Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[SeattleLionsFan]

I don’t think that you can take much from the most recent though.

[Dr. Strangelove]

I don?t think that you can take much from the most recent though.

Yep, agreed.

[Kapture1]

[Ghengis Jon]

Sessions announces cyber-security task force.

https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2018/02/20/Sessions-creates-cybersecurity-task-force/7851519167967/

Chump has instructed Rod Rosenstein to nominate Alexander Bortnikov to head up the task force.

[Whitley]

So the Parkland kids go up to see the Florida state legislature yesterday. Legislature promptly votes down having a debate over gun control 71-36, refers it back to the committee which is not scheduled to meet for the rest of the legislative session.

However, the Florida legislature did pass a resolution that PORN is a public health risk.

[iam416]

Good. Bad.

[Kapture1]

So the Parkland kids go up to see the Florida state legislature yesterday. Legislature promptly votes down having a debate over gun control 71-36, refers it back to the committee which is not scheduled to meet for the rest of the legislative session.

However, the Florida legislature did pass a resolution that PORN is a public health risk.

It wasn't a debate over gun control, it was a bill to ban semi-automatic rifles.

[SeattleLionsFan]

Was the vote to open debate on the bill or a vote on passage of the bill?

[Kapture1]

They voted down the motion to take up the bill on an "assault weapons" ban

[Jeff Buchanan]

Good. Bad.

Correct.

The Florida House voted against a procedural motion filed by Rep. Kionne McGhee, D-Miami, to try to pull HB291 out of committee, ahead of schedule, and hear it on the House floor.

So, Kapture ..... know the facts.

Here they are:

https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2018/00219/?Tab=BillHistory

I'm in Fort Lauderdale, now and am hearing daily reports on what's happening with the growing protest movement called "Never Again." There are several efforts associated with this movement. First, they are facing state legislators in open sessions that include the Governor to hear them. Some of these kids are very articulate. Political suicide to appear to ignore them. However, as has been pointed out by numerous national and local pundits, how much this movement can achieve legislatively is unknown but odds against prompting significant change are small.

I think we know some of the reasons why this is so at the state and federal level. Special Interests (e.g., the NRA) is part of the problem but not all of it. Radical, 2nd amendment rights proponents have a say in this and there arguments for the right to gun ownership tend to be sensationalized as opposed to trying to bring understanding to the basis of them ..... this is why talent post "Good" ..... he is a strong constitutionalist, assuming I am reading his post history on things like this correctly. He's also a proponent of process. If someone wants to amend the Constitution there is a process for that.

As sad as the school killings are, if assault weapon ban supporters want their state legislators to put restrictions on owning them and banning the magazines that are commonly used in them, there is a process for that. My position on this is, get busy.

There are local steps that, in the mean time, can be taken to provide better security at schools without making them prisons - a common concern of parents and students. At the state level, there are several steps involving the power of police to make arrests where credible threats of violence are present. The same sort of steps have been discussed for citizens with known mental health issues when there is a "mental health crisis" reported ..... and if laws /ordinances allowing police to make arrests when there are threats of violence and a mental health crisis present would have stopped Cruz from carrying out his plan.

As far as I know, those have been present in past violent gun related attempted and carried out killings. Local police in Broward Co. are already calling for that. These kinds of actions typically are resisted by Civil Libertarians and, in some cases, rightfully so. My view is that properly structured, the time is right to undertake the steps to give police broader authority to arrest in tightly circumscribed circumstances.

If I'm reading reports correctly, there have been dozens of thwarted mass shootings in states where police have broader authority to make arrests and/or received training on the circumstances when such arrests are authorized and shielded from defenses claiming violations of due process. Citizen awareness of an informant's (a citizen making a report of potential violence) right to privacy and the need to feel protected when they do report, is also important. These kinds of programs can be implemented at the local level.

Rather than taking aim at the Second Amendment and all that is incorporated in that kind of undertaking, agitators would be much better served by seeking action at the local level. I also think that over time, taking steps that publically unmask politicians taking campaign contributions from the likes of the NRA, among others, has the potential to change their voting behavior and the gun culture in this country ..... it happened with tobacco. It could happen here but like Tobacco, it's going to take a long time. In the mean time, act locally.

[Whitley]

Well acting locally is getting harder and harder to do, because there are a number of state legislatures that are passing laws that local municipalities cannot enact on their own ordinances/regulations that go farther than the state does in many matters.

For example, in Michigan, the legislature awhile back passed a bill (that was signed) that prohibited local municipalities from deciding if they wanted to ban the use of plastic/paper bags (I think it was plastic but cant remember off the top of my head) within their borders.

[Jeff Buchanan]

My son just pointed out that in Florida Mayors who implement and/or enforce any local gun control ordnance will be fined $5000. I asked him to show me the FL Law. I'll get back to you on this.

However, I get your point.

[Kapture1]

"Prohibits sale, transfers, or possession of assault weapon or large-capacity ammunition magazine"

that is an outright gun ban.


The left claims they want sensible laws, then they push for gun bans.

[Jeff Buchanan]

"Prohibits sale, transfers, or possession of assault weapon or large-capacity ammunition magazine"

that is an outright gun ban. Banning transfer means the gun that I purchased legally can not be passed down to my children if I were to die.


The left claims they want sensible laws, then they push for gun bans.

It's not and not all of them do that .......

HB219 is not an outright gun ban. This is the problem when responsible dialogue on gun violence is sought. The dialogue almost always devolves to an emotionally charged shouting match at the extremes. Your post was the first step ...... I'm not going to follow.

The current responsible dialogue, when it occurs and as I read it, talks about restricting ownership of assault firearms. By that term I mean the federal definition .... semi-automatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns that are able to accept detachable magazines and possess one or more other features. Various jurisdictions have widely varying definitions. So, I want to be clear what I'm talking about here.

It is my position, not shared by all and I accept that, that citizens should not possess for their personal use an assault firearm nor does the 2nd Amendment secure such a right for citizens.

The reason I take that position is that I can think of no reasonable argument supporting why a citizen needs an assault firearm as a part of his 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. YMMV.

I've heard most of the arguments expressing concern about such restrictions. These arguments are very similar to those advanced by Civil Libertarians regarding the Patriot Act. But national security,preventing terroist attacks, trumps some well defined civil liberties. Proofs in the pudding here. I believe most observers would say that the provision of the Patriot Act have reduced the incidence of terrorist attacks (Terrorism). A need to be clear again ...... the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives" (28 C.F.R.).

I'd argue that restricting the ownership of assault firearms as defined above would similarly reduce the incidents of gun violence that produce large numbers of casualties. The value of restricting well circumscribed types of weapons ( a restriction of previously accorded rights) trumps large scale killings at the hands of individuals using assault firearms.

[THE_WIZARD_]

Can you make your posts a little longer Jeff...I'm battling a severe case of insomnia...