Opinion

Florida Governor Fends Off Attempt to “Grab Our Guns” – This Information May Just “Make Your Day”

Clint Eastwood "Makes the Day" for many at the 2012 GOP Convention in Tampa, FL

Clint Eastwood "Makes the Day" for many at the 2012 GOP Convention in Tampa, FL

Tampa, Florida was the location for the 2012 Republican National Convention. Anticipating the event, Democratic Mayor Buckhorn sent a formal request to the state asking that firearms be banned in the downtown area during the Convention, but Florida’s Governor Rick Scott rejected the request with this profound statement:

Who would obey that law? The good guys, But the idiot carrying a gun to shoot up a crowd, you think he’s going to be deterred? No. All you’ve done is create a target-rich environment.

Our constitutional right to keep and bear arms has long been debated, but it has been under concentrated attack for the last 3 ½ years with unprecedented support from the current administration.  As our soldiers fight to protect us all over the world, many of us have felt compelled to take a stand and defend our freedom right here at home. I am very passionate about our country, the land of the free, and this attack on our rights is just wrong. So like many of you, I find myself on the front lines of freedom, doing what I can to make a difference.

Whether you choose to own a gun, or not, we can all agree that it is your constitutional right to bear arms, and I believe that none of our rights and freedoms should not be up for debate. This only compromises the integrity of the constitution, which is our forefathers’ plan for happiness and success. These are the people directly responsible for the success of this great nation. Similar to a successful business plan,  it has worked just fine with a few tweaks here and there, but this tyrannical tweaking is getting out of control.

As a newly self-appointed defender of the constitution, specifically the Second Amendment, and a gun owner for all the right reasons (sport, hunting, self-defense, decorative display), I am absolutely convinced that taking guns away from law-abiding citizens will not decrease the amount of gun related deaths and violence. Increasing the severity of punishment for those who commit a violent act, with any object, would be much more effective. Does it take a rocket scientist to understand that law-abiding citizens abide by the law?

We have here a Browning 243 X-Bolt, with Sling and stock cover by Giby's Custom Gun Leather, decorations by Becky Lou

We have here a Browning 243 X-Bolt, with Sling and stock cover by Giby’s Custom Gun Leather, decorations by Becky Lou

Information is not readily available concerning Democratic Tampa Mayor Buckhorn’s personal beliefs and policies about firearms, as I have to agree that his initial concern is valid and warranted:

Normally, licensed firearms carried in accordance with the Florida statute requirements do not pose a significant threat to the public [...] However, in the potentially contentious environment surrounding the RNC, a firearm unnecessarily increases the threat of imminent harm and injury to the residents and visitors of the city.

He should have thought this one through, as it is my belief that this request simply feeds into the already controversial issue of possession of firearms and perceived violence associated with them. He should want all law-abiding citizens to be packing, and advertise it so that any person planning a killing spree would reconsider his actions, knowing there may be some defensive to his offense. Glad to save the day, rocking Republican Governor Rick Scott responded with reasonable empathy, and it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand:

Like you, I share the concern that “violent anti-government protests or other civil unrest” can pose “dangers” and the “threat of substantial injury or harm to Florida residents and visitors to the state.” But 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.

I say Rick rocks!

Question for the day:

Wouldn’t it be reasonable to suggest that persons of any political party should refrain from being involved with organized violent reactive groups, attempting to disrupt and disband activities of the opposite party? Whereas each party could gather and talk about their own opinions and beliefs, without being bombarded with verbal abuse, threats of bodily harm, also creating the need for increased law enforcement to avoid bodily injury or even death to persons of either parties? Maybe you should ask a Rocket Scientist.

Would love to hear your thoughts on this one!

Links to reports from both sides of the fence:

Images courtesy Becky Lou Outdoors

Any views or opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect those of OutdoorHub. Comments on this article reflect the sole opinions of their writers.