Gun owners get right to carry without a permit in Florida

You realize people travel with guns all the time right?

And private property is the mitigating factor in regards to guns on a plane.

 

And once again, you absolutely refuse to actually discuss the issues, and resort to hyperbole instead.

And as an FYI, the militia is the people. It is literally everybody between the ages of 17 and 45. Everybody.

What, did you actually think that the "militia" was the military? It is not. In fact, until the end of the 19th century it was actually a law that every male between 17 and 45 own a rifle, as well as the appropriate equipment to use it and assemble ideally monthly, but no less than once a year. And to show that they were proficient in the use of said rifle.

You keep going off on these silly and almost nonsensical tangents, and all you do repeatedly is show that you have no idea what you are talking about. And your arrogance against Americans and your own sense of superiority is almost overwhelming.

Literally one of the worst cases of White Man's Burden I have ever seen.

 

Uh-huh. Sure you don't.

https://www.9news.com.au/national/m...ney-home/281ec8c4-2215-4fea-8e89-5384c8105168

https://www.9news.com.au/national/w...victoria/e5588b86-c128-47b7-9ccb-6486e821dc91

https://www.9news.com.au/national/e...ustralia/a64f35f4-4182-4209-b68a-9ac9d553eb50

Oh yes, thank heaven's that there are never any home invasion robberies in Australia. And that none of them ever use a deadly weapon, like a gun.

I will give you this much at least. You appear to be as consistently ignorant of crime in your own country as you are in ours.

 

Wrong. Completely and utterly wrong.

Are you even aware of what the "Saturday Night Special" laws are? You might want to make yourself aware of them.

Primarily, they are gun laws that prohibit firearms based almost entirely upon price. When the current law was first passed, it actually specified any pistol that sold new for under $150 was illegal. However, as is typical in so many of the California gun laws that was eventually overturned so they made a list of almost nonsensical and unprovable criteria that did not name price, but by that time the damage was done and several manufacturers in California were forced to close as suddenly a lot of the guns they made were illegal to make or sell in the state.

Every single one of the gun laws on the books to this date that have price as a consideration have banned the lowest cost firearms available.

Of course, you might even know that if you had a clue what you were talking about.

 

Oh, that is amazingly easy to answer.

The Ruger 10/22. A .22 rimfire rifle that has been in production since 1964. Yes, that is actually the most sold firearm in the US, and in excess of 10 million have been sold since it was first released to the public.

That by far is the largest selling firearm in the US, and has been for decades. In fact, the value of them has been rising in recent years and the company can barely keep up with the demand.

 

A seen by the Roof Koreans. A hell of a lot of them had AR-15 series rifles.

 

No, I do not think it is ignorance. I think he knows EXACTLY what the result would be.

No, that's wrong. It's perfectly legal to take a gun on a chartered or private plane. (Though the charter company might forbid it.)

What. First...punctuation! Second, I have no idea what that rambling run-on sentence is supposed to mean. Do you?

You're all over the place. We both know that "competence" can easily become a test that is nearly impossible to pass.

That is nonsensical gibberish. I have no idea what, if anything, you are attempting to say.

Are you attempting to stumble upon a POINT, as the spittle flies from your mouth?

I repeat: are you attempting to make some sort of POINT, or are you just screeching incoherently and foaming at the mouth?

If this ill-formatted, poorly-written diatribe means what I think it does, you have set up another straw man and are now going at it with a baseball bat. First, the NRA is VASTLY outspent by anti-gun groups. (I recall that Bloomberg alone outspends the NRA by at least 5 to 1.) Second, many people do volunteer to do training classes. My wife does, my uncle does, I do. (My last class was 2 weeks ago, my wife did one for women last weekend.) Of course...you believe that a woman who has been beaten, raped, and strangled with he rown stockings is morally superior to a woman whose attacker acquired a sucking chest wound.

Again, your awful grammar, punctuation, spelling, and myriad typos make actually understanding your rants difficult. Please wipe the spittle off the keyboard, calm down, try again, and please proofread.

 

You're making up that the group polled are "uneducated". Obviously.

How about you go walk the walk and prove you're right about what the US wants.

If weak gun laws in red states were so awesome of reducing homicide, you would have blasting those facts all over to show how right you are.
But the opposite is the truth, hence I am blasting you with the fact that typical red states with weak gun laws have a high homicide rate.
The people of the US do not want that.

 

I have one.

 

I'm sure you know what I meant. You cannot bring guns into commercial flights on your person. You have to check them in.

We are talking about commercial flights. The airlines are private companies, but regulated by FAA, so you have to check in your guns. I don't think we have any government owned commercial airlines.

No. Commercial airlines, and airports, are strictly regulated by the federal government (by the FAA, - The Federal Aviation Administration).

 

There is a difference between 'most sold over time' and 'most popular today'. Apparently SIG P320 was top seller last year. Its cheap for a SIG. So what?

 

yeah, we’re not pulling that card. Why give up your right to self defense when the criminals will still have guns? We’d be stupid to even think about it. Of course, most of those shot are suicides or gang clowns shooting each other, the rest of us are incredibly safe.

 

My above response in green was not stated by Jarlaxle but in fact is my response to him as to what he responded to me. I forgot to remove quote marks which is why It starts off saying Jarlaxle said. No He did not say anything in green. Those are my responses to his earlier positions stated to me about gun training. Sorry for that.

 

Here is a proper edited response.

Jarlaxle made a response to me I now wish to respond to. It has been edited as by mistake I forgot to take quote marks out making it appear that my responses are a quote from Jarlaxle. They are not. I also went back and edited out some personal remarks as well.

Jarlaxle responded claiming he did not understand my positions and claiming he could not understand my writing. To that I would simply state I find his comments he could not understand my positions disingenuous and an attempt to deflect from them.

He then made these three comments I wish to address:

• the NRA is VASTLY outspent by anti-gun groups
• many people do volunteer to do training classes
• you believe that a woman who has been beaten, raped, and strangled with her own stockings is morally superior to a woman whose attacker acquired a sucking chest wound.

In regards to the comment that the NRA is vastly outspent by anti-gun groups provide your source. Which groups? Where are your statistics?

In regards to the reference he and his family gun train I can only state is not in any way germane to any point or position I stated or raised. I commend anyone who gun trains so they can be safe using a gun.

The last comment above I can only say makes no sense at all and is not even remotely connected to any position or argument I have ever stated and shows a lack of disregard for the issues of sexual assault, gun shootings and the safety of women and it is unfortunate he felt he had to raise these issues in the manner he did to falsely attribute to me a position I never stated.

Now in specific regards to spending by lobby groups pro and anti gun control the comment made by the above person that the pro gun groups spend more money than the NRA is nonsensical for many reasons including:
a-the responder provided no statistics
b-it is a fact that "lobbying disclosures do not capture grassroots efforts, which are a signature component for both sides of the gun legislation debate", and so for the responder or anyone to pose they have statistics is simply not true:
(source:https://rollcall.com/2023/01/31/gun-groups-spent-less-on-lobbying-last-year-when-a-new-law-)
passed/#:~:text=The%20National%20Association%20for%20Gun,in%202021%2C%20lobbying%20reports%20show
c-if the responder was genuine in his comparison he would compare all pro and all anti gun lobby groups not just the NRA.
d-the money by pro gun groups to elected officials is NOT spent to subsidize any "poor" person who can not afford gun training and I challenge gun owners to provide info otherwise and I will defer to that;

Here is the money given to politicians by pro gun groups:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...GYVYedetYqepR-4jBweaJyqFo/edit#gid=1782600961

The question remains why do the politicians who receive pro gun money, and the gun manufacturers, and gun owners, subsidize gun training for poor gun owners if they are so concerned or do they just exploit poor people's status as a pretext to argue against gun control?

Here is info on the existing gun regs regarding training:

https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/firearm-safety-training-requirements.html

Jarlaxle also stated in his response to me he did not understand what measurements are used to define gun competency and stated that they are impossible to define.

I again call the above claim that there is no way to measure gun competency bull and unlike the responder I provide sources for my positions:

https://faculty.uccs.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/14/2021/02/Granny-dont-get-your-gun.pdf

Research shows time and time again proper gun training reduces risks associated with using guns:

https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/firearm-safety-training-requirements.html

About 39% of gun owners have no gun training:

https://www.everytown.org/solutions/safety-training/

32 states allow people to carry weapons with no training:

https://www.thetrace.org/2022/01/which-states-require-firearm-safety-course-concealed-carry/

Firearms competency is the point of any gun training program and includes lessons on how to assemble and disassemble a gun, clean it, store it, how to accurately use a gun, what risks are associated with a gun and measures that can be used to reduce those risks, understanding gun locks, gun storage units, children in a home where guns are owned.

Gun competency would test on all the above including marksmanship, eye sight, eye to hand coordination.

Here is absolute proof that for someone to say you can't define gun competency is a crock:

https://natshoot.co.za/firearm-licence/competency

https://4guns.co.za/competency-and-training/

I tried to shorten down my response and take out the personal remarks in my edit. I was doing that earlier when I ran out of time editing.

 

Often wrong, but never uncertain. Proof that ignorance is bliss.

The 1st pistol I ever bought would've qualified in certain jurisdictions: 9x18 Makarov. When the wall came down, the Russkies were hard up for cash & flooded the market with them. Great little gun; basically a PPK clone purchased for $110. It came with a leather military holster, extra magazine & a cleaning rod. It currently resides in my kitchen.

I see someone has already beat me to the punch on that score, but ye gods - I don't understand the urge to spew such easily disprovable bullshit. Intellectual indolence is the most plausible explanation.

'Someone help my mum!': Moment daughter spotted her mother, 41, was bleeding to death after the British expat was stabbed trying to fight off teenage intruders at family's Australian home is revealed by woman's grieving husband

Don't you agree that Mum's family being equipped with something like my Saturday night special would have been preferable to her bleeding out in on the floor in front of her family? If not why?

Canadian man charged with second-degree murder after shooting armed home invader with legally owned gun

5 thugs broke into his home, he shot one of them. Do you believe the Canadian authorities charged the homeowner appropriately?

Both questions are rhetorical of course. I'll be surprised if he manages a yes or no to either.

When only police have guns, we are in - by definition - a police state.

 

The first and only pistol I ever bought was a US made Makarov clone. I actually purchased it for my fiancee, as she was a small lady and the single stack .380 was a perfect fit for her hand.

But yes, those flooded the market in the early 1990s, as they were inexpensive to manufacture and most of the accessories were the same. Mine is a US copy, but still accepts magazines from any of the other .380 Makarov clones.

 

do you count all the free advertising the anti gun movement gets from the big three media channels? cop shows like the FBI/NCIS. Law and Order (three versions) are often home to anti NRA or anti gun propaganda. One of the CBS cop shows featured a pro immigrant congresswoman murdered. One of the suspects was listed as a white militia extremist and ALSO AN NRA member.. He was not the guilty party but looked like a complete jerk. In one of the FBI shows, a murderer attacked a man in a public park, an armed citizen intervened and wounded a bystander by accident and the head LEO reamed him out. this sort of subtle attacks on the NRA and gun owners are common.

 

380 = 9x17. Makarov = 9x18. 9mm most people know = 9x19. On paper, the Russian Mak is halfway between a 380 and a conventional 9mm. Ballistically, it's a lot closer to 380. But easy & fun to shoot. 30 years & a couple-three thousand rounds of mostly crap range rounds later, I've never had a single problem. Which has always been the reputation for Makarovs.

 

remember that Walther that was chambered for the 9X18 Ultra-similar to maybe the then state of the art WonderNine-the P88 (I own one)-which never sold well since it retailed for twice what a beretta 92 or Sig 226 listed for

 

If the airplane happens to belong to me, and is being used under Part 91 (the broadest definition of which is that I am not flying passengers for profit), I can carry, and allow my passengers to carry, anything they like.

If I cross state lines, for example into NY (perhaps if, or especially if I land there, something I haven't researched) that could make a difference, but I could fly from the closest airport to my home to the closest to yours, because we both live in Florida, carrying a concealed weapon and be completely legal. You can also carry one as a passenger on a Part 135 (Airlines) in the cargo hold, in an approved container, depending again on your destination.

So, yes.

 

I was unaware Walther made a 9x18. Learn something new every day...

 

I never owned one-I have the P88 that I got for wholesale (it was during the clinton ban, the dealer was sitting on it and wanted to buy some still available pre ban Norincos that he could make Big $$$$ on so he gave it to me for 10 bucks more than his cost (he was a distributor). Great gun but really isn't functionally better than say stuff like the MP or the CZ P10. I have HEARD that the 9x18 ultra is not useable in the Mak (I have an East German version) nor is the Mak 9X18 useable in the Ultra but I never really pursued that issue

 

I am sure you know we are talking about commercial airliners.

The correct answer is that it is strictly forbidden to carry firearms on your person on commercial airlines. You may have notices that they even check your bags before boarding. Most people are aware of this

 

why are areas run by Democrats with all sorts of stupid gun laws, the murder centers of the USA