Florida Concealed Carry banner

1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,722 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,230 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,441 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,722 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,230 Posts
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.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
27,123 Posts
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.
BrianB and racer nailed it!
::flag :pistols
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,563 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,264 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,230 Posts
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.
To me, it's rather simple. To illustrate the simplicity of the concept, just substitute RKBA with Free Speech.

Our Right to Free Speech shall not be infringed. It's just as true and just as simple. That means there are NO RESTRICTIONS of ANY kind on Free Speech. And, there aren't any, even though some will incorrectly use the old "fire in a theater" canard, which is patently false.

We have no restrictions on our Speech, which is to say no "Prior Restraint." <--- It's a thing, and it's been ruled on by the SCOTUS.

To ban any type of gun or ammo... or to require registration... or limit the amount of guns is akin to banning certain speech, or requiring registration to exercise Free Speech. It's simply unconstitutional. Our Right to Free Speech shall not be infringed. Accordingly, ANY restriction on the RKBA is a form of "Prior Restraint." Any restriction on the RKBA is INFRINGEMENT, just as would be any restriction on speech.

That all said... The 1A and 2A Constitutional PROTECTIONS are no defense for CRIMES committed WITH speech or guns. To wit... it is not illegal (nor punishable) to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. That would be Prior Restraint. Unconstitutional. However, if falsely yelling "fire" in a theater results in INJURIES or other DAMAGES, then you cannot claim 1A protections. You are legally liable for the damages caused by your speech. But, you cannot be charged for the "crime" of the speech itself, as it is not a crime. Same with slander / libel.... or inciting a riot, for example.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,563 Posts
To me, it's rather simple. To illustrate the simplicity of the concept, just substitute RKBA with Free Speech.

Our Right to Free Speech shall not be infringed. It's just as true and just as simple. That means there are NO RESTRICTIONS of ANY kind on Free Speech. And, there aren't any, even though some will incorrectly use the old "fire in a theater" canard, which is patently false.

We have no restrictions on our Speech, which is to say no "Prior Restraint." <--- It's a thing, and it's been ruled on by the SCOTUS.

To ban any type of gun or ammo... or to require registration... or limit the amount of guns is akin to banning certain speech, or requiring registration to exercise Free Speech. It's simply unconstitutional. Our Right to Free Speech shall not be infringed. Accordingly, ANY restriction on the RKBA is a form of "Prior Restraint." Any restriction on the RKBA is INFRINGEMENT, just as would be any restriction on speech.

That all said... The 1A and 2A Constitutional PROTECTIONS are no defense for CRIMES committed WITH speech or guns. To wit... it is not illegal (nor punishable) to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. That would be Prior Restraint. Unconstitutional. However, if falsely yelling "fire" in a theater results in INJURIES or other DAMAGES, then you cannot claim 1A protections. You are legally liable for the damages caused by your speech. But, you cannot be charged for the "crime" of the speech itself, as it is not a crime. Same with slander / libel.... or inciting a riot, for example.

.


Correct - you can say what you will, but you aren't free from the consequences. Like you said "fire" in a crowded theatre. You can say that, and if nothing happens, you're just a jackass. But if there's a stampede and people get hurt, then it's on you. You won't be prosecuted for speech, but for causing injuries, etc.

Same with guns - it's an enumerated right and cannot be restrained.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,264 Posts
Same with guns - it's an enumerated right and cannot be restrained. I am trying to believe this to be true but can not. Certain words have cost people millions of dollars in court by judging them racial and others have been labeled hate crimes using them. A woman was found to be guilty using her "free speech" telling her ex to go ahead and commit suicide, she did not care. Declaring we have free speech but being legally liable for the damages caused by your speech makes about as much sense as saying.... installation is free just pay a service fee. THis is why i disagree with ..... Our Right to Free Speech shall not be infringed. It's just as true and just as simple. That means there are NO RESTRICTIONS of ANY kind on Free Speech. Unfortunately I see the court system eventually finding the word infringed to have limitations when it comes to gun laws just as our free speech has been limited because of political correctness and misrepresenting that words are as harmful as actions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,230 Posts
.


Correct - you can say what you will, but you aren't free from the consequences. Like you said "fire" in a crowded theatre. You can say that, and if nothing happens, you're just a jackass. But if there's a stampede and people get hurt, then it's on you. You won't be prosecuted for speech, but for causing injuries, etc.

Same with guns - it's an enumerated right and cannot be restrained.
Well, hell... why did I type so much to say what you succinctly expressed? LOL! :grin

But, yeah.... ^^^this^^^

What's amazing to me is how many EDUCATED people mindlesslly regurgitate the "you can't yell 'fire' in a theater" canard. When I explain "prior restraint" and that the speech is NOT prohibited, but rather you are legally liable for DAMAGES caused by your speech... I get blank looks.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
27,123 Posts
Well, hell... why did I type so much to say what you succinctly expressed? LOL! :grin

But, yeah.... ^^^this^^^

What's amazing to me is how many EDUCATED people mindlesslly regurgitate the "you can yell 'fire' in a theater" canard. When I explain "prior restraint" and that the speech is NOT prohibited, but rather you are legally liable for DAMAGES caused by your speech... I get blank looks.
Because the sheeple don't take the time to learn the basics of how the Constitution and our laws actually work!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,230 Posts
Because the sheeple don't take the time to learn the basics of how the Constitution and our laws actually work!
It's one thing to be innocently ignorant. It's quite another to be WILLFULLY ignorant.

I always present my side with facts and even references my "opponent" can look up and see for himself. NOT ONCE in my entire life has my opponent followed up by researching for himself. They are quite content in "vurping" up the BS talking points. They are quite content in their ignorant world view.

An example would be when I've had the debate that the police (nor any gov't agency) has NO LEGAL DUTY to protect you from harm the two sides (mine and theirs) go like this:

Them: But, the police have a duty to protect us.

Me: No. They don't. The Supreme Court and several lower (district) federal courts have ruled multiple times that the government has no duty to protect you from harm.

Them: But the police have a duty "to serve and PROTECT." It even says it on the side of their cars. :doh

Me: Warren vs District of Columbia

Gonzales vs Castle Rock

DeShaney vs Winnebago County

Lozito vs NYPD

Barela vs City of Denver


While I have these cases memorized (since I've studied it so intensely), I'll even provide links to each case and challenge my opponent to look them up for himself. NOT ONE has ever taken me up on it.

Them: (blank stare)

I've had this EXACT conversation SO many times.

Ignorance truly is bliss. But, I have no respect for willful ignorance.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
27,123 Posts
^^^^
I've less than zero respect for willfully ignorant people, either. We're in complete agreement, as usual! :grin
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top