Monday, February 26, 2018

Tale of two worlds

Not even two weeks ago, a shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida left seventeen students and educators dead.

The shooter was a right wing zealot who is seen in the above picture wearing his Make America Great Again hat. He was using a legal assault rifle when the killing was done.
Cruz allegedly “repeatedly espoused racist, homophobic and anti-Semitic views and displayed an obsession with violence and guns,” reported CNN, including writing that he hated “jews, ni**ers, immigrants” and talking “about killing Mexicans, keeping black people in chains and cutting their necks.” According to CNN, he also wrote that he had written a letter to Trump and wrote “I think I am going to kill people.”
Last Tuesday the Florida House defeated a bill to ban assault weapons and high capacity magazines. The conversation lasted less than three minutes.They wouldn't even debate the bill, which required a two thirds majority to pass. Thirty-six lawmakers supported it, while 71 voted no. They did however, have a different vote the next day.

The House passed a bill to require the words In God We Trust be posted in a conspicuous place in every school building. The legislation passed 97 to 10. The phrase first appeared in the 19th century, in the Star Spangled Banner and did not become our nation's motto until 1957 and the motto of the state of Florida in 2006.

Our original motto, E pluribus unum, meant out of many, one. Bit more inclusive.

Maybe it is just me, but if I had my choice between the two sources of protection, a religious motto or spell to ward off evil or an actual ban on dangerous assault weapons, I think I would probably go with the latter. But I recognize that I might be in the minority here.


Anonymous said...

The Florida House did not ban assault weapons because American's have the right to bear weapons and banning certain types of assault guns would be unconstitutional because American's have the right to bear arms and lawmakers cannot define what they are. So if we have the right to bear arms and lawmakers cannot define what weapons they are, then why can't we have bazooka launchers, hand grenades or make bombs, which would be constitutional?

Unbelievably, kids and innocent people have to die to protect the NRA and its paid off politicians view of our Constitution. Is it that hard to determine what are deadly unsafe weapons that should be illegal? Betcha those kids in Florida could do it!

Maybe it's time THE SUPREME COURT defines what the term "Right to Bear Arms" really means?.......

Sanoguy said...

I suggest that Anonymous read the 2008 U.S Supreme Court decision called the Heller Decision. It should answer his questions about what is currently allowed under the 2nd Amendment. As I understand the ruling, restrictions can be made on assault rifles and guns other than pistols used for home protection.

Anonymous said...

RE: Sanoguy Miller vs. Illinois. Hazy interpretation. The Supreme Court never ruled what The right to bear arms is.