• 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

calamity

calamity

Privileged
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
160,900
Reaction score
57,849
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
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.

Good for @FLGovScott & FL Legislature for passing a compromise law which increases age to purchase all guns to 21; makes waiting period 3 days; bans bump stocks; addresses mental health & school security. Parkland students, u did this. It’s ur win. Now, if only Congress would act

https://twitter.com/ananavarro/status/972218964855087104
Click to expand...
 
calamity said:
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.
Click to expand...

Given that by law all men 18-45 are in the militia, I don't see how prohibiting 18-20 year olds will stand up in court.
 
Rucker61 said:
Given that by law all men 18-45 are in the militia, I don't see how prohibiting 18-20 year olds will stand up in court.
Click to expand...

lol....not even two full minutes.
 
Okay, I’ll be the one to step in it. This will not save the first life.
 
OrphanSlug said:
Okay, I’ll be the one to step in it. This will not save the first life.
Click to expand...

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?
 
calamity said:
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.
Click to expand...

And what would be the 'next step?'
 
They should change the minimum age to enter the army and militia 21 then.

But then the corps would miss out on all these eager 18 year olds wanting to sign up.

Does appear we have some sorta crosswire in hypocritical standards though.

The 18 year olds will be given training but it is also a important choice not suitable for fresh adults/ 1 day away from being a kid.
 
calamity said:
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?
Click to expand...

No it won't. One of the Columbine shooters wasn't even old enough to vote and he was able to obtain firearms.
 
calamity said:
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?
Click to expand...

Key word, "legally"... but we have no evidence that legality was a consideration for this shooter.
 
OrphanSlug said:
Key word, "legally"... but we have no evidence that legality was a consideration for this shooter.
Click to expand...

As a rule, people who shoot up schools aren't particularly concerned with the legality of the exercise. The Sandy Hook kid, for example, killed his mother to get the gun he used.

Furthermore, we raised the age for kids to buy beer to 21 a whole bunch of years ago. To the best of my knowledge that didn't stop kids who wanted beer from getting the product. We flat out criminalized possession of many drugs for people of all ages but, somehow or other, we not only seem to have more drugs and more dangerous drugs but we also have states legalizing drugs.

Age restrictions and bans are merely things for politicians to point at and say "I did something!". They also serve as a starting point for the next batch of collectivist, statist politicians to start their next parade.
 
Lutherf said:
As a rule, people who shoot up schools aren't particularly concerned with the legality of the exercise. The Sandy Hook kid, for example, killed his mother to get the gun he used.

Furthermore, we raised the age for kids to buy beer to 21 a whole bunch of years ago. To the best of my knowledge that didn't stop kids who wanted beer from getting the product. We flat out criminalized possession of many drugs for people of all ages but, somehow or other, we not only seem to have more drugs and more dangerous drugs but we also have states legalizing drugs.

Age restrictions and bans are merely things for politicians to point at and say "I did something!". They also serve as a starting point for the next batch of collectivist, statist politicians to start their next parade.
Click to expand...

All perfectly correct, but that last sentence is right on point.

Incremental steps at gun control, each setting a precedent for the next "reasonable" restriction.

I hope the SCOTUS slams it down, if it isn't negated by a lower court.
 
Rucker61 said:
Given that by law all men 18-45 are in the militia, I don't see how prohibiting 18-20 year olds will stand up in court.
Click to expand...

Yep, that pesky militia clause which is said to be absolutely critical to the 2A (when trying to make the 2A not apply to the same people as the 1A and 4A does) has to be completely ignored when discussing the type of arms covered by the 2A and now the age of the people as well.
 
calamity said:
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?
Click to expand...

The idea that any one "gun crime", as terrible as it was, is cause to ban all of that age range (+/- one year?) from legally buying guns (from FFL dealers) in the entire state is the "logical" solution is moronic. To make the "common sense" law even more senseless, it does not bar legal possession of a gun before age 21.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The idea that any one "gun crime", as terrible as it was, is cause to ban all of that age range (+/- one year?) from legally buying guns (from FFL dealers) in the entire state is the "logical" solution is moronic. To make the "common sense" law even more senseless, it does not bar legal possession of a gun before age 21.
Click to expand...

But it would affect the legality of buying a gun if the purchaser is under the age of 21.
 
OrphanSlug said:
Key word, "legally"... but we have no evidence that legality was a consideration for this shooter.
Click to expand...

Yep, some of the shooters guns were not bought from FFL dealers. If parents will allow their "kid" to keep and use guns then nothing prevents them from making the purchase for the family's collection.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Yep, that pesky militia clause which is said to be absolutely critical to the 2A (when trying to make the 2A not apply to the same people as the 1A and 4A does) has to be completely ignored when discussing the type of arms covered by the 2A and now the age of the people as well.
Click to expand...

National Guard members are the only Americans in a militia not high school students.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
But it would affect the legality of buying a gun if the purchaser is under the age of 21.
Click to expand...

Yep, but it can still be borrowed legally or bought illegally. Did you note the the FL mass shooter was not charged for having a gun on school property? The new law would have added nothing to his sentence - folks willing to commit mass murder are just not that likely to let losing the option of a legal gun (or 10) purchase to become a show stopper for their last big adventure.
 
Rucker61 said:
Given that by law all men 18-45 are in the militia, I don't see how prohibiting 18-20 year olds will stand up in court.
Click to expand...

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.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Yep, but it can still be borrowed legally or bought illegally. Did you note the the FL mass shooter was not charged for having a gun on school property? The new law would have added nothing to his sentence - folks willing to commit mass murder are just not that likely to let losing the option of a legal gun (or 10) purchase to become a show stopper for their last big adventure.
Click to expand...

The law should be focused on making individuals responsible for the ownership of the guns.
 
OrphanSlug said:
Okay, I’ll be the one to step in it. This will not save the first life.
Click to expand...

In other words, over $400 million wasted in a "do something" effort. There is absolutely no requirement for increased school security in that mess. The next school mass shooter will face the same school "security" as the last - enter the school with a bag full of guns and ammo (even after being recognized, as expelled, by the SRO), shoot folks until they feel satisfied, stash the weaponry and exit (as a darned near victim) with their hands on their head with a police escort to the "safer zone".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom