Florida - New Permitless Carry for Qualified Citizens Signed into Law - How is this Constitutional Carry?

[JEVapa]

Oh I know what the 2nd Amendment is about and for and thank God we have it because I don't trust our government any more than anyone else, maybe even less. I just don't have a whole lot of trust in many of my fellow citizens to own and handle certain kinds of weapons of mass destruction that so many desperately want to be able to have. I mean why do you think the military teaches and trains soldiers to use weapons instead of just handing them out and saying . . . 'have fun'. Because a lot of people are just plain idiots.

Ok, make sure y'all determine how much idiot a person has to have to strip him of his rights.

Your fear of your own safety doesn't outweigh the rights of Americans.
The military trains soldiers on weapons systems so they can kill whatever enemy they are fighting at the time. The military also has zero jurisdiction in the country, so your strawman is useless.

 

[trekrok]

That sounds so much like 'Should a known potential 'mass shooter' be carrying a firearm? No, probably not. Should that person be prohibited from doing so under law? No.

So what is the answer to reducing gun violence? Like everyone else on this board I support the 2nd Amendment but just can't fully get on board with the " . . . shall not be infringed" [for any reason] crowd. One mans' opinion.

What exactly is a 'known potential mass shooter'?

We curb gun violence by prosecuting criminals, limiting gun free zones, hardening schools etc.

 

[JEVapa]

What exactly is a 'known potential mass shooter'?

That is a person that somebody thinks might do something because someone said something. Red Flag and thought crimes.

Nobody cares about the people that actually commit crimes and are released and not flagged that end up committing a majority of these crimes.

 

[Almost Jack Burton]

This is quoted directly form the US Constitution.

First Amendment
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Second Amendment
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The first one is the most important...that's why it's Numero fcking Uno. The second one is number two because it back the first one up. Simple.

There are no exceptions and no excuses. Sorry. If you think someone's too stupid to have a gun, then make sure you go petition for a law to be established and ratified by the local, state, or federal GOV that outlines how much stupid is required. Make sure any said laws don't violate the above mentioned Rights.

There are already laws that do this that have been deemed Constitutional so, restricting somebody's right because you don't feel safe is a good thing? Cali and the Left coast do that.

You people bashing this new FL law do realize you are in real life Constitutional carry states right???

Somebody brought up road ragers with RPGs.

I don't believe that sh*t one bit. Period.

Maybe one person will read this

You are a funny guy. You sir will live and die like us all. You have no better status in this life than the next person. Those that think they do, well bless your heart!

You,

" Let's see here who enacted the NFA, and the AWB? Pretty sure those are/were federal. "

The NFA was enacted by a Democratic ruled Congress back in 1934 (almost 90 years ago), and the AWB was enacted by a Republican controlled Congress in 2004 (almost 20 years ago). So yes the Federal government restricted weapon use a long time ago.

" No regular person can carry a "PDW" given by definition a "PDW" is a select fire sub gun or stocked pistol . . . "

"PDW" has several different definitions, one of which 'Personal Defense Weapon, is the one I was referring to which can be applied to any firearm carried on the person.

" My wife can't see very well without her glasses so in your opinion, she shouldn't be allowed the right to defend herself against and attacker. "

At no point in any of my comments have I ever stated that a person did not have the right to defend themselves. What my non-hypothetical question ask was whether it would be considered okay for a person that was almost blind to carry a Personal Defense Weapon (firearm) under 'Constitution Carry'?

Thank you for giving your opinion on the question I posed, though the real reason I did include that question is to try and get people to actually start to think about the ramifications of carrying rather than to just continue to parrot the same " . . . shall not be infringed." mantra that, for many, just roll off the tongue without thought.

So now you are back tracking and changing the definition of the terms you used.
You are showing a good bit of Narcissistic behavior.
Maybe you are the person people should be worried about.
So far in your comments you have tried to use dark psychology and fear mongering to validate your point of view. Manipulation tactics are bad juju brother.

The lengths you are going to to prove you are right are suspect.

 

[Chuckie]

What exactly is a 'known potential mass shooter'?

We curb gun violence by prosecuting criminals, limiting gun free zones, hardening schools etc.

- Okay, a 'known potential mass shooter' might be someone that is known to have mental problems like anger issues, schizophrenia, or sociopath tendencies (to name a few), is known to possess firearms, and has expressed his/her desire for violent action against someone or something.
- But again so many express that it's okay to defend against this type of person AS LONG AS we don't restrict his/her right to have firearms. Just seems to me that in some circumstances it makes sense to try to keep these type of people from obtaining the 'tools' they would use to 'mass kill'.
- I am NOT advocating taking away firearms from the vast majority of people, nor even those suspected of mental problems, but only those proven to be a real world threat to others - proven by maybe a panel including doctors, mental health professionals, clergy (of at least half being gun owners themselves), and then only restricted until again, proven to obtain a more society accepted normalcy.
- I don't have the answer, but everything we've tried so far has not worked in preventing 'multiple-shooting' incidents. Unless workable solutions are found the problem is only going to get worse.

There should never be such a thing as a "Gun Free Zone", all too often criminals get reduced punishments through shady lawyers or by plea-bargaining, and only lip-service is paid to hardening schools with the usual excuse that it cost too much.

 

[perfor8]

So you believe that every person that falls under the purview of the United States Constitution should be able to own and operate any weapon, whether that be a .17 cal air gun to a 20mm Chain Gun, an RPG-7 to a tactical nuclear weapon, and ownership (and operation) should have absolutely no restrictions whatsoever, even those that could be based on mental or physical capacity?

WOW, I can't wait for me and my family to run across a 'road rage' driver with anger issues carrying an RPG just looking for an excuse to use it against someone.

Sounds like you need to get out of the fast lane... The Karens that wish to control who has access to weapons like to control how fast others drive.

 

[perfor8]

Your 'wish' is happening, though slowly. My son whom lived in Oklahoma took a job in Massachusetts and was appalled by their restrictive gun laws. He told me that they didn't even have public gun ranges (indoor or outdoor).
Having lived in both Democratic and Republican controlled States, I would leave my country before I set foot in a Democratic State again!

https://keepgunssafe.com/best-gun-ranges-massachusetts/

 

[Chuckie]

https://keepgunssafe.com/best-gun-ranges-massachusetts/

Thanks for the information.

 

[Decoligny]

What exactly is a 'known potential mass shooter'?

We curb gun violence by prosecuting criminals, limiting gun free zones, hardening schools etc.

It’s pretty much along the same lines as a “known potential rapist”.
Anyone who was a penis, or any implement that can mimic a penis is a know potential rapist.
Therefore, anyone who owns any weapon capable of inflicting lethal injuries on more than one person is a known potential mass shooter.
Left Wing Libtard Logic 101.

 

[Chuckie]

It’s pretty much along the same lines as a “known potential rapist”.
Anyone who was a penis, or any implement that can mimic a penis is a know potential rapist.
Therefore, anyone who owns any weapon capable of inflicting lethal injuries on more than one person is a known potential mass shooter.
Left Wing Libtard Logic 101.

Technically you are correct except that anyone with a penis may have the capability to be a rapist, but capability alone is not enough - there also has to be the desire to rape someone.

Same with being a 'mass' shooter. Just possessing firearms does not automatically make a person a killer - there also has to be a desire/need to attack/shoot/kill someone. That's why previous comments referenced 'anger issues', 'schizophrenia', or 'sociopath tendencies' when I questioned whether people with these afflictions should own firearms.

Nice try though and thank you for participating. Be sure to come back again when you actually have something worthwhile to contribute