Posted by: TEEBONE ® |
Author Profile Mail author Edit
|FL: An assault weapons ban is a matter of public safety — not partisanship|
Submitted by: firstname.lastname@example.org">Mark A. Taff
What we’ve seen in the past week from Attorney General Ashley Moody is disappointing, but also not surprising.
Her comments and actions are part and parcel of Tallahassee politicians who, for more than 20 years, have done next to nothing to tackle the root cause of these mass shootings. In fact, they make the case even stronger that an issue of such urgency should be left to the people of Florida to decide —not NRA A-rated political figures who would inject partisanship into what should simply be an issue of public safety.
|Comment by: MarkHamTownsend (8/9/2019)|
|Oh yes it IS partisanship AND politics. That's the way it is, like it or not. |
Politics is what we do in government and electing leaders and deciding on agendas. Just accept it. It's dirty, vulgar, with a great deal of stoopidz thrown in, but then, so is making sausage.
An AWB would not do a thing. The 1994-04 ban did NOTHING to ameliorate crime; that was diminishing prior to the ban.
|Comment by: PHORTO (8/9/2019)|
|"An assault weapons ban is a matter of public safety — not partisanship"|
It is neither. It is a matter of violating the U.S. Constitution.
Per U.S. v. Miller (1939), what the left is mendaciously calling "assault weapons" are within the ambit of Second Amendment protection, which provides that arms in common use that have militia utility or are any part of the ordinary military equipment and could contribute to the common defense are those the amendment was intended to guarantee. As a matter of fact, AR-15s and the like are textbook examples of this description.
Assault weapons are military arms - select-fire, capable of operating full-auto, and are banned de facto.
You cannot violate the Second Amendment and justify it with a lie.
LIBERTY HAS NO EXPIRATION DATEDemocrats wouldn't buy a clue if it was government subsidized.