A new Florida law made gun-carry permits optional. A dramatic drop in safety classes followed

yeah they should get training but see my post right above this one

 

Seeing as there are firearms everywhere in America, some level of firearm safety being taught in the course of public education is probably prudent.

 

Is that how the law was ACTUALLY written? Would my uncle-50 years of experience and a safety instructor-have to take the class to get a permit if he moved and wanted a FL permit? Because that's how it is written in some places. (And not just for CCW permits...his father wound up taking the motorcycle license test after the DMV screwed up and lost the endorsement he'd had since the 70s.)

I'm not skeptical. I KNOW the motivations.

 

and while there are those who want incremental steps who do not (at this time) want complete bans, they are helping the complete banners get closer to a ban so I oppose them as well

 

Sure, that is your standard post to everything, and you usually refer to some "incremental restriction" which no one has even brought up.

 

What law?

I already answered this. They answer was no.

Motivations for what?

 

and you pretend that those who want to ban guns don't exist or that they don't push for these intermediate obstacles. It's like those who want registration. The only real use of registration is to help tax or confiscate currently lawful gun ownership. EVERY GROUP that wants to ban guns wants registration. and yet if we oppose registration, we are told we are paranoid.

 

Yes, you have said that before. You dont want criminals or crazies running around with guns killing people, but you oppose any restrictions for them to do so.

If there is a post where I said they do not exist, then please quote it. Of course some people want to ban guns. They make no bones about it. I, however, do not agree with them.

If that is what they say then why don't you quote them.

If guns were banned there would be nothing to register, so your claim makes no sense.

 

wrong as usual: I support severe punishment for those who use firearms to harm innocents or engage in reckless use of firearms that harm others. You promote things that you pretend will reduce violent crime or reckless harm with firearms but will have the effect of harassing good people. Such as the idiotic demand that everyone who wants to buy their next gun has to undergo a psychiatric examination: a scheme that you never ever explained how long that might take for an appointment to be available or who is competent to conduct such an examination.

 

We were not talking about punishing people. Read the post again.

Can you quote me saying that?

 

so you deny that in prior threads you suggested that people should undergo a mental health examination in order to buy a gun?

 

A simple quote about me saying that about people buying their next gun will suffice. Thanks

 

In my state, a training course is required to obtain a CC permit. I took it, because I had to. It was the biggest waste of time and resources I have ever experienced. No one came out of that course any 'safer'. A wholly pointless exercise.

This is not to say that real training and regular practice isn't essential. But, this class wasn't anything like that. It had no value at all, beyond the participation trophy every attendee got at the end that they could trade for their right to bear arms at the sheriff's office.

 

I agree. Passing a firearm safety and proficiency course should be REQUIRED in order to obtain a high school diploma. And those courses should be a mandatory part of every public school curriculum.

 

And yet the progressives don't think so.
It really does make you wonder if their true motive is actually "safety".

 

We also have to wonder at the motivations of second amendment extremists when they refuse absolutely any idea they construe as 'infringement'. Is ti not obvious that once the vast majority of the pomulation gets fed up with slaughter that draconian measures that are good for no one will be promulgated?

 

Certainly, given the wording of and current interpretation of the second amendment, this is true. "A well regulated militia..."

 

Given that the phrase "well regulated" in the 2A simply meant "properly functioning", it would be absurd to assume that a free state would be able to assemble a properly functioning militia from people who had never touched a firearm and had no idea how to operate one safely. So, to that extent, I agree with you.

I fail to understand the societal benefit of our public education system churning out throngs of subservient young people wholly unprepared to exercise and enjoy their rights. Specifically, the absurd idea that insulating them from firearm safety and proficiency will serve society well when they emerge from their cocoon into the world and find there is a gun behind every blade of grass.

 

Its not so much about the safe handling, which is the easy part, but learning about the laws. In my case the instructor said half the people attending his classes change their mind and will not apply for the permit, because they realize carrying a gun comes with lot of responsibility and that it can get you in huge trouble when mistakes are made. Knowing the laws is VERY useful. I know you don't agree, so we'll have to agree to disagree on that.

You keep saying that. Did you see it in a poll or something?

At some point the zero-tolerance against any measure will backfire. Something will happen that will break the camels back, and people will say that it was because nothing at all was done, and then they will pass some law which goes overboard, and very few will support it

Yes. and with permit less carry there will be a number of people who don't know the first thing about the guns they purchase, and nothing about the laws. During the revolution, those who were unwilling to participate were disarmed, and their guns were given to those who were willing to train and fight.

A properly functioning militia would not have children, crazies, drug addicts, habitual drunkards, or totally untrained people in its ranks.

 

That's an extremely subjective and loaded question and it also has a very subjective number of possible answers

 

And yes, back at you, I'm sure it is all the firearms instructors, with 50 years of experience, no longer taking the classes, which account for the drop in attendance, cited in the OP. That is not a serious argument. It would have been very simple, and much more practical, to have merely added this exception to the existing law: that licensed instructors were exempt from the class requirement.

 

That "problem," is paranoia, and it the affliction of the "pro rights activists," to whom you allude. It should be noted that gun owners, support numerous gun "restrictions," a.k.a. regulations. That makes your category of "pro rights activists," sound like they could also go by another name: anarchists.

 

Of course its paranoid to think that if a person wants one thing, like background checks, then he must naturally want total ban on all guns. Its absurd.

 

It is also absurd to argue there is no difference between 18th century firearms and modern ones made for or inspired by rapid fire modern warfare. Firing three rounds per minute is nothing compared to thirty in ten seconds.

 

all one has to do is read your many copious posts about guns and see that I am correct. We fully support the government punishing those who use firearms to wrongly harm or threaten others-a position that many on the left oppose. You all want to pass more and more malum prohibitum laws to harass lawful gun owners, but your side is very reticent about actually hammering felons using guns-especially black ones who are often those caught by felon with possession task forces