[Spring Hillian]

Originally Posted by Not_liking_FL

Exactly! You can tell by the creepy posters what this state is all about.

You should brush up on the gun laws in other states. Its a national freedom not limited to Florida. Wait until open carry goes on the books.


Speaking of creepy posters ..... Spouting opinions but NEVER answering a question.
Another "non-participating" poster.

[bbronston]

Originally Posted by vaughanwilliams

I find it ironic (but totally expected) those who constantly rail against so-called Federal overreach have no problem with the State telling independent municipalities they can't ban some dope from setting up a shooting gallery in a residential neighborhood. This is just one more example of the scores of laws passed recently with the intent of consolidating power in Tallahassee and weakening local control in cities and counties.

I don't see the two points of view as being inconsistent. For those who take the point of view that "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" begins and ends with that statement, no restrictive gun law (state or federal) has any moral authority (and IMO that is one legitimate, although potentially unmanageable, point of view) but I expect that most people who care about the subject can look at the many foolish and pointless attempts to infringe on the right to keep/bear on a federal level as an overreach while still accepting the right of the states to make common sense regulations regarding their ownership and use. That's generally not the problematic issue. The problem in Florida was that the state abdicated its right to be the exclusive maker of the law for some time and we ended up with a patchwork of inconsistent and arbitrary laws regarding something as important as a constitutional right. That is a bad way to govern and the (hopefully) first step to cleaning it up was to take the 'patchwork' out of it. Now, the next step is to adequately protect the public while minimally restricting constitutional rights. I'd like to think that is coming but I'm not so sure.

[Spring Hillian]

Intelligence shines brightly.

A +

Originally Posted by bbronston

I don't see the two points of view as being inconsistent. For those who take the point of view that "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" begins and ends with that statement, no restrictive gun law (state or federal) has any moral authority (and IMO that is one legitimate, although potentially unmanageable, point of view) but I expect that most people who care about the subject can look at the many foolish and pointless attempts to infringe on the right to keep/bear on a federal level as an overreach while still accepting the right of the states to make common sense regulations regarding their ownership and use. That's generally not the problematic issue. The problem in Florida was that the state abdicated its right to be the exclusive maker of the law for some time and we ended up with a patchwork of inconsistent and arbitrary laws regarding something as important as a constitutional right. That is a bad way to govern and the (hopefully) first step to cleaning it up was to take the 'patchwork' out of it. Now, the next step is to adequately protect the public while minimally restricting constitutional rights. I'd like to think that is coming but I'm not so sure.

[vaughanwilliams]

Originally Posted by bbronston

I don't see the two points of view as being inconsistent. For those who take the point of view that "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" begins and ends with that statement, no restrictive gun law (state or federal) has any moral authority (and IMO that is one legitimate, although potentially unmanageable, point of view) but I expect that most people who care about the subject can look at the many foolish and pointless attempts to infringe on the right to keep/bear on a federal level as an overreach while still accepting the right of the states to make common sense regulations regarding their ownership and use. That's generally not the problematic issue. The problem in Florida was that the state abdicated its right to be the exclusive maker of the law for some time and we ended up with a patchwork of inconsistent and arbitrary laws regarding something as important as a constitutional right. That is a bad way to govern and the (hopefully) first step to cleaning it up was to take the 'patchwork' out of it. Now, the next step is to adequately protect the public while minimally restricting constitutional rights. I'd like to think that is coming but I'm not so sure.

Restricting where a firearm is and isn't to used has no bearing on the 2nd Amendment and is certainly not infringing on gun ownership. Anyone with even a smidgen of common sense can see that allowing an unlimited number of backyard shooting ranges in a densely populated neighborhood is absolute lunacy. While we'll never know, I doubt the framers of the Constitution had backyard shooting ranges smack dab in the middle of urban centers in mind when they included the 2nd Amendment.

I've heard that "take the patchwork out of it" argument before. I think it's a silly and BS argument but going along with it, how about we get rid of all the local "patchwork" traffic and speed limit laws? Frankly, I'm tired of going from one city to the next and not knowing what the speed limit will be. And how dare an municipality tell me I can't turn right on red at certain intersections. And how about city/county building codes? For example, Miami Dade has way more restrictive codes than Columbia County. Using your logic, that's a burden for the poor contractor and he might actually need to read and abide by the local laws. The horror.

Yeah, local governments have a lot of nerve writing local laws.

[bbronston]

Since you quoted what I wrote, I have to assume that you are directing your comments to me. Your first paragraph argues against something I never said. In fact, I agree with what you wrote. I still don't see the inconsistency you claimed exists.

In your second paragraph, you use flawed analogy. Your examples of local traffic laws and building codes are not examples of US Constitutional rights so your argument is specious on its face. There is a constitutional right to keep and bear firearms and the issue here is which governmental entities have the authority to make laws regarding this particular constitutional right. You can think it is silly and BS but it is the law of the land...the state reserves (through the state constitution) the right to determine gun laws, not local governments.

[Spring Hillian]

You are trying to reason with a person who hates Florida. He would be a foe of anything the state does even if it protects the constitutional rights of the citizens. Thankfully we have a legislature that is more interested in adhering to the rights granted under the Constitution of the U.S. rather than kneeling to the wants of a the constituents of any local government's efforts to erode them.

Originally Posted by bbronston

Since you quoted what I wrote, I have to assume that you are directing your comments to me. Your first paragraph argues against something I never said. In fact, I agree with what you wrote. I still don't see the inconsistency you claimed exists.

In your second paragraph, you use flawed analogy. Your examples of local traffic laws and building codes are not examples of US Constitutional rights so your argument is specious on its face. There is a constitutional right to keep and bear firearms and the issue here is which governmental entities have the authority to make laws regarding this particular constitutional right. You can think it is silly and BS but it is the law of the land...the state reserves (through the state constitution) the right to determine gun laws, not local governments.

[vaughanwilliams]

Originally Posted by bbronston

Since you quoted what I wrote, I have to assume that you are directing your comments to me. Your first paragraph argues against something I never said. In fact, I agree with what you wrote. I still don't see the inconsistency you claimed exists.

In your second paragraph, you use flawed analogy. Your examples of local traffic laws and building codes are not examples of US Constitutional rights so your argument is specious on its face. There is a constitutional right to keep and bear firearms and the issue here is which governmental entities have the authority to make laws regarding this particular constitutional right. You can think it is silly and BS but it is the law of the land...the state reserves (through the state constitution) the right to determine gun laws, not local governments.

Of course I'm directing my post at you-that's why I included your quote. Again, the 2nd Amendment says nothing about where guns can or cannot be discharged and I understand perfectly well the "law of the land" concerning the firearm laws in Florida. You were justifying them by claiming getting rid of "patchwork" local laws makes sense as not to infringe on the gunners 2nd Amendment rights (which don't apply here). I was following your logic and using examples of how localities decide what is best and safest for their areas. Just because Columbia County (pop. density 85/sq. mile) thinks it's ok for residents to blast away in their backyard, St. Petersburg (pop. 3967/sq. mile) shouldn't be forced to.

[vaughanwilliams]

Originally Posted by Spring Hillian

You are trying to reason with a person who hates Florida. He would be a foe of anything the state does even if it protects the constitutional rights of the citizens. Thankfully we have a legislature that is more interested in adhering to the rights granted under the Constitution of the U.S. rather than kneeling to the wants of a the constituents of any local government's efforts to erode them.

You know nothing about me and your lack of civility is appalling. I'd put you on Ignore but most of your posts are so bizarre and laughable it's worth the occasional personal attack.



Keep up the good work.

[Spring Hillian]

If one county can decide to provide the rights of a constitutional issue then any of the constitutional guarantees can be decided upon. That is not the way our system works. If one does not agree with the laws of the land, change lands to a place that is more in tune to your desires. The whole "back yard gun range" issue has been overblown by those who disagree with it. How many back yard gun ranges are their in your neighborhood?

Originally Posted by vaughanwilliams

Of course I'm directing my post at you-that's why I included your quote. Again, the 2nd Amendment says nothing about where guns can or cannot be discharged and I understand perfectly well the "law of the land" concerning the firearm laws in Florida. You were justifying them by claiming getting rid of "patchwork" local laws makes sense as not to infringe on the gunners 2nd Amendment rights (which don't apply here). I was following your logic and using examples of how localities decide what is best and safest for their areas. Just because Columbia County (pop. density 85/sq. mile) thinks it's ok for residents to blast away in their backyard, St. Petersburg (pop. 3967/sq. mile) shouldn't be forced to.

[HarryWho?]

Originally Posted by bbronston

I don't see the two points of view as being inconsistent. For those who take the point of view that "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" begins and ends with that statement, no restrictive gun law (state or federal) has any moral authority (and IMO that is one legitimate, although potentially unmanageable, point of view) but I expect that most people who care about the subject can look at the many foolish and pointless attempts to infringe on the right to keep/bear on a federal level as an overreach while still accepting the right of the states to make common sense regulations regarding their ownership and use. That's generally not the problematic issue. The problem in Florida was that the state abdicated its right to be the exclusive maker of the law for some time and we ended up with a patchwork of inconsistent and arbitrary laws regarding something as important as a constitutional right. That is a bad way to govern and the (hopefully) first step to cleaning it up was to take the 'patchwork' out of it. Now, the next step is to adequately protect the public while minimally restricting constitutional rights. I'd like to think that is coming but I'm not so sure.

The Full text reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It seems that most who argue the 2nds unimpeachable gun rights tend to leave the initial qualifier out of discussion. Let alone the sentiments and realities of the time period in which it was written.