Tuesday, April 1, 2014

Fascinating Second Amendment Discussion at the Florida House Judiciary Committee

I can't wait to hear the gun-rights fanatics who comment here explain away the fact that the Sheriff's association opposes permit-less concealed carry during emergencies while, according to them, cops generally agree with them on gun rights issues. Let me guess, cops are different than sheriffs, right?

The other interesting thing is that one of the speakers said 20% of Floridians have concealed carry permits.  Wow. I suppose that means that the next public mass shooting we have there in which no one intervenes will be because not a single one of them happened to bring their gun that day.


  1. Just shows that Florida has a long way to go before the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms is adequately recognized and protected. The gun culture has not yet taken hold as strongly as it needs to.

    If I remember correctly, Mikeb, you, too, have articulated some criticisms of Florida--was that one of them?

  2. Well, here's a point of view from someone involved in the carry movement in Florida.


    His experience seems to indicate a possible split between the sheriffs and the beat cops--at least in his area.

    1. C'mon man, that's just another one of you guys telling us what he thinks. I have no doubt that the beat cops he talks to agree with him.

      The lady in the video was talking on behalf of the sheriffs in an official capacity.

    2. In other words, you believe that the cops tell him they have no problem with carry and that it's the leadership that does?

  3. As for your remark about the next hypothetical shooting in Florida, there could be many reasons why nobody would be able to intervene:
    Nobody with a permit around in that area at the moment
    People with permit didn't happen to carry that day
    Chose not to
    Impractical dress that day
    Too many stops where they would have to leave the gun in the vehicle
    Could be in a gun free zone mandated by the State, by the business, by the employer, etc. etc.

    And if there is a mass shooting, or an attempted one, thwarted by a carrier, it will just be conveniently memory-holed just like Huff Po or Mother Jones, or whoever did the study showing that carriers had never stopped a shooting, conveniently did with the Appalachian School of Law shooting.

  4. In a hurricane, people need to be able to evacuate and to protect themselves at a time when thugs will want to take advantage of the vulnerable. If the sheriffs can't understand this, they don't really support gun rights. Too bad for them, as they're likely to get voted out of office next election.

    But tell us, Mikeb. Is "idiot gun nuts" just a verbal tic with you?

    1. I put the tag that applies.

    2. Since the claim about gun owners is in dispute, you have to provide supporting evidence.

      Oh, that's right, you don't do that.

    3. Like when you tagged a black murderer with the tag "black NRA members" ?