This is how the Second Amendment should be Interpreted! Florida HB 1205

[aociswundumho]

The federal government is still enforcing federal drug laws.. Personally, I would like to see marijuana removed from the list of controlled substances and let the states regulate it...

You didn't answer his question. Do you support the supremacy clause or not? If yes, then you should be against the idea of the states legalizing MJ thereby violating federal law. Is that your position?

 

[j brown's body]

Perhaps you should change your avatar. If John Brown were alive today, he'd be on our side, not yours.

Lol, I doubt white folks using guns to protect blacks from state oppression is what the Florida legislature has in mind.

"Bloody Florida" is not a popular moniker one would expect to see in this day and age, even from the GOP.

 

[ttwtt78640]

You didn't answer his question. Do you support the supremacy clause or not? If yes, then you should be against the idea of the states legalizing MJ thereby violating federal law. Is that your position?

Yep, dodging questions and then making false assertions instead is not honestly debating.

 

[OrphanSlug]

State governments pitting themselves against the federal government seems like a politically overused and historically tragic approach here.

 

[j brown's body]

The truth is you don't understand natural rights like self defense or private property. Your handlers are clearly leaving you uneducated on the topic.

Support for private property seems to erode for Republicans when it comes to guns. In Florida, it is against the law for a company to even to inquire whether an employee has left a gun in a car on a company parking lot.

 

[BlueTex]

You didn't answer his question. Do you support the supremacy clause or not? If yes, then you should be against the idea of the states legalizing MJ thereby violating federal law. Is that your position?

The department of justice, in 2013, gave the green light for states to legalize... I am not aware of any such memo for the enforcement of firearms law...

https://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/3052013829132756857467.pdf

 

[swing_voter]

Does that mean it will get rid of "The National Firearms Act?"

Floridians will be running around gunning down each other with full auto weapons?


It's just some hack politician pandering to his supporters with meaningless theatrics.

 

[BlueTex]

Yep, dodging questions and then making false assertions instead is not honestly debating.

What false assertion? That two idiots in Kansas believed this bullshit and are now convicted felons?

 

[ttwtt78640]

State governments pitting themselves against the federal government seems like a politically overused and historically tragic approach here.

Yet that concept is championed by those who see federal marijuana (prohibition?) laws as being optional, thus can be overridden by state/local laws with impunity.

 

[j brown's body]

You didn't answer his question. Do you support the supremacy clause or not? If yes, then you should be against the idea of the states legalizing MJ thereby violating federal law. Is that your position?

One can support the supremacy clause and still support liberty. For instance, smoking pot hurts virtually no one, so opposing the Supremacy clause in this case is perfectly appropriate as it supports liberty. Guns, in the other hand, are a true public health menace, therfore, in this case, in protecting liberty, supporting the supremacy clause would be appropriate.

The problem with libertarianism is its supporters are so rigid in their thinking that they will support any kind of madness as long as it conforms to their ideology. In this way, they remind me very much of communists. The flip side of the rigid ideological coin. Their ideas sound great, they're just not very practical.

 

[Evilroddy]

What a shame the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Fire Arms is a federal agency and can operate without Florida's legal cooperation in the State of Florida. If the State of Florida authorities attempt to forcefully resist the ATF, then arrest whoever gives such orders and put the state executive under trusteeship until they learn to behave themselves. Meanwhile teach those stupid lawmakers what the words "well regulated militia" means and how those words impact the meaning of the Second Amendment.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

 

[aociswundumho]

Lol, I doubt white folks using guns to protect blacks from state oppression is what the Florida legislature has in mind.

I agree, but John Brown would never support any gun control, especially since the original purpose of gun control was to keep blacks disarmed.

 

[ttwtt78640]

What false assertion? That two idiots in Kansas believed this bullshit and are now convicted felons?

Many more “idiots” are violating federal marijuana laws and getting away with it. Your false assertion was stating that was not happening on a grand scale in states which have either legalized or decriminalized marijuana via state law.

 

[ttwtt78640]

The department of justice, in 2013, gave the green light for states to legalize... I am not aware of any such memo for the enforcement of firearms law...

https://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/3052013829132756857467.pdf

That is prime example of the federal executive making law - that should be declared unconstitutional.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Yet that concept is championed by those who see federal marijuana (prohibition?) laws as being optional, thus can be overridden by state/local laws with impunity.

I am not necessarily one of them, even though I do think the Federal government should have un-scheduled A marijuana a long way back.

Of these states that legalized marijuana, there is always that open door to challenge by the Federal government and their actions. We may say it is otherwise, or give some political assurance from the Federal level to those states but those assurances are neither law or binding in any regard.

 

[j brown's body]

I agree, but John Brown would never support any gun control, especially since the original purpose of gun control was to keep blacks disarmed.

Violently or peacefully, Brown believed that God put him in this earth to free the slaves. His use of guns was neccesatiated by the fact that slaves were oppressed through the use of guns.

Brown surely would have preferred that whites not use arms to protect slavery and oppression. A reality that blows a giant hole in the theory that guns are neccesary to protect freedom. Its only because they are first used to protect oppression.

 

[aociswundumho]

The department of justice, in 2013, gave the green light for states to legalize... I am not aware of any such memo for the enforcement of firearms law...

https://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/3052013829132756857467.pdf

How is that relevant? That letter concerns enforcement of MJ laws, it doesn't change federal law, nor does it change the constitution. In fact, it supports the supremacy clause:




How many times do I have to ask the same question. Do you support the supremacy clause?

Yes or no.

If yes, then it follows that you should be against the states undermining the supremacy clause.

 

[aociswundumho]

Violently or peacefully, Brown believed that God put him in this earth to free the slaves. His use of guns was neccesatiated by the fact that slaves were oppressed through the use of guns.

Brown surely would have preferred that whites not use arms to protect slavery and oppression. A reality that blows a giant hole in the theory that guns are neccesary to protect freedom. Its only because they are first used to protect oppression.

Brown did not support gun control for whites, he wanted slaves to be armed in order for them to gain their freedom.

Isn't it interesting how the guy in my avatar influenced the guy your avatar:

Author of important books and pamphlets on scores of subjects, Lysander Spooner's greatest passion was antislavery. A radical theorist, Spooner was a hero to many antislavery activists, including John Brown, whose raid on Harper's Ferry was inspired by reading Spooner.

Does the Second Amendment prohibit slavery?

What Lysander Spooner argued in 1845 became the law of the land in 1868

reason.com

Spooner argued, and Brown certainly agreed with him, that all that was needed to end slavery was to enforce the Second Amendment:

These provisions obviously recognize the natural right of all men "to keep and bear arms" for their personal defence; and prohibit both Congress and the State governments from infringing the right of "the people"–that is, of any of the people–to do so; and more especially of any whom Congress have power to include in their militia. The right of a man "to keep and bear arms," is a right palpably inconsistent with the idea of his being a slave. Yet the right is secured as effectually to those whom the States presume to call slaves, as to any whom the States condescend to acknowledge free.

Under this provision any man has a right either to give or sell arms to those persons whom the States call slaves; and there is no constitutional power, in either the national or State governments, that can punish him for so doing; or that can take those arms from the slaves; or that can make it criminal for the slaves to use them, if, from the inefficiency of the laws, it should become necessary for them to do so, in defence of their own lives or liberties; for this constitutional right to keep arms implies the constitutional right to use them, if need be, for the defence of one's liberty or life.

And John Brown wholeheartedly agreed.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

you cannot dispute his points, so you try to derail his argument with guilt by association nonsense. I guess since Mao and Stalin were big fans of disarming citizens, that means all you gun banners supported the genocide that Mao and Stalin visited on unarmed subjects? Of course not, but that is what you are doing

Dispute what? He‘s insisting a right that was never meant to be unfettered be unfettered to his exact definition, and anything falling outside of that myopic and poorly educated reading of 2A is traiterous.

What I propose: limit all gun shops to one per state. Create gigantic lines. Make it super hard to get ’em.

I hear that’s not considered suppression so it’s win/win.

 

[Phys251]

That is nonsense. Was it “your side” that shot a member of congress on a ball field?

Our side didn't defend or deflect away from it, as you just did.

 

[Phys251]

what fascinates me is the posters who will enter and post in this type of thread and not enter and post in a thread where an adult appears to have had sex with a minor (and paid her).

It's the typical LOOK OVER THERE! response by fascists.

 

[Phys251]

Irrelevant; did your handlers instruct you to derail the thread? What an interesting avatar, the vapid slut Kamala "Laughing Hyena" Harris

More sexism from the Right.

The truth is you don't understand natural rights like self defense or private property. Your handlers are clearly leaving you uneducated on the topic.

"Handlers"? Who are you talking about? Be specific.

 

[Phys251]

wrong again-you are trying to avoid discussing his take on the second by trying to diminish it by claiming people you don't like , have raised similar arguments.

I am so sorry that you don't want to acknowledge the insurrectionists on your side. I am so sorry that you don't want to acknowledge that the opening post directly enabled the very kind of violent rhetoric used by your side on 1/06.

That's all you fascism supporters have now. Deny, deflect, deny, deflect, over and over again.

 

[CaughtInThe]

It's the typical LOOK OVER THERE! response by fascists.

or priorities?

 

[TurtleDude]

I am so sorry that you don't want to acknowledge the insurrectionists on your side. I am so sorry that you don't want to acknowledge that the opening post directly enabled the very kind of violent rhetoric used by your side on 1/06.

That's all you fascism supporters have now. Deny, deflect, deny, deflect, over and over again.

1) this discussion is about the second amendment, and some states' actions to protect it from federal incursion

2) this has nothing to do with your hatred of Trump or your pathetic attempts to smear the second amendment and efforts to protect it, by pretending that a small group of people who engaged in lawless violence, represent most, if not all, of the second amendment advocates.

3) it appears you are engaging in this pathetic diversion because your hatred of the second amendment is based solely on the fact that you support a malignant authoritarian government and you are upset that second amendment advocates generally vote against the collectivist politicians you adore and worship.