Florida vying to become 46th state to allow open carry

[Ray From Cleveland]

No harm ? You instantly put people on edge . Which can lead to incidents . Just put the damn thing away .

That's the idea behind it: put people on edge, particularly the bad guys.

 

[Redfish]

Good for you. I hope it never happens but I sure in the hell would want to be armed so I could defend myself if it did happen....what about you?

How many times have you been attacked?

It only takes one time. Ask the victims in Paris--------------Oh, they can't answer can they?

How many times have YOU been attacked? And what makes you believe that you can rise to become a hero without harming the innocent?

How can more bullets flying around in a confused and panicked situation assure safety? Is everyone openly carrying a weapon a skilled marksman and aware of where each and every innocent civilian is at all points during a violent attack? Can you put out a fire with gasoline?

if the number of victims can be reduced when an idiot decides to start randomly shooting in a school or theatre or shopping mall or airport, that's a good thing.

If the soldiers at Ft Hood had been allowed to be armed, Hasan might not have killed as many as he did and he would probably be dead himself instead of wasting money feeding and housing him.

Yes, there is a risk inherent in allowing armed citizens, but the risk of not allowing it is much greater.

remember, if guns are banned only criminals and the government will have guns.

So, using your logic, good guys with guns, no matter how competent they may be as marksmen, make the world safer? More guns firing makes a confused situation safer? And adding guns to any situation creates safety?

you have it all wrong. if a would-be criminal knows that there armed civilians in the area he plans to rob, attack, rape, car jack, etc, he will think twice and probably pick another place.

 

[Nosmo King]

More & more Americans are deciding to arm themselves. And that's a very wise move. We are moving closer & closer to Third World chaos.

Endless War, Open Borders, a rapidly expanding Police State? Arming yourself to protect you and your loved ones, is the logical common sense move.

A civilian arms race? What happens when all these armed people bump into one another? Will there be fewer assaults, but more shootings? Will there be fewer road rage situations solved by using automobiles and more solved by the exchange of gun fire? Will emergency rooms be treating fewer black eyes and broken bones and more gun shot victims?

Ah! Guns! Is there nothing you cannot do?

The same leftist predictions that never came true after they instituted CCW's in the states.

When CCW's were being debated here, the leftists predicted we would have shootouts in the street like Dodge city. Never happened.

Then they passed our Castle Doctrine which gives homeowners legal rights to defend themselves inside their home with firearms. The leftists predicted people would be dragging enemies into their homes, shooting them, and then telling the police it was a break in. Never happened.

Then they passed a law so CCW holders could keep loaded firearms in their vehicles and within reach. The leftists predicted it would lead to deadly road rage incidents and people would be firing at each other while driving on the highways. Never happened.

Had the NRA not blocked non-partisan studies by the CDC on gun violence in America, we may have actual statistics to call on rather than a dismissive and unreliable "never happened".

Quietly, Congress extends a ban on CDC research on gun violence

 

[Timmy]

How many times have you been attacked?

It only takes one time. Ask the victims in Paris--------------Oh, they can't answer can they?

How many times have YOU been attacked? And what makes you believe that you can rise to become a hero without harming the innocent?

How can more bullets flying around in a confused and panicked situation assure safety? Is everyone openly carrying a weapon a skilled marksman and aware of where each and every innocent civilian is at all points during a violent attack? Can you put out a fire with gasoline?

if the number of victims can be reduced when an idiot decides to start randomly shooting in a school or theatre or shopping mall or airport, that's a good thing.

If the soldiers at Ft Hood had been allowed to be armed, Hasan might not have killed as many as he did and he would probably be dead himself instead of wasting money feeding and housing him.

Yes, there is a risk inherent in allowing armed citizens, but the risk of not allowing it is much greater.

remember, if guns are banned only criminals and the government will have guns.

So, using your logic, good guys with guns, no matter how competent they may be as marksmen, make the world safer? More guns firing makes a confused situation safer? And adding guns to any situation creates safety?

you have it all wrong. if a would-be criminal knows that there armed civilians in the area he plans to rob, attack, rape, car jack, etc, he will think twice and probably pick another place.

Or he just shoots the guy with the gun showing . Or maybe the Guy wh the gun showing is the criminal! That's what everyone around him will think .

 

[Nosmo King]

I don't carry at all and have never been the victim of a criminal. Your mind is the best defense.

Good for you. I hope it never happens but I sure in the hell would want to be armed so I could defend myself if it did happen....what about you?

How many times have you been attacked?

It only takes one time. Ask the victims in Paris--------------Oh, they can't answer can they?

How many times have YOU been attacked? And what makes you believe that you can rise to become a hero without harming the innocent?

How can more bullets flying around in a confused and panicked situation assure safety? Is everyone openly carrying a weapon a skilled marksman and aware of where each and every innocent civilian is at all points during a violent attack? Can you put out a fire with gasoline?

CCW holders have saved many lives in the past, either themselves or loved ones or others. I have yet to read or hear of a story of a legally armed citizen shooting somebody by accident when they needed to defend themselves. This is not to say it never happened, it's just that I'm unaware of it if it did.

The stories I've read (and have in my folder) are of people that successfully stopped a violent situation or saved lives.

If those stories come from gun lobbyists and manufacturers, do you think they would include the incidents of tragedy as well?

 

[Timmy]

Yep, a 6'3" childt used to play football. He killed a "child" that attacked him, that's all.

Then he shouldn't have been harassing him. He was the adult.

He wasn't harassing him. He simply called the police to have him checked out. Martin fit the description of people that were robbing homes there.

Yeah right. He should have minded his own business. Kid wasn't doing anything wrong.

He thought Zimmerman was a queer. So he wanted to beat him up. He found out the hard way he was wrong.

This is only speculation on my part, but I studied the case for a long time.

Martin was on the phone with his fat girlfriend when he ran from Zimmerman. Afterwards, he probably regretted his move because (in his mind) he embarrassed himself while she could hear what was going on.

Either she egged Martin on to go back and get Zimmerman, or Martin may have felt he needed to prove himself a tough guy so as to redeem his manhood.

Or more likely he was freaked out over some creeper stalking him.

 

[Nosmo King]

How many times have you been attacked?

It only takes one time. Ask the victims in Paris--------------Oh, they can't answer can they?

How many times have YOU been attacked? And what makes you believe that you can rise to become a hero without harming the innocent?

How can more bullets flying around in a confused and panicked situation assure safety? Is everyone openly carrying a weapon a skilled marksman and aware of where each and every innocent civilian is at all points during a violent attack? Can you put out a fire with gasoline?

if the number of victims can be reduced when an idiot decides to start randomly shooting in a school or theatre or shopping mall or airport, that's a good thing.

If the soldiers at Ft Hood had been allowed to be armed, Hasan might not have killed as many as he did and he would probably be dead himself instead of wasting money feeding and housing him.

Yes, there is a risk inherent in allowing armed citizens, but the risk of not allowing it is much greater.

remember, if guns are banned only criminals and the government will have guns.

So, using your logic, good guys with guns, no matter how competent they may be as marksmen, make the world safer? More guns firing makes a confused situation safer? And adding guns to any situation creates safety?

you have it all wrong. if a would-be criminal knows that there armed civilians in the area he plans to rob, attack, rape, car jack, etc, he will think twice and probably pick another place.

March 31, 1981. Four men are grievously wounded on the streets of Washington, D.C. Two of the four wounded men were armed. One suffered a head wound and was rendered paraplegic. The fourth victim was the President of the United States of America.

They were surrounded by the best trained, best armed cadre of security personnel in the world. Yet all those good guys with guns (and for my money we should call them great guys) an assailant got off all those shots.

What happens in the mall food court, God forbid, another nut who got a gun too easily makes his own history?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It only takes one time. Ask the victims in Paris--------------Oh, they can't answer can they?

How many times have YOU been attacked? And what makes you believe that you can rise to become a hero without harming the innocent?

How can more bullets flying around in a confused and panicked situation assure safety? Is everyone openly carrying a weapon a skilled marksman and aware of where each and every innocent civilian is at all points during a violent attack? Can you put out a fire with gasoline?

if the number of victims can be reduced when an idiot decides to start randomly shooting in a school or theatre or shopping mall or airport, that's a good thing.

If the soldiers at Ft Hood had been allowed to be armed, Hasan might not have killed as many as he did and he would probably be dead himself instead of wasting money feeding and housing him.

Yes, there is a risk inherent in allowing armed citizens, but the risk of not allowing it is much greater.

remember, if guns are banned only criminals and the government will have guns.

So, using your logic, good guys with guns, no matter how competent they may be as marksmen, make the world safer? More guns firing makes a confused situation safer? And adding guns to any situation creates safety?

you have it all wrong. if a would-be criminal knows that there armed civilians in the area he plans to rob, attack, rape, car jack, etc, he will think twice and probably pick another place.

March 31, 1981. Four men are grievously wounded on the streets of Washington, D.C. Two of the four wounded men were armed. One suffered a head wound and was rendered paraplegic. The fourth victim was the President of the United States of America.

They were surrounded by the best trained, best armed cadre of security personnel in the world. Yet all those good guys with guns (and for my money we should call them great guys) an assailant got off all those shots.

What happens in the mall food court, God forbid, another nut who got a gun too easily makes his own history?

Where in the world did you ever get the idea that being armed is a guarantee of some kind? Do you watch too many movies or something?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Then he shouldn't have been harassing him. He was the adult.

He wasn't harassing him. He simply called the police to have him checked out. Martin fit the description of people that were robbing homes there.

Yeah right. He should have minded his own business. Kid wasn't doing anything wrong.

He thought Zimmerman was a queer. So he wanted to beat him up. He found out the hard way he was wrong.

This is only speculation on my part, but I studied the case for a long time.

Martin was on the phone with his fat girlfriend when he ran from Zimmerman. Afterwards, he probably regretted his move because (in his mind) he embarrassed himself while she could hear what was going on.

Either she egged Martin on to go back and get Zimmerman, or Martin may have felt he needed to prove himself a tough guy so as to redeem his manhood.

Or more likely he was freaked out over some creeper stalking him.

Nobody stalked anybody. You obviously don't know what the legal definition of stalking is.

But even if that were the case, that doesn't give any American the right to physically attack somebody.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Good for you. I hope it never happens but I sure in the hell would want to be armed so I could defend myself if it did happen....what about you?

How many times have you been attacked?

It only takes one time. Ask the victims in Paris--------------Oh, they can't answer can they?

How many times have YOU been attacked? And what makes you believe that you can rise to become a hero without harming the innocent?

How can more bullets flying around in a confused and panicked situation assure safety? Is everyone openly carrying a weapon a skilled marksman and aware of where each and every innocent civilian is at all points during a violent attack? Can you put out a fire with gasoline?

CCW holders have saved many lives in the past, either themselves or loved ones or others. I have yet to read or hear of a story of a legally armed citizen shooting somebody by accident when they needed to defend themselves. This is not to say it never happened, it's just that I'm unaware of it if it did.

The stories I've read (and have in my folder) are of people that successfully stopped a violent situation or saved lives.

If those stories come from gun lobbyists and manufacturers, do you think they would include the incidents of tragedy as well?

Maybe, I don't know. These reports are from news agencies.

If you think there have been mishaps by a licensed gun holder, by all means, post them.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It only takes one time. Ask the victims in Paris--------------Oh, they can't answer can they?

How many times have YOU been attacked? And what makes you believe that you can rise to become a hero without harming the innocent?

How can more bullets flying around in a confused and panicked situation assure safety? Is everyone openly carrying a weapon a skilled marksman and aware of where each and every innocent civilian is at all points during a violent attack? Can you put out a fire with gasoline?

if the number of victims can be reduced when an idiot decides to start randomly shooting in a school or theatre or shopping mall or airport, that's a good thing.

If the soldiers at Ft Hood had been allowed to be armed, Hasan might not have killed as many as he did and he would probably be dead himself instead of wasting money feeding and housing him.

Yes, there is a risk inherent in allowing armed citizens, but the risk of not allowing it is much greater.

remember, if guns are banned only criminals and the government will have guns.

So, using your logic, good guys with guns, no matter how competent they may be as marksmen, make the world safer? More guns firing makes a confused situation safer? And adding guns to any situation creates safety?

you have it all wrong. if a would-be criminal knows that there armed civilians in the area he plans to rob, attack, rape, car jack, etc, he will think twice and probably pick another place.

Or he just shoots the guy with the gun showing . Or maybe the Guy wh the gun showing is the criminal! That's what everyone around him will think .

Right, if I see a guy with a gun holstered around his waist, the first thing I think is that he's a criminal; criminals always wear their guns in the open.

 

[Timmy]

He wasn't harassing him. He simply called the police to have him checked out. Martin fit the description of people that were robbing homes there.

Yeah right. He should have minded his own business. Kid wasn't doing anything wrong.

He thought Zimmerman was a queer. So he wanted to beat him up. He found out the hard way he was wrong.

This is only speculation on my part, but I studied the case for a long time.

Martin was on the phone with his fat girlfriend when he ran from Zimmerman. Afterwards, he probably regretted his move because (in his mind) he embarrassed himself while she could hear what was going on.

Either she egged Martin on to go back and get Zimmerman, or Martin may have felt he needed to prove himself a tough guy so as to redeem his manhood.

Or more likely he was freaked out over some creeper stalking him.

Nobody stalked anybody. You obviously don't know what the legal definition of stalking is.

But even if that were the case, that doesn't give any American the right to physically attack somebody.

Oh come on. Trayvon was walking home . Zimmerman entered his life . You think it was outrageous that the kid got defensive over some grown man openly following him at night ?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yeah right. He should have minded his own business. Kid wasn't doing anything wrong.

He thought Zimmerman was a queer. So he wanted to beat him up. He found out the hard way he was wrong.

This is only speculation on my part, but I studied the case for a long time.

Martin was on the phone with his fat girlfriend when he ran from Zimmerman. Afterwards, he probably regretted his move because (in his mind) he embarrassed himself while she could hear what was going on.

Either she egged Martin on to go back and get Zimmerman, or Martin may have felt he needed to prove himself a tough guy so as to redeem his manhood.

Or more likely he was freaked out over some creeper stalking him.

Nobody stalked anybody. You obviously don't know what the legal definition of stalking is.

But even if that were the case, that doesn't give any American the right to physically attack somebody.

Oh come on. Trayvon was walking home . Zimmerman entered his life . You think it was outrageous that the kid got defensive over some grown man openly following him at night ?

There is a difference between self-defense and felonious assault. Self-defense is defined as protecting yourself from an attack. That was not Martin's situation. As I stated earlier, the autopsy report showed no physical signs of getting assaulted in any way.

Secondly, waiting for somebody in the dark between rows of condo's to attack them is not self-defense.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

More & more Americans are deciding to arm themselves. And that's a very wise move. We are moving closer & closer to Third World chaos.

Endless War, Open Borders, a rapidly expanding Police State? Arming yourself to protect you and your loved ones, is the logical common sense move.

A civilian arms race? What happens when all these armed people bump into one another? Will there be fewer assaults, but more shootings? Will there be fewer road rage situations solved by using automobiles and more solved by the exchange of gun fire? Will emergency rooms be treating fewer black eyes and broken bones and more gun shot victims?

Ah! Guns! Is there nothing you cannot do?

The same leftist predictions that never came true after they instituted CCW's in the states.

When CCW's were being debated here, the leftists predicted we would have shootouts in the street like Dodge city. Never happened.

Then they passed our Castle Doctrine which gives homeowners legal rights to defend themselves inside their home with firearms. The leftists predicted people would be dragging enemies into their homes, shooting them, and then telling the police it was a break in. Never happened.

Then they passed a law so CCW holders could keep loaded firearms in their vehicles and within reach. The leftists predicted it would lead to deadly road rage incidents and people would be firing at each other while driving on the highways. Never happened.

Had the NRA not blocked non-partisan studies by the CDC on gun violence in America, we may have actual statistics to call on rather than a dismissive and unreliable "never happened".

Quietly, Congress extends a ban on CDC research on gun violence

Must have been very quiet because I can't seem to find anything on the subject. And how could Congress possibly block a bureaucracy from doing anything? And BTW, your source is a joke.

 

[Nosmo King]

A civilian arms race? What happens when all these armed people bump into one another? Will there be fewer assaults, but more shootings? Will there be fewer road rage situations solved by using automobiles and more solved by the exchange of gun fire? Will emergency rooms be treating fewer black eyes and broken bones and more gun shot victims?

Ah! Guns! Is there nothing you cannot do?

The same leftist predictions that never came true after they instituted CCW's in the states.

When CCW's were being debated here, the leftists predicted we would have shootouts in the street like Dodge city. Never happened.

Then they passed our Castle Doctrine which gives homeowners legal rights to defend themselves inside their home with firearms. The leftists predicted people would be dragging enemies into their homes, shooting them, and then telling the police it was a break in. Never happened.

Then they passed a law so CCW holders could keep loaded firearms in their vehicles and within reach. The leftists predicted it would lead to deadly road rage incidents and people would be firing at each other while driving on the highways. Never happened.

Had the NRA not blocked non-partisan studies by the CDC on gun violence in America, we may have actual statistics to call on rather than a dismissive and unreliable "never happened".

Quietly, Congress extends a ban on CDC research on gun violence

Must have been very quiet because I can't seem to find anything on the subject. And how could Congress possibly block a bureaucracy from doing anything? And BTW, your source is a joke.

Congress defended the budget to publish and release the CDC studies. Google "CDC gun study blocked".

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The same leftist predictions that never came true after they instituted CCW's in the states.

When CCW's were being debated here, the leftists predicted we would have shootouts in the street like Dodge city. Never happened.

Then they passed our Castle Doctrine which gives homeowners legal rights to defend themselves inside their home with firearms. The leftists predicted people would be dragging enemies into their homes, shooting them, and then telling the police it was a break in. Never happened.

Then they passed a law so CCW holders could keep loaded firearms in their vehicles and within reach. The leftists predicted it would lead to deadly road rage incidents and people would be firing at each other while driving on the highways. Never happened.

Had the NRA not blocked non-partisan studies by the CDC on gun violence in America, we may have actual statistics to call on rather than a dismissive and unreliable "never happened".

Quietly, Congress extends a ban on CDC research on gun violence

Must have been very quiet because I can't seem to find anything on the subject. And how could Congress possibly block a bureaucracy from doing anything? And BTW, your source is a joke.

Congress defended the budget to publish and release the CDC studies. Google "CDC gun study blocked".

And from what I found on my search, DumBama issued an executive order for the study. Care to see what they found?

CDC Gun Research Backfires on Obama
by Kyle Wintersteen | August 27th, 2013

Read more: http://www.gunsandammo.com/politics/cdc-gun-research-backfires-on-obama/#ixzz3sGgzZbFZ

 

[Redfish]

It only takes one time. Ask the victims in Paris--------------Oh, they can't answer can they?

How many times have YOU been attacked? And what makes you believe that you can rise to become a hero without harming the innocent?

How can more bullets flying around in a confused and panicked situation assure safety? Is everyone openly carrying a weapon a skilled marksman and aware of where each and every innocent civilian is at all points during a violent attack? Can you put out a fire with gasoline?

if the number of victims can be reduced when an idiot decides to start randomly shooting in a school or theatre or shopping mall or airport, that's a good thing.

If the soldiers at Ft Hood had been allowed to be armed, Hasan might not have killed as many as he did and he would probably be dead himself instead of wasting money feeding and housing him.

Yes, there is a risk inherent in allowing armed citizens, but the risk of not allowing it is much greater.

remember, if guns are banned only criminals and the government will have guns.

So, using your logic, good guys with guns, no matter how competent they may be as marksmen, make the world safer? More guns firing makes a confused situation safer? And adding guns to any situation creates safety?

you have it all wrong. if a would-be criminal knows that there armed civilians in the area he plans to rob, attack, rape, car jack, etc, he will think twice and probably pick another place.

Or he just shoots the guy with the gun showing . Or maybe the Guy wh the gun showing is the criminal! That's what everyone around him will think .

are you really that stupid?

 

[Timmy]

What do you think if someone walks into a room brandishing a gun? "Oh good, that stranger over there has a gun. I feel so safe now !'"

 

[Flash]

I want open carry here in Florida because I enjoy the concept of liberty, an idea that eludes most Liberals.

However, if there was open carry I doubt I would ever do it. Neither would most gun owners.

I suspect the filthy ass tourists and development industry will put the hard lobbying on the representatives to not pass it. Those chickenshits will think that one less tourist will come to the state if we have open carry.

 

[francoHFW]

NRA/GOPbots. Absolute idiocy.