Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumFlorida Turns ‘Gunshine State’ After Years of Republican Control
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?
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)ellisonz
(27,711 posts)eqfan592
(5,963 posts)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....
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)...deal in facts and not emotion.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)rl6214
(8,142 posts)But that's just the opinion of ALL of the Pro-RKBA members in this group.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)ellisonz
(27,711 posts)rl6214
(8,142 posts)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.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)It's obvious we are talking about adults here.
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)PavePusher
(15,374 posts)ellisonz
(27,711 posts)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)...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)...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)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)So what age do you think is tote appropriate?
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)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)eqfan592: Arm 10-year-olds with semi-automatic handguns or they're not equal citizens.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)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.
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)eqfan592
(5,963 posts)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)...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)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.
rl6214
(8,142 posts)eqfan592
(5,963 posts)...rather than actually take that action.
Or is this like that game where we all post things like "Witty commentary?"
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)...because it belies critical thinking ability.
petronius
(26,602 posts)ellisonz
(27,711 posts)Time for Kauai coffee...
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)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)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)...you shouldn't have to check your gun at the State House doors.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)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)...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)wow, never would have thunk it. Fair enough then, what you decide to do with your own reputation is none of my business.
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)Your honor, I rest my case.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)Straw Man
(6,624 posts)...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)...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?
I'm fine with banning convicted felons, for example.
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.
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?
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)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)I believe that's your absurd notion. Some call it a straw man.
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)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)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)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.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)mvccd1000
(1,534 posts)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)I fail to see Gross' point. Come to think of it, Florida has stricter laws than most of the states I have lived in.
How long have the alert buttons been in place? I'm betting it was way before October.
rl6214
(8,142 posts)ellisonz
(27,711 posts)ileus
(15,396 posts)Congrats on your restored freedoms my friends.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)"sarcasm" thingy on your post.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)eqfan592
(5,963 posts)...to put the "sarcasm" thing in YOUR post!
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)point out the ridiculousness of the post without being too hurtful).
DonP
(6,185 posts)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?
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.
Glassunion
(10,201 posts)Now I'm confused.
DonP
(6,185 posts)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)...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)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)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)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)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
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)Would the other carriers and Republican law makers hold hands with him and pray, or what?
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)...so I imagine not only would they pray but they'd pop a few rounds off at the range.
ileus
(15,396 posts)I assume his kel-tec was taken, but surely he has another maybe larger sidearm.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)rl6214
(8,142 posts)or being intentionally ignorant.
sylvi
(813 posts)[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]