Via Wirecutter.

TAMPA BAY, Fla. (WFLA) — Adopted in December of 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights, Americans have the right to bear arms. And while some lawmakers differ on gun rights, both sides agree they want to help start a conversation on who should be able to be armed and where. State Senator Darryl Rouson of St. Petersburg believes it’s a case by case basis.“I support the second amendment right to bear arms, but I do not believe everybody should be packing,” Rouson said. “I’m not sure that bringing guns to a gun fight leads to peace or leads to safety.”

Source: Tampa Bay area lawmakers weigh in on gun debate | WFLA.com

It still amazes me that in this day and age, a black man from the South still considers that self-defense is a privilege doled out under the tight control of the governmental masters.

But he is a Democrat so he is living the privileged life of the modern-day plantation striving to make sure them uppity people stays in control.

Dear God, man. Have you ever heard of the racially motivated Rosewood Massacre? It only happened 140 north of your city, for f***’s sakes!

Spread the love

By Miguel.GFZ

Semi-retired like Vito Corleone before the heart attack. Consiglieri to J.Kb and AWA. I lived in a Gun Control Paradise: It sucked and got people killed. I do believe that Freedom scares the political elites.

10 thoughts on “Fl Senator: Gun Rights in a case by case basis. ”
    1. He’s not ‘confused’ Kermit. He damn well knows the difference.
      He just ‘understands’ that he parrots the line fed to him if he wants to keep that cushy government position.
      It’s amazing what one can ‘understand’ when Big $$ and a life of ease is dangled in front of you….if you’ll just sign on the dotted line here….in your blood.

      1. Miles, it’s the choice between “stupid” or “evil.” I was attempting to be charitable by merely insulting the man’s intelligence instead of his character.

  1. Replace with “I support the first amendment right to free speech, but I do not believe everybody should be communicating”. See how idiotic that is?

  2. Whenever someone says “I support the 2nd. Amendment, BUT…”
    It means they really do not.

  3. LBJ and the rest of the southern demoncraps conceived the plan to re-enslave the blacks, called it ‘the great society’ and the blacks – themselves – beat a path right back onto the plantation.

    It only took a basic understanding of the defects of fallen human nature we brought onto ourselves in Eden, then Greed and Sloth took over when “Look at all this Free $#!+” was dangled in front of their eyes like Christmas candy.

    This one is no more or less than one of the legion of “House Negros” who understands all too well which side his bread is buttered on.

  4. Obama approved Harriet Tubman for the $20 bill. Since I have studied her life before Obama did this, I was always curious if Obama learned who she was.
    .
    Harriet was known for carrying a Bible, a rifle, was a republican, and lamented in her writings that most of the time when attempting to influence ‘black slaves’ to allow her to guide them into the underground railroad system to safety, she had to threaten them with her rifle, for the Fear Element of Government had enslaved their minds—Stockholm Syndrome Effect.
    .
    It is truly sad to see the inability to exercise reasonable critical thinking freely on the part of any American. A man of his age-experience knows better but….the money is sooo good he can’t help it.

  5. ““I’m not sure that bringing guns to a gun fight leads to peace or leads to safety.” What it leads to is whoever didn’t bring it to a gun fight is now room temperature.

  6. The world would automatically be a better place if more people just learned what an individual “right” was.

    Honestly…most people don’t know. Try talking to people about the general concept some time…they don’t get it.

    The ENTIRE point of individual rights is that they are the things that are the sole domain of the individual, and no other entity has the right to take them away without due process.

    If that weren’t the case, then we wouldn’t even NEED the concept of rights in our legal system. Being able to legislate who can/can’t do something? That’s just how normal law works…if that’s how you treat rights, then how is it a “right”? How is it different from anything else? Why even waste good writing material making a Bill of Rights or a Constitution then?

    The point of an individual right is specifically to say that nobody has power over that thing except the individual themselves. It’s not a question about who the government wants to have them…because it’s simply not within the government’s power. They can have a philosophical discussion if they want…but that’s it, because it’s the individual’s power to decide for themselves.

Comments are closed.