I really want to see how you guys respond to this one. (Thanks, Formula....didn't notice that.)
quote
The Tampa City Council on Thursday said they would ask Florida Gov. Rick Scott to ban firearms outside the Republican National Convention later this year.
Originally posted by MidEngineManiac: ....And if somebody was planing on doing something, I am sure a ban would deter them. Yup, they would obey a ban...
I have to admit my initial thought process went very conspiracy theorist. Ban guns, someone important gets shot because the criminal knows guns aren't allowed, push for more gun control.
IP: Logged
12:26 PM
htexans1 Member
Posts: 9115 From: Clear Lake City/Houston TX Registered: Sep 2001
"We believe it is necessary and prudent to take this reasonable step to prevent a potential tragedy," council member Lisa Montelione wrote in a draft of the letter to the governor.
Hmm, George Zimmerman zealots among the crowd? Let's hope nobody steps on a person's shoes and claims they were threaten, hehe.
I have to admit my initial thought process went very conspiracy theorist. Ban guns, someone important gets shot because the criminal knows guns aren't allowed, push for more gun control.
Even if it wasn't planned you know they would take advantage of the situation.
Oh, and i disagree with 'banning' a right. Our elected are supposed to protect them, not trample on them.
[This message has been edited by User00013170 (edited 04-28-2012).]
I disagree. Why would this be a problem? I think this is the fundamental difference between the liberal and conservative brain. Liberals assume that if people have guns people will use them. They beleive ALL people have no self control because THEY have no self control. Conservatives have self control and beleive that guns are a necessary tool for self defense in a world with SOME people who have no self control.
Hence, having guns there is no problem because only people with self control will be there.
My thoughts are that the the US Constitution's 2nd Amendment trumps any state edict, and neither the Tampa City Council nor the Fl Gov have the constitutional authority to enact or enforce this proposed ban.
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 04-28-2012).]
IP: Logged
01:41 PM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27106 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
I disagree. Why would this be a problem? I think this is the fundamental difference between the liberal and conservative brain. Liberals assume that if people have guns people will use them. They beleive ALL people have no self control because THEY have no self control. Conservatives have self control and beleive that guns are a necessary tool for self defense in a world with SOME people who have no self control.
Hence, having guns there is no problem because only people with self control will be there.
I disagree. Why would this be a problem? I think this is the fundamental difference between the liberal and conservative brain. Liberals assume that if people have guns people will use them. They beleive ALL people have no self control because THEY have no self control. Conservatives have self control and beleive that guns are a necessary tool for self defense in a world with SOME people who have no self control.
Hence, having guns there is no problem because only people with self control will be there.
You disagree with what, Todd? My asking the question?
I didn't voice an opinion.
[This message has been edited by Doni Hagan (edited 04-28-2012).]
My thoughts are that the the US Constitution's 2nd Amendment trumps any state edict, and neither the Tampa City Council nor the Fl Gov have the constitutional authority to enact or enforce this proposed ban.
I agree, and if you ask me it should be a requirement of following the "top down rules on rights" for agreeing to be part of the 'union', however currently states have been allowed to stomp all over it and the feds just give the a free pass for the most part. What isnt there is within the rights of the states to regulate, but what is in the federal Constitution, um no.
Now, if they tried to squelch the 1st or 4th, everyone would be complaining and shouting 'my rights, my rights'... Bunch of hypocrites if you ask me
IP: Logged
02:11 PM
NEPTUNE Member
Posts: 10199 From: Ticlaw FL, and some other places. Registered: Aug 2001
This is what Florida Law lists for places you can not carry concealed...
(12) No license issued pursuant to this section shall authorize any person to carry a concealed weapon or firearm into any place of nuisance as defined in s. 823.05; any police, sheriff, or highway patrol station; any detention facility, prison, or jail; any courthouse; any courtroom, except that nothing in this section would preclude a judge from carrying a concealed weapon or determining who will carry a concealed weapon in his or her courtroom; any polling place; any meeting of the governing body of a county, public school district, municipality, or special district; any meeting of the Legislature or a committee thereof; any school, college, or professional athletic event not related to firearms; any school administration building; any portion of an establishment licensed to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises, which portion of the establishment is primarily devoted to such purpose; any elementary or secondary school facility; any career center; any college or university facility unless the licensee is a registered student, employee, or faculty member of such college or university and the weapon is a stun gun or nonlethal electric weapon or device designed solely for defensive purposes and the weapon does not fire a dart or projectile; inside the passenger terminal and sterile area of any airport, provided that no person shall be prohibited from carrying any legal firearm into the terminal, which firearm is encased for shipment for purposes of checking such firearm as baggage to be lawfully transported on any aircraft; or any place where the carrying of firearms is prohibited by federal law. Any person who willfully violates any provision of this subsection commits a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. 1
The law does not permit concealed carry at any meeting of a governing body. What I do outside that meeting is perfectly legal.
[This message has been edited by JimmyS (edited 04-28-2012).]
So far, there's been a repetition of the "criminals will have guns" argument. That was to be expected. However, no one has as yet pointed out that most (if not all) successful or attempted political assassinations in our history were not carried out by common "criminals" in the pejorative sense of the word but by political ideologues.....the very sort of individual likely to be interested in attending a political convention.
Lincoln, McKinley, two Kennedys, Garfield, Anton Cermak (assassinated in Florida, by the way, though the target was actually FDR), Huey Long, Truman (Blair House), Reagan, Giffords among others ....it's a rather lengthy list. None of them, to my knowledge, were shot or shot at during the commission of a robbery or a drive-by. Admittedly, these events did not occur at political conventions but they occurred nonetheless. Given the somewhat heightened emotional state surrounding our present-day political landscape, the risk of something dramatic happening could be a concern for some.
My father was a member of Dr. M.L. King's security detail. One thing he's always said to me is that "The bodyguard is always the second one to shoot."
Just wanted to add that perspective to the conversation. Maybe I've read The Manchurian Candidate once too often.
Carry on, gentlemen.
[This message has been edited by Doni Hagan (edited 04-28-2012).]
IP: Logged
03:39 PM
82-T/A [At Work] Member
Posts: 25521 From: Florida USA Registered: Aug 2002
As far as I know... if it's on private property, the property owner can ask whatever they want.
Having a gun on your person is TOTALLY normal in Florida... especially in places like Davie and Plantation (cities within the Fort Lauderdale area). It's not something that people really even think about. I don't mean like gang / thugs having guns, just normal people with a gun holster on their side.
Honestly, gun laws in Florida are not really a big deal because there really aren't any. It's the rest of the country that is uncomfortable with this kind of stuff. In Florida, people don't really talk about this stuff because it's just so normal. It's like when I moved to Maryland, and people act all weird when you start talking about people who are gay. One of my co-workers came up to me and kind of whispered to me that one of the higher-ups was gay... and I was just kind of like... "and???" In South Florida... particularly Miami and South Beach, this is just totally normal, it's not something people fuss about or even really think about.
Why would the Secret Service be armed, Jake? I don't believe the President will be there. But there will be Colombian prostitutes, eh?
I apologize for interrupting, Doni.
Far as I know SS agents are always armed. They give potential Presidential candidates almost the same protection as the actual president at this point. You can be their armed to the hilt.
Its against the law to carry a concealed weapon without a permit almost everywhere in the US. I wonder how many without a permit have them in their pocket right now ?
just normal people with a gun holster on their side.
Honestly, gun laws in Florida are not really a big deal because there really aren't any.
Todd
You can't be serious! There is NO OPEN CARRY in Florida. If someone other than LE is carrying a firearm in a holster on their side in public then they are blatantly breaking the law. As far as there not being any gun laws in Florida... Wake up dude! There are plenty of gun laws.
So far, there's been a repetition of the "criminals will have guns" argument. That was to be expected. However, no one has as yet pointed out that most (if not all) successful or attempted political assassinations in our history were not carried out by common "criminals" in the pejorative sense of the word but by political ideologues.....the very sort of individual likely to be interested in attending a political convention.
But common or not they were all criminals
I can do something all my life and then with the stroke of a pen I can be made a criminal for just doing something that was once protected.
I disagree. Why would this be a problem? I think this is the fundamental difference between the liberal and conservative brain. Liberals assume that if people have guns people will use them. They beleive ALL people have no self control because THEY have no self control. Conservatives have self control and beleive that guns are a necessary tool for self defense in a world with SOME people who have no self control.
Hence, having guns there is no problem because only people with self control will be there.
So, you don't believe any of those no self control people will be protesting outside? I have a feeling that this convention will not be unlike others in recent history where protesters will take the opportunity to present their agenda before the national media. So, how about those guns outside the convention hall doors? You still feel ok about everyone packing?
Personally, I'm ok with everyone enjoying their constitutional rights, but the second amendment will not be the only rights trampled on during the election season.
So far, there's been a repetition of the "criminals will have guns" argument. That was to be expected. However, no one has as yet pointed out that most (if not all) successful or attempted political assassinations in our history were not carried out by common "criminals" in the pejorative sense of the word but by political ideologues.....the very sort of individual likely to be interested in attending a political convention.
So far, there's been a repetition of the "criminals will have guns" argument. That was to be expected. However, no one has as yet pointed out that most (if not all) successful or attempted political assassinations in our history were not carried out by common "criminals" in the pejorative sense of the word but by political ideologues.....the very sort of individual likely to be interested in attending a political convention.
Perhaps not when it comes to the statically minute segment of our population, but if you go with the larger picture it is true that the majority of gun crimes are committed by 'criminals'. ( tho i could argue that anyone that is willing to assassinate a public figure is not mentally stable, and thus doesn't qualify to carry a weapon in the first place as they are no longer a 'proper citizen'. )
Why should i be forced to be any "less safe" in this context just because i wanted to attend a rally?
Far as I know SS agents are always armed. They give potential Presidential candidates almost the same protection as the actual president at this point. You can be their armed to the hilt.
I forgot about protection of the other candidate.
quote
Originally posted by Doni Hagan: However, no one has as yet pointed out that most (if not all) successful or attempted political assassinations in our history were not carried out by common "criminals" in the pejorative sense of the word but by political ideologues.....the very sort of individual likely to be interested in attending a political convention.
OMG! There won't be anything but that sort of folk at the GOP convention! But, in that case, they should be able to protect themselves.
IP: Logged
06:32 PM
NEPTUNE Member
Posts: 10199 From: Ticlaw FL, and some other places. Registered: Aug 2001
...most (if not all) successful or attempted political assassinations in our history were not carried out by common "criminals" in the pejorative sense of the word but by political ideologues...
I think the point is... would those people care about a rule against guns there, if they are planning on killing someone anyways? I guess legally it isn't conspiracy to murder, since it isn't between two or more people, but I think they were using the term "criminal" loosely, to describe someone who would actually assassinate someone else.
Though I'll admit, this is a two-edged sword. On one end, the conspirator can't just waltz in with a gun. But the negative is that once he's in, it's an easy pickin' as long as he doesn't do it right in front of a guard.
I don't think anyone will be assassinated either way, but it makes for good discussion.
IP: Logged
07:03 PM
Toddster Member
Posts: 20871 From: Roswell, Georgia Registered: May 2001
I think the point is... would those people care about a rule against guns there, if they are planning on killing someone anyways? I guess legally it isn't conspiracy to murder, since it isn't between two or more people, but I think they were using the term "criminal" loosely, to describe someone who would actually assassinate someone else.
Though I'll admit, this is a two-edged sword. On one end, the conspirator can't just waltz in with a gun. But the negative is that once he's in, it's an easy pickin' as long as he doesn't do it right in front of a guard.
I don't think anyone will be assassinated either way, but it makes for good discussion.
Conspiracy doesn't require multiple parties. And why cant he 'just walz in' ?
