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

Hmmm. What part of that do you think I would disagree with? I just do not fallaciously conflate "not taking the course" with "not knowing the laws". Nor, would I suggest that the only way to know the laws is to take the course. It is entirely possible, probable even, that people who currently own firearms, or aspire to, would take a minute to research the laws governing them, without having to pay an instructor to do it for them.

 

tell me this-what was harder for the founders to conceive of-a firearm that fired faster than say the Puckle gun that allowed 63 rounds in a few minutes versus and AR 15 VERSUS a Gutenberg style printing press versus televisions, satellite communications or the internet? How about law enforcement officers searching a home without a warrant vs the interception of telephone calls, emails and so forth? The moronic argument that the second amendment doesn't protect modern firearms is as moronic as claiming the first amendment does not protect the internet or television commentary or that prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment doesn't ban electric shock torture

 

I already covered that-some of the incremental step supporters currently don't admit or even support gun bans but they push for steps that get us closer to gun bans. And you know that

 

I have never heard of anyone from any 'side' oppose punishing murderers, or those who commit other gun crimes. As a matter of fact the "left" is quite eager to punish gun related crimes. But then again, you already knew that. Punishing the killers is necessary, but the obvious problem is that the fact that victims are already dead.

 

That is EXACTLY the paranoia I am talking about. You think anyone suggesting anything, like background checks, naturally wants to ban all guns, and intends to do it incrementally. Its paranoid, no matter how you spin it. I have shared what vast majority of gun owners want (and its not bans) but you insist everyone wants total ban of all guns.

 

Is it "moronic" to attack a post for what it didn't say?

 

so you think that the second amendment gives the federal government additional powers to those contained in Article One Section Eight?

 

what was the point you were trying to make here?

 

That's nonsensical.

Nobody but you has claimed that.

Straw man.

 

How so?

 

Off the top of my head, straw buyers are rarely prosecuted. Many criminals have gun charges reduced (or dropped) in exchange for guilty pleas to minor crimes.

 

Straw buying is a felony, so yes, they are prosecuted and its not "the left" who make plea deals, its the name of the game in the legal world. 98% of criminal cases in the federal courts end with a plea bargain, and it has nothing to do with any political parties. However, violent gun crimes often have mandatory sentencing guidelines.

 

Talk about an empty argument. First, I argue for myself, not for a side. Second, your saying that all anyone need do is read my past posts, is an utter fail of an argument. What any competent debater would do, would be to quote one such of my "copious posts." If they are "copious," as you claim, then you have no excuse, in it being too hard to find them.

Of course the reason you do not quote one of these arguments of mine, is because you are talking out your ass, in making a completely bogus allegation. So you provide nothing to back it up. Like I said, that top line argument of yours, is a big Loser.

Point three is that the truth of the matter, is that it is your posts, which prove my assertion of paranoia. Not only does anyone who has been a part of gun threads know that this is your stance, but I do not even have to go back to past threads, to find one of your quotes, as evidence: the post of yours, to which I'd addressed my comments, has you saying that you suspect anyone who advocates any type of gun regulations, to secretly want to ban guns. You have said this, specifically. Do you deny it?


Turtledude said: ↑
well the problem is this-almost every person who wants to ban gun ownership supports incremental restrictions including mandatory training. So when us pro rights advocates see a gun banner calling for anything short of a gun ban, we are skeptical that their motivations are anything other than getting closer to a ban


This is clearly a paranoid way of thinking, that because all those who would want to ban guns (who are a minority) would probably support any type of gun control legislation, makes you "pro rights advocates" suspect that anyone supporting any type of gun regulations (which is the vast majority of the public), is in truth wanting to ban guns entirely. You presume everyone in favor of any regulation, is a gun "banner." This is ridiculous, and paranoid, on its face. Let me show you the reverse argument: because any person who wanted to stage a revolt against the government, would be against any gun regulations, therefore, it would be reasonable, by your "logic," to assume that anyone against any gun regulation, is a conspiring revolutionary.


So your argument should be, that this does not represent paranoia. But you do not make that argument. You present only a big Nothing, for a rebuttal.

 

competent debate is succinct and to the point. I presume those who push for laws that ONLY further reduce the rights of lawful gun owners to be ANTI GUN. and Most of them, when push comes to shove, will favor gun bans.

 

Just as before, your "argument," has no point. Your assertion of your baseless, paranoid belief, with which you end your post, is not a "competent debate" argument, any more than it would be to state "the world is flat." Though both are succinct, both would require actual supporting points, to be considered an argument.

 

you spew the term paranoid and then pretend the following

1) that every democrat running for the nomination DID NOT demand a BAN on the sale of the most popular semi auto sporting rifle in the USA
2) that every single "gun safety" scheme pushed by the democrats DOES NOT reduce the rights of law abiding citizens
3) that banning semi auto rifles and normal capacity magazines will actually deter people who are not deterred by the consequences of committing mass murder
4) that the second amendment does not protect individual rights
5) that the second amendment does not apply to military grade firearms

BBL

 

Yes, all these irrational gun control measures only encourages the use of firearms against a disarmed public and armed uniformed police (marked targets).
CCW would save countless lives and restore the peace and civil order instantly.

 

So now you are redefining your point. While you may argue that favoring the banning of one particular type of weapon, qualifies one as a "gun banner," most of us do not speak your private language. On its face, the meaning that is implied, is that a "gun banner," wants to ban all guns. It would therefore be much clearer, & more accurate, of you, to phrase this "assault weapon banner," or some such.

I guess that remains to be seen. We can say that, in other countries like Australia & the U.K., this has been effective-- though they are, of course, not perfect analogs. We can also see that as the proliferation of these weapons has occured, so have mass shootings gone through the roof. You could argue, if you wish, that the rise in these shootings in the last 20 years, as AR-15 type weapons have risen from 2% to 25% of the gun market, is sheer coincidence.

But I don't see how this issue relates to training classes, or gun permits, which are supposed to be the thread topic-- your tangential arguments do not really fit the idea, you'd just espoused, of being "succinct."

 

if you want to ban millions of the most popular firearms in the USA YOU ARE A GUN BANNER. it's even worse when you try to ban guns that are used in less murders than beatings. And when you want to ban the weapon that is the most militia useful that ordinary citizens can legally own, that makes one an enemy of the constitution. Most mass shootings are with handguns. Did it ever occur to people such as you, that when you constantly claim that AR 15s are the WEAPONS OF CHOICE for mass shootings-you accentuate uses of such weapons by crazies?

Using your logic, those who only want to murder a few people are not murderers. Those who want to ban a few books are not book banners etc. In reality, if you think the government should have the power to ban AR 15s you are fine with them having the power to ban every gun

 

Sure, but lot of parents would object, so its unlikely to ever happen.

 

seems weird to object to something that makes people less accident-prone. That is like objecting to driver’s safety. Why?

 

Maybe because some people don't want their kids near guns. Some people simply do not like guns, and they don't buy them and won't allow their kids near them.

However, based on surveys (and contrary to fatback claims) most parents would support the idea, but I don't know how they decide if the vocal few oppose. In Florida it seems the Governor decides for everyone, but I believe in most places the school boards decide.

Personally I think its a good idea, but its also something gun owning parents should probably teach their own kids.

Teachers are ok with the idea, but only 7% of them would want to do it themselves , but don't object if a police officer, or a pro does the teaching.

 

It is not necessary to have functioning firearms around in order to teach about how they work and what safe practices are.

 

Either you didn't read what I posted, or you ignored it.

 

I read it and responded to it.