Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Sunday, March 04, 2018

Every member who opposed the short-term prohibition on sales was Republican. For approximately 15 minutes, the Florida state Senate appeared to back a new measure that would have prohibited the sale of AR-15s for two years. Then Republicans overturned it. In a rare Saturday morning session, the state lawmakers considered a short-term ban on the assault-style rifle used to slaughter 17 people at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, last month. Democratic lawmakers attempted to put the gun restriction into a bill, SB 7026, that would invest money in mental health and school safety programs. After the upper chamber debated for nearly an hour, Senate President Joe Negron (R) ruled that the amendment temporarily banning the sale of AR-15s had passed in an unrecorded voice vote, the Tampa Bay Times reported. A quarter-hour later, that ruling was overturned by a roll call vote of 21-17.





Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

"On Saturday, student activists who survived the Stoneman Douglas shooting and have taken on the National Rifle Association voiced their displeasure with Florida lawmakers on Twitter. They also had another message: They know the Republicans who voted down the amendment, and they won't forget.

Cameron Kasky

Florida is not disheartened by the pathetic choices made by our lawmakers. We're simply excited to kick them out and save our own lives. We have more hope now than ever. We have a very clear understanding of who's with us and who's against us. #NeverAgain #MarchForOurLives
11:37 AM - Mar 3, 2018
6,679 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy

David Hogg

Elections are going to be fun!
twitter.com ...
3:41 PM - Mar 3, 2018

Following the failure of the ban, Senate members held a moment of silence for the victims ― primarily children ― killed at the Parkland high school."

#1 | Posted by Corky at 2018-03-03 10:14 PM | Reply

What a bunch. I suggest removing the metal detectors from the capitol building.

#2 | Posted by DMTDust at 2018-03-04 05:37 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Republican lawmakers are nothing but a cowardly tower of jello.

#3 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2018-03-04 07:19 PM | Reply

Republican lawmakers are nothing but a cowardly tower of jello.

When it comes to guns and single payer, so are party dems.
Too many votes in the center, screw the left.

#4 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-03-04 08:50 PM | Reply

"Too many votes in the center, screw the left."

"The vote was 20-17 against the assault weapon ban, with two Republicans joining all of the senate's 15 Democrats in support of the proposal, the Miami Herald reported."


Sheeple is a Russian liar. His job is to sew discord into every post he makes and to lie about everything Democrats do.

#5 | Posted by danni at 2018-03-05 08:07 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

Anyone else remember that time they took our cars because we had to get licenses and insurance?

#6 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2018-03-05 04:40 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Driving is not a Constitutional right given by God...

#7 | Posted by 45_Long_Colt at 2018-03-05 08:09 PM | Reply

Driving is not a Constitutional right given by God...


...and yet people are allowed to drive, and there is no mass confiscation of automobiles, in spite of the number of people (even children) that they kill. So why the fear that guns will be taken away if they are required to be licensed and insured?

#8 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2018-03-05 10:05 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Too many votes in the center, screw the left.


"There's Nothing in the Middle of the Road but Yellow Stripes and Dead Armadillos"

-- Jim Hightower

#9 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2018-03-05 10:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1


Describe the licensing and insurance requirements you envision.

#10 | Posted by et_al at 2018-03-05 10:22 PM | Reply



"Describe the licensing and insurance requirements you envision."

Why don't we short-circuit all that, and you just tell us, yes or no, if there's literally any licensing and insurance requirement you could support.

#11 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-03-05 10:38 PM | Reply


I would suggest using the DMV model. You have to take a written test proving you understand the legal responsibilities of gun ownership (including proper storage, mandatory reporting of loss or theft of the weapon), a firing range test showing competency in handling the weapon, registration of the ownership of the weapon (with mandatory re-registry when ownership changes hand) and liability insurance to cover death or injury caused by the weapon.

#12 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2018-03-05 11:45 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Also, I think having a mandatory ballistic "fingerprint" of the weapon recorded would be a good idea.

#13 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2018-03-05 11:47 PM | Reply

Driving is not a Constitutional right given by God...
#7 | POSTED BY 45_LONG_COLT AT 2018-03-05 08:09 PM | FLAG:

The constitution has nothing to do with God.

Stop voting. You're clearly a moron.

#14 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-03-05 11:57 PM | Reply

As I suspected, your vision of licensing goes beyond minimum proficiency. Liability insurance is more an economic question. A couple fundamental premises. Cars are permissive, firearms are a right. Thus government is more constrained in the latter. Rights can't be substantially burdened absent a compelling government interest. Monetary requirements can become a substantial burden.

That said, I don't think licensing the person is a substantial burden. Having the government verify that you are not a "prohibited person," and that you have minimum qualifications (self taught an option) is minimal. A pain in the a** like voter ID but minimal. Much like voter registration i.e. you are qualified to vote is this precinct or district or needing a permit to speak at certain time or places doesn't substantially affect your right to vote or speak.

Liability insurance is more difficult. Minimum liability auto insurance for the wife and I for two vehicles is about $1200.00 a year for 30/60/25 in Harris County, Texas. That's a lot of money to pay for a right. There are far fewer accidental firearm injuries and deaths than with vehicles so the premiums should be far less. Nevertheless, there are low income persons whose right would be substantially burdened. Since a good number are already covered, homeowners, I think it could probably be figured out.

Storage, registration, mandatory reporting and "finger printing" raise a whole host of other issues. Most glaring, "storage" laws were a central focus of both Heller and McDonald; if you gotta lock it up or render it unusable that's not just a substantial burden but a denial. But that's for all the other gun threads. I just wanted to explore licensing and insurance. Next up implementing them at the federal level.

#15 | Posted by et_al at 2018-03-06 02:45 AM | Reply

That was for WhoDaMan at 12.

#16 | Posted by et_al at 2018-03-06 02:47 AM | Reply

That's a lot of money to pay for a right.

The principle behind liability insurance for motor vehicles is, if you want to do things that potentially harm others (operate a vehicle on public roads), you need to be financially responsible for your actions. You don't have to have liability insurance for a car if you can prove you have sufficient financial resources to pay for damages. I don't see that as an "infringement". Insurance companies, presumably, will base the premium cost on an actuarial calculation based on probabilities of claims, which would be determined by statistics surrounding gun deaths/injuries and particulars as to the insurability of the individual.

Aside from that, I believe the 2nd Amendment is obsolete. There is no longer a need to have a state militia to repel foreign invasions (we have a "standing" army now, there was none then), we have the National Guard now, and we no longer need "slave patrols", and most people no longer have a need to fend off wild animals or "Indians". I see no reason (other than history) for gun ownership to be a right. It should be fine as a privilege on the same basis as motor vehicle ownership. Nobody wants to ban hunting or sports shooting.

I believe it will be at least altered, if not repealed, by the post-millennials when they gain sufficient political power. There have always been single-issue voters on the pro-gun side; this is the first time there will be pro-public safety single-issue voters.

#17 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2018-03-06 07:42 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

we have a "standing" army now, there was none then

Nobody wants to ban hunting or sports shooting.

#17 | POSTED BY WHODAMAN AT 2018-03-06 07:42 AM | REPLY

There has always been a standing army. The 1st and 2nd regiments from the Continental Army were not disbanded, and later became the Legion of the United States, which became the United States Army. Also, 100 regiments of militia were on the British side.

Hunting has become a political hot topic at state levels, including laws proposed to ban hunting with firearms. I'm all for archery, but that's not going to fly.

#18 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-03-06 08:05 AM | Reply

That "militia" ----------- keep raving about proves they know nothing of American history. The only way southern slave-owning states would sign on to becoming states in the USA was if they could keep their slaves and have organized runaway slave-catching posses, i.e., militias, comprised of slave-owning land owners.

High School History has way too much information to cover completely, if the students have no assigned "outside reading." 45 minutes of lecture and Q&A per day during a one-time 180-day course is a joke.

#19 | Posted by john47 at 2018-03-06 09:49 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Sheeple is a Russian liar. His job is to sew discord into every post he makes and to lie about everything Democrats do.

I like your twin sister better; the one who wanted Bernie, tariffs, $15 min wage, and single-payer.
You know, liberal policies. that Americans want.

The media could just drown out Trump with policy proposal, after policy proposal.
Voters would run left if you give them a reason to, as opposed to running AWAY from something.

The Dem's entire plan seems to be: Elect us because Trump insane. - That's not a plan, Danni. It's just not.

We need policies to rally around. Not fear, hate, and petty tabloid nonsense. It's not going to work.

#20 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-03-06 01:23 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort