Gun owners get right to carry without a permit in Florida

I would prefer tyranny of the majority over tyranny of the minority. The latter is not democratic.
A Glock simply means 'firearm.' In Australia people don't generally own pistols - either honest citizens or crooks. In the UK owning an unlicensed firearm can give you a stiffer sentence than the crime you use the firearm in. I like that idea - two years for a robbery, five years for the gun.

 

Of course Tyranny of the Minority is democratic ..as is Tyranny of the Majority .. and yes the latter is worse .. but it is not a choice between only those two .. and thus a false dichotomy fallacy .. Political ideology on the basis of fallacy is not a good thing .. as evidenced by your embrace of Tyranny .. at the expence of Essential liberty .. the position of the collectivist woke joke .. that shares your desire for law on the basis of fallacious utilitarianism.

No kidding you get a stiffer sentence for a crime using a firearm . but this has nothing to do with your embrase of collectivist authoritarianism - and hatred for essential liberty - rule of law - logic and rational thought.

 

our gov goes back and forth between lawful and testing the limits of the law against its own citizens.

maybe your tanks and planes work by themselves. Over here a pilot and crews must keep those assets safe and moving, and those people live amongst the rest of us.


No one is actually worried those military personnel would risk their own families coming after their neighbors with guns.
We have guns be a we like them and they’re exactly what you need when bad guys come calling.

 

Have you seen Pro Line tell us how long this evaluation should delay someone from taking delivery of a firearm so purchased? I sure have not

 

I keep asking Pro-Line how long this evaluation has to be completed and I have yet to see an answer. Based on 20 million new gun purchases last year that means 10 million hours at least. If you add up the number of psychiatric doctors, it will mean months for someone to get the evaluation done-which I believe is his real goal-a de facto ban on gun sales

 

The majority of the US population wants that.

Typical red wing states got weak gun laws, and subsequently got a higher homicide rate compared to typical blue states with strong gun laws.
And let me explain this to you: them strong gun laws from other states are not breaching the constitution.

 

I am not in favor of any kind of "Universal Mental Evaluation" prior to purchasing a firearm. No more than I am in favor of such for anybody else that exercises any of their other Constitutional Rights. We do not require such for anybody else. Drive a 40 ton truck, no mental health evaluation. Want to get married, move to another state, or join the military and there is no mental health evaluation first. Want to write an article for a newspaper or run for public office, no mental health evaluation first. So what in the frackity frack frack do people think they are even trying to do demanding such when it comes to firearms?

However, what I am strongly in favor of is suspending the rights of those who have been deemed a danger to themselves or others from possessing a firearm.

To me, want to see the real difference? Take anything they try to mandate for the 2nd Amendment, and then say it should be done for all aspects of the Constitution. If they scream and whine that doing so is not right, then you know they have not thought out their arguments very well. Or do not care if some rights are suspended, so long as it is rights they do not agree with and it is not done to those they do agree with.

And yes, we have indeed had cases where other rights have been suspended via a legal process. People have been prohibited from writing news articles, voting, driving vehicles, even filing lawsuits. Because somewhere in the legal system a judge decided that for various reasons (almost always illegal activity or abuse of the system) has seen the individual deemed unfit to exercise those rights normally guaranteed to all in the Constitution. And I do indeed believe in "Innocent until proven guilty", but also believe that once found guilty (or mentally incompetent) that specific rights should be withheld through the legal process as they have been done for over 200 years.

And the funny thing is, I am not really particularly "passionate" about guns. I own one I bought for my late fiancee 3 decades ago, and I have actually taken it to a range exactly one time in all those years. And when my uncle died I inherited my grandfather's old Winchester 69 .22 rifle, the same one I learned to shoot with. I have not fired it since I want to say 1977, but someday I do hope to pass it down to one of my sons, as it is a rather cool part of our family history I think. Especially as my uncle told me that his father had bought it when they lived in Alaska (circa 1952) when it was still a territory.

However, if I was really a "gun nut" as some seem to believe I am, I could easily sell that old Winchester bolt action .22 rimfire and replace it with an AR clone. As many rifles of similar age and condition I am finding for sale to collectors for over $600. So it would be relatively easy to find a collector and offer a swap of my antique rifle for a more modern "assault rifle" if I wanted one.

 

It's actually much more than that: no doctor in his/her right mind would do the evaluations. Some would refuse simply because they want guns limited to police and criminals. Others would refuse because the liability is essentially unlimited.

 

Yeah I know that but the first barrier is the time issue. How long would someone have to wait before their rights were violated. I think those who propose this understand it's nothing more than a charade designed to ban any gun sale made after this proposed idiotic law went into effect.

 

your standard stock line is to keep repeating the mantra of what an uneducated group of those polled want. do you think that is a proper substitute for actual proof that what you want will do anything useful. Do you think that the constitution is subordinate to poll results. when GOP presidents win more states and more counties than Democrats, democrats constantly talk about INDIVIDUALS. well guess what-individuals commit crimes. not states, and individuals who support democrats are causing more violent crime than those who identify with the GOP

 

OK, you have this scenario - you don't accept the laws of your federal govt.. Like some Wacko situation you hold out against the US military - but you have Glocks and they can rain all manner of ordinance onto you. What role would a 'right to bear arms' serve you?

 

You clearly don't understand the first thing about America. Our entire system, the checks and balances built into our 3-branches of government, our representative republic, the foundational Constitution, and it's superiority over all laws, all of it was built by the genius founders to prevent the tyranny of the majority. Pure democracy gives you slavery if you can convince 50%+1 of the population that it's a good idea. It's two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. It is something to be avoided, proactively, and with purpose.

Individual freedoms are not only absolute, they define the American experience, and what our lives are like from the cradle to the grave. Yes, we've lost sight of that to some extent, but it is far from deceased, but with that comes individual responsibility. Something we have really lost sight of, nobody is to blame for their circumstances, you poor, poor person, you have been kept down by a system demanding that you get an education, acquire some skills... Just basic stuff. The ability to read and write, for starters, is something that many school districts are completely failing to accomplish, mostly because we don't hold kids back.

You didn't pay attention in class, failed all your tests, didn't bother with your homework, but that's OK bunkie... We're gonna promote you anyway. NO! That must stop. If it means we have 15-year-old 1st graders repeating it for the 10th time, so be it.

It's clear, however, that regardless of our internal problems, and you came very close to setting me into pure rant mode, you don't understand the first thing of what it is like to be an American. And that's OK, you live tens of thousands of miles away, yet you feel the need to come and lecture us about how we should try to be more Australian. Sadly, you are far from alone, there seems to be a rash of Aussies in here everyday, shaming us for not doing as you do, but sweetie... We don't care. We're gonna go shoot our guns, roast our pigs, ride our Harleys, and generally do whatever the f we wanna do, and if you want to do something about it... You know where to find us.

 

I probably told you 20 times there would be no need for any evaluation every time you buy one, or needs for psychiatric doctors. Why is it what you can't comprehend it?

 

I think you answer you own question when you equate a mentally insane person writing an article to carrying a firearm in public while hearing voices in his head.

They do them now so why would the suddenly stop?

You do knot understand what the word "ban" means and yet you use it in ever post you make. Having to flash an id when buying a gun is not a ban. I have done it every time I have purchased a gun. I'm not sure how you get around it, but I suppose you buy yours privately.

Yes, vast majority wants it, and that includes vast majority of gun owners. Only the fringe anarchists wants the mentally insane to carry guns in public, probably even in airplanes.

Any form of democracy, including ours, could be called "tyranny of the majority". How is "tyranny of the minority" a better system?

 

The theory, or theories, behind our rather complex system is that it combines to insure there are no tyrannies at all. At the most basic level is the filtration of stupidity provided, hopefully, by having elected representatives doing the nuts and bolts work, and deciding the basic and simple questions. But, we lost a layer of protection when we went to a direct vote for Senators, it should have been left as originally designed. Regardless, the next layer is the simple checks and balances. The Congress can't do anything without the consent of the Executive, except in cases where they think it's such a good idea they can get a super-majority, in which case they can act unilaterally. But that is offset by the Supreme Court's ability (along with the inferior Courts) to subject all actions of the Congress to Constitutional scrutiny. That power is offset, however, by the Congress's ability to overrule the USSC if it can get a super-duper majority consisting of 2/3rds of it's members, and the consent of 3/4ths of the States.

It's filter on top of filter on top of filter, and escalating checks and balances and power, all offset by the fact that on the most fundamental, the most critical issues that has faced our country, or may again in the future, it can't get done with just your simple 50%+1, the standards go up and up and up until you reach the level of Constitutional Amendment, which requires near unanimity.

Which all serves to protect us from reinstituting slavery because some majority faction gets angry enough at a minority faction to enslave them, because a majority isn't even close to good enough. It saves the sheep from the two wolves voting for dinner for the same reason.

When you really think about it, and analyze it even deeper than I have here... You really realize just how wise those old, white men were some 250ish years ago that came up with this ambitious experiment called the United States of America.

 

Yes, of course their whiteness must be mentioned. I stand by what I said, and most Western countries have representative systems like we do. Its still the "tyranny of the majority" as you put it.

 

it would serve me until my last breath. I mean, this scenario you just fabricated there’s no way to win. The US military isn’t raining arty on my house, or anyone else’s. These people have families so they’re not about to kill me for the same thing their family is doing.

I can however protect my family from bad guys who don’t care about laws and come smashing through the front door. You can’t.

 

OK so your NEXT gun after this law is passed. so how long-I already noted that there were 5.4 million first time buyers in 2021. are you now crawfishing and claiming it would be less than 5.4 million if the law was in effect that year?

 

Instead of yes or no, an evasion. Color me unsurprised.

 

Claiming what? Where did I claim anything about the numbers. Its really tiring when you make stuff up every time you post.

 

The only reason I didn't throw in christian and Republican into the 'bad guy' box was because A: Many to most of them were not true christians, and B: There was no such thing as a 'Republican'. But, hey, gotta slam those guys as much as possible right? Especially when the goal is the complete eradication of the very Constitution itself, amirite? They are no longer the genius Founding Fathers deserving reverence and gratitude, they are to be mocked, ridiculed, and plain ol' ignored at every opportunity.

 

Did someone slam them? I haven't noticed

No. As a matter if fact I have no clue what you are talking about.

No clue what you are talking about.

 

Guns are the leading cause of death of American children. Everyone of them has a story involving some accident or act of violence.
Stating that your anecdotes trump tens of thousands of contrary anecdotes doesn't cut it with me. So let's tally the people who's lives were saved by a gun versus the people who lost their lives due to guns.

 

But... the bad guys in Japan, UK and Australia don't usually have access to guns.
And your guns, even an AR15, is not going to defend your freedom.

 

My family arrived in Virginia 1640 and left ca 1900. I go back to visit my rels in Texas. And yes, I get to blast things with guns 'cos it's fun.
But in the next eight years a million Americans will be shot by those guns, and that's like... a third world tragedy. Guns are not connected to democracy, anymore than bombs or knives are.