no one has pressed them on their interpretation as to what the word infringed actually means.
    NRA Member
    FBI & NIS Live action qualification course
    Range Officer/Safe Shooter Course -GTR
    USN Expert pistol Award
    USN Fleet Competitive Pistol Team / Representative of 8th Naval District
    USN Rifle Marksman

Sposors

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •