NRA sues Florida for passing gun legislation in wake of shooting

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

Because of course they would;

Should've gone for the videogames instead?

Even getting some small gun legislation passed is a big thing and the NRA will fight it forever, as best they can, until they get someone to undo it. The people of Florida will have to be constantly on guard to make sure that the NRA doesn't succeed in this.

The best part is that it's a hilariously small measure.

Like, what? The age requirement is 21 instead of 18? Who cares?

NRAs upset that they're missing out on three years of gun sale profit is all.

Gotta keep making that dough

At this point it's like there doing there best to be cartoonish evil.

At the same time, from there point of view (an insane one, but there's nonetheless) the more gun the safer the world is. So the idea is that by denying the 18-21 guns, these people are at increased risk.

bastardofmelbourne:
The best part is that it's a hilariously small measure.

Like, what? The age requirement is 21 instead of 18? Who cares?

In America some people have an almost religious devotion to these kinds of things...and if that creepy ass church was anything to go by, sometimes the almost gets taken out.

undeadsuitor:
NRAs upset that they're missing out on three years of gun sale profit is all.

Gotta keep making that dough

Ding ding ding ding ding!

It's all about the money, Lebowski.

bastardofmelbourne:
The best part is that it's a hilariously small measure.

Like, what? The age requirement is 21 instead of 18? Who cares?

Yeah but that's a baby step. Next thing ya know, they'll raise that gosh darn age requirement to 60, and the waiting period will be for three decades! It's discrimination! Gun owners are an aggrieved people and we're all under attack! Talking point, talking point, talking point, blah blah blah, etc.

I swear, it's fascinating how much the crazed narrative the NRA has been pushing actually managed to basically alter American culture. Not only did they twist and distort it, but they more or less also stressed that it's always been that way, despite history itself showing the contrary. All of this nonsense in the name of gun sales and politics, while insisting they're standing up for the "God-given rights of this great Christian nation".

Well no shit they're suing. Would you feel the same way if this was literally any other constitutional right? Should free speech only apply to people over 21? What about protection from unlawful search and seizure? Need I go on?

Ravinoff:
Well no shit they're suing. Would you feel the same way if this was literally any other constitutional right? Should free speech only apply to people over 21? What about protection from unlawful search and seizure? Need I go on?

No, you can stop, we all know your false equivalence is exactly that. People having access to protection from unlawful search and seizure isn't something that can directly lead to deaths.

And I'm glad you assume that the lawsuit against the thing that would cause them to make less money isn't a result of greed. Because the rest of us aren't so optimistic about the NRA and their obsessive need to viciously attack any kind of gun control, regardless of how reasonable it is.

The drinking age, voting age, tobacco age, military-joining age and gun-buying age should all be the same age.

As for the rest, it's always good to see disagreements settled in court. I look forward to reading the briefs filed.

Isn't Florida just using it's rights to define what they think a 'well-regulated militia' should be?

Kwak:
Isn't Florida just using it's rights to define what they think a 'well-regulated militia' should be?

The GOP and its supporters are pro state's rights until the states do something they don't like.

Ravinoff:
Well no shit they're suing. Would you feel the same way if this was literally any other constitutional right? Should free speech only apply to people over 21? What about protection from unlawful search and seizure? Need I go on?

Owning guns shouldnt be a constitutional right.

Or is restricting cigarettes, alcohol, and driving also unfair that kids cant legally do them?

We arent born with guns. Guns are not naturally formed out of nowhere. God did not grant us guns, or else guns would been around since the beginning of time.

Ravinoff:
Well no shit they're suing. Would you feel the same way if this was literally any other constitutional right? Should free speech only apply to people over 21? What about protection from unlawful search and seizure? Need I go on?

All of the rights granted by the Constitution are subject to limitations or regulation in some way. Freedom of speech does not indemnify defamatory speech, nor does it protect one from charges of perjury. The protection from unlawful search and seizure does not prevent TSA officials from searching your bags, nor does it prevent officers from searching your car during a traffic stop.

Need I go on?

Ravinoff:
Well no shit they're suing. Would you feel the same way if this was literally any other constitutional right? Should free speech only apply to people over 21? What about protection from unlawful search and seizure? Need I go on?

Right to vote or be president is age restricted.

altnameJag:

Ravinoff:
Well no shit they're suing. Would you feel the same way if this was literally any other constitutional right? Should free speech only apply to people over 21? What about protection from unlawful search and seizure? Need I go on?

Right to vote or be president is age restricted.

Yep, and both of those are specifically written into the Constitution, giving them much more weight than...any of the byzantine other legal age limits, really. That whole topic is a clusterfuck the western world desperately needs to reexamine, but that's a matter for another thread. If you want to talk definition as written, the "militia" referred to by the 2nd Amendment was considered all able-bodied men age 18-40, so this new law runs directly up against that.

Good

Ravinoff:

altnameJag:

Ravinoff:
Well no shit they're suing. Would you feel the same way if this was literally any other constitutional right? Should free speech only apply to people over 21? What about protection from unlawful search and seizure? Need I go on?

Right to vote or be president is age restricted.

Yep, and both of those are specifically written into the Constitution, giving them much more weight than...any of the byzantine other legal age limits, really. That whole topic is a clusterfuck the western world desperately needs to reexamine, but that's a matter for another thread. If you want to talk definition as written, the "militia" referred to by the 2nd Amendment was considered all able-bodied men age 18-40, so this new law runs directly up against that.

Then maybe, MAYBE, we need to realize the fact that the American Constitution was written nearly 300 years ago in a political setting that by many definitions could be considered oligarchic, and that it's a ridiculous thing to gauge contemporary legal issues by 18th century standards. Perhaps it's time for a redraft, or at least a comprehensive update of the Constitution instead of putting in another amendment or two, which by the way is intentionally meant to be monumentally difficult to do. Meanwhile, many nations have to rewrite, review, and revise their constitution whenever there's a new administration.

The reality is that guns are not essential for a civil society. You can also have gun-control laws as well as laws that protect gun ownership. It's not a mutually exclusive dichotomy. Japan, the nation with probably the most restrictive gun laws, still has shooting ranges, gun clubs, and hunting. People there can still legally own and use guns.

undeadsuitor:
NRAs upset that they're missing out on three years of gun sale profit is all.

Gotta keep making that dough

Considering the meltdown they've been having NRATV over the past week, I'm not surprised.

For an organization that's had a stranglehold on Congress for almost 25 fucking years, they have quite the persecution complex going.

I used to have a lifetime NRA membership, until I realized they kept riding the crazytrain further and further into paranoia. THe fact they're more then happy to blame victims for not being armed and apparently back the "Crisis Actor" conspiracy BS made me cancel my membership(granted, I'd stopped giving them money or doing anything to support them a while before that).

Ravinoff:

altnameJag:

Ravinoff:
Well no shit they're suing. Would you feel the same way if this was literally any other constitutional right? Should free speech only apply to people over 21? What about protection from unlawful search and seizure? Need I go on?

Right to vote or be president is age restricted.

Yep, and both of those are specifically written into the Constitution, giving them much more weight than...any of the byzantine other legal age limits, really. That whole topic is a clusterfuck the western world desperately needs to reexamine, but that's a matter for another thread. If you want to talk definition as written, the "militia" referred to by the 2nd Amendment was considered all able-bodied men age 18-40, so this new law runs directly up against that.

Well, only if they were well-regulated by the state, anyway.

Ravinoff:

altnameJag:

Ravinoff:
Well no shit they're suing. Would you feel the same way if this was literally any other constitutional right? Should free speech only apply to people over 21? What about protection from unlawful search and seizure? Need I go on?

Right to vote or be president is age restricted.

Yep, and both of those are specifically written into the Constitution, giving them much more weight than...any of the byzantine other legal age limits, really. That whole topic is a clusterfuck the western world desperately needs to reexamine, but that's a matter for another thread. If you want to talk definition as written, the "militia" referred to by the 2nd Amendment was considered all able-bodied men age 18-40, so this new law runs directly up against that.

Out of curiosity, where does it say 18 to 40?

Edit: and if this definition of militia, 18 to 40, is the basis for 18 year olds owning guns then why can't it be used to stop over 40's owning guns?

I think the case is based on unfair age discrimination, particularly against 18-21 year old women. Which is a valid argument, because statistically they aren't likely to be shooters. I mean, depending how the discrimination laws are currently written, they could well win it.

So the realistic solution is to make any restrictions comprehensive across the board. Like restrictions on bump-stocks, etc.

Catnip1024:
I think the case is based on unfair age discrimination, particularly against 18-21 year old women. Which is a valid argument, because statistically they aren't likely to be shooters. I mean, depending how the discrimination laws are currently written, they could well win it.

So the realistic solution is to make any restrictions comprehensive across the board. Like restrictions on bump-stocks, etc.

How is this discrimination? You can complain that you're being discriminated when there's a restriction that's being applied universally and fairly. This isn't discrimination in the slightest. Discrimination would be the new age restriction applying to one gender and not the other. This is literally the opposite of discrimination.

Catnip1024:
I think the case is based on unfair age discrimination, particularly against 18-21 year old women. Which is a valid argument, because statistically they aren't likely to be shooters. I mean, depending how the discrimination laws are currently written, they could well win it.

So the realistic solution is to make any restrictions comprehensive across the board. Like restrictions on bump-stocks, etc.

you're right, women 18-21 are a large part of NRA's market push to increase profits. We need to open this up so the NRA can make more money.

Hate to say it, but I'm okay with it. The national age to buy a gun is 18. State laws don't override that. The Supreme Court should step in and smack down that Florida regulation and say no, you don't get to change which rights apply to whom and when, states rights are bullshit.
Now if they do the amendment route and wanted to make it a national thing, that'd be interesting and worth debating. But this whole states and corporations are going to unilaterally restrict guns(or indeed anything) without the Government's involvement? Yeah, that's some bullshit.

erttheking:
How is this discrimination? You can complain that you're being discriminated when there's a restriction that's being applied universally and fairly. This isn't discrimination in the slightest. Discrimination would be the new age restriction applying to one gender and not the other. This is literally the opposite of discrimination.

Well, like people have been saying, if there is a constitutional right which has generally been interpreted to allow people to possess weaponry, and you choose to attempt to override that, you need a pretty solid reason to. "Group X is statistically significantly more likely to commit a shooting" would be a good one. 18-21 year old women are not, though, which makes the restriction a little bizarre, and infringes on their constitutional rights for no real gain in statistical safety.

Setting aside the fact that any age-based restriction is by definition age discrimination.

Catnip1024:

erttheking:
How is this discrimination? You can complain that you're being discriminated when there's a restriction that's being applied universally and fairly. This isn't discrimination in the slightest. Discrimination would be the new age restriction applying to one gender and not the other. This is literally the opposite of discrimination.

Well, like people have been saying, if there is a constitutional right which has generally been interpreted to allow people to possess weaponry, and you choose to attempt to override that, you need a pretty solid reason to. "Group X is statistically significantly more likely to commit a shooting" would be a good one. 18-21 year old women are not, though, which makes the restriction a little bizarre, and infringes on their constitutional rights for no real gain in statistical safety.

Setting aside the fact that any age-based restriction is by definition age discrimination.

We would have to have solid scientific evidence that white men are statistically more likely to commit mass shootings. And while everyone can see that every mass shooting is pretty much done by white guys, Republicans, backed by the NRA, have forbidden any research on the matter.

also, "generally been interpreted" means shit. I have a right to consume alcohol, that right is not being infringed because I have to wait till I'm 21. "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." says nothing about age. Hell, "A well regulated" pretty much supports the idea of gun control in my interpretation. Can't be well regulated if we just let everyone regardless of age or mental health buy 200 guns a piece just so the NRA can make more money.

undeadsuitor:
SNIP

Not just white men, white women, black men, Asian women, Lation transgenders, all of them, so long as they're under 21, they're a mass shooting risk.
That's a tough one to sell, and ooohh boy no one should try. I'm sure Republican legislatures in Illinois would LOVE for the legal precedent of Group X is more likely to commit a crime, restrict them. Tell me they wouldn't be frothing at the mouth to take guns away from black men, simply by arguing statistically, they commit more crimes with guns in Illinois.

Catnip1024:

Setting aside the fact that any age-based restriction is by definition age discrimination.

In full honesty, age is not a protected group. You actually can discriminate based off age legally. Now you shouldn't be allowed to, but technically you can.

Silentpony:
That's a tough one to sell, and ooohh boy no one should try. I'm sure Republican legislatures in Illinois would LOVE for the legal precedent of Group X is more likely to commit a crime, restrict them. Tell me they wouldn't be frothing at the mouth to take guns away from black men, simply by arguing statistically, they commit more crimes with guns in Illinois.

Eh, they keep trying that with the mentally ill, despite the mentally ill not being any more likely to commit violent crimes. More likely to be the victims, though.

Silentpony:
In full honesty, age is not a protected group. You actually can discriminate based off age legally. Now you shouldn't be allowed to, but technically you can.

That's US context for you, then. Age discrimination is illegal in the EU, with certain exceptions.

undeadsuitor:
We would have to have solid scientific evidence that white men are statistically more likely to commit mass shootings. And while everyone can see that every mass shooting is pretty much done by white guys, Republicans, backed by the NRA, have forbidden any research on the matter.

also, "generally been interpreted" means shit. I have a right to consume alcohol, that right is not being infringed because I have to wait till I'm 21. "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." says nothing about age. Hell, "A well regulated" pretty much supports the idea of gun control in my interpretation. Can't be well regulated if we just let everyone regardless of age or mental health buy 200 guns a piece just so the NRA can make more money.

Actually, technically you would need to have the compelling argument to justify the discrimination, rather than to ask it to stop. Noting above that age discrimination may not actually be a thing in the US.

And "generally been interpreted" was actually referring to the body of legal precedence behind the topic, rather than any individual opinions.

Whenever Republicans complain about discrimination, it just reminds me how self-serving and hypocritical they are.

Anyone complaining about age restrictions on gun ownership are ostensibly arguing that kids should be allowed to drink, smoke, drive, and die for our country at any age...

Though I guess gun nuts DO infact support kids dying at any age considering how they want to protect school shooters so badly.

Silentpony:
Hate to say it, but I'm okay with it. The national age to buy a gun is 18. State laws don't override that. The Supreme Court should step in and smack down that Florida regulation and say no, you don't get to change which rights apply to whom and when, states rights are bullshit.
Now if they do the amendment route and wanted to make it a national thing, that'd be interesting and worth debating. But this whole states and corporations are going to unilaterally restrict guns(or indeed anything) without the Government's involvement? Yeah, that's some bullshit.

State laws override federal laws all the time.
Hence weed being legal in pockets of the US. Or a lot of state minimum wage laws.

Besides, the GOP is supposedly the party of States Rights.

altnameJag:

Silentpony:
Hate to say it, but I'm okay with it. The national age to buy a gun is 18. State laws don't override that. The Supreme Court should step in and smack down that Florida regulation and say no, you don't get to change which rights apply to whom and when, states rights are bullshit.
Now if they do the amendment route and wanted to make it a national thing, that'd be interesting and worth debating. But this whole states and corporations are going to unilaterally restrict guns(or indeed anything) without the Government's involvement? Yeah, that's some bullshit.

State laws override federal laws all the time.
Hence weed being legal in pockets of the US. Or a lot of state minimum wage laws.

Besides, the GOP is supposedly the party of States Rights.

That's when there is more freedoms to be had, not less. States try all the time to outlaw Abortion, the morning after bill, mandatory curriculum in schools, and a host of other national things, and they're always struck down. I think it was Texas that tried to close all the abortion clinics by having new medical requirements for each building(double wide doors I think) while also forbidding clinics from altering their buildings.
The Supreme Court struck them down.
A state can make weed legal, but it can't outlaw beer

Well, of course they are going to. It being a constitutionally protected right, they already have both an easy justification of opposition, and a means to drag it up to the supreme court itself if the ruling is disliked. As such it is the perfect political move to both keep attention on them and the issue they want, as well as be shown early in an election year that they are actively fighting against the infringement itself.

Why would they not?

bastardofmelbourne:
The best part is that it's a hilariously small measure.

Like, what? The age requirement is 21 instead of 18? Who cares?

Well, since gun rights are tied to self-defense, restricting the ability to purchase that as a means to defending oneself against an attacker would be forcing those who previously were considered legal adults to yet again be considered children in the eyes of the law with regard to actually exercising the rights they have legal authority to influence and vote upon. A bit silly to have the ability to vote on a right before you have ability to actually experience and utilize it.

Add to that the age to purchase a gun being increased does absolutely nothing to stop those who should not have guns from getting them from previously purchased and existing collections, and the change does not stop anything it sets out to stop, it solely exists as punishing legislation for those already following the law because of the actions of those already not following the law as it is.

Finally consider that military and law enforcement use guns prior to the age of 21, that does chafe some who already feel like the reliance upon those groups for personal protection is a bad idea (the failure of flordia's last shooting showing exactly why at every level). Furthermore, it invites confusion and arguments that the military and civilian police are being granted rights beyond the normal citizenry, and considering the concern about Trump being a fascist I have seen, I am honestly baffled why anyone would support such a move there, especially not long after the very causes of police violence against citizens, and military violence against civilians have both been issues demanding action towards by much of those same groups (black lives matter, for instance).

The end result is a lot of reasons for people to care, across the political spectrum. If you support the 2nd A then it is an infringement there. If you want a solution to the problem, then it utterly fails to be that. If you oppose republicans, than it is giving more authority to the police and weakening those who were previously demanded justice and changes to help.

For something that solves nothing and causes more problems, I have to wonder why anyone supports it in the first place, outside of those cowards in politics who have to pretend they are doing something just to appease the mob with any action instead of making a good one.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here