I could make the same sort of plug for Donald trumps anti Islamic immigration plan, but I wont because it would have done nothing in this case. The fuckwad in question has been here for years. At least that would theoretically prevent fuckwads like him from coming here. The smart gun law would have done nothing to prevent a security guard from having access to a firearm, which this fuckwad appears to have been. Lastly, I'd like to make a plug about writing to representatives about smart gun legislation to prevent future tragedies...
Florida doesn't require a license or permit to flat out own a gun. Is it a problem? Yes. Does it apply in this case? If stretching it, yes. To carry a concealed weapon, you operate under Florida Statue Title XLVI Chapter 760.06, which doesn't do much here, again, seeing as it speeds along the process for anyone certified as such: (h) Demonstrates competence with a firearm by any one of the following: 1. Completion of any hunter education or hunter safety course approved by the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission or a similar agency of another state; 2. Completion of any National Rifle Association firearms safety or training course; 3. Completion of any firearms safety or training course or class available to the general public offered by a law enforcement agency, junior college, college, or private or public institution or organization or firearms training school, using instructors certified by the National Rifle Association, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, or the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services; 4. Completion of any law enforcement firearms safety or training course or class offered for security guards, investigators, special deputies, or any division or subdivision of a law enforcement agency or security enforcement; 5. Presents evidence of equivalent experience with a firearm through participation in organized shooting competition or military service; 6. Is licensed or has been licensed to carry a firearm in this state or a county or municipality of this state, unless such license has been revoked for cause; or 7. Completion of any firearms training or safety course or class conducted by a state-certified or National Rifle Association certified firearms instructor; Those are a lot of easy ways to get concealed carry by passing a government background check via a gun advocacy program. Hell, you don't even have to meet face to face with another human in order to receive certification (Ref: Question 6). I guess my point being: 'in a perfect world' there'd be more safety hoops to jump through to prevent 'fuckwads' in general from carrying out murder sprees with guns, regardless of ethnicity; let's face it, yesterday's shooting was by a white male, the problem is larger than pinning a scapegoat. EDIT: Forgive me for the source, I'd rather be referencing a right-of-center source in this context. Here's a timeline of 2015 and today on how the killers got their hands on guns. There are clear red flags which would make one stop and think that their rights to weapons should have been taken at many points.The smart gun law would have done nothing to prevent a security guard from having access to a firearm, which this fuckwad appears to have been.
(2) The Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services shall issue a license if the applicant: [...]
For you and snoodog:I just came from a meeting today, in the situation room, in which I've got people who we know have been on ISIL web sites, living here in the United States—US citizens. And we're allowed to put them on the "No fly" list when it comes to airlines, but because of the National Rifle Association, I cannot prohibit those people from buying a gun. This is somebody who is a known ISIL sympathizer and if he wants to walk into a gun store or a gun show right now, and buy as many weapons and ammo as he can, nothing's prohibiting him from doing that, even though the FBI knows who that person is. So sir, I just have to say, respectfully, that there is a way for us to have common sense gun laws. There is a way for us to make sure that lawful, responsible gun owners like yourself are able to use it for sporting, hunting, protecting yourself. But the only way we're gonna do that is if we don't have a situation in which anything that is proposed is viewed as some tyrannical destruction of the Second Amendment. And that's how, too often, the issue gets framed.
- Barack Obama
For some reason I didn't get pinged for this. I remember seeing the video with which this came from a week or two ago. I think it'd be worth looking into watching/hearing the whole video. It's seriously ridiculous. I guess my long term hope at this point is the Republican party will dissolve and a new right-of-center party emerges in my life time that's moderate enough to consider the value of human lives in this instance. It's not about "taking guns away" . . . .
Really... the no fly list? You had to sink so low to make your argument against guns? Why don't we just extend the no fly list to all the constitutional amendments and the bill of rights? Visit an Islamist website loose all rights what so ever. Cant drive, cant fly cant walk cant speak, cant vote. Why not just send everyone to gitmo without any due process and call it a day.
I completely agree with you, let's do that! You know, when you respond to things in such a manner it completely removes the possibility of an open and engaging discourse, right? Because really, how am I supposed to respond to you when you're immediately extrapolating what I'm quoting to such an extreme degree? I'm fine with disagreeing but if you're going to treat me like an asshole in the process then I want nothing to do with this.
Well you and our esteemed leader just suggested (and our esteemed leader I might add) that we should use no fly list criteria (what ever the hell it is) to strip people of their constitutional rights without due process? What makes the second amendment any less important than the 1st or the 19th? If a no gun list is legitimately up for debate then why not a no speak list? or a no vote list?
The Hill: The New York Times: How much more due process do you want to see. Also, I'm just going to quote this again for you:The FBI confirmed on Sunday it had interviewed the suspect in the Orlando, Fla., nightclub attack three times before the shooting took place early Sunday morning.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives said Mr. Mateen had legally bought both weapons used in the attack, a handgun and a long gun, in Florida within the last week.
But the only way we're gonna do that is if we don't have a situation in which anything that is proposed is viewed as some tyrannical destruction of the Second Amendment. And that's how, too often, the issue gets framed.
If you are so anti second amendment that you want it to see it repealed, fine there is a process for doing that its called a constitutional convention we can have an argument about if that's really necessary. What you and oyster are arguing for is having congress and the president completely ignore the current rule of law because its inconvenient and doesn't conform to your current values. That's how we get shit like the patriot act, the no fly list and assassination of US citizens and their families abroad. If you don't believe in due process that's fine, I disagree but I respect your right to believe that. BTW we already have a process for stripping criminals of their fire arms rights and its called felony conviction. Do you think for a second that a no gun list wont be abused? That all sorts of people who aren't terrorists wont end up on it?
Certainly the second amendment itself isn't settled, so to speak. The individual right to keep a gun extends back only as far as 2008, which was the first time the the Supreme Court (in Heller) decided that the 2nd amendment does actually protect a citizen's right to gun ownership. Prior to that it was largely viewed (by the Court, certainly not by many individuals) as incorrect that the 2nd amendment does guarantee an individual right to own a gun. But even Heller didn't settle the matter. Just last week there was an interesting appeals court case in CA that sought to answer the question of whether states can set limits on concealed carry. The appeals court said that the CA law requiring citizens to specify a need for a CCW does not violate the 2nd amendment. I'm sure that will be appealed to the Supreme Court, too, but without Scalia, the author of Heller if I'm not mistaken, things could look different. I don't have a firm opinion on guns personally, but just wanted to point out that it's not strictly "rule of law" that prevents Congress from enacting stricter regulations. It seems like they could so almost whatever they wanted short of banning individuals from owning a gun, and that such actions wouldn't necessarily violate the constitution, although any new regulations will almost assuredly be litigated by one side or the other. If nothing else, it's at least fascinating for lay people like me who follow the Court as an interested, though uneducated, observer.
I'm not arguing anything, I'm pointing out to you why you can expect to be dismissed by people so the next time you think man why are people just dismissing my opinion you'll know. Judging from this comment though and your new leaps that was a pointless endeavor.
Dude, whatever. Keep talking down to me and treating me like an enemy of society. Don't pretend like you respect my opinion, because you don't. This discussion is going nowhere because you have this image of me as someone who's trying to repeal the 2nd amendment when that's not the case at all. Have a good one snoo.
If your position was that we should repeal the second amendment (which so far as i can tell it was not) because its no longer necessary to have a well organized militia then that's position I can respect. That position doesn't involve destroying the rule of law the country was founded on. Now perhaps I misunderstood the point you were trying to make but if you are suggesting that we as a nation can ignore the constitution because at some point in time it is inconvenient I find it hard to have much of a discussion because that sets such a horrible precedent that nothing else is safe. You say extrapolating to the 1st amendment is an extreme but from a legal point of view the 1st and the second amendment are of equal importance. That's why I think its so dangerous to go after the second without using the appropriate legal method of changing it.
Personally, I think we should repeal the second amendment. But that's not gonna happen. You can't scream fire in a movie theater, you can't vote if you're a felon in certain cases. These are limits on the constitution that don't affect the rule of law as you keep squawking. Maybe it would be a sensible restriction that semi automatic rifles that are only used to kill humans be restricted or eliminated from public ownership. You want your goddamn handgun? Fine. You want an AR-15 because it's your constitutional right to own any firearm unimpinged? Fuck you. There are exceptions to every rule, including the constitution. Oh, well he just would have used explosives or a sharpened toothbrush handle. Fuck you too. We have an epidemic of mass shootings, not stabbings or bombings. Bomb material isn't even currently regulated like guns and people go for the guns in 99% of these cases. I could make a bomb before I could get a gun. But it's guns every time. Fuck guns. The 2nd amendment's existence doesn't equal rule of law or restrict the government from regulating which types of arms are legal.
We don't have an epidemic of mass shootings. I don't own an assault weapon, and don't have the ability to buy a gun particularly easily due to my diagnosis. But I have enough support for now to feel somewhat safe with what is coming In the spirit of the revolutionaries who founded our nation, I argue our government has devolved to a point of beaurocracy akd inefficiency that, in many ways, mirrors the basic faults committed by the king of England that spurred our nation into existemce. They can take my assault weapon, over my dead body. We, the people of the USA, are not our key enemy, soon enough our country will understand this, there are puppet masters operating beyond the realm of knowledge today who are bent on destroying our values. Mark my words.
Coming from three tours to a mental hospital, and a bipolar diagnosis, I argue our nation has an epidemic of over-prescribed, character-starved humans that are behaving animalistic. We have lost our moral tenets, and have become engrossed in searching for external solutions to internal conflicts. This is shown in our govenrnment, our FED, our medical 'industry', our military, our education, almost every major aspect that holds a debate due to the disjunct.. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
here's an epidemic: people swayed by the media, rather than real data History is repeating itself I stand by the principle of the 2nd ammendment.
We don't have an epidemic of mass shootings. I don't own an assault weapon, and don't have the ability to buy a gun particularly easily due to my diagnosis. But I have enough support for now to feel somewhat safe with what is coming In the spirit of the revolutionaries who founded our nation, I argue our government has devolved to a point of beaurocracy akd inefficiency that, in many ways, mirrors the basic faults committed by the king of England that spurred our nation into existemce. They can take my assault weapon, over my dead body. We, the people of the USA, are not our key enemy, soon enough our country will understand this, there are puppet masters operating beyond the realm of jnowledge today who are bent on destroying our values. Mark my words.
Coming from three tours to a mental hospital, and a bipolar diagnosis, I argue our nation has an epidemic of over-prescribed, character-starved humans that are behaving animalistic. We have lost our moral tenets, and have become engrossed in searching for external solutions to internal conflicts. This is shown in our govenrnment, our FED, our medical 'industry', our military, our education, almost every major aspect that holds a debate due to the disjunct.. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. History is repeating itself I stand by the principle of the 2nd ammendment. here's an epidemic, people swayed by the media, rather than real data
(http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/sunday-review/the-assault-weapon-myth.html?referer=)
Here is an actual picture of the fuckwad not one that was "color enhanced" by CNN. Why cant we at least acknowledge that he wasn't exactly a white male?White Male
Only if you watch CNN. Its always a "white male" because they dont want to say middle eastern male. 