Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

ellisonz

(27,711 posts)
Fri Mar 30, 2012, 12:29 AM Mar 2012

Florida Turns ‘Gunshine State’ After Years of Republican Control

By Michael C. Bender and Simone Baribeau - Mar 28, 2012 9:01 PM PT

For years, Florida Capitol Police asked gun owners to check their firearms at the door. Not anymore.

Since a law in October made it easier to carry concealed weapons into the 1.2 million-square-foot government headquarters in Tallahassee, Senate security relies on alert buttons installed on the phones of lawmakers and staffers that let them instantly listen in to events.

-----

“The goal of the gun lobby is to make Florida their armed utopia and spread that mentality nationally,” said Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

-----

“I like to think of Florida as first in freedom,” said Marion Hammer, executive director of Unified Sportsmen of Florida, a National Rifle Association affiliate.

More: Bloomberg News Story - You know you love it.


How you feelin' Floridians?
71 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Florida Turns ‘Gunshine State’ After Years of Republican Control (Original Post) ellisonz Mar 2012 OP
So, politicians and Citizens are equal. What's not to like? n/t PavePusher Mar 2012 #1
Well then we should allow everyone under 18 to tote so they won't be unequal? n/t ellisonz Mar 2012 #2
ya know, the word "tote" really bugs me when used in this context. eqfan592 Mar 2012 #5
Some of us... ellisonz Mar 2012 #6
You make sure and let me know when some of those folks show up. ;) (nt) eqfan592 Mar 2012 #7
No, actually most of YOU deal in emotion and very little fact rl6214 Mar 2012 #10
+1 ;) n/t discntnt_irny_srcsm Mar 2012 #12
Oh the power of groupthink! ellisonz Mar 2012 #20
This was discussed at length after I brought up the same thing and the anti-gun zealots rl6214 Mar 2012 #9
Playing the "children" canard again? Atypical Liberal Mar 2012 #18
Dodge. n/t ellisonz Mar 2012 #19
Correct, you did. Glad to see you've started self-identifying. PavePusher Mar 2012 #23
It's a fair question. ellisonz Mar 2012 #28
That is no more of a "fair question" than those who ask if... eqfan592 Mar 2012 #30
Not the same at all... ellisonz Mar 2012 #31
Oh really? It's not a morality question? eqfan592 Mar 2012 #34
Bunch of rubbish. ellisonz Mar 2012 #35
I'll take that as your concession of the point. ;) eqfan592 Mar 2012 #36
Thank you for admitting your extremist position: ellisonz Mar 2012 #39
Thank you for admitting your intellectual dishonesty. eqfan592 Mar 2012 #42
Dodge. n/t ellisonz Mar 2012 #43
So me pointing out your intellectual dishonesty is a dodge? eqfan592 Mar 2012 #46
If you support letting guns into State Houses... ellisonz Mar 2012 #48
Actually, logically, you can object. eqfan592 Mar 2012 #54
More dishonesty and veil insults from the anti-gun zealots rl6214 Mar 2012 #68
It's unusual for somebody to give a discription of the action they are taking as you just did... eqfan592 Mar 2012 #24
Having wittiness is generally a good thing... ellisonz Mar 2012 #29
I don't think "belies" is the word you're looking for... petronius Mar 2012 #32
You are correct. ellisonz Mar 2012 #33
More like pointing out a Straw Man. Atypical Liberal Mar 2012 #57
I say leave it where it is. Straw Man Mar 2012 #38
Well then it's a stupid argument to say... ellisonz Mar 2012 #41
Then may I suggest you stick to discussing that issue? eqfan592 Mar 2012 #44
Not really... ellisonz Mar 2012 #45
Pointing out that you are making a fool out of yourself is intimidation now? eqfan592 Mar 2012 #47
Case-in-point. ellisonz Mar 2012 #52
Case dismissed! :P (nt) eqfan592 Mar 2012 #53
Um ... no, not at all. Straw Man Mar 2012 #49
Are you suggesting there be no limits on possession of firearms... ellisonz Mar 2012 #51
No. Straw Man Mar 2012 #62
My pride is fully in tact... ellisonz Mar 2012 #63
It shouldn't be. Straw Man Mar 2012 #64
I for one believe that he is not joking. oneshooter Mar 2012 #65
Aww thanks... ellisonz Mar 2012 #66
I think you're hallucinating. Straw Man Mar 2012 #67
Big time +1 (nt) eqfan592 Mar 2012 #71
Where's your outrage? mvccd1000 Mar 2012 #4
since Florida has stricter laws than where I'm from, gejohnston Mar 2012 #3
Bloomberg news and quoting dan gross, pres of the brady bunch? rl6214 Mar 2012 #8
In fairness Marion Hammer of the NRA is quoted too. n/t ellisonz Mar 2012 #26
First in freedom....hopefully all states will follow Florida's lead. ileus Mar 2012 #11
You forgot to put the little COLGATE4 Mar 2012 #13
My guess is he wasn't being sarcastic. ;) (nt) eqfan592 Mar 2012 #16
I was (nt) COLGATE4 Mar 2012 #50
Ah, so then it was you who forgot... eqfan592 Mar 2012 #55
Guilty as charged. (Just trying to COLGATE4 Mar 2012 #59
Cause and effect at work? DonP Mar 2012 #14
Yep. eqfan592 Mar 2012 #17
Wait a second... I thought the NRA is a "paper tiger" Glassunion Mar 2012 #15
Pay attention! It's easy to understand DonP Mar 2012 #22
The point was and has been... ellisonz Mar 2012 #25
If the GOP holds power over the NRA why do they allow them to financially support Democrats? Glassunion Mar 2012 #37
Plausible deniabiity. ellisonz Mar 2012 #40
I disagree Glassunion Mar 2012 #56
What's undeniable is the NRA donates more to Democrats than the Brady Camapign does. friendly_iconoclast Mar 2012 #58
I wonder what would happen if G Zimmerman showed up today with his permit and a gun? Hoyt Mar 2012 #21
He's their boy... ellisonz Mar 2012 #27
Is there some reason he can't show up today with his edc. ileus Mar 2012 #60
I'm sure he does too, being just another law-abiding, fine member of the modern gun culture. Hoyt Mar 2012 #61
Again, not knowing what the "modern gun culture" really is rl6214 Mar 2012 #69
Feelin' pretty good, actually sylvi Mar 2012 #70

eqfan592

(5,963 posts)
5. ya know, the word "tote" really bugs me when used in this context.
Fri Mar 30, 2012, 01:30 AM
Mar 2012

A tote is something my wife keeps our holiday decorations in, so whenever I see the word in this context, it just conjures this image of people walking around with big plastic totes and a single, small pistol inside of them.

This could be because I'm very tired right now, of course....

 

rl6214

(8,142 posts)
10. No, actually most of YOU deal in emotion and very little fact
Fri Mar 30, 2012, 06:23 AM
Mar 2012

But that's just the opinion of ALL of the Pro-RKBA members in this group.

 

rl6214

(8,142 posts)
9. This was discussed at length after I brought up the same thing and the anti-gun zealots
Fri Mar 30, 2012, 06:22 AM
Mar 2012

admitted they used it as an insult. Some of them (Starboard Tack being one I believe) agreed they should stop using it, others continued to be childish.

ellisonz

(27,711 posts)
28. It's a fair question.
Fri Mar 30, 2012, 12:26 PM
Mar 2012

You don't want to answer it because it exposes your specious logic and so now you're resorting to ad hominem.

eqfan592

(5,963 posts)
30. That is no more of a "fair question" than those who ask if...
Fri Mar 30, 2012, 12:34 PM
Mar 2012

...we draw the line with bestiality when arguing against gay marriage.

Honestly, I'm somewhat stunned that you would even suggest that "question" of yours was anything more than that. I mean, do you seriously need the difference between "adults" and "children" explained to you?

ellisonz

(27,711 posts)
31. Not the same at all...
Fri Mar 30, 2012, 12:42 PM
Mar 2012

...that is a morality question - here we are talking about a radically expansive interpretation of self-defense. I'll just take that as a concession that you cannot in fact explain to me why 18 ought to be an arbitrary line for toting rights.

eqfan592

(5,963 posts)
34. Oh really? It's not a morality question?
Fri Mar 30, 2012, 12:53 PM
Mar 2012

It's not a matter of morality that we treat people under a certain age differently than others at or above that age? Really now?

It is not a matter of morality that we as a people have decided that people under a certain age are not yet mature enough to be granted the full rights and responsibilities of an adult? That we recognize their adolescence and the special treatment it requires? So does that mean you would not view it as immoral behavior for an adult to treat a child as an adult, and behave towards them as one, when it comes to matters of, say, military service? Or relationships? Somehow, I think not.

Now some may argue for a different age where this line is drawn, but few would argue that such a line should not exist.

So yes, it is exactly the same. And again, that you would try and argue differently really amazes me.

ellisonz

(27,711 posts)
35. Bunch of rubbish.
Fri Mar 30, 2012, 12:58 PM
Mar 2012
Now some may argue for a different age where this line is drawn, but few would argue that such a line should not exist.


So what age do you think is tote appropriate?

eqfan592

(5,963 posts)
36. I'll take that as your concession of the point. ;)
Fri Mar 30, 2012, 01:12 PM
Mar 2012

As for what age, I don't have any problem at all with people of all ages having totes.


Or were you talking about something else?

ellisonz

(27,711 posts)
39. Thank you for admitting your extremist position:
Fri Mar 30, 2012, 01:32 PM
Mar 2012

eqfan592: Arm 10-year-olds with semi-automatic handguns or they're not equal citizens.

eqfan592

(5,963 posts)
42. Thank you for admitting your intellectual dishonesty.
Fri Mar 30, 2012, 01:40 PM
Mar 2012

Me: "I don't have any problem at all with people of all ages having totes. "

A tote:



What you said I said: "Arm 10-year-olds with semi-automatic handguns or they're not equal citizens."

Seems to be a pretty big disparity there, don't ya think? And what's amazing is that you would try to pull such a stunt in the very same thread.

eqfan592

(5,963 posts)
46. So me pointing out your intellectual dishonesty is a dodge?
Fri Mar 30, 2012, 01:47 PM
Mar 2012

You asked me about totes, and I gave you an answer. You then went on about arming 10 year olds with semi-auto handguns. Doesn't make much sense to me.

ellisonz

(27,711 posts)
48. If you support letting guns into State Houses...
Fri Mar 30, 2012, 01:50 PM
Mar 2012

...on the basis that everyone has a right-to-self-defense everywhere at all times, then logically you cannot object to the arming of 10-year-olds. The reality is that, and the SCOTUS agrees, that laws upholding "safe areas" are constitutionally reasonable.

I'm not sure what would make sense with you, but then again you're not really here looking for sensibility.

eqfan592

(5,963 posts)
54. Actually, logically, you can object.
Fri Mar 30, 2012, 02:43 PM
Mar 2012

Because what one says about the rights of adults does not automatically translate to what one says about the rights of children.

Nice try, tho.

eqfan592

(5,963 posts)
24. It's unusual for somebody to give a discription of the action they are taking as you just did...
Fri Mar 30, 2012, 12:22 PM
Mar 2012

...rather than actually take that action.

Or is this like that game where we all post things like "Witty commentary?"

 

Atypical Liberal

(5,412 posts)
57. More like pointing out a Straw Man.
Fri Mar 30, 2012, 03:00 PM
Mar 2012

When PavePusher suggested that this law makes citizens and politicians equal (as in equally able to carry firearms at the capital), you suggested that, "we should allow everyone under 18 to tote so they won't be unequal?"

Which is ridiculous, because no one is advocating children should have access to firearms.

This is a classic example of a Straw Man logical fallacy.

Straw Man

(6,624 posts)
38. I say leave it where it is.
Fri Mar 30, 2012, 01:22 PM
Mar 2012
Well then we should allow everyone under 18 to tote so they won't be unequal? n/t


Should we allow them to vote? Drink? Enter into binding contracts?

It's a stupid question. I'm sorry, but it is.

ellisonz

(27,711 posts)
41. Well then it's a stupid argument to say...
Fri Mar 30, 2012, 01:37 PM
Mar 2012

...you shouldn't have to check your gun at the State House doors.

eqfan592

(5,963 posts)
44. Then may I suggest you stick to discussing that issue?
Fri Mar 30, 2012, 01:44 PM
Mar 2012

Because all you've done so far is make a fool out of yourself. Repeatedly in fact.

And doing that sort of thing tends to be counter productive.

ellisonz

(27,711 posts)
45. Not really...
Fri Mar 30, 2012, 01:47 PM
Mar 2012

...but thank you for attempting the intimidation tactic, but just a hint, it doesn't work on an anonymous internet forum very well.

eqfan592

(5,963 posts)
47. Pointing out that you are making a fool out of yourself is intimidation now?
Fri Mar 30, 2012, 01:49 PM
Mar 2012

wow, never would have thunk it. Fair enough then, what you decide to do with your own reputation is none of my business.

Straw Man

(6,624 posts)
49. Um ... no, not at all.
Fri Mar 30, 2012, 01:53 PM
Mar 2012
Well then it's a stupid argument to say...

...you shouldn't have to check your gun at the State House doors.

We limit rights of those who haven't reached the age of majority. All those who have reached the age of majority should be on an equal footing.

Are we done here?

ellisonz

(27,711 posts)
51. Are you suggesting there be no limits on possession of firearms...
Fri Mar 30, 2012, 01:56 PM
Mar 2012

...except for everyone "who haven't reached the age of majority," what does the "age of majority" even mean in this context of the right-to-self-defense everywhere all the time? I mean really, you're now going to apply an artificial limit to your argument that even you cannot justify on a reasonable basis? Why should a 17-year-old have less rights than a 19-year-old?

Straw Man

(6,624 posts)
62. No.
Fri Mar 30, 2012, 05:51 PM
Mar 2012

I'm fine with banning convicted felons, for example.

what does the "age of majority" even mean in this context of the right-to-self-defense everywhere all the time

It means the age at which society deems you fit to have the full rights of an adult citizen. Were you actually confused about that? You could have looked it up.

I mean really, you're now going to apply an artificial limit to your argument that even you cannot justify on a reasonable basis?

Did I not do that to your satisfaction? Let me get this straight: Are you against the concept of the age of majority? Do you want to allow 10-year-olds to drink alcohol, drive cars, and sign binding legal documents? These should be rights that all citizens enjoy, so why draw an arbitrary line, right? Isn't that what you're saying?

Why should a 17-year-old have less rights than a 19-year-old?

See above. I'll say it again, at the risk of offending: this is a stupid line of argument, and the longer you pursue it, the stupider you look.

Drop it, man -- salvage your pride. You can do it!

ellisonz

(27,711 posts)
63. My pride is fully in tact...
Fri Mar 30, 2012, 06:29 PM
Mar 2012

It is those that defend the absurd notion that anyone no matter their age should be able to take a firearm wherever they please.

The reality here is that you do not support the right of self-defense. You support arbitrary distinctions without cause but at the same time object to restrictions that might actually have some teeth. There's a word for that...I'm sure you can figure out the one I'm thinking of.

Straw Man

(6,624 posts)
64. It shouldn't be.
Fri Mar 30, 2012, 10:33 PM
Mar 2012
It is those that defend the absurd notion that anyone no matter their age should be able to take a firearm wherever they please.

I believe that's your absurd notion. Some call it a straw man.

The reality here is that you do not support the right of self-defense. You support arbitrary distinctions without cause but at the same time object to restrictions that might actually have some teeth. There's a word for that...I'm sure you can figure out the one I'm thinking of.

So then you do not believe in the concept of the age of majority, and unless I believe ten-year-olds should be able to carry, then I "do not support the right of self-defense"? You call this an "arbitrary distinction without cause"? What are these "restrictions that might actually have some teeth"? Your pet project, a limit on the number of firearms that a person may own? Ten-round magazine limits? So a drunken ten-year-old with a car and a gun is not a threat to society, but a law-abiding adult with a fifteen-round magazine is?

Your whole line of non-reasoning is so patently ridiculous that I'm sure you must be joking. Please tell me that you are.

oneshooter

(8,614 posts)
65. I for one believe that he is not joking.
Fri Mar 30, 2012, 10:43 PM
Mar 2012

It seems that he is advocating for ten year olds to be able to own and carry firearms.

Kinda ignorant sounding to me, but if it his believe than more power to him.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

ellisonz

(27,711 posts)
66. Aww thanks...
Fri Mar 30, 2012, 10:56 PM
Mar 2012

And you just made my point that PavePusher's argument is a bunch of baloney. Why don't you denounce his advocacy of guns in the State House then? Answer that question and I might reconsider by opinion of your line of reasoning

Straw Man

(6,624 posts)
67. I think you're hallucinating.
Fri Mar 30, 2012, 11:52 PM
Mar 2012
And you just made my point that PavePusher's argument is a bunch of baloney. Why don't you denounce his advocacy of guns in the State House then? Answer that question and I might reconsider by opinion of your line of reasoning.

Why should I denounce it? I agree with it. I don't like arbitrary distinctions between politicians and the public that they serve. I'm not fond of the existence of a special, privileged ruling class in an ostensibly democratic society. What that has to do with 10-year-olds being allowed to drink, drive, vote, and carry totally escapes me.

I believe in the concept of an age of majority, below which individuals aren't yet entitled to the full exercise of their rights. This protects the individual juvenile as well as society at large. Apparently you don't share this belief. Fine, believe what you want, but it has fuck-all to do with the topic at hand, and your desperate attempts to cling to this failed meme are getting more and more bizarre.

mvccd1000

(1,534 posts)
4. Where's your outrage?
Fri Mar 30, 2012, 01:01 AM
Mar 2012

How could you possibly think guns are ok in the high-pressure atmosphere that is a building full of bureaucracy?

The biggest danger I can imagine is somebody gets so bored waiting in line for hours and hours that they take it out and start fiddling with it.

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
3. since Florida has stricter laws than where I'm from,
Fri Mar 30, 2012, 01:01 AM
Mar 2012

I fail to see Gross' point. Come to think of it, Florida has stricter laws than most of the states I have lived in.

Since a law in October made it easier to carry concealed weapons into the 1.2 million-square-foot government headquarters in Tallahassee, Senate security relies on alert buttons installed on the phones of lawmakers and staffers that let them instantly listen in to events.

How long have the alert buttons been in place? I'm betting it was way before October.

ileus

(15,396 posts)
11. First in freedom....hopefully all states will follow Florida's lead.
Fri Mar 30, 2012, 07:12 AM
Mar 2012

Congrats on your restored freedoms my friends.

COLGATE4

(14,732 posts)
59. Guilty as charged. (Just trying to
Fri Mar 30, 2012, 03:08 PM
Mar 2012

point out the ridiculousness of the post without being too hurtful).

 

DonP

(6,185 posts)
14. Cause and effect at work?
Fri Mar 30, 2012, 09:50 AM
Mar 2012

Once upon a time ... Texas and Wisconsin had Democrat Governors.

But frustration with the restrictive gun laws were a part of why they were swept out of office.

Could Florida have the same issue? It's now GOP dominant because the Dems there ignored the will of the people regarding gun laws, even when the legislature passed new ones with bi-partisan support?

eqfan592

(5,963 posts)
17. Yep.
Fri Mar 30, 2012, 11:24 AM
Mar 2012

Gov. Doyle in Wisconsin did NONE of us a favor when he vetoed the previous CCW legislation. It was pure idiocy on pretty much every level.

 

DonP

(6,185 posts)
22. Pay attention! It's easy to understand
Fri Mar 30, 2012, 12:18 PM
Mar 2012

The NRA IS a paper tiger, with no real political power to speak of ... unless they get pro second amendment legislation passed or win a major court case.

Then they are a mysterious dark force, funded by the Koch brothers, ALEC or the other latest designated hobgoblin from an editorial or GD, and they are clearly working against the will of the people.

Because ... with "only" 4.5 million dues paying members, they couldn't possibly represent a majority of American gun owners, whereas the Brady bunch with 8 members, excuse me 9 members now, and the handful of un-indicted members of MAIG, both groups supported by a handful of millionaires and a billionaire or two, clearly represents the will of the majority of the people.

See how easy it is to follow?

(The only problem is the legislators don't seem to be listening to the message of how powerless they are and Alan Gura keeps kicking ass in court.)

ellisonz

(27,711 posts)
25. The point was and has been...
Fri Mar 30, 2012, 12:24 PM
Mar 2012

...that the Republican Party holds power over the NRA and not the other way around. I don't see what you're confused about.

Glassunion

(10,201 posts)
37. If the GOP holds power over the NRA why do they allow them to financially support Democrats?
Fri Mar 30, 2012, 01:22 PM
Mar 2012

Each year since the AWB in 94, the amount of NRA support to Dems has been increasing. How could the GOP allow that to happen?

ellisonz

(27,711 posts)
40. Plausible deniabiity.
Fri Mar 30, 2012, 01:34 PM
Mar 2012

The funny thing is that it works on a small number of people.

You might want to check your argument at Open Secrets (because it's rather inaccurate): http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000082

Glassunion

(10,201 posts)
56. I disagree
Fri Mar 30, 2012, 02:55 PM
Mar 2012

So there is this huge GOP conspiracy where they run a "supposedly" one-issue 2nd Amendment organization where in fact it is in all actuality a GOP front where they(GOP) directs this front to donate and offer support to an opposing party for plausible deniability.

In 2010 they supported House Democrats with $359,600 and House Republicans with $447,900. Why would they donate so much to Dems?

I must say that I have not heard that one before.

 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
58. What's undeniable is the NRA donates more to Democrats than the Brady Camapign does.
Fri Mar 30, 2012, 03:00 PM
Mar 2012

For that matter, there are more registered Democrats in the NRA than there are Brady Campaign members, as I pointed out last year:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x426893#426975

There are more registered Democrats in the NRA then there are Brady Campaign 'members'

In other words, the NRA represents more actual Democrats than the Brady Campaign does


The balance tilts about 2 to 1 in the NRA's favor, if you're being generous as the BC counts anybody who ever donated anything

as a 'member' (which is how I became a Brady Campaign 'member'). Which group should we listen to? What would be the democratic

response?


(Thanks to DUer Jpak, who brought up the idea. Heh.)
 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
21. I wonder what would happen if G Zimmerman showed up today with his permit and a gun?
Fri Mar 30, 2012, 12:18 PM
Mar 2012

Would the other carriers and Republican law makers hold hands with him and pray, or what?

ellisonz

(27,711 posts)
27. He's their boy...
Fri Mar 30, 2012, 12:25 PM
Mar 2012

...so I imagine not only would they pray but they'd pop a few rounds off at the range.

ileus

(15,396 posts)
60. Is there some reason he can't show up today with his edc.
Fri Mar 30, 2012, 03:36 PM
Mar 2012

I assume his kel-tec was taken, but surely he has another maybe larger sidearm.

 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
61. I'm sure he does too, being just another law-abiding, fine member of the modern gun culture.
Fri Mar 30, 2012, 04:09 PM
Mar 2012
 

sylvi

(813 posts)
70. Feelin' pretty good, actually
Sat Mar 31, 2012, 06:54 AM
Mar 2012

[IMG][/IMG]

Of course the graph only goes to 2008, with a slight uptick from 06-08. But uniform crime statistics from the FDLE through 2010, the last year fully available, seem to indicate firearm-related crime trending back down again across the board.

[url]http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/Content/getdoc/a324add7-5dd6-4201-9696-93bfd76bc36c/UCR-Home.aspx[/url]

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»Florida Turns ‘Gunshine S...