Fla. Senate rejects assault weapons ban, holds moment of silence for shooting victims
Gov. Rick Scott (R) proclaimed that there would be a moment of “silence and reflection” Saturday for the Parkland, Fla., shooting victims.
The Florida Senate on Saturday voted down a bill to ban assault weapons, then immediately pivoted to a moment of silence for victims of the shooting at a Parkland, Fla., high school last month.
Many student survivors of the Valentine’s Day massacre that left 17 people dead at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School flocked to the State House in the days after the shooting to lobby legislators to ban assault weapons and take other measures on gun control.
The bill to ban assault weapons, including the AR-15 used in the school shooting, failed by a 20-to-17 vote. After the vote, Senate President Joe Negron (R) asked senators to take their seats. He said that by the proclamation of Gov. Rick Scott (R) there would be a moment of “silence and reflection” for the Parkland victims.
“Today marks 17 days after those 17 fellow citizens lost their lives,” said Negron, who voted against the ban. “I would ask us to begin reflecting on their lives and the bravery that was shown on that day.”
The body then moved to other legislation on guns. A measure to allow parents to opt students out of a classroom where a teacher is armed failed.
The Florida legislature has long resisted restrictions on guns and has been a laboratory for gun rights legislation that is later introduced in other states. But in the wake of the Parkland shooting, some gun-control measures have quickly advanced in Tallahassee. Budget committees in the House and Senate signed off on a suite of bills that include raising the minimum age to purchase a firearm from 18 to 21 and mandating a three-day waiting period for most gun purchases.
State Sen. Linda Stewart, a Democrat who introduced the amendment to ban assault weapons, said on the Senate floor that ammunition from assault weapons can blow up inside the victim’s body and that there is no reason for anyone to have them.
“I want us to do today what the kids asked us to do when 10,000 of them came up here on the steps of the capitol and asked us,” she said. “Never again. Please ban assault weapons.”
State Sen. Kelli Stargel (R) argued that banning assault weapons could be a slippery slope. Would fertilizer, used in the 1995 bombing of an Oklahoma City federal building, be banned? Or pressure cookers, used in the 2013 Boston Marathon bombings?
“Thoughts and prayers are really the only thing that’s going to stop the evil from within the individual that is taking up their arms to do this type of massacre,” Stargel said.
Jaclyn Corin, the junior class president at Stoneman Douglas High, tweeted that the vote “breaks my heart, but we will NOT let this ruin our movement.”
She then wrote on Twitter: “A MOMENT OF SILENCE WILL NOT SAVE THE LIVES OF INNOCENT AMERICANS.”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fla-senate-rejects-assault-weapons-ban-holds-moment-of-silence-for-shooting-victims/ar-BBJPtXR?li=BBnb7Kz
Tags
Who is online
56 visitors
Jaclyn Corin, the junior class president at Stoneman Douglas High, tweeted that the vote “breaks my heart, but we will NOT let this ruin our movement.”
She then wrote on Twitter: “A MOMENT OF SILENCE WILL NOT SAVE THE LIVES OF INNOCENT AMERICANS.”
Neither will another idiotic, ineffective, useless, pointless, toothless gun law.
Then maybe one with teeth is needed.
For what? Just to be ignored like the many that are already on the books?
Nope, like the ones they have in other countries.
Oh, you mean countries like Australia where they are banned? Good luck with that.
The teeth part is strictly enforcing those laws and new ones that might be created. LE agencies would not bow to pressure from any group and adhere to the letter of the law without interference.
Well, that's the biggest problem. The laws that are already in place aren't being enforced and adding more won't do a damn thing.
LE agencies would not bow to pressure from any group and adhere to the letter of the law without interference.
Seems that some, if not many, bow with the political sway.
The real story here is that they agreed to a unrecorded (secret) voice vote on this measure, apparently expecting it to fail by a large margin,
AND IT PASSED
to the surprise of many.
Within minutes there was a procedural challenge to vote electronically,
and lo and behold
The SAME MESURE, a 2 year ban on AR style rifle sales, was DEFEATED by a second vote of 20 - 17.
Our elected officials would appear to have two different sets of values; secret vs public.
We know from the roll call vote that it was close. That vote carefully counts each individual. The voice vote is everyone at once. i.e. "All those in favor say "aye."
It seems probable that during the voice vote, the ban advocates were simply louder. You might want a country run by the same system that determines the winner of wet t-shirt contests, but on close issues, I'd rather have an actual vote.
I'd rather have politicians who aren't owned by any lobby
or lobbyists........
Unfortunately, that will never happen.
You mean it took you this long to figure that out? I knew that when I was twenty. That's why I vote against candidates, never for them. Neither side can be trusted.
I totally agree.
However if enough people say:
Our thoughts and prayers are with you
Perhaps that will end all these gun massacres. (And therefore those who wish to keep their weapons of war may be able to do so, as uttering this magickal phrase will probably keep them from using these weapons o commit acts of mass murder!
Yeah. A moment of silence after that seems like a slap in the face.
State Sen. Kelli Stargel (R) argued that banning assault weapons could be a slippery slope. Would fertilizer, used in the 1995 bombing of an Oklahoma City federal building, be banned? Or pressure cookers, used in the 2013 Boston Marathon bombings?
We don't hear anybody calling for the banning of cars or alcohol in relation to the drunk drivers killing people.
Well..........I am flabbergasted that this is your defense but you're welcome to your opinion.
A demented, mentally ill person does not go to a school, theater or club and kill people with cars or alcohol.
Do you ACTUALLY want to equate THAT wreck less disregard to
DELIBERATE ****ing MANSLAUGHTER with A SEMI AUTOMATIC weapon in a grade school, middle school, high school, movie theater etc.????????????????
Please don't disappoint us by sticking to that worthless ANALOGY.
YOU are BETTER than that.
You can be flabbergasted all you want. Nobody has offered a viable solution to take care of the problem. All we hear is everybody whining "ban the gun". The gun isn't the problem.
No. They run down a kid walking down the street. Or go head-on with somebody while they drunkenly drive the wrong way down the road.
How the F*** can YOU POSSIBLY compare that with somebody
GEARING UP for combat
and deliberately walking into a soft target to callously do as much bodily harm as possible
with minimum risk o themselves
or suicide in mind?
Unbelievable dodges by many here tonight....................totally fuckig SAD.
Where did I say I wanted to ban guns? Where did I SAY anything. I posted the story because it had just come across the news. You're the one writing idiot things so don't transfer your anger onto me. Next time think before you post.
Oh for Blanks Effing sake! MAN?
How many pf those dead were wearing body armor and had a dozen magazines and maps of the grade school they intended to target? ZERO?
Your comparing the MURDER OF CHILDREN AND TEACHERS
to the common carelessness of teen drivers texting with Effing SMART PHONES.
How many times would I have to hit you with a thrown cell phone at 30 feet to cause a loss of life?
Please think about what you post............your a better person than that stupid comment.
They do so in Europe. Why not here?
Perhaps we should work on not making the targets so soft. Several ways to do that have been suggested. But the anti-gun crowd doesn't want to do that...they think only a law or ban will work. They also try to ignore the huge gray elephant in the room when it comes to the guns already in circulation. What's to be done about them?
Where in 3.1.6 did I mention combat?
The only "you" statement I made was about YOU being flabbergasted. Everything else is a general statement.
I recommend YOU take your own advice.
Less then 1% of annual mass shootings are committed by demented, mentally ill individuals
Ya the rest are perfectly sane. /s
No they are just evil. They are psychopaths who know the difference between right and wrong and chose to commit crimes.
I've read a number of your posts and I'm pretty confident that I think much more than you do before I post. But I'm open to hearing suggestions so your's is duly noted. Thank you.
I'm not surprised in the least-- its totally in character, lol!
I believe that it was only a few months ago that someone ran his car into a crowd on London Bridge. Only a few months before, someone ran a rented truck into a crowd in France. Before that, someone did the same in Munich. Very recently, the same thing happened in Charlottesville, VA.
Looks like it does happen after all. Anywhere victims are present in numbers, some evil person will find a way to kill them if he can get to them. The solution, keep the children where evil people can't get to them.
Apparently not if you aren't even responding TO my comment.
I'll wait with bated breath for your proof on that one.
Blue I can think of a couple reasons why it works in Europe , but wouldn't work here.
1. most of Continental Europe was disarmed ( meaning civilians) during the last world war after occupation , though many did manage to keep some of their guns.
2. because of this disarmament , after the war it was fairly simple for the new governments to regulate what exactly would and could be sold to the civilian public and the government could regulate if someone actually needed a firearm at all .
3. Now because neither of the above two has ever happened in this country , and the citizenry has pretty much been left unfettered in its acquisition of firearms as long as they follow applicable law , the chances the populous that have the guns actually deciding that the government has the authority to do the real dictating , is a very small one , and that is why it has a very slim chance of actually working .
just my humble opinion of course.
Don't be a hater Jeremy....... I can't help that I'm the brilliant person I am. It's a curse.
Yeah Greg, because turning grade schools into day prisons is how I want my grandchildren to grow up.
And let's say that that comes to pass.
Higher taxes baby, yeahhhhhhhhh!
/s
There's nothing to hate.
They have had no problem deciding that government gives them the 'absolute' authority to own whatever 'arms' they want....
Sure they do. They go to the club, have a few drinks, get back in their car and kill someone by driving drunk. Over 10,000 people die this way every year , but you don't want to take cars or alcohol away from law abiding people. And they do this even though the fact that alcohol and driving don't mix is widely known by drivers. They think it won't happen with them - that they're somehow immune. Or they don't care. I'd call that "demented," wouldn't you?
By contrast, about 300 people are killed every year with a rifle and you want to take rifles away from law abiding people. And, by the way, there are literally millions of legally owned assault style rifles in the US.
If your child is dead, what's the difference? Is it your position that the child murdered by a drunk driver doesn't count the same as one who was shot?
I'm going to guess/hope/pray that it's not your position. So then what's the difference? Why are we in a manic state over 17 kids in Florida, but not over the thousands around the country who died in easily avoidable incidents?
No the government does not give us that right. Our rights do not come from government .Our rights come from our Creator who ever or whatever you perceive him/her/it to be.
Until it was changed by an Amendment. If you want to try to get an Amendment passed to reverse the 2nd, be our guest. That should keep you busy and out of our hair for the next ten or fifteen years, until you finally realize that it's not going to happen.
What a waste of your time.
It's the car that does the damage, controlled by a distracted driver, teen or older.
Mass murder is deliberate.
Traffic accidents are ACCIDENTS no matter how easily preventable.
You live in TX
I live in TX
You cannot text & drive legally here.
School zones are a strict 20 mph and cell phone free.
The fines are hefty and I see them handed out daily in the school zones around me.
I would be in favor of raising the driving age to 18
but too may spoiled parents would probably have a meltdown.
So no, I would not outlaw cell phones. They're a symptom, not a weapon.
A government for the people, by the people.
All arranged by well meaning men, ( who were not infallible or without their own faults ),
all of our famous documents written by those same men,
and our differences, like Miller & Heller, are settled by SCOTUS.
But our rights do not come from man. Do you happen to recall this:
Government, no matter how much you worship it and think that it is the end all and be all, is not their (our) Creator.
Words on paper....
Like the great religious dogmas.......more words on paper, written by men.
However, the DOI was written by a committee of 5 people which used that phrase
with the express intent to annoy the hell out King George III while declaring our revolt,
It was one of the 86 edits to Jefferson's original document over his objections,
including about 25% of the original which was removed as unnecessarily critical of the British monarchy and the slave trade
Jefferson was a deist.
Here is his original paragraph.
My comment still stand. If your right were given by man, man can take them away.
And THAT my friend is the very consequence of WAR.
The winners determine the rights of the losers all the time.
The source of rights was a subject of debate. Before the Enlightenment, rights flowed from the king. Obviously, that was not acceptable, when the king was being blamed for all the ills of the world (Declaration of Independence). Two options were debated: God-given or innate. The Declaration of Independence says "Creator". The American Bill of rights says... nothing. The Déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen, which appeared slightly earlier, said "innate"... as have almost all similar documents since, doown to the UN Universal Declaration.
Exactly.
That is why both the great revolutions of the end of the 18th Century were careful to NOT show rights as bestowed by any man (and especially not by the king).
The Americans said "endowed by their Creator". The French (and everyone since) said "innate". But in no case, "given by man".
Rights are instead, they come from a Creator whatever still means the same thing. Rights do not come from government
Hold a moment of silence and then tell them to fuck themselves, nice.
'Thoughts and prayers'--the security blanket of the 'Owned GOP.'
Better than gun grabbing.
For heavens sake Cerenkov! The only thing getting grabbed during this Administration are pussies. No one is grabbing anyone's guns. Geesh
P J don't you know, trump is advocating the seizing of fire arms without due process until lunch time today he changed his mind and wanted McDonald"s instead because his chance of being poisoned was less with pre-processed food. Where's the emoji for crazy ???
But that's the long term plan. Registration eventually followed by confiscation.
Do you know why he suddenly changed his mind?
Do you know why he suddenly changed his mind?
Here's a subtle hint:
And here's a not so subtle hint:
President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence met with National Rifle Association officials Thursday night at the White House
You're right to think that some have that agenda. I won't disagree but I don't believe it's the majority of people and that's where I think both sides get it wrong. They both assume the worst from the other side.
In order to have a good faith conversation I don't think the NRA can be involved. Too many times they have put profit above people.
Of course I don't know what the answer is. I wish I did.
IMO that's an "alternative fact".
But I'm open to the possibility that I may wrong.
So if you really believe that's then "long term plan", you should have no trouble coming up with numerous links to prove its so . But being the mellow sort of guy that I am-- I'll settle for one or two!
And BTW-- I am referring to links from reliable sources (Alex Jones, Stormfront, the NRA, & David Duke are definitiely not "reliable sources"-- so don't waste our time with those).
For those who believe that some is either true-- or not true-- you may not be aware of the concept of "alternative facts". So here's an expert is the use of that term-- watch and learn (Genius!!!
)
Kellyanne Conway Says Trump White House Offered 'Alternative Facts'
The bill was to ban certain guns, right? How is that not "gun grabbing?"
Not in the context that you and others are trying to frame it.
You left out some language which changes the meaning of the section you are citing. What you're attempting to imply is not accurate. The language addresses a variety of situations and types of ownership as well as the way in which the guns are transported.
With that said, the Bill is not going anywhere and will not pass.
As I said in an earlier post, there are definitely those who would like to ban many of the different type of guns currently available but that's NOT the majority of people. It's a NRA talking point as far as I can tell.
PJ,
How about, "Yes Mr and Mrs America; if I had the votes, I would come and take them all". I'm sure you remember that one. Luckily, she didn't have the votes at that time, but she and her cohorts are still in there trying; never letting a good crisis go to waste. Do you remember Hillary saying how much she liked the Australian program? That one was called a "buyback". Right, we'll buy the guns back, you sell them back or we'll put you in prison. It's code for gun grabbing. The math is quite simple, if we beat them off on the first step, we won't have to fight them on the second step. Never let the gun grabbers get started because, once they get started, they will not stop until they have them all.
I'm not sure why you've chosen to ignore my earlier posts......shrug
Here's what I think - Because you radical uncompromising gun owners refuse to work with people you will have no one else to blame if any guns get banned. You blindly follow a corrupt organization that gladly takes your money to push their agenda while feeding you falsehoods and fear. You gobble it up like kids in a candy store. Meanwhile, kids all over America are being murdered while the "adults" dictate whose lives and rights are more important.
Terrifying conversation. Gun lovers have abandoned reason, in favor of pure Bad Faith .
We're advocating applying common sense and reality when it comes to guns, following existing laws. Not sure what your plan is, but it has nothing to do with stopping mass shootings of innocent people.
Link?
So they "have abandoned reason" because they KNOW that banning a gun won't work? (That's already been proven) Because they know that additional "gun laws" won't work? (Again, already proven that they won't work.) Or because they aren't reacting in the manner YOU want them to?
That is such a load of bullshit.
Surprised you could type it without breaking out in a hysterical fit of laughter.
What "reason" supports banning this particular variety of guns? The murders committed with these guns could have been committed with just about any firearm.
Florida already has a 3 day waiting period for handgun purchases .. why would it be a stretch to place a 3 day waiting period on a rifle? Does anyone really (outside of those wanting to do harm) need same day service on a firearms sale? 3 day waiting period, centralized background check information for the whole of law enforcement, as well as licensed gun dealers to be able to access the required information before making a sale... Dylann Roof did wait 3 days for his weapon, but since there was NO centralized data base ........ (we all know the end result!)
What does 'most' mean? There are shotguns, hand guns and rifles in the 'firearms' category .. if one desires to, one can break it down from there into revolvers / semi auto .. and so on and so forth.... but that is subgroups of 'firearms' ...
Hope all have a pleasant Sunday
Did the Florida shooter get his gun less than 3 days before the shooting?
Do not know, but I think it was bought a year earlier -
What difference does that make .. a 3 day waiting period is still not unreasonable, even if it does not solve anything.... I am a gun nut that knows changes are coming / going to be made - there is a whole new wave of voters coming of age quickly ... compromise now and give them what in their minds is a 'win'.
Americans are becoming even more scared of gun and gun violence - it will not hurt you or I to wait 3 days to buy a gun .. and the waiting is not infringing on ones right of gun ownership. Now banning a weapon is a whole different story!!
I know what 'they' want XD.. and it will never happen (in my opinion)
You do realize that you are preaching to the converted .. correct? There is going to have to be compromise made .. Universal/centralized background check data and a waiting period are not unreasonable requests ...
Prying and cold dead fingers comes to mind when I think about my weapons being taken, all because a handful losers cannot help themselves from killing a room full of humans....
Wow....the bill includes about every gun in existence! Yep, confiscation is their goal.
if it doesn't solve anything, as you admit, why bother with it?
Because it makes them feel good, like they actually tried something. That the knew from the outset that it wouldn't work, they tried and got to get another participation trophy.
Yeah pretty much arkpdx ...
Colour,
If you start compromising with them now, the next compromise will be worse (closer to a total ban). Then there will be another and another and another until there is nothing left for them to take because they won't consider it a "win" until they have all the guns out of civilian hands. The only way to put a stop to that is, don't make the first compromise.
I cannot argue with that, and do not argue with that - prying, cold dead fingers applies when one is talking banning and confiscation of weapons. I grew up with guns - started shooting competitive pistol at 19 - both of my sons received shotguns at 9 years old for Christmas, and started shooting trap and skeet - they are now 26 and 17 .. one has a Glock .45 and the other a Smith & Wesson 9mm - my (not so) lil man hunts and has 3 rifles that are his own. I would never compromise on gun ownership.
A 3 day waiting period and a centralized background check system (that is my proposed compromise), does not one gun take - does not infringe on the rights of gun ownership .. the odds are that it will solve nothing, but it will not kill anyone either.. waiting periods are already in place in many States .. Florida already has one in order to buy a handgun. Soooo it is not a stretch to implement a waiting period on all weapons purchases. XD does bring up a point that he may need to buy a gun on the fly - so perhaps a good guy with a gun card is need? : )
Keep these decisions within the States (at least in the States, "We the People" still have a voice) - I do not desire to have the dysfunctional cannot wipe its own ass Federal government calling the shots ..
States can implement systems that protect schools, movie theatres as well as concerts halls (big brother need not be involved) - most of the locations are already designed with a single main entrance and multiple exit only doors (outdoor venues are a bit trickier)
My opinion is never overly popular TTGA : ) - yet I am so thankful to live in the US where we can have an open conversation to agree and disagree!
Peace!
Thoughts and prayers to Florida kids ... as in think about what morons your NRA parents are, and pray you make it out of school alive.
Yeah, it is entirely plausible that the NRA's some 5 million members all reside in Florida, and that all those kids' parents are members.
SMDH
Seriously? That’s the best response you can come up with? It just goes to show that you have no defense for such idiotic, unpopular legislation. Good job.
if it is so unpopular, I expect voters will install new legislators.
While I see no reason not to ban the AR15 and undoubtedly a few other particularly deadly guns and accessories, my belief is that the root of the gun problem in America is the legal right of any half-wit yahoo to carry a gun in public. Carry permits are handed out like candy. George Zimmerman was granted a permit with a history of domestic abuse and even assaulting a police officer. Let everyone have whatever they want to protect their home, but make it a VERY serious crime to carry a gun in public. Get the guns off the street. Lenny Lynx Gun Law.
I understand why we have a 2nd Amendment, and I support keeping it. Still, if I thought it would seriously make a difference, I'd support banning a certain weapon. For example, I don't think citizens need RPGs. However, in almost every case of someone being shot, it makes little difference what gun they were shot with. I'm not prepared to get rid of all guns, so I think the answer lies elsewhere.
I think we need to try to be a better people that doesn't commit murder. But until we are that people, we need to learn how to protect our vulnerable members better. Neither one of those issues is addressed by banning AR-15s.
The main thing that distinguishes a rifle (responsible for about 2% of homicides) from a handgun (responsible for about 47% of homicides) is the high velocity, larger mass projectiles it can fire. This can sometimes make a wound worse than it otherwise might have been. The other features used to define the weapons people want to ban are mostly irrelevant.
(Like, why do people want to outlaw pistol grips on rifles, but not on pistols??)
I almost laughed out loud when I read the hypocrisy of the Florida senate that voted down an assault weapon ban and then declared a moment's silence for the dead students, as well as reading again the same repeated comparison of motor vehicle accidents with INTENTIONAL murder. Forget it, Americans. IT'S TOO LATE - YOU'RE DOOMED. You won't change your militarization mindset, your passion for guns and shooting - I'm sure you have more love for a warm gun than for a warm spouse. As for you Democrats, left-leaners, liberals, progressives, YOU HAD 16 YEARS to change things, when Clinton and Obama were your leaders - so where were you then? Nothing is going to change Americans' mindset due to the fact that there are almost (if not more) guns in the hands of Americans as there are Americans, and due to your HOLY Second Amendment, and your powerful NRA. The only thing that would change your dystopian existence (which is bound to get worse rather than better) is if Klaatu and Gort were to REALLY come and teach you to grow up.
There was a post here yesterday with this title
"'We are not calling for the slaughter of white people - at least for now': South African parliament votes to SEIZE white-owned land as experts warn of violent repercussions"
after reading that do you think I will ever give up my most efficient tools for self defense
You live in South Africa?
NO but seeing that proves my point. Citizens able to resist things like that prevent them from happening
Interesting comment given that the 2nd Amendment originated in the fear white folks had of slave revolts.
.
In fact the two big remaining defects in the constitution - the 2nd Amendment and the Electoral College - both originated as methods to defend and protect the institutions of slavery and white supremacy.
2 of the reasons this country has lasted until now
would you rather the States did not unite?
In general I think the US would be better off without the confederate states, or at least it would be wealthier and much better educated on average.
However that doesn't bear on the issue my comment concerned, the fact that both the EC and the 2nd Amendment are relics of slavery & white supremacy and thus are no longer needed.
they are part of the original deal that made the United States
Northern bankers financed the slave trade and made more money off it and cotton than Southern planters, the real money went north.
With out 2nd Amendment and Electoral College USA would probably be ruled by a dictator, that's my opinion
And your logic for that claim would be what, exactly?
In any event it's long past time to get rid of these relics of slavery and white supremacy. The EC belongs in the dustbin of history just like Dixie Swastika, and both the states and the feds should exercise their SCOTUS-determined power to regulate gun ownership so as to minimize the number of needless deaths in our society. A good first step would be to allow muzzle-loaders only as the founding fathers would surely have expected.
2nd Amendment is what keeps politicians of left or right from becoming dictators
Fear of snipers or assassins?
How'd that work out for Kennedy, Lincoln, Garfield, and McGinley?
and Reagan?
Teddy Roosevelt was shot while campaigning, but survived.
FDR was shot at practically point blank, 5 times but instead the Mayor of Chicago was killed and 5 others were wounded.
Does it sound like the 2nd Amendment is protecting us from dictators?
Or exposing us to nuts with guns?
Did you see the new High School shooting at the "hardened" school in AL?
smh