Gun owners get right to carry without a permit in Florida

The issue with the 'well armed militia' (and my ancestor was a Geist who was a General in that war, serving with Washington) is that this was all America had at the time. There was no true standing army. We don't need millions of 9mm handguns to protect America anymore. And another thing - if you join the USA standing army today you dont need to bring your handgun with you.
ps last time I looked it was about 117,000 people shot in the USA - about 45% of these were fatalities. 117,000 x 8.3 = one million if I recall.

 

Either you want psych evaluations for ALL gun owners, or you admit it's just an attempt at a back-door ban.

The liability, of course.

 

The militias purpose isn't to be a standing military it's a militia not a military.

We need hundreds of thousands millions of 9 mm and 45 and all that stuff we need more because the more we have the harder it is to take them away preventing the government from taking them away is the purpose of the militia.

 

No, you are the one deflecting.

That's ludicrous.

Of course not, because either he realizes the answer will be "never" or he's simply relying on pixie dust.

So...a CCW would mean you never need a psych evaluation?

Never, of course.

So...you are claiming-with a straight face-that you can get millions of psychiatric evaluations done easily, in a few days?

No, that is you.

 

Just doing me the sad thing is this is not about safety or reducing crime or reducing criminal possession of firearms it's strictly about reducing lawful ownership while promoting criminal behavior.

The idea is that if you believe in gun rights and own guns then you're probably on the opposite side of the political spectrum is there and it's about attacking you.

 

What.

 

I apologize.

I'll rephrase.

Gun control gun restrictions whatever you want to call it isn't about controlling unlawful ownership it's about controlling lawful ownership.

And it's not aimed at reducing crime it's aimed at individuals who own firearms lawfully

 

This is especially obvious when one looks at places like California.

Where a DA dismisses 75% of crimes involving guns, even by felons.

Or in one I recently presented in the town I used to live in and recently left. A convicted felon with large amounts of drugs, a loaded handgun in his car and two other guns is given 2 years probation.

They have absolutely no interest in actually enforcing the laws already in place, even when they are violated by actual criminals. And instead do all they can to restrict those who actually follow the laws.

To me, this would be like requiring a law that anybody in a bar is not allowed more than a single drink an hour, then must pass a breathalyzer check before they leave the bar. Meanwhile not prosecuting those who are actually caught driving drunk in the first place.

I am one of the first to admit the current laws are failing. Not because of the laws, but because violations of a great many of them are not even enforced at best, or questionably enforced at worst.

And when there is no enforcement, then you might as well not even have a law in the first place.

 

Another thing the left tries to do and I've seen them do it with this it doesn't work on me and I would like to inoculate everyone I can from it. They act like people who disagree with them are in the minority.

They'll say the majority of people agree with them about gun control laws and if that was true we would have them. When you point this out they'll point to gun manufacturers in the NRA as a force that stops the will of the people somehow. If you know enough about gun manufacturers you will know not all of them support more gun freedom some of them support quite the opposite. Kimber comes to mind, Smith and Wesson did something back in the 2000s

 

Should this also include hand grenades?

 

No explosives have a tendency to be unstable and can present an unintended harm to people in their vicinity. Explosives have to be stored properly and have to be handled properly and they have to be disposed of properly guns are just hunks of metal that you can set them on fire you can drop them you can juggle them you can leave them in a room by themselves in humidity or really high temperatures and they won't pose a danger to anyone.

Also there's a lawful purpose for having a firearm I'm not sure there is for an anti-personnel grenade.

 

So we have a militia that cant have grenades. What about land mines, armed drones, mortar, SAM's, anti-tank missiles.... ?????
Here's the thing -in Australia I am 22 times less likely to be killed by a firearm. Despite loving guns (going spotlighting soon!) so firearms can have "unintended harm to people"

 

And your scheme is to arm the crazies so you can enjoy following the mass killings on TV. The carnage gives you a hard on (your language).

See what is sounds like when you tell people what they think, what they want and what their motivation is. Why bother?

And you shrieking "gun ban" when you see an emoticon destroys your credibility, or what's left of it.

 

Can you define the word "ban"? I think we should have a national carry id, like we have today at State level (with reciprocity), and to get one you'd need the criminal background check (which you already do today) and a simple mental evaluation / assessment, by a doctor (even general practitioners can do them). How does that boil down to a "ban".

Its like insisting we have a "car ban" because you need a license to drive, and yet there are millions of cars on the roadways.

Ban = Official legal prohibition, so no, we do not have a car ban, even though you need a driver license.

Actually I am the one asking the question, the other poster deflected by refusing to answer, and instead started asking questions of his own. Its textbook deflection.

No, its called "fact".

Millions in few days.....? Re-read my posts if you have to ask what I said.

 

they don't need that?

it's impossible to get killed by a firearm people are killed with firearms not by them.

I'm not suicidal and I'm not involved in any criminal activities so by chances of being killed with a farm or probably lower than yours.

like what are they radioactive are they poisonous how do they harm people? People can argue with them but that's the people doing it not the firearms.

Do you really don't know this?

 

bad guys in those countries don’t have toxic black culture responsible for 54% of all murders in the US.
And yes, my AR9, AR10, and AR15 will most certainly defend my home from criminals invading and crashing in to harm me.

but since you don’t have home invasions you don’t think anyone else on the planet has home invasions.

 

Pro Line don't play like you do not know what a ban means when people explain their version of it to you.

Now you want blunt talk baby sure. I have said many times what I think should be banned and will repeat it again;

1-this ammunition: +p ammo, flechette rounds, 13mm gyrojets, jacket hollows and the bullet named after your question technique in responses-the dum dum;

2-there is no reason you or any gun owner needs a bullet that pierces armour or bullet proof vests and endangers police to "defend" yourself;

3-any weapon that allows you to carry more than 6 rounds in the same magazine;

4-weapons without child proof locks;

5-Heckler Koch MG4, MG3, HK416-AS, AK 47, AR15, AS50 Sniper, DSR 50 Sniper, any tracking point rifle, M2 Browning .50;

6-weapons previously banned under federal law or currently banned by existing state laws.

Now let us cut to the chase. My issue is people who buy weapons to kill. They claim they buy them to defend themselves. They use the term "defend themselves" but that is a sanitized term for "gun that is most likely to enable me to shoot someone dead".

Stop playing. We all get it.

Gun bans and bullet or ammunition bans zero in on specific weapons designed to kill and so not to "defend". In your argument "defend" means kill. In my position and those of gun regulators, using a gun should be a last resort and killing someone is not the sole criteria for defining what is needed to "defend" oneself. That said any gun is lethal. That also said, bans zero in on the ones most likely used in mass shootings.

Don't play dumb with what it means.

By the way if I had my way no one could own a hand gun unless they go for mandatory yearly medical exams in regards to their eyes and reflexes and pass a competency test (how to assemble and disassemble the weapon, how to clean it, how to store it, accuracy target test with a minimum score).

I would also require all gun owners to be members of gun clubs or hunting associations that they must visit at least once a week for shooting practice on ranges. Oh yes. We can make those gun clubs rich policing you for the government.

I am coming for your bazooka baby.

6-lethal laser weapons of any kind.

 

I know exactly what it is, which is why I can say a national carry id and/or mental evaluation is not a ban,

Those would qualify as bans, but if you had to wait a week to buy M2 Browning .50, then its obviously not banned.

I would not go that far, but ok.

Ok. Europeans have such rules, but even they dont require weekly visits.

 

So you lose on facts, you lose on laws, you lose on all angles, so go into hysterical claims.

Hell, you already went the route of tanks, now grenades. What next, long range heavy bombers and nukes?

 

Uhhh, right.

The last time I had even seen any of those for sale it was almost 2 decades ago, and they were over $100 each. And if memory serves, they are non-regulated Class C explosives. Just like model rocket engines.

 

well none of your proposals come close to being constitutional so we will relegate them to the dustbin

 

Maybe if I explain it just one more time...because, yet again, no doctor would do the evaluation. For the medical professional, there is, exactly, zero upside and enormous downside. Therefore, whether or not you realize it, you support a backdoor ban on gun ownership.

Feeble deflection, 2/10 at best.

Yes, your posts are. You have been asked at least four times EXACTLY how your "evaluation" would work, and what the OBJECTIVE criteria would be. You have not answered, you will not answer.

I know what you said, and that's the problem: it's ludicrous. Since you are all over the place, I am still not entirely sure what you are pushing for here, but (yet again) ANY requirement for an "evaluation" amounts to a back-door ban, because (yet again, at least the fifth time) no doctor would EVER sign off on anyone, because the liability is limitless.

 

I suspect you don't even know what most of those are.

So...you want to ban all centerfire rifles, then? (If you do not know what that means, you have nothing useful to contribute here.)

And now, all magazine-fed pistols and rifles.

What.

Ah, yes, the "black rifles are scary" post.

That's ridiculous.

That's ridiculous.

I'm pretty sure you are not PLAYING dumb...

In other words: limit guns to the rich, the well-connected, and criminals.

Again, you want guns limited to the rich, the well-connected, and criminals.

What.

 

They do them all the time. LOL

Its far more than 4 times. Heck, I must have answered at least 10 times on countless different threads. What exactly were you responding to when you said doctors would never do them, when in they do them all the time. You were responding to me explaining how it would work. How did that go over your head?

Stop pretending to know what you are talking about, then its obvious you don't.

Can general practitioner perform mental health assessments?
"They can and they do: Family physicians are one of the primary sources for mental health care in the United States, says the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP). Primary care physicians are the primary managers of psychiatric disorders in one-third of their patients, the AAFP reports."
https://www.uhhospitals.org/blog/articles/2021/03/your-primary-care-provider-can-help-treat-your-mental-health-too#:~:text=They can and they do,their patients, the AAFP reports.


As for the word "ban", your ignorance is your problem, not mine. Practically everyone knows the meaning of the word, and those who don't can google it. You don't know, and choose to remain ignorant.

Who said they would be held liable?

 

it is clear it is a backdoor attempt to ban gun sales