search
top

Rick Scott Refuses to Ban Guns During RNC

USA Today Reports, in what looks like the Mayor of Tampa trying to set up Governor Scott the bomb. I don’t even think Scott has the power to ban firearms unilaterally, does he? Either way, his response is appreciated:

“An absolute ban on possession in an entire neighborhoods and regions would surely violate the 2nd Amendment,” Scott wrote to Buckhorn.

“It is unclear how disarming law-abiding citizens would better protect them from the dangers and threats posed by those who would flout the law. It is at just such times that the constitutional right to self-defense is most precious and must be protected from government overreach,” Scott said in his letter.

Clearly people’s rights are not of concern for the Mayor of Tampa, so much as scoring cheap political points in an attempt to make something that is not a contentious issue a contentious issue.

5 Responses to “Rick Scott Refuses to Ban Guns During RNC”

  1. Robb Allen says:

    I’m not a fan of Rick Scott in many aspects. He was, by far, the lesser of two evils during the last cycle, so he got my vote, albeit grudgingly.

    He has, however, been good on the issue of guns, in both action and words.

  2. Robert Hewes says:

    I wonder if the mayor appreciates the irony that the law was passed precisely to prevent what the mayor wants to do?

  3. S.W.G says:

    “trying to set up Governor Scott the bomb.”

    Is that an ‘All your base are belong to us’reference, or am I just a nerd?

  4. Andy B. says:

    Sincere question: In Florida, can a governor do any such thing by executive order — except, possibly during a state of emergency?

    I’m thinking the governor may be scoring points with a constituency for refusing to do something he knew he couldn’t do anyway. And, the mayor may have been going for points with his constituency by demanding something he knew the governor couldn’t do. In other words, maybe the entire issue is a charade being played by both camps?

    • Robert Hewes says:

      Andy, it’s a pair of politicians of 2 different parties fighting over a political issue. I think the chances of this being a charade is close to 100%.

      The only solution is as I’ve suggested before: strict limits of 2 terms, followed by summary execution.

top