Florida Assault Weapon Ban

how would a free society keep a violent person from harming others?
Click to expand...

Cannot be done. Period.

Execution?
Click to expand...

No, this won't work, either. It does prevent repeat offenses, with certainty, but does not prevent the original harm. Execution, life imprisonment, long sentences, are all AFTER THE FACT punishment.

Their deterrent effect relies on the (potential) bad guy's certainty of being punished, and their desire to not suffer said punishment.

The death seeking nihilist or jihadist doesn't fear any possible punishment. The overwhelming majority of criminals don't believe they are going to be caught. And many of them don't fear the punishment (prison sentence) even if they are caught.

How would a free society...?? I'd point out that an "unfree society" doesn't stop violent people from harming others, either. Prison is about the most "unfree society" I can think of, but people are still harmed (beaten, robbed, raped, and even killed) in prison too. Most of society doesn't get hugely upset at that, because the victims are all criminals, themselves, but that doesn't change the fact it happens.

NO LAW prevents ANYTHING. IF the person is determined enough, they will find a way to do what they want to do.
 
It is a feel good measure and is in need of some 700,000 more signatures by February 2020 to be on the ballot. Florida just changed their petition laws too. Signatures must be on original forms and from a verifiable Florida Resident.

In other words, it is more difficult for paid political activist and wealthy elites to artificially inflate the number of Florida Residents who want to see a measure voted upon.

It is an uphill battle to even get this bill on the ballot. Not that is should not be watched, I just do not think there is much stomach in Florida for punishing law abiding citizens for the actions of a few or passing an unconstitutional law.

That being said, I will be watching and voting in Florida.
 
"The amendment, if approved, would also require people who legally owned assault-style weapons before the ban to register them with the state."

Every weapon legally owned is already registered with the feds. I suppose the registration with the state will be free? Hahahaha! Nope.

Leftern WA state Governor Lispee has a plethora of anti-gun laws which take effect 7/1/19. These are tailored to make lawful citizens jump through hoops and classes and forms, costing more money, of course, basically smothering them with red tape if they wish to purchase what Lispee deems an assault weapon. Lispee has also burdened the already over-burdened local police or sheriff to become involved in the permitting process. This is governor Lispee's way of appeasing his leftist base by attacking lawful folks and ignoring the lawless, while running for President, under the guise of "preventing mass-shootings". He's an idiot. Went to the local gun shop today. The owner is running very low on inventory. People want to avoid having Lispee put them through the grinder by purchasing before his bull█████ law goes into effect.

For Florida, I've got a better idea. Don't register it, and move to Idaho.
 
From the article in OP:

“The Second Amendment says guns should be well regulated. And we know that by banning assault weapons, that’s not going to solve every gun problem in America, but it’s a piece of the puzzle,” Leinonen said.
Click to expand...

Another twisting of the Second Amendment to meet an agenda and NO the Second Amendment does not say "guns should be well regulated".

I hope this never happens in Florida but if it did it could be very interesting if this ended up in the Eleventh Circuit Court of appeals which covers only Florida, Georgia, and Alabama though it has more justices appointed by democrats than republicans last I read.
 
Last edited:
sigarms228 said:
From the article in OP:

“The Second Amendment says guns should be well regulated. And we know that by banning assault weapons, that’s not going to solve every gun problem in America, but it’s a piece of the puzzle,” Leinonen said.
Click to expand...
Another twisting of the Second Amendment to meet an agenda and NO the Second Amendment does not say "guns should be well regulated".
Click to expand...
Correct. It was the militia that was to be well regulated, not their weapons, and in that context "regulated" didn't mean limited or restricted, it meant organized, practiced, coordinated, rehearsed, and trained.
 
And I blame spoons for making me fat but you don't see me trying to get a spoon ban! Its just another feel good measure to blame law abiding citizens for the acts of the nutty.

I don't understand why these people cant see that criminals don't care about a law, they are breaking the law anyway, they don't care that they are breaking the law. The only people effected are law abiding citizens.
 
Let’s not go down the it isn’t an assault bang bang because it’s not fully auto. That boat has sailed and trying to be cute about NFA items being registered doesn’t help.
 
“The Second Amendment says guns should be well regulated.
Click to expand...
Well, guns should be well regulated! The sights should be regulated so that the bullets strike the target!! :D

Correct. It was the militia that was to be well regulated, not their weapons, and in that context "regulated" didn't mean limited or restricted, it meant organized, practiced, coordinated, rehearsed, and trained.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty confident that the person who said it was guns does not comprehend the amendment, nor what the phrase "well regulated" means.

"well regulated" doesn't mean written laws and regulations, it refers to a mechanism or system that functions properly. A "well regulated" clock neither gains, nor loses time. The mechanism is well regulated.

In the field of firearms, one "regulates" the gun so the sights to match the bullet impact. Double rifles are "regulated" so both barrels strike the desired point of impact at the desired range. In regular speech today, we more commonly say "adjust" but "regulate" is also proper.

In Colonial times, the minimum needed for a militia to be considered well regulated was that, when called up, the men showed up, armed, with a basic quantity of ammo (powder and shot) had their own camping gear (blanket, eating/cooking gear, etc) and knew at least the rudiments of military drill.

Those units formed in prosperous areas or with wealthy patrons got more and better gear and training than others, generally.
 
Those who want to know what the founders meant by a "well regulated militia" might be interested in reading the original Militia Act of 1792.

http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

The important part for understanding "well regulated" is the second part, enacted May 8, 1792. This section established the federal standards (the "regulation" for the militia. I was going to quote it, but the entire document speaks to the issue and it's far too long to quote here. I'll just cite the portion that corresponds to what 44 Amp mentioned about the militiaman's "kit":

That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.
Click to expand...
Ironically, we should take note that the militia were expected to provide their own firearm. Further, it was eventually required that the militia firearms be of uniform caliber, so that the government would only have to provide one size of ammunition.

that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound;
Click to expand...

Today, with the primary long arm of the U.S. military being the M16/M4, the nearest equivalent firearm civilians can buy (in most states) is the AR-15. Rather than trying to outlaw AR-15s as so-called "assault weapons" ( an artificially constructed designation that changes with the whims of each state's legislators), the government should be encouraging citizens to own AR-15s in order to be suitably armed for our role as the unorganized militia.
 
I'm pretty confident that the person who said it was guns does not comprehend the amendment, nor what the phrase "well regulated" means.
Click to expand...

They know. They just don't care.

That's the thing. Gun-control advocates have heard all our counter-arguments. They've been corrected on their factual errors. Yet they persist because they know they can get away with it.

That's why we still hear the constant lies about how the CDC is supposedly banned from performing gun research (despite the dozen or so studies they do every year), how you can't sue gunmakers for anything (which is why they're always quick to do recalls for potential defects), and how the 2nd Amendment is about muskets and the National Guard.
 
Doyle said:
FunGramps said:
Every weapon legally owned is already registered with the feds.
Click to expand...
Where in the world do you get that idea?
Click to expand...

My reaction exactly.

The ATF is empowered to run a trace on any weapon found at a crime scene, but it has to have a serial number first. They start with the firearm and work from the beginning: from manufacturer/importer to distributor to dealer to buyer.

The one place where the feds might begin to build a registry is through the background-check system, but, as most people here probably know, the government is specifically forbidden to retain background-check information. Even without that restriction, the government would have no records of private sales at all.
 
Every weapon legally owned is already registered with the feds.
Click to expand...

This is, in one sense, true. Every receiver is "registered" when manufactured. It is registered as rifle/shotgun, handgun, or "other". Beyond that, there is no FEDERAL registration in the usual sense.

The Fed does NOT have a list of who owns them, they don't have a list of where and when shipped or sold by the factory. As noted, they can get that information, during an investigation, BUT they have to have a gun to trace, to begin with.
 
Anyone with a proper middle school level of reading comprehension knows what the second amendment says... Anyone that strays from the intended meaning is doing so intentionally.


And in response to this quote:
Same chief that says violent crime is acceptable because the perpetrators are poor, underprivileged and downtrodden.
Click to expand...
I live in an area that is experiencing this painful trend. People are getting a pass on being charged or prosecuted for serious crimes because of their current economic situation. I’m not going into it any further than that because I’ll just rant, so I’ll just go back to watching my border collie eat random dry leaves.
 
No, this won't work, either. It does prevent repeat offenses, with certainty, but does not prevent the original harm. Execution, life imprisonment, long sentences, are all AFTER THE FACT punishment.
Click to expand...
Criminologists and others certainly disagree about whether the death penalty deters murders. For example, see https://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000983. But the effectiveness of the death penalty has been weakened by the long delays that penalty faces, typically decades in almost all states (if ever enforced).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top