Florida Sen. Scott says Dems want disarmament not solutions

Share on GAB

U.S. Senator Rick Scott (R-FL) has accused congressional Democrats of being more interested in disarming American gun owners than solving problems associated with mental health, according to Fox News.

Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) says Democrats more interested in taking guns from people than addressing the mental health issue. (Screen snip, YouTube, NBC)

Mental health seems to be a thread that connects several recent mass shooters, although it seems that only after the fact do reports surface that some of these individuals provided “warning signs” that might have tipped people off to their sudden violent outbursts.

In an appearance on “America’s Newsroom,” the Fox midday newscast, Scott stated, “This is like Groundhog Day, we have a shooting and Democrats want to take away your guns. They don’t want to solve problems, they want to take away your guns. That’s what totalitarian governments do.”

The former Florida governor, Scott noted that in the aftermath of the Parkland mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, “I sat down within days, within four to five days, I got law enforcement together, mental health counselors together, and I got educators together and within three weeks, we passed logical, common-sense legislation to make our schools and communities safer.”

Democrats seem focused on passing so-called “universal background checks” – which many people see as a precursor to registration – and so-called “red flag laws,” which lots of gun owners dislike because of due process concerns.

Trending: Cartoon of the Day: Tyranny or Freedom?

Now a mayor in California wants to complicate things for gun owners in his jurisdiction by passing a requirement that all gun owners have liability insurance. Mayor Sam Liccardo of San Jose, according to CNN, would mandate insurance to cover “accidental discharge of the gun, and for the intentional acts of third parties who steal, borrow, or otherwise acquire the gun,” CNN reported. Such insurance would not cover “liability of the policyholder for his or her own intentional conduct,” the story noted.

The dilemma may be in finding an insurance company that would provide such plans for gun owners.

The proposal may not fly far, due to the state’s preemptory language in statute, but there is no state constitutional provision that guarantees the right to keep and bear arms. The 2010 McDonald ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court did incorporate the Second Amendment to the states via the 14th Amendment, however.

Under Liccardo’s proposal, gun owners who couldn’t afford insurance could pay into a government fund that would help offset the costs of “gun violence,” but even then the scheme would penalize honest gun owners for crimes they didn’t commit.

———————————————————-

If you haven’t checked out and liked our Facebook page, please go here and do so. You can also follow us on Twitter at @co_firing_line and be sure to check out our MeWe page here and our new PatrioticSpace group here.
If you appreciate independent conservative reports like this, please go here and support us on Patreon.
And while you’re at it, be sure to check out our friends at Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative front-page founded by ex-military!

 

 

Share on GAB