Gov DeSantis and Constitutional Carry
21 - 40 of 65 Posts
Joined
·
21,674 Posts
I'm another member of that club...Yeah, I'm confused, too.
I don't think it's hard to figure out.
If some scumbag that comes up to you, points a gun at you and speaks to you in a language you don't know, you still understand he wants the money and valuables.
If some uneducated yahoo who can barely speak English shows up at a public meeting he shouldn't be allowed to speak?
It's a pretty poor analogy but the idea does come across
Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk
If some scumbag that comes up to you, points a gun at you and speaks to you in a language you don't know, you still understand he wants the money and valuables.
If some uneducated yahoo who can barely speak English shows up at a public meeting he shouldn't be allowed to speak?
It's a pretty poor analogy but the idea does come across
Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk
Ummm... no. It doesn't come across.
I was referring to the 1st Amendment which is far broader than the ability to speak at a public meeting. My point was having an educational requirement or vocabulary standard in order to exercise the 1st Amendment Right... anywhere... any time... Being the same as suggesting a minimum standard to exercise the 2nd Amendment.
I'm even more confused at the analogy of armed robbery vs speaking at a public meeting in the context of Constitutional Rights.
Truly scratching my head.
Joined
·
21,674 Posts
Sorry...no better...one is an illegal act that has nothing whatsoever to do with constitutional carry...the other is equally unrelated as language in the context of the subject has nothing to do with level of education...
Eta...and in another rare moment racer and I seem to agree that your argument confuses us more...
Ha! That NEVER happens here!By the way how did we get so far off topic
Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk
Joined
·
1,804 Posts
This issue still confuses me. Does every state with Constitutional Carry have force of law signage? If yes, OK, I get the concern. If not, why so much concern that we would have to endure FOL signage if we were to have it here in Florida? If we have enough politicians backing Constitutional Carry why would they want to counteract that with the signage crap, and why would DeSantis even have a signage bill on his desk for a signature for more that 5 seconds?
Because a very significant number of people in Tallahassee are RINOS'
Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk
Joined
·
1,804 Posts
I keep getting that answer for this subject!! IF they are RINOS...which I know we have a few walking d!cks with ears (= RINOS) in our state government, don't they have to vote on and approve Constitutional Carry? Why would they approve it just to counteract it with signage is my real question...what is gained? DeSantis can not just go Poof ya'll have CC, and he surly would veto any bill calling for signage.
If you have enough places that use signage you will reduce the number of people that carry, it becomes to much of a pain in the a$$
Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk
Joined
·
4,744 Posts
RINO's, yes, that's a big issue. The other issue is that the FRF and Disney. They make big donations to a lot of politicians. These politicians do not want to shut down the gravy train.
So, in their minds, they probably figure that they can appease the conservative voters by voting for CC, but at the same time keep the gravy train running by a compromise (like signage) that will appease the businesses who are scared witless by the thought that some of their customers might be carrying a gun.
This is just how politics works. This is how it has always worked. Compromise is the name of the game, and giving signage the force of law is an obvious compromise that would very likely be put on the table.
Does anyone know FOR SURE that we won't get CC without signage? No. Of course not. But it is certainly a very logical possibility, given the way that politics are played.
So, in their minds, they probably figure that they can appease the conservative voters by voting for CC, but at the same time keep the gravy train running by a compromise (like signage) that will appease the businesses who are scared witless by the thought that some of their customers might be carrying a gun.
This is just how politics works. This is how it has always worked. Compromise is the name of the game, and giving signage the force of law is an obvious compromise that would very likely be put on the table.
Does anyone know FOR SURE that we won't get CC without signage? No. Of course not. But it is certainly a very logical possibility, given the way that politics are played.
You are not correct in saying compromise is how it's always been. Compromise in politics is for wussies and sellouts. If you have the votes you shove it down the oppositions throat. A perfect example is Obama Care
Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk
Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk
Joined
·
4,587 Posts
I think it will be a matter of trying to keep everyone happy. Vote for CC to keep the 2A crowd happy, then vote for signage to have the force of law to keep the Chamber of Commerce and business owners happy. That way the politicos can assure everyone they voted to give everyone what they wanted. It's not as though they are going to carefully weigh these measures one against the other. I could easily see them doing both and hoping to get some political mileage out of it.
Contrary to popular belief politicians are not stupid. They are thieving conniving greedy SOB's. They know that if they pass constitutional carry and signage together they will piss off the majority of Second Amendment supporters that voted for them and would loose supporters and very possibly get primaried
Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk
LOL! Oh, yes. Yes. Many of them are QUITE stupid.
That, too.
Do they?? LOL! You claim to be politically-savvy, but you are apparently oblivious to the the nearly ubiquitous "law of unintended consequences" that is associated with MANY things the government has "done on our behalf."
Seriously?? How stupid do you think WE are? Sorry man, but some of the things you're posting are increasingly indicative of a political apologist.
The vast majority of laws passed CONSISTENTLY reveal an abject ignorance of the topic by the people who wrote them. Certainly most gun laws fall into that category.
Joined
·
7,831 Posts
I mean, after all, don't we have to pass the law first to find out what's in it, later???
💩A literal case of the "blind leading the blind."I mean, after all, don't we have to pass the law first to find out what's in it, later???
I truly resent being a political apologist. I know that 99% of politicians only care about one thing other than money and that's getting reelected
Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk
21 - 40 of 65 Posts
Join the discussion
