You gotta love the gall it takes for a government that's responsible for the deaths of over a hundred million people and still reveres history's greatest mass killer to say this:
“The United States prioritizes the right to keep and bear arms over the protection of citizens' lives and personal security and exercises lax firearm possession control, causing rampant gun ownership.”
They say the latter part like it's a bad thing. In fact they outright call US civilian gun ownership a "human rights violation". Well, they would know. And this is coming from one of the largest gun producing countries on the planet.
Also from Robb Allen is a view into the minds of tyrants with a smaller sandbox. You see, the mucky mucks in Tampa are pissed that State preemption laws prevent them from banning guns "for the people's good". Sure the Governor has repeatedly told them no, and state law makes them personally liable if they try to ban guns. But they still complain and plot that they should be able to do it because:
We have been a democracy for over 200 years, and we have had many things happen that have caused us to either break our own laws or cause other people to be injured because we are breaking our own laws. Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus, and we survived. The people that came out of reconstruction in the 1880s created Jim crow laws that restricted the right to vote, the right to hold property, many other rights of former slaves, and people that were considered citizens under the 14th amendment, and we survived. We have had Japanese citizens in turn in California and other parts of the west and took their property and trampled on their rights, and we survived.
So there you go, as long as something doesn't destroy the United States, government agents should be able to do whatever they want. A lot of people on the Gun Rights side point to the racist roots of gun control. Such as discretionary issue in the South being used to disarm blacks.
It's interesting to see someone against gun rights make the same argument. So you have a politician waxing nostalgic for Jim Crow, and as one of Robb's commenters points out complaining about all those armed people.
It's 44,000 [licensed to carry] in the city and quite a bit more in the county. It is almost unnerving to think that the governor and the legislature have put us in this position to deal with.
Well, at least he didn't call them "uppity".
Sure, putting US citizens in internment camps without due process or even commuting a crime other than being "the wrong race" is worse than banning their guns, but that doesn't make the latter okay.
Robb Allen puts it succinctly: "It’s disgusting that someone would say that the violations of rights from Jim Crow are no big deal because we made it through so let’s do it again, and make no mistake, that’s exactly what Councilman Suarez said."
At least when the Chinese Communists make arguments for Gun Control in the US, they don't openly favorably compare it to internment of US citizens, Jim Crow, and suspending the writ of habeas corpus.