• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Here's what's in the Florida gun bill

blackjack50

blackjack50

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 14, 2011
Messages
26,629
Reaction score
6,661
Location
Florida
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
(CNN) The Florida gun bill spurred by the Parkland school massacre is just one signature away from becoming law.

Senate Bill 7026, dubbed the "Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Act," would toughen gun control in several ways -- but also includes a controversial provision that would allow some teachers to be armed.
Click to expand...

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/08/politics/florida-gun-bill-text/index.html

So proud of our lawmakers in my state for making a bill that does nothing to address potential solutions for violent mentally ill scum that are reported to law enforcement 43 times.

Sarcasm off
 
Last edited:
blackjack50 said:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/08/politics/florida-gun-bill-text/index.html

So proud of our lawmakers in my state for making a bill that does nothing to address potential solutions for violent mentally ill scum that are reported to law enforcement 43 times.
Click to expand...

Until there is a law that declares that a diagnosed mentally-ill person must be reported to authorities, who then must turn around and enter that person's name into the background check system to deny him his Second Amendment Right, blaming law enforcement here is a scapegoat. After all, a diagnosed mentally-ill person was involved in Sandy Hook and another mentally-ill person was involved in Aurora. No cops to blame there...just the same trend of a mentally-ill person legally handling and/or buying weapons.

And since the Florida shooter was nineteen, this Bill does do something. For all we know, Miami has a diagnosed mentally-ill eighteen, nineteen, or twenty-year old saving up to buy his first AR-15 right now. If he is determined to copy the shooter trend, let him steal one. Let's not simply hand it to him because everything anybody brings up gets discarded and shrugged off as "doing little."
 
Last edited:
I think banning bump stocks is nothing more than appeasing the knee-jerkers. Nobody even knew what they were until vegas. Not to mention, i have a rubber band AND a belt :)
Raising the age seems ok. But why do 18 year olds have the right to vote but not defend themselves? Seems like a load of crap. Especially when they arent old enough to appreciate our rights but can vote them away.
 
Last edited:
MSgt said:
Until there is a law that declares that a diagnosed mentally-ill person must be reported to authorities, who then must turn around and enter that person's name into the background check system to deny him his Second Amendment Right, blaming law enforcement here is a scapegoat. After all, a diagnosed mentally-ill person was involved in Sandy Hook and another mentally-ill person was involved in Aurora. No cops to blame there...just the same trend of a mentally-ill person legally handling and/or buying weapons.

And since the Florida shooter was nineteen, this Bill does do something. For all we know, Miami has a diagnosed mentally-ill eighteen, nineteen, or twenty-year old saving up to buy his first AR-15 right now. If he is determined to copy the shooter trend, let him steal one. Let's not simply hand it to him because everything anybody brings up gets discarded and shrugged off because it "does little."
Click to expand...

That (bolded above), is a huge part of the problem because unless evidence of dangerous mental illness is presented to a judge, who then acts on it, then the NICS BGC database correctly remains free of that allegation. That is consistant with the required due process of law to remove someone's rights.

The "see something, say something" idea is only going to help if the "hear something, do nothing" option is taken off the table by law.

Holmes had informed both, and a third psychiatrist who joined for two out of seven sessions, that he was thinking about killing people, without specifying individuals or methods. His mental state deteriorated and campus police were eventually warned.
Click to expand...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Holmes_(mass_murderer)
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That (bolded above), is a huge part of the problem because unless evidence of dangerous mental illness is presented to a judge, who then acts on it, then the NICS BGC database correctly remains free of that allegation. That is consistant with the required due process of law to remove someone's rights.

The "see something, say something" idea is only going to help if the "hear something, do nothing" option is taken off the table by law.



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Holmes_(mass_murderer)
Click to expand...

Yeah but that is only because we declare it so.

We can easily remove a person's right to drive a car due to mental instability or developed mental impairment. It seems very odd to me that we can't do the same for the schizophrenic who wants to buy guns because we treat the Second Amendment as being handed down by God through Moses.

By compiling a list of extreme mental disorders out of the DSM-5, we can easily take discretion out of the hands of the trained physician, who could be required to report. In turn, the cops will be forced to make the entry. THIS is how we hold people accountable for somebody slipping through the cracks. Right now, it's all about discretion and would have, could have hindsight.

It seems like a no-brainer to me (pun not intended).
 
MSgt said:
Yeah but that is only because we declare it so.

We can easily remove a person's right to drive a car due to mental instability or developed mental impairment. It seems very odd to me that we can't do the same for the schizophrenic who wants to buy guns because we treat the Second Amendment as being handed down by God through Moses.

By compiling a list of extreme mental disorders out of the DSM-5, we can easily take discretion out of the hands of the trained physician, who could be required to report. In turn, the cops will be forced to make the entry. THIS is how we hold people accountable for somebody slipping through the cracks. Right now, it's all about discretion and would have, could have hindsight.

It seems like a no-brainer to me (pun not intended).
Click to expand...

Why cant people just AMEND the Constitution, instead of rape it?
 
TNHarley said:
Why cant people just AMEND the Constitution, instead of rape it?
Click to expand...

FDR knew that even with a landslide in 36, his expansion of the commerce clause, de facto repeal of the tenth and second amendments would not fly so he connived with his pet monkeys to essentially amend the constitution by fiat and lapdog justices. Gun banners still want to pretend they support the constitution is why
 
MSgt said:
Yeah but that is only because we declare it so.

We can easily remove a person's right to drive a car due to mental instability or developed mental impairment. It seems very odd to me that we can't do the same for the schizophrenic who wants to buy guns. By compiling a list of mental disorders out of the DSM-5, we can easily take discretion out of the hands of the trained physician, who could be required to report. In turn, the cops will be forced to make the entry. THIS is how we hold people accountable. Right now, it's all about discretion and would have, could have hindsight.
Click to expand...

There is no right to drive a car - driving (on public roadways) is a mere state issued privilege. I have no problem with a requirement to report law, but the final decision must be left to the courts to remove someone's constitutional rights. Once we allow imposing a sentence upon an allegation alone and then leave it up to the accused to prove their innocence (or mental health) then we have removed due process of law - also a constitutional right.
 
TNHarley said:
Why cant people just AMEND the Constitution, instead of rape it?
Click to expand...

It's already been raped - these folks just want to use (extend?) civil asset forfeiture to take away guns (and the ability to replace them) without that pesky need for due process of law.
 
TurtleDude said:
FDR knew that even with a landslide in 36, his expansion of the commerce clause, de facto repeal of the tenth and second amendments would not fly so he connived with his pet monkeys to essentially amend the constitution by fiat and lapdog justices. Gun banners still want to pretend they support the constitution is why
Click to expand...

Well, I obviously support the Constitution. I just don't support fools and morons; and I am tired of my rights being defined by the lowest denominators ability to abuse them.
 
MSgt said:
Until there is a law that declares that a diagnosed mentally-ill person must be reported to authorities, who then must turn around and enter that person's name into the background check system to deny him his Second Amendment Right, blaming law enforcement here is a scapegoat. After all, a diagnosed mentally-ill person was involved in Sandy Hook and another mentally-ill person was involved in Aurora. No cops to blame there...just the same trend of a mentally-ill person legally handling and/or buying weapons.

And since the Florida shooter was nineteen, this Bill does do something. For all we know, Miami has a diagnosed mentally-ill eighteen, nineteen, or twenty-year old saving up to buy his first AR-15 right now. If he is determined to copy the shooter trend, let him steal one. Let's not simply hand it to him because everything anybody brings up gets discarded and shrugged off as "doing little."
Click to expand...

1) Law enforcement can only operate within the law. As can the FBI. This person was reported 43 times and to the FBI. Can you honestly say...emphasis on honestly...say that that is not an indicator that SOMETHING is wrong with our system when it comes to law enforcement? I’m not scapegoating. That is a CLEAR failure. It may not be on the department. It may be on the law. You can’t erase that fact. So don’t pretend that this is a partisan scapegoat to DEMAND this actuslly get looked at, and don’t tell me that this isn’t worth it. 43 times. 43 times. That’s a failure. Period. And you know it.

2) You are right. “Until a law gets passed.” But you know what prevents that from happening? Emphasizing stupid legislation that doesn’t actually address the CLEAR 43 failures to get a dangerous person off the street. You pretend like these laws would stop him? Why? What? He gets reported another 43 times in 3 years and then goes and buys a gun and kills 17 people. Yep. Thanks Florida senate and law enforcement. Great job! Thumbs up! That’s a real solution right there. Meanwhile people like you (who think they are being “neutral” and demanding some “reasonable” solutions) will start demanding we take away whatever gun he used (870 or ruger or Glock or 1911) because we don’t “need” those. Or maybe goes out and stabs some hookers? It is all still a failure of the system.

You want to be neutral on this? Hold the government accountable for the piece of **** system we have that allows someone to be reported 43 times and have 0 done to get him help or stop him from murdering a bunch of kids. This **** is shrugged off as doing nothing. Not little. NOTHING. It doesn’t address the problem. Period. And I’m betting you know that too.
 
MSgt said:
Well, I obviously support the Constitution. I just don't support fools and morons; and I am tired of my rights being defined by the lowest denominators ability to abuse them.
Click to expand...

your rights are not defined by the LCDs but rather the pimps in office who used those LCDs as justification for their power hungry schemes
 
HowardBThiname said:
Baby steps.

I'm glad to see they named the last item -- the one about arming some teachers -- after the coach who gave his life while shielding students with his body.
Click to expand...

He still wouldn’t have been armed. No “classroom only” teachers unless they have Leo or military experience. Which I suppose is ok. But that would mean someone like me wouldn’t be allowed to be armed. A lawful concealed carrier with decades of firearms experience and 7 years of concealed alone. Odd huh?

I’m more excited about the section on possibly giving more authority to ban someone. But I’m nervous that it won’t have anything to do with due process. I also don’t trust that their funding will be used correctly for mental health. I suspect it might be used for a seminar where a teacher goes up on stage and says “shooting people is bad mmkay?”
 
ttwtt78640 said:
There is no right to drive a car - driving (on public roadways) is a mere state issued privilege. I have no problem with a requirement to report law, but the final decision must be left to the courts to remove someone's constitutional rights. Once we allow imposing a sentence upon an allegation alone and then leave it up to the accused to prove their innocence (or mental health) then we have removed due process of law - also a constitutional right.
Click to expand...

I know it is not a Right. But a person has the right to purchase a vehicle and get a driver's license. You know exactly my meaning. The state may also remove that privilege due to menatl capacity. The problem is that gun Rights aren't about privilege. They should be. But we are well beyond the notion that people should earn anything. You have the right to vote. The rules to that Right demand you be at least eighteen years old. So why is it when it comes to the Second Amendment, gun owners are absolutely petrified of even the discussion and default to extremes? I mean, look at this thread already? The same usual suspects circling the wagons with guns pointed out whining about people wanting to simply ban guns. In the end, it is they who will **** up our Rights.

And it would not be up to the individual to prove his mental capacity. Since a doctor placed him on the list, a doctor should remove him from the list.

Besides, it's just a suggestion. Best to do nothing. That's worked out wonderfully so far. And the anti-gun crowd exponentially grows with every new shooting? We "responsible" gun owners are doing a bang-up job protecting our Rights. (pun not intended).
 
TurtleDude said:
your rights are not defined by the LCDs but rather the pimps in office who used those LCDs as justification for their power hungry schemes
Click to expand...

Liquid Crystal Display? What is LCD?
 
HowardBThiname said:
Baby steps.

I'm glad to see they named the last item -- the one about arming some teachers -- after the coach who gave his life while shielding students with his body.
Click to expand...


The Florida Bill excludes teachers who "exclusively perform classroom duties as classroom teachers" from being allowed to carry guns at school. Those who have military or law enforcement experience or who teach Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps programs could be eligible, with 144 hours of training.

The carry program for the teachers will be voluntary.
 
The big question is whether Scott will sign the Bill. If he decides to sign and also run for the Senate will he be Hammered by Marian ?
 
Parrish said:
The big question is whether Scott will sign the Bill. ...
Click to expand...

That is the big question, however, this is what Gov. Scott said, "I'm going to take the time and I'm going to read the bill and I'm going to talk to families."
 
blackjack50 said:
1) Law enforcement can only operate within the law. As can the FBI. This person was reported 43 times and to the FBI. Can you honestly say...emphasis on honestly...say that that is not an indicator that SOMETHING is wrong with our system when it comes to law enforcement? I’m not scapegoating. That is a CLEAR failure. It may not be on the department. It may be on the law. You can’t erase that fact. So don’t pretend that this is a partisan scapegoat to DEMAND this actuslly get looked at, and don’t tell me that this isn’t worth it. 43 times. 43 times. That’s a failure. Period. And you know it.

2) You are right. “Until a law gets passed.” But you know what prevents that from happening? Emphasizing stupid legislation that doesn’t actually address the CLEAR 43 failures to get a dangerous person off the street. You pretend like these laws would stop him? Why? What? He gets reported another 43 times in 3 years and then goes and buys a gun and kills 17 people. Yep. Thanks Florida senate and law enforcement. Great job! Thumbs up! That’s a real solution right there. Meanwhile people like you (who think they are being “neutral” and demanding some “reasonable” solutions) will start demanding we take away whatever gun he used (870 or ruger or Glock or 1911) because we don’t “need” those. Or maybe goes out and stabs some hookers? It is all still a failure of the system.

You want to be neutral on this? Hold the government accountable for the piece of **** system we have that allows someone to be reported 43 times and have 0 done to get him help or stop him from murdering a bunch of kids. This **** is shrugged off as doing nothing. Not little. NOTHING. It doesn’t address the problem. Period. And I’m betting you know that too.
Click to expand...

1) Yes...what is wrong is that there is no law that placed him on the no-gun purchase list. And since the same thing happened in Aurora; and since the Sandy Hook shooter stole his mommy's "secured" guns after being taught how to shoot for years, we do have a mentally-ill trend that makes it tougher to simply declare that law enforcement failed in Florida. Law enforcement is not the reason he was allowed to legally purchase a weapon. Doing this tends to push the issue beyond the mentally-ill issue because we want to simply blame a cop.

2) You do realize that your position is just as irrationally extreme as those who simply want to ban guns, right? I have stated that the mentally-ill should not have legal access to guns. I did not state that you should have your pretty little toys taken away. And it is because of the "people like you" that we have come so far down the path of do nothing that we even have this escalating issue at all. The problem is not the 43 phone calls. The problem is that there was nothing they could legally do anyway. They cannot jail him. And, apparently, according to the Internet lawyer clan here, he has every Right in the world to buy himself as many toys as he wants. Well, here's to the next mentally-ill shooter who wants to abuse his God given Rights!

So..."nothing" is the result of dismissing anything as insignificant because it "does little." But the funny thing is that if you actually do insist that more than little be done, the gun nuts freak out. In the end, they want "nothing."
 
Absolutely pointless.

Yet another thread where the petrified gun owners band together and act just as extreme as those who have declared that they want to take their toys. Waste of time. I'm out.
 
Last edited:
MSgt said:
I know it is not a Right. But a person has the right to purchase a vehicle and get a driver's license. You know exactly my meaning. The state may also remove that privilege due to menatl capacity. The problem is that gun Rights aren't about privilege. They should be. But we are well beyond the notion that people should earn anything. You have the right to vote. The rules to that Right demand you be at least eighteen years old. So why is it when it comes to the Second Amendment, gun owners are absolutely petrified of even the discussion and default to extremes? I mean, look at this thread already? The same usual suspects circling the wagons with guns pointed out whining about people wanting to simply ban guns. In the end, it is they who will **** up our Rights.

And it would not be up to the individual to prove his mental capacity. Since a doctor placed him on the list, a doctor should remove him from the list.

Besides, it's just a suggestion. Best to do nothing. That's worked out wonderfully so far. And the anti-gun crowd exponentially grows with every new shooting? We "responsible" gun owners are doing a bang-up job protecting our Rights. (pun not intended).
Click to expand...

Again, I have no problem with a doctor testifying, or even being being mandated to report, that Joe is mentally ill and dangerous - I do have a problem with a doctor (or any other "expert") having the ability to remove Joe's constitutional rights and/or Joe's personal property simply because they want that done on their say so. Using an accusation or allegation, no matter how credible the source appears to be, as the only basis for imposing a sentence is well beyond anything allowed by the constitution and for good reason.
 
minnie616 said:
The Florida Bill excludes teachers who "exclusively perform classroom duties as classroom teachers" from being allowed to carry guns at school. Those who have military or law enforcement experience or who teach Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps programs could be eligible, with 144 hours of training.

The carry program for the teachers will be voluntary.
Click to expand...

I think that's a good way to institute the program. People who are not trained to shoot can shoot wildly when under pressure. Or at other times. In my opinion, law enforcement officers don't always get enough practice shooting time. My daughter, who's in law enforcement, occasionally brings some officers out to our place because we have a "bank" range for shooting. I rarely shoot but she'll ask me to come out and participate and, I swear, none of the officers have ever (to date) bested me in shooting. They'll all probably beat me next time since I said that. LOL

But, yes, training should be mandatory.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom