• 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!

New FL Law Good First Step

The law should be focused on making individuals responsible for the ownership of the guns.

Is that code for a national gun registration fiasco? Is that a deal where one could be arrested if they lacked nanny state (rented?) permission to keep and bear their otherwise legally owned gun(s)?
 
Last edited:
Is that code for a national gun registration fiasco? Where one could be arrested if they lacked nanny state permission to keep their otherwise legally owned gun(s)?

People need drivers licenses in order to legally drive a car. People have to learn all the rules of the road and official driving codes in order to be able to have a permit. There are expectations of what people have to know about driving safely and legally in order to receive an official State drivers license.

Am I naive to ask for something similar be applicable to firearms?
 
People need drivers licenses in order to legally drive a car. People have to learn all the rules of the road and official driving codes in order to be able to have a permit. There are expectations of what people have to know about driving safely and legally in order to receive an official State drivers license.

Am I naive to ask for something similar be applicable to firearms?

Yep, that is a key difference between a constitutional right, which can only be taken away by due process of law, and a mere state issued privilege that may only be obtained by taking a class, passing a test and paying numerous "user fees" to keep that privilege intact.
 
Yep, that is a key difference between a constitutional right, which can only be taken away by due process of law, and a mere state issued privilege that may only be obtained by taking a class, passing a test and paying numerous "user fees" to keep that privilege intact.

I believe that back in the era of the founding fathers, gun ownership came with certain responsibilities that gun owners were expected to perform. Gun ownership meant the possibility of having to be called upon to serve in the Millita in times of war.
 
Okay, I’ll be the one to step in it. This will not save the first life.

Gun control has nothing to do with saving lives, nor preventing crimes.
 
It would have prevented the Parkland shooter from legally buying a slew of firearms. So, I disagree.

BTW, can you prove your assertion beyond puffing out predicable hot air?

That's all it would have prevented.
 
I believe that back in the era of the founding fathers, gun ownership came with certain responsibilities that gun owners were expected to perform. Gun ownership meant the possibility of having to be called upon to serve in the Millita in times of war.

So what? If the state decides that you have no militia duties you are still a person with full constitutional rights. "The people" does not change its meaning between the 1A, 2A and 4A.
 
Last edited:
Well, since there is no militia by colonial standards, and that the National Guard will arm men 18-45, the law will stand. It won't help anything, but it'll stand.

A 20 y/o veteran with several combat tours under his belt, probably a purple heart, or two, a bronze star, or silver star will be refused at a gun store; he'll sue and win and every state law putting age restrictions on gun purchases will be unconstitutionsl and thereby, non-existant.
 
So what? If the state decides that you have no militia duties you are still a person with full constitutional rights. "The people" does not change its meaning from the 1A, 2A and 4A.

There were state laws that exempte citizens from serving in the militia on the basis of religious values.

There were state laws that protected people’s right to Not bear arms.

James Madison had proposed that the Second amendment include a clause that protected the right of conscientious objectors to not take up arms in defense of the country. That clause was omitted from the second amendment. The founding fathers saw that in order to protect the interests of the nation, the individual right of conscientious objectors to refuse millitary service did not outweigh the collective interest of national defense and that the government could force people to take up arms in defense of the country.

Now, if the founding fathers believed that the government could force people to take up arms over the rights of individual conscientious objectors, what does that say about the nature of gun rights?
 
It would have prevented the Parkland shooter from legally buying a slew of firearms. So, I disagree.

BTW, can you prove your assertion beyond puffing out predicable hot air?

You could also be asked to prove there was no way he could have gone on to obtain them illegaly.
 
There were state laws that exempte citizens from serving in the militia on the basis of religious values.

There were state laws that protected people’s right to Not bear arms.

James Madison had proposed that the Second amendment include a clause that protected the right of conscientious objectors to not take up arms in defense of the country. That clause was omitted from the second amendment. The founding fathers saw that in order to protect the interests of the nation, the individual right of conscientious objectors to refuse millitary service did not outweigh the collective interest of national defense and that the government could force people to take up arms in defense of the country.

Now, if the founding fathers believed that the government could force people to take up arms over the rights of individual conscientious objectors, what does that say about the nature of gun rights?

Did that argument even work in California? IMHO, you live in a state with very restrictive gun laws and just want to share the misery.
 
Did that argument even work in California? IMHO, you live in a state with very restrictive gun laws and just want to share the misery.

I don’t even want to own a gun, so I am not going to claim to be an expert on my States gun laws.


And why bring up California when I was talking about the laws of the original 13 colonies?
 
I don’t even want to own a gun, so I am not going to claim to be an expert on my States gun laws.


And why bring up California when I was talking about the laws of the original 13 colonies?

That has nothing to do with today's federal or state gun laws.
 
That has nothing to do with today's federal or state gun laws.

The current constitutional interpretation of gun laws has never been quite the same since 2008’s heller case, when an entirely new precedent was pulled completely out of nowhere.
 
Or simply note that, since he already owned guns, that the new law did nothing.

That too. One thing the gun control people ALWAYS IGNORE, ALWAYS. Gun laws only effect those that follow the law. Expecting criminals to suddenly be hampered by a slew of new laws, is just magical thinking.
 
That too. One thing the gun control people ALWAYS IGNORE, ALWAYS. Gun laws only effect those that follow the law. Expecting criminals to suddenly be hampered by a slew of new laws, is just magical thinking.

So you think that banks depend on honest people to protect their money? No they have safes and alarm systems. We need to protect ourselves against criminals buying guns illegally with gun laws and prosecution of "bad apple" gun dealers. This is the most ridiculous meme ever. Heres' what we can do...

• Enact the Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act, debated by
Congress in 2013, to give law enforcement more effective
tools to stop straw purchasing and trafficking;
• Establish licensing of dealers at the municipal or state
level and stronger requirements for better recordkeeping,
security practices, and employee background checks;
• Eliminate the Tiahrt Amendment, which prevents the ATF
from publicly releasing or sharing certain data on crime
gun traces, as the agency had previously done;
• Work with local law enforcement to commission research
reports based on trace data to publicly expose “bad apple”
gun dealers to reform or shut them down;
• Limit the number of guns an individual can buy within a
specific time frame (for example, one handgun per month)
to address high-volume sales;
• Remove restrictions that prevent the ATF from doing its
job by, for example, repealing portions of the Firearm
Owners’ Protection Act that limit routine dealer
inspections by ATF to one per year and establish an
unnecessarily high legal standard for revocation of a
dealer’s license;
• Enact the proposed Equal Access to Justice for Victims of
Gun Violence Act to allow “bad apple” gun dealers and
gun manufacturers to be held liable for negligence
and product liability, just like every other industry in
the United States. Since 2005, the Protection of Lawful
Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) has impeded some
civil litigation against irresponsible gun dealers and
manufacturers;
• Support local and national groups that are attempting to
spotlight the poor business practices of “bad apple” gun
dealers, putting public pressure on them to reform.

https://www.bradycampaign.org/sites/default/files/TheTruthAboutGunDealersInAmerica.pdf
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure if the feds have any authority to put a law like this in place, but more states should certainly follow suit on their own.
You realize how crazy that is? Lets say some 19-20 year old comes home to FL. after serving in the middle east,does that mean no gun for him? Suppose it went national what happens then(as far as the service goes)?No firearms until they turn 21? Or certain 'privileges'? Your right the feds don't.
 
That is a different matter entirely but yes we need to better control the illegal sales of guns. For example, it turns out that 5% of licensed dealers provide 90% of the guns used in crimes. Why can't we go after theses "bad apples"?

https://www.bradycampaign.org/sites/default/files/TheTruthAboutGunDealersInAmerica.pdf

Did you see where it cited the source as the ATF? Sounds credible right? But when you read the fine print next to the source, it says the year the data is from is (get ready for it) 2000. That's 18 years ago. Anyhow, enforcing existing laws would be sufficient to prevent those bad apples. If we cant do that, what will new laws do?
 
It would have prevented the Parkland shooter from legally buying a slew of firearms. So, I disagree.

BTW, can you prove your assertion beyond puffing out predicable hot air?
Perhaps legally,but how about illegally which is what it boils down to.
 
The current constitutional interpretation of gun laws has never been quite the same since 2008’s heller case, when an entirely new precedent was pulled completely out of nowhere.

Isn't judicial freedom to (re?)interpret law wonderful? There was no SSM right or PPACA (power to levy an income tax penalty based on what private good/service you did not buy) until recently either. The SCOTUS works in mysterious ways.
 
Last edited:
That too. One thing the gun control people ALWAYS IGNORE, ALWAYS. Gun laws only effect those that follow the law. Expecting criminals to suddenly be hampered by a slew of new laws, is just magical thinking.

Yep, mass murder being illegal does not stop it but fear of using an illegally bought gun to do so just might.
 
Back
Top Bottom