What Florida’s Emergency Carry Permit Suspension Bill Reveals About Gun Control Advocates’ Mindset

 Hurricane Andrew (courtesy wikipedia.org)

Tampa’s tbo.com offers a post-mortem analysis of the Florida legislature’s initial failure to “allow people without concealed weapon permits to carry guns during forced evacuations prompted by emergencies, such as hurricanes.” The piece provides insight into the NRA’s behind-the-scenes lobbying (a.k.a., arm-twisting) and Governor Rick Scott’s suspected role in torpedoing the bill. Second Amendment absolutists will shake their heads and assert that no one should have to have a permit to carry a gun at any time ever. Which raises an important question: why would you want to limit Americans’ carry rights during an emergency? Here’s the “argument” that [allegedly] held the bill up . . .

Terrence Gorman, general counsel for the Department of Military Affairs, testified March 19 that it was a bad idea to allow untrained people to have weapons during such stressful times.

“Untrained.” There it is again. Still. The idea that average American gun owners aren’t competent enough to carry a gun. They need to be trained to be safe – especially under “stress.” But they aren’t trained. Not really. Not like the pros. And God knows what these armed amateurs might do if the rule of law broke down during an emergency (e.g., a forced evacuation during a hurricane). Why they might, I dunno, defend themselves!

No, that’s not it. Obviously. Who could argue against law-abiding citizens protecting themselves and their loved ones against lawless predators emboldened by the absence of professional law enforcement during an emergency? Maybe the antis reckon that exigent circumstances would turn these armed Americans against unarmed Americans. You know; to get food or shelter for their family or something.

I think we’re onto something here . . .

Proponents of civilian disarmament are deeply cynical human beings. They believe that people are fundamentally irrational, uncontrollable animals. (See: psychological projection.) The civility we show towards our fellow man? It’s purely situational. If people are pushed too hard, too far and/or too fast, any of us can become amoral killers. It’s up to the authorities to maintain order and discipline, to stop that from happening. To do that, it’s way better if the sheep people are disarmed.

Truth be told, that’s the gun control advocates’ secret fear: armed civilians “interfering” with government forces during a crisis. If armed government reps order a large group of unarmed people to shelter in a crowded, disease- and criminal-infested football stadium, for example, what choice do they have? None. They are powerless. Which is exactly how Terrence Gorman, general counsel for the Department of Military Affairs wants it. For the general public’s own good.

This “extreme” example illustrates the gun control advocates’ everyday reality. They consider armed Americans obstinate SOBs; citizens who resist the state’s efforts to do what’s best for them, clinging to a misguided belief in individual liberty and choice, even when it’s “obvious” that society needs them to shut up and do what they’re told. In the gun control advocate’s mind, the fight over guns is a battle between “selfish” gun owners and “selfless” progressives (i.e. statists). As the Florida emergency carry bill (or lack thereof) proves, they’re right.

comments

  1. avatar stateisevil says:

    The anti gun neocon republicans of the Fl Senate strike again!

    1. avatar tdiinva says:

      Now there is a moronic comment. What does neocon have to do with anything?

      1. avatar Chris Mallory says:

        Because they are anti-American progressives who love war and who descend from the followers of Trotsky. The real question is, “Why did we allow these people to come to power in the United States since they are so hostile to traditional American values?”

        1. avatar William Burke says:

          Chris, are you sure about the Trotsky thing? Because I think they’re more Stalinists than Trotskyites.

        2. avatar tdiinva says:

          For a guy the ole Jeff Davis would laugh at your characterization of the Confederacy you are sure quick to make these kind of idiotic statements You probably think James Madison is a neocon and a socialist.

        3. avatar BR549 says:

          The “proponents of civilian disarmament”, which, let’s face it, are pretty much dominating the progressive leftard end of our political spectrum, are exactly as the author states, “amoral killers” projecting their complete lack of control over their own emotions onto the rest of the population.

          Furthermore, as far as pushing people too hard or too fast, what EXACTLY is law enforcement’s excuse for itself increasingly crossing that line and, well, blowing it? A good 30-50% of these so called “authorities” have enough screws loose on their own to prohibit them from maintaining order, discipline or be a part of any rational solution. They have a need, through projection, to exacerbate the situation (if not outright create it) in order to perpetuate the need for their very existence.

          In short, as we all well know, it’s the people who seek to disarm us who are the problem. Whether they are politicians violating the Constitution at 3:00 in the afternoon or criminals or a SWAT team violating our doorways at 3:00 in the morning, it’s the people in society who have a problem with other people’s boundaries who don’t deserve to participate in this society.

        4. avatar William Burke says:

          “Furthermore, as far as pushing people too hard or too fast, what EXACTLY is law enforcement’s excuse for itself increasingly crossing that line and, well, blowing it? ”

          A lack of knowledge about the Nuremberg trials, maybe.

        5. avatar Kyle says:

          You clearly know nothing about neoconservatism. Neoconservatism is about as anti-communist as one can get.

        6. avatar neiowa says:

          With any due respect. That is moronic.

          Name these “neocons”!

          If you want to use the nonwords, “ideas”, and insults of the progressive libtards (democrats) and Karl Rove then step up to the plate and NAMES.

          FYI – The libtards intend the insult as a description for ANY conservative. They view the progressive republicans (RINOs) as all right as long as out of power and under control. Rockefeller, Dole, Graham, McCain, Boehner, Romney, McConnell, Bush, Bush, Bush (the controlling class of the RNC).

        7. avatar Rich Grise says:

          “Name these “neocons”!”

          Okay:
          Rockefeller, Dole, Graham, McCain, Boehner, Romney, McConnell (the controlling class of the RNC).

      2. avatar Michael B. says:

        There are a lot of establishment Republicans and RINOs in the FL state government that need their arms twisted before they do the right thing. That’s just a fact.

        Whether they’re neocons or not, I don’t know. They don’t have any direct impact on world politics so I don’t care.

  2. avatar DrVino says:

    I firmly believe that our society (any human population, really) is an iPad and a working faucet away from The Lord of the Flies – good and bad elements which declare themselves in stark contrast in times of chaos.
    In that sense, I find myself in agreement with civilian disarmers.
    But I part company with them on the next point. I believe that nature and tendency is precisely why our RKBA must be preserved, not abolished.

    1. avatar theaton says:

      It’s worse than that. Turn off all the free shit from the government such as SNAP, medicare, medicaid and Social Security and all hell will break loose within hours.

      1. avatar Rich Grise says:

        Social Security is NOT “free shit.” Social Security, as it was inflicted on me and tens of millions of other Americans, was supposed to be a savings-type account where Uncle Sugardaddy confiscated a chunk of my wages without offering me any option.

        Do people who have been robbed deserve to have their stolen money returned to them? That’s what Soc.Sec. is supposed to be, the return of my own money.

        Admittedly, it’s gotten way out of hand, but there not an insignificant number of people who really have no other option at this point, unless you have a suggestion.

        So tell me. When you toss Soc.Sec, what is your plan for dealing with the millions who will be cut off and left in the lurch?

        1. avatar theaton says:

          The social security trust fund was robbed years ago so for those receiving it today, it is free shit paid for by the younger generation. We allowed it to be inflicted on us.You and I did have an option, we could have fought for our rights to not have our property stolen. We didn’t, we loose! We were more excited that we at least received part of our pay check.

          I would not be so harsh as to turn it off for everyone, those that are currently receiving it should continue to receive it. We need to stop stealing it out of the paychecks of the rest of the people. If those, like you and I, who knew it was a ponzi shceme didn’t plan for an alternative, well too bad! We can’t keep stealing money from our kids and grand-kids and expect things to change?

          This is just like the current CT fiasco. We give them the power that allows them to do this and then whine when they do it. Our founding fathers pleged their lives, fortunes and sacred honor to build this nation. We can’t be bothered to pledge our paychecks to saver our lives. As long as there is beer in the fridge, mind numbing sports on television and gas is under $15 per gallon, we just don’t give a damn.

        2. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

          Social Security sure as hell is free shit. Oh sure, some people pay in, but many others don’t. On average, you get back far more in benefits than you ever paid in. That’s why the ponzi scheme is broke. There aren’t enough new people paying in today to cover all of the past promises made to others, let alone the promises made to today’s workers. If it really were a “getting my own money back” situation, then why funnel tbe funds through D.C. in the first place? Why not let you keep your own money up front? Ahhh…..the “safety net” forced savings excuse? Then why not privatize SS so people have an actual owned account where their contributions reside, untouchable from lawmakers raiding the piggy bank?

          Nobody has to be tossed in the streets. All we need to do is re-orient SS toward its original last ditch safety net purpose and quit expanding benefits for everyone like its some kind of first resort retirement program.

          In the meantime, save up for your own retirement and quit sapping wealth from others. Geez, as a group, seniors are by far the wealthiest Americans. I’m not saying tax them more, but I am saying boot the wealthy ones from the SS welfare lines. Good grief. So-called greatest generation turned greediest generation.

        3. avatar William Burke says:

          No… they propose to “solve” the situation by throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I paid in all my working life, and do you know how much SSI I get per month? Less than $800.

          There is a rather unusual part of this scheme that a lot of people don’t seem to know about: you get paid once a month, but no on the same day each month. Depending upon your birthday, you get paid the second Monday, second Tuesday, second Wednesday, etc., of each month. I’m second Wednesday, though that detail isn’t important.

          What’s important is that the second Wednesday can be anywhere from the 8th to the 14th. I recently had a situation where it was literally five weeks between payments. One doesn’t stretch $790 over five weeks, without missing some meals.

        4. avatar theaton says:

          When SS was instituted, most women didn’t work and it was intended for widows because they would have no income otherwise. It was also supposed to be put into a “lock box” and kept seperate from the general fund. We allowed those who work for us to raid the lock box and spend all the money. While your paycheck may have had a deduction for SS it was obvious to all who pay attention that there was no SS. The only thing left was a ponzi scheme. Knowing this and worse, not wanting to know, and depending on SS for retirement is foolish. It was never meant for retirement in the first place. It’s amazing how people survied before SS. Actually, it is not. They didn’t expect the government to provide for their every need.

          I know people who are getting $2000 per month SS and at the same time making $80,000 per year at a job. Government has never instituted anything that wasn’t greatly abused. It’s not their money so why should the care what happens to it. They’ll just steal more and we’ll let them and then whine because they won’t give us more free shit.

          There are plenty of ways to fix the problems we have. We just choose to ignore them and pass them to our children and grand-children and hope the shit doesn’t hit the fan while we’re still alive. We are cowards!

        5. avatar William Burke says:

          Yet they want to know about it if I take a part-time job, so they can reduce my $800/mo.

          Good post. I agree with you.

        6. avatar ropingdown says:

          The social security minimum payment is now gone for people not already collecting.
          Everyone born in 1950 or beyond is getting the shaft due to the 30 year calculation rule.
          My son’s generation knows that it will get essentially no return on its money. That’s baked into the current rates and formula. They’ll be lucky to get a return OF their money.

          These are all known knowns.

        7. avatar neiowa says:

          If you’re under 55 and actually thought you would ever see any SS $ then you were asleep or delusional for the last 40yrs. Time for wakeup.

    2. avatar GeeSmith2 says:

      Yes! The BEST way to stop a human animal when reason fails and the social order unravels is through the offer and possibly the use of force.

  3. avatar Matt in FL says:

    If you give people the idea that they don’t need a permit to carry during a declared state of emergency, they might get to wondering why they need to have a permit when the situation isn’t emergent. In fact, they might grow to resent the government’s intrusion into other areas of their life, as well. That’s a dangerous line of thought, and we can’t have people engaging in it, can we?

    1. avatar BDub says:

      I think you’ve cut to the truth of it there.

    2. avatar The Last Marine out says:

      Good point Matt , the problem is this . We are no longer America, we have become the people in George Orwell’s 1984, Why a permit for anything (are we free or not?),and this is the problem , pass a law to make man kind good, that’s socialism and it’s NEVER EVER WORKED ! Any people who no longer have the real GOD, will ever be free…….THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE, I did not say that ! but CHRIST DID. (He said I am the TRURH ,The WAY, and the LIFE!)

  4. avatar ropingdown says:

    The streets will already be dangerous enough with a bunch of half-trained never stress-tested deputies running around with ARs. Besides, if you’re correct and there is an “absence of professional law enforcement” then what does the rule matter?

    I think Terrence Gorman is simply afraid that his guys will shoot an embarrassing number of citizens when they suddenly have to log on to the massively multi-player “what is that guy doing with his gun?”

    In the PA statutes there is a similar rule applying only to the City of Philadelphia, in a state that normally allows open carry. During emergencies only those with a LCF license may carry guns on the streets of the city. Guess why.

    1. avatar Taylor TX says:

      MMLAGF (Massive Multiplayer Live Action Gun Fight)

      Man your mmo line cracked me somethin fierce.

    2. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

      …and care to give odds as to whether the philly PD would respect a valid LTCF in an emergency state?

      1. avatar ropingdown says:

        I’ll play. 27:1 against.

        1. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

          I think that’s in the right neighborhood

    3. avatar Joe says:

      The Police, will be home with their family. YOU will be on your own, think about it !!

  5. avatar Tom W. says:

    Sad. The anti’s attempted a version of this in NC, whereby ALL CCW permits were to be nullified in a state of emergency. Lawful carry would only be allowed on private property. Thankfully it was “shot down”.

    Florida, on the other hand, is supposed to be a “pro-gun” state, but had to get a uniformity law passed as liberal mayors and police chiefs used to be able to modify state laws. Now state law is the same across even “red” parts of the state.
    However, FL does have millions of CCW permit holders. My “looters will be shot” sign still resides in the garage. Another feel good law almost impossible to enforce.

    1. avatar Roscoe says:

      Yes, exactly!

    2. avatar tdiinva says:

      Once again the superiority of the State of Virginia is shown. Open carry is Constitutional in the Old Dominion with no ifs, ands or buts. I believe that in last legislative session they banned firearms confiscation in emergencies by statute.

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        Don’t expect any new pro-gun laws in VA. Your new gov has a pen and a phone, and he’s already used them.

        http://www.guns.com/2014/03/19/virginia-governor-breaks-veto-pen-pro-gun-legislation/

        You have to admit one thing — when Bloomberg buys a politician, he stays bought.

        1. avatar William Burke says:

          As long as the money lasts, anyway.

        2. avatar tdiinva says:

          Ralph, I thought Lawyers could do math or at least simple fractions. The Bills passed by veto majorities.

        3. avatar ropingdown says:

          ..veto proof majorities?

        4. avatar tdiinva says:

          Yes, veto proof. The bill passed by at least 2/3 majorities in both the House of Delegates and the state Senate. The legislature can vote to override the Governor’s veto by a 2/3 vote. The question is will some Democrats who voted for the bill in the state senate switch to “support” the governnor. Hard to say except it has bee pretty much established that McAuliffe is already an ineffectual lame duck months into his term. If he is viewed as a toothless outsider the downstate Democrats will blow him off and vote to override.

  6. avatar jwm says:

    I was unaware that people were forced into sheltering at the football stadium. When I was with FEMA during the flooding in WV in the early 80’s no one was being forced to do anything. The Guard troops were in the area to stop looting and lend a hand.

    It’s also my understanding that there was a lot of shooting and looting going on in New Orleans after the hurricane. How much of that was people that were criminal types before the hurricane?

    All I have to do is think back to 75 and Ton Son Nhut for a perfect example of desperate and armed people looking for a way, any way, out of the path of on coming danger. Decent people can go ugly in a minute.

    However, I see no legal way to suspend the constitution just because of an emergency. We see examples of the mess that creates thru out our history. Interning Japanese, most of whom were citizens, during ww2 is just one example.

    Overall, with the possible exception of an outright invasion of our country, I would rather see government power curtailed before citizens rights are curtailed.

    1. avatar Santander says:

      Inter Armas, Silent Leges.

      http://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/antonin-scalia-internment-ruling-103079.

      Scalia, “responding to a question about the court’s 1944 decision in Korematsu v. United States, which upheld the convictions of Gordon Hirabayashi and Fred Korematsu for violating an order to report to an internment camp.:
      “Well of course Korematsu was wrong. And I think we have repudiated in a later case. But you are kidding yourself if you think the same thing will not happen again,”

      Scalia cited a Latin expression meaning, “In times of war, the laws fall silent.”

    2. avatar William Burke says:

      “I was unaware that people were forced into sheltering at the football stadium.”

      It isn’t so much that they were literally forced to, jwm. They just didn’t have any other reasonable options.
      Of course, we can parse whether that constitutes “force”, and what doesn’t…

  7. avatar Roscoe says:

    “…bad idea to allow untrained people to have weapons during such stressful times.”

    Yeah…could end up with a bunch of dead looters, huh?

    1. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

      When the say “untrained,” seems like they mean “not on our payroll.”

      1. avatar Roscoe says:

        That’s a good way to put it.

        I was thinking in terms of not trained in arrest procedure and restraint (as in not violating the bad actor’s civil rights). Not being on the payroll says it well and describes the ‘were trained for this you’re not’ mindset of Gorman. Problem is his troops and the Law will be way too busy to be everywhere when calamity strikes and it becomes everyone for themselves. Hell, LEO’s can’t be everywhere even without calamity.

        1. avatar William Burke says:

          They weren’t just “busy”. Many of the NOPD got their families and got the hell out of town.

          That’s surely some sort of indicator of what will happen the next go-round.

    2. avatar Ian says:

      Don’t take this as a slam against LEO’s. As a former one myself I have great respect for the job they must undertake each day. However, I think if the public in general (particularly the anti’s) understood how low the marksmanship standard is, and the limited recurrent training requirement is in most jurisdictions they might want to disarm the police as well. I would venture to guess many, possibly most of us here practice basic marksmanship far more often than many LEO’s and aside from the initial training we likely study and prepare for stressful situations as often as they do.

      Again, don’t get me wrong. There are a lot of good cops out there. Just like any profession there are a lot that are just there for the paycheck and want to do the absolute minimum to keep their job. Far more than the anti’s would care to realize.

      1. avatar Big Gator says:

        I think Marion Hammer, lobbyist for the NRA, said it best in that she was not interested in what law enforcement had to say about the issue because it does not concern them. She sees it as a matter of what is good for the people. “I’m not interested in bringing law enforcement on board. This is about law-abiding people being able to protect themselves in a time of emergency,” Hammer said. “It is not about the convenience of law enforcement.”

      2. avatar ropingdown says:

        The ‘training’ comment from Gorman is typical. Maybe he was speaking about the relevant laws? But FL has more attorneys than cops…if you count the retired lawyers. And the attorneys actually know what the laws say and mean much more often than LEOs.

        If he was speaking about firearm training? I’m not very diligent about pistol practice compared to most of you. However, in a bad year I train 50% more than the average FBI SA, who trains 200% as much as the the local PD, by round count (which is good for a local PD). Do the math!

  8. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    Mr. Farago’s article describes but one mindset among gun grabbers — there are additional motivations as well.

    I don’t try to analyze a gun grabber’s mindset all that much anymore. Now I just accuse gun grabbers of being despicable people who advocate for all of us to be raped, beaten, robbed, and murdered. That shakes them up pretty bad as it should. And then I demand that they provide solutions to actual problems in the real world. I don’t get into arguments about statistics, the source of rights, training, or anything else.

    I encourage everyone to try the approach that I just mentioned. You might be surprised at the results.

    1. avatar William Burke says:

      Very good suggestion. I plan on trying that.

    2. avatar Mina says:

      Right, because you are over-stimulating their under-developed amygdala in their brain.

      You are creating an amygdala hijack.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amygdala_hijack

      This is why, when dealing with Liberals, one must always keep in mind one’s ability to over-whelm their inferior amygdala. Stimulate it and you control them.

      The Anonymous Conservative describes in detail what sorts of stimulation should be delivered and in what manner to deliver it. The goal is to allow the person to see himself as a coward, a liar, a pathetic human being … out-grouped from the ‘good people’. His book and web site detail the theory.

      Think of Ben Shapiro’s “how to debate liberals” video as the operations guide for Liberal amygdala hijacking.

      Here’s what an amygdala hijack in action looks like:

  9. I did not notice any training requirement in the USA’s Constitution’s Second Amendment. I probably have a defective copy.

    1. avatar peirsonb says:

      I’m going to see if I can get the White House to send me an annotated copy so I can try and keep up.

      1. avatar jwm says:

        Be prepared to recieve a box of ashes in reply.

        1. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

          I thought they’d had it pressed into two-ply, with perforations to allow easy tear-offs.

  10. avatar JonoPorter says:

    Well this shows what I have been starting to think about if the military are really there to protect our rights:
    http://jonoporter.blogspot.com/2014/03/is-military-truly-defending-our-freedom.html

    1. avatar M. J. says:

      I read your article link and want to say, there is some legislation in the works to change the concealed carry on military base laws. That may or may not work out.
      I have served 21 years in the Navy and have lived on base for all but 7 years of that. I did not bother trying to own a gun because of that very reason you mention.
      The military’s job is not to protect your individual rights, it never was. The U.S. Military is there to protect the Nation, and it’s Government. Projection of power is our number one mission statement. Defense of our Nation from other Nations wishing to do us harm from outside or inside (Foreign or Domestic) is the goal. We protect democracy through protecting our government, not by protecting individuals within the country or government (Secret Services job to to that).
      Individual rights protection falls on the individual. Those who do not exercise their rights or fight for them soon find them to be gone. Thus the second ammendment. If you are looking for law enforcement or for military to come save you then you will be sorely dissapointed.

      1. avatar JonoPorter says:

        I would just be happy with them not trying to violate my rights.

      2. avatar gtfoxy says:

        “To protect democracy…. The Government…”

        There-in you find the issue of the brainwashed military masses.

        It is supposed to be derived of citizen soldiers, only called in times of Citizen defense of the Representative Republic. No where do I distinguish the Government from the people in such a scenario. The Government is ipso facto the citizenship.

        Let’s get it right from the beginning & there could be no “Us vs Them” from either side of the coin. It is only US…

        1. avatar Rich Grise says:

          “Let’s get it right from the beginning & there could be no “Us vs Them” from either side of the coin. It is only US…;”

          No, you’re still engaging in groupthink. There is no “us” except as a mathematical illusion. There is only ‘me’ and ‘not me’. And, of course, if I want ‘me’ to be at peace, it behooves me to not make war on ‘not me’. Collectivists often miss this datum.

          The collectivists accuse me of being “selfish,” but what’s the alternative? Am I the one who sends men with guns to seize a major chunk of your earnings to finance wars and pay off crooked cops?

          And always, the easiest and least harmful way for me to get what I want is by peaceful voluntary exchange with other free people.

          And when I have the wherewithal to secure my own “persons, houses, papers, and effects” from marauders, uniformed and otherwise, then “the common defense” becomes somewhat moot.

  11. avatar Armchair Command'oh says:

    The bill hasn’t failed yet. It was, for a time, stalled. It is up for a committee vote today at 3 p.m., which will give us some indication as to whether Hammer un-stalled it.

  12. avatar Mack Bolan says:

    And in a state of emergency, when the local LEO and EMS would more than likely be tending to their own families, exactly how will this be enforced and why would I care?

    1. avatar jwm says:

      During a true emergency you have to do what is needed to protect yourself and family. Just remember, that the emergency will pass and rule of law will be restored. At that time if you have behaved in an unworthy manner you may face the charges for your actions.

      The New Orleans cops that were charged and convicted of the bridge killings no doubt thought they would never be called to account.

      1. avatar ropingdown says:

        The last I heard, those convictions were overturned on appeal and remanded for re-trial.
        http://www.propublica.org/nola/story/danziger-bridge-convictions-overturned/

  13. avatar Dave357 says:

    University campus carry and constitutional carry have been two items that appear to run into the stiffest opposition even in pro-gun states, worse even than “guns in bars”, “guns in churches”, or what have you. Well, one has to keep trying.

  14. avatar Dave357 says:

    Interestingly, Dean Weingarten writes that Mr. Gorman’s testimony has not necessarily met with approval by his superiors.

    http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2014/04/fl-military-lawyer-misspoke-on.html

  15. avatar Mecha75 says:

    Just watched the committee vote live on line. it actually just passed along party line 5 to 4.

    1. avatar Robert Farago says:

      Text amended.

  16. avatar Big Gator says:

    We may all be a little ahead of ourselves here. CS/SB 296 is alive and well. The Committee Military and Veterans Affairs, Space, and Domestic Security is suppose to take up the bill this afternoon. For all the crap she catches I think NRA lobbyist Marion Hammer has worked her tail off on this bill. There is even some reports that Gov Rick Scott and the National Guard have come out in support of the bill. Senator Jeff Brandes, a St. Petersburg Republican who sponsored the bill, has not given up hope. He is optimistic that the bill will pass and become law.

    http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Bills/billsdetail.aspx?BillId=51312&sui=b22FPNEmbVE=-

    1. Maybe we should have some kind of internet award “Gun Culture Hero” of the day/week/month. Could be just an article praising their actions.

      I know Marion has already got a wall full, but it might be appropriate. It was her work that got the whole CCW ball rolling.

  17. avatar Mecha75 says:

    Big gator. I watched the vid stream of the vote. It passed the committee 5-4.

  18. avatar Left Leaning Gunny says:

    RF writes “They believe that people are fundamentally irrational, uncontrollable animals.”

    Well, there is something to that, the “uncontrollable animals” part anyway. It’s THOSE FOLKS that we need to be armed against.

    About a year after hurricane Katrina, Megadoom, an EMT who was there as an emergency responder, posted his diary. It was a lengthy, meaty read. Frightening, but not surprising. Utter collapse IMMEDIATELY. Rape, murder, looting, everything you can and, hopefully, CAN’T imagine happened.

    Unfortunately, the doom forum he posted to is no more, and I cannot find any cached web copies of it.

    This is give you a flavor of the fun:

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/exclusive-brits-hell-inside-the-terror-555891

    I’m no doomer, but in an emergency, I think even *WE* will be shocked and surprised what’s going to take place.

    1. avatar Kyle in CT says:

      Agreed. Simple question: In a situation like Katrina, would you rather be in the middle of a city, or have to fend for yourself away from other people? Personally, I don’t have much confidence in the niceties of society lasting too much past the electricity going out, not when fist fights broke out at gas stations during a week-long power outage following an October snow storm. As for how that impacts what people carry during an emergency . . . I wouldn’t stick around to find out how it plays out.

    2. avatar ropingdown says:

      I couldn’t find a link to the EMT’s story, only links that led to Gold Bug spam. Do you have one?

      I agree that people don’t know how quickly people turn on each other. Those that lack discipline in good times lose it all when the power goes out and the food stops being delivered to the neighborhood.

      The link you did provide, to the report of the British students, was astounding: They basically went to NO after every radio and TV in the US was reporting it was about to be destroyed. Very very odd, but very student, I suppose.

  19. avatar Mina says:

    Great article. Dead on.

    But call the other side by their names: The Progressives, The Leftists. The Enemy of all that is good.

    1. avatar Left Leaning Gunny says:

      Whoa, throttle back homeboy. There are MANY lefties and progressives that are strongly Pro-2A and strongly anti-nanny state. I am one of those. Trust me when I say you would want ME by your side in any situation.

      Don’t press the NUKE ALL LEFTIES button unless you want to lose some friends as well.

      1. avatar Mina says:

        I have a very specific mindset “people of the state, by the state for the state” generalized mentality when I say this.

        If you aren’t a progressive trying to move our society towards communism then I don’t mean you. Fair enough?

      2. avatar Matt in TX says:

        You are an old style Democrat. Hannity had clips of Kennady talking smaller government. The democrat party has been taken over by the far left socialists. I am afraid that many people (myself included in unguarded moments) consider the partei synonymous with leftist. Old guard Dems are more like the Libertarians than leftists.
        I am glad to have you on our team.

        1. avatar Rich Grise says:

          Old guard Republicans were pretty moderate too. It’s like they were arguing whether America is a Democracy or a Republic, but they both followed the Constitution. Nowadays, the only difference is the letter. They’re all thugs who want power over you.

          For The Children™.

  20. avatar Michael B. says:

    What’s the status of the poptart bill?

    1. avatar William Burke says:

      If you’re going to chew it into the shape of a gun, it has to be toasted first.

      1. avatar Michael B. says:

        Haha. But no, seriously, there’s a proposed law floating around the FL legislature banning teachers and school administrators from being morons about gun stuff.

        It needs to be passed, signed off on, and then similar efforts need to be made in other states.

        1. avatar William Burke says:

          “there’s a proposed law floating around the FL legislature banning teachers and school administrators from being morons about gun stuff.”

          Yeah, good luck with that.

        2. avatar Col. Angus says:

          What about all the other things about which they’re morons?

  21. avatar Mecha75 says:

    Florida senate SB1060. (Aka the Poptart bill). Has passed 2 of 3 committees. It currently is in the judiciary committee

  22. avatar Jay In Florida says:

    I for one am sick of being told “this is for my own good”.
    Im perfectly capable of my own decision making under duress and stress.
    Who in my local gubbermint has the right to say otherwise.
    If during a declared emergency.
    Im going to do whats best for me at that time.
    Ive lived through some of the worst hurricanes Florida has had. At no time was I told what where or when.
    Not that Id listen anyway.
    My house had $180K worth of damage during the last big one.
    If anyone thinks Im leaving whats left of my home to be ransacked by the unwashed.
    They are nuttz.

    1. avatar William Burke says:

      1.8 MILLION?

      Well, when I posted that, your post said $1800K, which is $1.8 million… but as soon as my post posted, it said $180K.

  23. avatar stateisevil says:

    Permitless concealed carry just passed the latest committee stop

    https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2014/0296/Vote/2014-04-01%200300PM~S0296%20Vote%20Record.PDF

    Neocon republican Charlie Dean voting against the bill with Democrat Abruzzo voting for it.

    1. avatar Michael B. says:

      I wouldn’t call them neocons unless you know for sure that they are. I don’t think there are any paleocons in our state legislature but there are a lot of establishment Republicans who need their arms twisted to get things done.

  24. avatar Unapologetic American says:

    This is the d-bag Terrence Gorman’s FB page https://www.facebook.com/terrence.gorman.56/friends?ft_ref=frh

    Check out the photos of his friends, most are in U.S. Army stormtroopers ie. Public Safety/Civil Affairs. He’s an indoctrinated stooge, graduate of Villa Nova.

    Ain’t the internet great, we can look up almost anybody.

    BTW Here’s the Fast & Furious Case Agent Hope MacAllister FB page https://www.facebook.com/hope.macallister?fref=ts

    It seems she’s been assigned to K-9 duty.

  25. avatar TyrannyofEvilMen says:

    The author has a good start. The anti-liberty crowd doesn’t trust their neighbors, but they also don’t trust themselves. This is why, for example, they never make any distinction between criminals and law-abiding citizens in their arguments. The only difference between you (or themselves) and Charles Manson is simply a bad set of circuistances. With such a world-view, true liberty is unthinkable.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email