[Mike1956]

With a Republican majority House and Senate, and a Republican governor in Florida, not one of ten pro-gun pieces of legislation can even get out of committee:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/098162...40e6640/ss_controversial-gun-bills-won’t.html

Something similar happened in Ohio last year, except a decent piece of legislation got watered down to the point of essential meaninglessness before the final version was enacted into law.

Maybe we should be happy that at least no anti-gun legislation is being passed.

 

[maxwell97]

"That measured approach is consistent with Flores’ record on guns — but it’s also a reflection of the Democratic-leaning district the Republican now represents, which spans western and southern Miami-Dade County and Monroe County, including the Florida Keys."

That's the deal, unfortunately - having an "R" next to your name doesn't change what your constituency will accept. That area was bound to cause problems with any pro-gun bills no matter who they sent to congress.

 

[Mike1956]

"That measured approach is consistent with Flores’ record on guns — but it’s also a reflection of the Democratic-leaning district the Republican now represents, which spans western and southern Miami-Dade County and Monroe County, including the Florida Keys."

That's the deal, unfortunately - having an "R" next to your name doesn't change what your constituency will accept. That area was bound to cause problems with any pro-gun bills no matter who they sent to congress.

You are correct about the "R" next to one's name for sure. Guns are always going to be a contentious issue, regardless of constituency involved.

 

[Rhinoman]

Whenever a party gets a majority in government, they don't try to solve problems. Without problems they have nothing to campaign for reelection on. Their job is to keep reminding us of the problems and keep promising to fix them without actually doing anything. If there isn't a problem to campaign on, they must create one.

 

[Mike1956]

Whenever a party gets a majority in government, they don't try to solve problems. Without problems they have nothing to campaign for reelection on. Their job is to keep reminding us of the problems and keep promising to fix them without actually doing anything. If there isn't a problem to campaign on, they must create one.

And all while busily scurrying around, accomplishing nothing that they allegedly stand for. Some of the biggest apologists for such nonsense here in Ohio are "gun rights organizations".

 

[QKShooter]

The best you can say is that legislative stagnation is better than traveling backward.

 

[Mike1956]

The best you can say is that legislative stagnation is better than traveling backward.

Sad, but very true.

 

[OldVet]

The last FL guy who killed the previous year's gun bills is an Ex-Representative now. Stubbe might keep that in mind.

 

[Drunder40]

Whenever a party gets a majority in government, they don't try to solve problems. Without problems they have nothing to campaign for reelection on. Their job is to keep reminding us of the problems and keep promising to fix them without actually doing anything. If there isn't a problem to campaign on, they must create one.

I believe this is exactly why they latch on to anything "GUN". They know that most Americans that see the mass shootings and such automatically don't like guns and are "all in" for anything that says gun control.
They are all simpleton's and can't or don't want to see the real problem I.E. the mentaly unstable individual or terrorist that chose to use a gun to achieve their goal.

 

[Eagleks]

Write them, tell they you want to be sure in the future whether to send money to them or their opponent in the Primaries .... and who to campaign for and vote for. Because if they don't support the bills, that will be a BIG "not you".

To many "R's" that call themselves "moderates" , who are Dem's in disguise. I think it reminded people the last election here when they voted in some "moderates" .... that was a big problem, and they weren't so 2A as they "assumed" they would be. That will impact the next election, and there are several who I'm betting don't get re-elected. Yep, when the anti's want to repeal some of the pro-gun and carry laws, some of them supported the wrong side of the fence, and were saying "they were willing to negotiate" . Uh.... nope, that doesn't do it.

 

[Libertywheel]

Maybe we should be happy that at least no anti-gun legislation is being passed.

Unfortunately this is the current state we are in. We'll see if the Supes are willing to take a gander at some of the 2nd A cases they have been neglecting lately...I think that might be our only solace at this point. It is tough to turn the tide of a representative government.

 

[Phaedrus]

Unfortunately this is the current state we are in. We'll see if the Supes are willing to take a gander at some of the 2nd A cases they have been neglecting lately...I think that might be our only solace at this point. It is tough to turn the tide of a representative government.

To me this is a depressing thought. The SCOTUS is extremely politicized right now. Stare decisis normally suggests that once a ruling is made a precedent is established as the standard from that point forward. Now it's clear that any victory that we get on any issue- from marriage equality to gun rights- is only safe until the reins pass to the other party. That is not how it was intended IMO.

 

[TeflonDon]

"That measured approach is consistent with Flores’ record on guns — but it’s also a reflection of the Democratic-leaning district the Republican now represents, which spans western and southern Miami-Dade County and Monroe County, including the Florida Keys."

That's the deal, unfortunately - having an "R" next to your name doesn't change what your constituency will accept. That area was bound to cause problems with any pro-gun bills no matter who they sent to congress.

My problem with that is that Democrats will push antigun law through, or at the very least try their hardest, despite what their constituents are. At least it's like that here in VA.

 

[graydude]

To me this is a depressing thought. The SCOTUS is extremely politicized right now. Stare decisis normally suggests that once a ruling is made a precedent is established as the standard from that point forward. Now it's clear that any victory that we get on any issue- from marriage equality to gun rights- is only safe until the reins pass to the other party. That is not how it was intended IMO.

No kidding. Look at Venezuela and the flip flopping their court has done to directly support the executive branch and erode the power of their congress. It's socialism marching clearly toward a dictatorship.

 

[graydude]

My problem with that is that Democrats will push antigun law through, or at the very least try their hardest, despite what their constituents are. At least it's like that here in VA.

Most Dem pols believe they know what's best and that regular people are incapable of running their own lives without government babysitting.

 

[elmacgyver0]

Most Dem pols believe they know what's best and that regular people are incapable of running their own lives without government babysitting.

Unfortunately in many cases they may be right, the Dems have worked very hard at getting them to that point.

 

[Mike1956]

My problem with that is that Democrats will push antigun law through, or at the very least try their hardest, despite what their constituents are. At least it's like that here in VA.

That right there describes the biggest difference I see between elected officials of each party, at least as it applies to gun control. Dems push their agenda, while Republicans worry about hanging on to their jobs.

 

[Mike1956]

True story. A few years ago, while the push from Dems for gun restrictions was strong, the local League of Women Voters hosted a state Republican representative. The audience was by and large liberal. Throughout the question and answer period, her attitude struck me as one of squishiness rather than one of conviction. The last question asked of her was whether or not she had ever accepted contributions from the NRA. She meekly responded that as far as she knew, she had not, but even if she did, it wouldn't influence her legislative decisions or opinions. End of presentation...

She was a life member of the NRA at the time.