|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
FL: An assault weapons ban is a matter of public safety — not partisanship
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
What we’ve seen in the past week from Attorney General Ashley Moody is disappointing, but also not surprising.
Her comments and actions are part and parcel of Tallahassee politicians who, for more than 20 years, have done next to nothing to tackle the root cause of these mass shootings. In fact, they make the case even stronger that an issue of such urgency should be left to the people of Florida to decide —not NRA A-rated political figures who would inject partisanship into what should simply be an issue of public safety. |
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(8/9/2019)
|
Oh yes it IS partisanship AND politics. That's the way it is, like it or not.
Politics is what we do in government and electing leaders and deciding on agendas. Just accept it. It's dirty, vulgar, with a great deal of stoopidz thrown in, but then, so is making sausage.
An AWB would not do a thing. The 1994-04 ban did NOTHING to ameliorate crime; that was diminishing prior to the ban.
|
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(8/9/2019)
|
"An assault weapons ban is a matter of public safety — not partisanship"
It is neither. It is a matter of violating the U.S. Constitution.
Per U.S. v. Miller (1939), what the left is mendaciously calling "assault weapons" are within the ambit of Second Amendment protection, which provides that arms in common use that have militia utility or are any part of the ordinary military equipment and could contribute to the common defense are those the amendment was intended to guarantee. As a matter of fact, AR-15s and the like are textbook examples of this description.
Assault weapons are military arms - select-fire, capable of operating full-auto, and are banned de facto.
You cannot violate the Second Amendment and justify it with a lie. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| "Some people think that the Second Amendment is an outdated relic of an earlier time. Doubtless some also think that constitutional protections of other rights are outdated relics of earlier times. We The People own those rights regardless, unless and until We The People repeal them. For those who believe it to be outdated, the Second Amendment provides a good test of whether their allegiance is really to the Constitution of the United States, or only to their preferences in public policies and audiences. The Constitution is law, not vague aspirations, and we are obligated to protect, defend, and apply it. If the Second Amendment were truly an outdated relic, the Constitution provides a method for repeal. The Constitution does not furnish the federal courts with an eraser." --9th Circuit Court Judge Andrew Kleinfeld, dissenting opinion in which the court refused to rehear the case while citing deeply flawed anti-Second Amendment nonsense (Nordyke v. King; opinion filed April 5, 2004) |
|
|
