Posted on 02/27/2007 6:53:52 AM PST by TitansAFC
Using the hotel address, he was able to obtain a photo ID card, and that was all he needed to buy a gun, a .380 Beretta, capable of firing 14 rounds in 4 or 5 seconds.
Because in Florida, although they have relatively strict regulations to obtain a gun license, gun licenses are only necessary for carrying concealed weapons. A license is not required to buy a gun. To buy a gun all that is required is a photo ID.
Is this not a problem?
Ivan
Reagan passed gun control legislation. More than once.
And after his presidency was over, he pushed for the Brady Bill.
prohibiting non-citizens from buying guns;
I think we can agree illegals buying guns would be a bad thing.
requiring proof of residency, including photo id. and something like a utility bill in the buyers name... similar to what is required for a drivers license;
A measure which supports point one.
making cop killer, or Teflon coated, armor piercing bullets illegal;
How does this violate the 2nd Amendment?
and requiring child safety locks on the weapons of all Federal Officials to prevent these guns from ever winding up in the hands
This is a rule applying to Federal Officials, not private citizens; employers have a right to put in "health and safety" restrictions on their employees.
I'm really not seeing what the fuss is about.
Ivan
I would vote for Hillary before I would vote for Giulinai and I never voted for a Democrat.
Ivan
Spoken like a true Republican. /sarcasm
I'm sorry, but his views about federal action overriding state laws are quite consistent. I pay less attention to what someone is willing to say to gain power and more what they have done in the past when they had power. And Rudy was very, very bad about taking guns away, supporting abortion "rights" and pushing for federal gun control laws to supercede those of other states.
No but don't just pick a quote. Roe v. wade is law and all government officials have to go by the law. When the law is changed then things will be different. Rudy had to follow the law and still has to so do all the others until the law is change. When people violate the law with violence then forget it - we might as well live in a third world country.
The point is, he is pushing for a federal law to override state laws. Which means he ain't the strict constructionist federalist he claims to be.
You're a British Subject and cannot VOTE in our elections.
Ivan
Ah, so now you are taking the position used to justify 90 percent of the usurpation of federal power - abuse of the Commerce Clause.
Which shows yet again that you and Rudy are not federalists and not strict Constructionists.
LOL.
I think this is about the 360th time I've explained this. One last time: the election of the American President has a huge bearing on my family's safety, security and prosperity. If you put in someone who surrenders in the War on Terror, safety and security in Britain are diminished, as the Islamists will come just as hard at us as you. Britain is also the single largest investor in the United States, appoint a tax raising dingbat and we're buggered.
I don't have a vote, but I'm speaking up because a good number of you simply don't know or don't want to know the international implications of what you're about to do. There are many - those who want America to retain its leadership role, don't want a Democrat. The best chance of keeping the Democrat out is to utilise Rudy's popularity and skills.
Ivan
Say WHAT? I'm not even allowed to QUOTE RUDY to make my point?
Roe v. wade is law and all government officials have to go by the law.
That's far different from declaring it establishes a Constitutional right. It does not. It was judicial usurpation. But if Rudy took THAT strict constructionist position in front of NARAL in 1997, I doubt they would have invited him back in 2001 so he could praise Margaret Sanger.
Sophistry. You ignored the second part of my argument. If illegals are able to buy guns in State A, which they use in State B, do you really think the governor of State B should just lay back and put some ice on it?
Ivan
Once again, that is not a federalist or strict constructionist argument. A strict constructionist would call on the State of Florida to tighten up its gun laws and not demand federal action to do such.
You and Rudy are pushing the strict constructionist standard. Not me.
Why not, as Rudy points out, the words "well regulated militia" are in the 2nd Amendment. Note "regulated", not "unfettered".
Ivan
And then you ask, "Is this not a problem?"
Answer: No
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.