Gun owners get right to carry without a permit in Florida

Which includes my early 1950's Winchester 69 bolt action .22 rimfire, obviously.

The thing I love is that people like this have absolutely no idea what they are even talking about.

And hell, the first commonly used rapid fire rifle did not even use a magazine. And it was not even semi-automatic.



I would actually love to see an alternate reality where they managed to get all semi-automatic rifles and magazines banned. Then in states where open carry was legal we had people going around with tube fed lever action rifles like Lucas McCain.

 

And in this I fully agree. I actually wanted to bang my head on the desk the moment the "gyrojet" was mentioned.

For those that do not know, it was an absolutely stupid idea for a weapon. It literally was a rifle that fired small rockets. They came out in the 1960s, and proposed to the military because they could be fired underwater and in space.

Hey, it was the 1960s, a lot of people went more than a tad space crazy back then.

It had a slow rate of fire, was not very accurate, and had a range of about as far as you could throw a rock (about 50 meters).



I first became aware of them after seeing one for sale at a gun shop in Reseda. The gun itself was dirt cheap, I want to say $50. Even the store owner considered it a joke weapon he got in trade and was selling as a novelty. And even by 1984 the ammo was very rare and expensive. And over the years has gotten even more rare and expensive as nobody has made them in decades.

And yes, it is indeed just a model rocket engine in the end of a bullet. So I guess in his mind we should also restrict model rocket engines in the same way he wants us to regulate guns.



And in reality, this is no more difficult to build than what the guy who assassinated Shinzo Abe. A simple home made gun that used a battery and metal tubes.

 

No, they do not.

No, you have not, you have tap-danced. Any doctor signing off on someone owning a gun is exposed to essentially limitless civil liability. Therefore (use your reading finger here), they will simply refuse to do the evaluations. And, of course, some doctors are anti-gun, so they would reject EVERYONE-since, (yet again, about the seventh time) there are no actual OBJECTIVE standards for your "evaluation."

Yes, please do that.

Meaningless words.

You are not ignorant. You are playing stupid.

Wait...that was a serious question?!

 

Yes, they do.

Again, please stop pretending you know what you are talking about, because you don't. Anyone can google things, so don't waste your time.

Have a nice life kiddo.

 

Exactly. I loved the part asking where whoever that was asked if a general practitioner could perform a mental health evaluation.

No.

The most they can do is refer somebody to a mental health specialist. They themselves are not qualified to do so.

Just as your GP can not remove your appendix. Oh sure, they went over surgery as part of their rotation and education in Medical School. But that is not their specialty, and they had better only do it in the most extreme of conditions where the only other option is the death of the patient. Say snowed in a cabin 50 miles from civilization in the middle of a three week long blizzard where there is no hope of getting in a professional to do the surgery or of getting the patient out. Only then would a GP do such a thing, otherwise even if successful they will likely lose their license.

The absolute ignorance of people in so many of these threads is absolutely mind boggling. They so want to believe in their fantasies that reality kinds fades away.

And of course there is the question as to who will pay for this, or the cost. But here, let me list something else that is somewhat similar and at the same time not at all similar.

Every pilot in the US must have a medical exam every 2-5 years (5 years if under 40, 2 years if over 40). It is no more specialized than a physical for participating in school athletics or driving a big rig, and takes about 30 minutes and costs around $100. And any GP can perform one.

But this would apparently require a specialist. And I can only assume several hours, as no mental health expert is going to sign off on somebody in a single half hour visit. This is multiple hours at around $200 per hour.

I wonder how many of these people who want this if they themselves went to see a mental health expert would be told they have a big issue with paranoia.

 

we all know his proposal is a trojan horse designed to ban gun sales. Anyone who reads his posts knows that his arguments are almost alway against pro rights advocates. This is no different. the hook was that if you did this for your next gun sale, you would get a 50 state CCW (the federal government doesnt have the proper power to do this btw unless the federal courts hold that incorporation means no restrictions on how you carry). but the requirement of a mental health evaluation for your next gun purchase-it's a de facto ban. He clearly knows this or did not even think through his proposal. I don't know what is worse

 

I would love to hear some of these arguing if a proposal was made that before somebody could speak in public or write a news article that they had to go through a mental health evaluation.

After all, is it not exactly like what they are saying should be done for the exercise of some Constitutional Rights? And if it is good for one, therefore by extension it must them be good for all Constitutional Rights.

 

You mean because otherwise they would kill people with their words. SMH. Seriously.....

Do you have constitutional right to carry a gun in an airplane?

I stand with Scalia on this issue.

 

No, planes are private property. Just like I don't have a Constitutional right to carry a gun into your house without your permission.

 

It has nothing to do with them being private, and its not up to the airline to grant you permission to being a gun. If that was a factor, then some airlines might actually allow it. Federal law prohibits it.

 

The right to have a militia is part of this right to bear arms. Are you going to fight your government with Glocks only?

 

An Australia is 22 times less likely to be shot than an American, per head of population.
We don't have home invasions, as a rule (except for mental people having domestic issues)
I do see the issue for Americans who would want a situation like Australia - banning guns means the law abiders surrender their guns and the crooks don't. It's probable too late to even try gun control - and in the next 8.3 years another million Americans will be shot. The horse has bolted.

 

1. You know damn well anyone can purchase a weapon ranging from a few hundred dollars to tens of thousands and the ones I want ban are the most expensive ones not the cheapest ones so your first response to me saying you suspect I not know guns is ridiculous as your last sentence posing as a poor impoverished victim unable to afford to properly gun train.

2- So now you want to use people who are poor as the excuse why you don't want to gun train and why you are "unconnected"? and this is why they and you can't be expected to store their guns properly, train regularly, have a specific level of competence if they own a gun that can be demonstrated? What poor is your rationalization. Really? Lol you now are a champion of poor and impoverished people?

3-You know damn well how much a gun costs and the ones most likely to be banned are at the high range of expense not the low end.

4- You know damn well people like you could set up charities and volunyteerprograms to provide gun training and education to people who can't afford it and get subsidies from the NRA and gun manufacturers for such an endeveors.

Here is an example:

"The NRA says it has awarded more than $11.3 million for safety improvements and equipment upgrades at nearly 2,200 public and private ranges since 1994.

For a $35 annual fee, more than 14,000 affiliated organizations also get access to attorney referral services and discounts on business services such as credit-card processing. More than 8,000 clubs get their insurance through the NRA, according to the group’s promotional materials.

In return, the NRA gets a recruitment channel to reach millions of gun enthusiasts who aren’t already members. Clubs can earn up to $10 for each new NRA member they sign up and $5 for each annual renewal, according to an online manual for club officers.

source: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-guns-clubs-idUSBRE91208320130203

Here is an example:

https://ammo.com/articles/gun-clubs-how-to-build-your-own-local-gun-club-guide

Here is what you are claiming poverty prevents you from doing:

https://asdschool.com/gun-safety-course/#:~:text=It is also highly recommended,for an 8-hour class.

https://www.shootingclasses.com/blog/posts/shooting-training-cost/

5-Your response exploits the poor and hides behind them as your excuse for not wanting training now finish it:

https://ccwtraining.com/free-gun-programs/

Read the above please. Why do gun clubs and the NRA and you if you are so concerned not subsidize gun training for the poor?

6-How about we start with the NRA, the politicians accepting money from them each year and gun and ammunition manufacturers. Then you. What the phack do any of you do to assure poor people can be properly trained on a gun? You want to ask me? In my world I ran support groups for victims of violent crime including gun crimes. I did other crap I will not talk about but yes it is because of the blood I came into contact with in my former job I have my biases and do not hide them/

7- Knock if off and get real with me. You aren't discriminated against and this is not about you personallhy and picking on you for being poor-youin fact you are part of a greater body of gun owners who don't give a flying phack about the poor-this is about you and your individual gun rights. Give it a rest.

Let me put it in bold. If someone is genuinely unable to afford proper gun training there are a myriad of ways to set up such programs for them.

 

There we have it. You have the legal right to overthrow your government with a militia so you need assault weapons.

Thanks,

Uh yah, sounds like reasonable self defence.

 

what is your interpretation of the second amendment?

 

most gun banners hate the NRA because the NRA helps the politicians that gun banners despise. 99% of the gun banners are leftwing advocates. Gun banning is a political weapon tha gun banners and other leftwing operatives have used ever since the NRA called bullshit on the scam democrats pushed: that scam being gun control was a proper substitute for cracking down on violent street criminals as a public safety device

 

Wow. You are at least consistent with things you are apparently unaware of.

First, you are unaware that there was no Revolutionary War General (of any number of stars) named Geist.

Second, you are unaware that the US still has a Federal Militia, which consists of, by Federal Law, all able bodied males (yes, there those still exist, and have
defining characteristics that differentiate them from females, who have their own set of defining characteristics, despite high level officials left of center's recent inability to tell the difference) in between 17 and 45 years-of-age, and female members of the National Guard. (10 U.S. Code § 246)

Third you are unaware how to do math. Let me make it simple. We know that approximately 14,000 people were murdered by firearm in either 2020 or 2021. I do not think that number is official, but I think it's close enough to work with. We know more died by suicide, but for simple math let's assume it was 50/50 and call it 28,000. Hell, I'll give you 30,000 for a fudge factor. You stated that 45% of all shooting victims died, so let's double that to 60,000. You're still off by a factor of two, even rounding up in your favor at every turn of the calculator. A huge percentage of those people shot intentionally by other people are either gang members, involved in the drug trade, or both.

I am a libertarian in every sense of the word. I believe that your right to swing your fist ends at my nose, but not a moment before, and not when my nose is not present. I believe in the right to do as much harm to yourself as you choose to, either with intent, for example suicide, or without, for example the invincible teenager who takes up smoking thinking they are somehow special and nothing will ever happen to them as a result. That very much includes a birthright to take whatever mind altering substance that you choose to take, at least as an adult.

Naturally this would require the full legalization of said mind-altering substances, and I do mean full, not this pansy-ass 'decriminalization' stuff that has been tried in some places, but legal from the seed to the plant to the lab to the street, and all stages in between. Yes, some drugs are bad for you, don't think by endorsing this idea I am recommending that you or anyone else take any particular drug, only that it should be legal and a basic birthright of all humans. A pleasant and very intended side-effect would be to put the cartels and gangs out of business, just as the twenty-first Amendment to the US Constitution did when it repealed prohibition a century ago.

You would think we should have learned that lesson then. We still have prohibition, just Unconstitutional prohibition of non-alcoholic mind-altering substances.

 

don't care, your numbers are hysterically inaccurate. All I see is the Aesop fox syndrome

 

How does one become a gun and who gives you commission to be a gun?

Look unlike you I get people who identify as the opposite gender then they were born but how does this work self identifying as being a gun?

I heard some men are convinced their penis is a gun. Is it something like that?

Are we talking about their head looking like a bullet?





shut up Andy

 

If that's what you think I meant, then......well, what can I say. The context was bringing guns to airplanes.

 

I want to see how much you know about this subject. In the case of an insurrection, what is the most effective/deadly/fearsome weapon available to most civilians?

 

I suppose its the one everyone is buying. Whats the most popular firearm in US now? But for an insurrection will 'small arms' cut it?

 

nope, wrong. Not an AR 15. while an AR 15 is excellent for a shopkeeper defending against rioters or a homeowner defending against several invaders. that's not the right answer.

 

The answer is common sense, and not partake in insurrections. Taking up arms against the Unites States will get you killed in a firefight, or in front of a firing squad.

 

If the government tries to confiscate most or all firearms in private hands, that government will fall because most military and most cops will turn against it.