Florida Concealed Carry banner
41 - 60 of 65 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,012 Posts
I know that 99% of politicians only care about one thing other than money and that's getting reelected
Yet you sing their praises? And compel us to trust them in terms of responding to our efforts to petition them??
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
400 Posts
Discussion Starter · #43 ·
Yet you sing their praises? And compel us to trust them in terms of responding to our efforts to petition them??
Where did I ever sing their praises. I have said that they respond to pressure from the people that voted for them. If they get enough phone calls and emails they respond with their vote. They won't give you a personal reply.

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
400 Posts
Discussion Starter · #45 ·
You really believe that compromise has not always been a part of politics? Wow. I just... Wow.
Always is definitive. Sometimes they have compromise sometimes they don't. When the House and Senate of this state first drew the redistricting maps that was compromise, why because they were a bunch of wussies. Then DeSantis got involved and shoved it down the Democrats throat with a map that he drew. No compromise.

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,720 Posts
This issue still confuses me. Does every state with Constitutional Carry have force of law signage? If yes, OK, I get the concern. If not, why so much concern that we would have to endure FOL signage if we were to have it here in Florida? If we have enough politicians backing Constitutional Carry why would they want to counteract that with the signage crap, and why would DeSantis even have a signage bill on his desk for a signature for more that 5 seconds?
I’ll give you an example of why many show concern. Texas.

Texas has historically been very conservative. Very pro-2nd Amendment. Certainly no less than Florida IMHO. A few years ago they passed open carry. Woohoo! Celebration time right? Whoops! Hang on a minute..they included stupid signs as a bonus package.

Flash forward to the most right wing governor I’ve seen. A pro-Trump, definitely anti-Biden governor. They pass constitutional carry. Do they abolish stupid signs to make it more aligned with the 2nd? No. They double down and add even another stupid sign to worry about.

Signs with force of law behind them effectively render any so-called progress moot. As a carrier who wants to stay legal, you‘re faced with a choice, see the sign, make an about face, make the walk of shame back to your car to leave the gun there or don’t go in. Either way, hardly the bar set by the 2nd I’d say.

Right now, you folks in Florida can go just about anywhere you please. There are honestly few prohibited places. If you see a sign, it means nothing. You’ve got it pretty good. You just have to obtain a stupid license. I think what your seeing here is the majority of carriers would choose the stupid license over even the perceived risk of stupid signs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,223 Posts
I’ll give you an example of why many show concern. Texas.

Texas has historically been very conservative. Very pro-2nd Amendment. Certainly no less than Florida IMHO. A few years ago they passed open carry. Woohoo! Celebration time right? Whoops! Hang on a minute..they included stupid signs as a bonus package.

Flash forward to the most right wing governor I’ve seen. A pro-Trump, definitely anti-Biden governor. They pass constitutional carry. Do they abolish stupid signs to make it more aligned with the 2nd? No. They double down and add even another stupid sign to worry about.

Signs with force of law behind them effectively render any so-called progress moot. As a carrier who wants to stay legal, you‘re faced with a choice, see the sign, make an about face, make the walk of shame back to your car to leave the gun there or don’t go in. Either way, hardly the bar set by the 2nd I’d say.

Right now, you folks in Florida can go just about anywhere you please. There are honestly few prohibited places. If you see a sign, it means nothing. You’ve got it pretty good. You just have to obtain a stupid license. I think what your seeing here is the majority of carriers would choose the stupid license over even the perceived risk of stupid signs.
I agree but I think they need to eliminate the fee for the license. Why should we have to pay for the right to carry a firearm.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,323 Posts
I agree but I think they need to eliminate the fee for the license. Why should we have to pay for the right to carry a firearm.
We pay for the right to carry our firearms, concealed, outside of our homes.
But we do not pay to carry our firearms on our own property, whether concealed or not.

It is a fine line, I agree.
And I'm sure you knew the answer -- just..., as annoyed with it as the rest of us.
(Although I would not open carry outside the home anyway, and on some level, I like to think that the small fee and hoops requisite to obtaining a CCW license keeps all the ill-informed (i.e., unsafe) would be carriers out there out of my immediate vicinity.

Which of course, we all know that answer to that too. :poop:

The poop emoji is more because I'm still not feeling much better this morning. (coming off a cold)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,587 Posts
I agree but I think they need to eliminate the fee for the license. Why should we have to pay for the right to carry a firearm.
Maybe because issuing those licenses has a cost and is not free? Computers, printers, scanners, materials, staff... if the recipients of the license shouldn't have to pay for them, who should?

From a different perspective, we have a right to free speech, so if I wanted to go and protest outside a government agency, should I demand Office Depot just give me the materials I need to make a picket sign in order to exercise that right, or should I expect to fork over a few of my own dollars for cardboard and markers?

My polling place is 1.4 miles from my home. Who is supposed to pick up my gasoline expenses for that round trip on election day, or must I walk it?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,831 Posts
Maybe because issuing those licenses has a cost and is not free? Computers, printers, scanners, materials, staff... if the recipients of the license shouldn't have to pay for them, who should?
Yeah, I don't mind paying roughly $45 every 7 years to renew the license. And, yes, processing them does cost a little $$$. Now, if it was determined that the $$$ were going to other things that might benefit the DOACS commissioner in a bad way for us, then yeah, I'd reject that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,012 Posts
Maybe because issuing those licenses has a cost and is not free? Computers, printers, scanners, materials, staff... if the recipients of the license shouldn't have to pay for them, who should?

From a different perspective, we have a right to free speech, so if I wanted to go and protest outside a government agency, should I demand Office Depot just give me the materials I need to make a picket sign in order to exercise that right, or should I expect to fork over a few of my own dollars for cardboard and markers?

My polling place is 1.4 miles from my home. Who is supposed to pick up my gasoline expenses for that round trip on election day, or must I walk it?
Honestly, I'm quite surprised at this coming from you.

There should be no LICENSE AT ALL. It's not that there is a fee. It's that there is a license to assert and practice our Constitutional Rights. A license to be armed is akin to a license to vote or a license to exercise Free Speech.

No... they shouldn't have to pay expenses involved in exercising those Rights. So, yeah... the gov't shouldn't have to supply our guns or our protest posters. But, we shouldn't have to pay the GOV'T for PERMISSION to buy and carry a gun... or a sign in a protest.

A fee for a license to exercise a Right is no different than a poll tax.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Riverpigusmc

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,831 Posts
Honestly, I'm quite surprised at this coming from you.

There should be no LICENSE AT ALL. It's not that there is a fee. It's that there is a license to assert and practice our Constitutional Rights. A license to be armed is akin to a license to vote or a license to exercise Free Speech.

No... they shouldn't have to pay expenses involved in exercising those Rights. So, yeah... the gov't shouldn't have to supply our guns or our protest posters. But, we shouldn't have to pay the GOV'T for PERMISSION to buy and carry a gun... or a sign in a protest.

A fee for a license to exercise a Right is no different than a poll tax.
I would certainly agree with you on this. However, until we get "national" constitutional carry/reciprocity, I think we'll still need a license for reciprocity purposes. And, I don't mind paying for that for reasons of practicality if nothing else. Does it suck? Absolutely. But, like I say, until const. carry and reciprocity go "national," I think were stuck with the license, and paying the fee.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,012 Posts
However, until we get "national" constitutional carry/reciprocity, I think we'll still need a license for reciprocity purposes.
Good point.

And, I don't mind paying for that for reasons of practicality if nothing else. Does it suck? Absolutely. But, like I say, until const. carry and reciprocity go "national," I think were stuck with the license, and paying the fee.
I don't mind paying either. And, I'd pay more, if I had to. However, I recognize not everyone has the means. And, that's not fair.

But, in your scenario it would be "voluntary" to a degree.

My point is that a license fee / tax to exercise a Constitutional Right is... well... unconstitutional.

As for when we'll have national reciprocity... here's me holding my breath.
https://thumbs.gfycat.com/ImpossibleKindlyAddax-max-1mb.gif
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,587 Posts
Honestly, I'm quite surprised at this coming from you.

There should be no LICENSE AT ALL. It's not that there is a fee. It's that there is a license to assert and practice our Constitutional Rights. A license to be armed is akin to a license to vote or a license to exercise Free Speech.

No... they shouldn't have to pay expenses involved in exercising those Rights. So, yeah... the gov't shouldn't have to supply our guns or our protest posters. But, we shouldn't have to pay the GOV'T for PERMISSION to buy and carry a gun... or a sign in a protest.

A fee for a license to exercise a Right is no different than a poll tax.
I'm surprised that you'd try to take a question over who should pay for a license and straw-man it into whether or not a license is appropriate in the first place. I see those as two different questions. The fact is, whether right or wrong, we do have a license right now, and that license has expenses associated with producing it and issuing it. I believe the proper place to source the revenue to provide it is on the recipients. I would expect someone seeking a fishing license (yes, I realize the difference between right and privilege, just using this as an example) to pay for their license; I wouldn't expect the revenue to come from a bed tax on hotel stays.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,012 Posts
I'm surprised that you'd try to take a question over who should pay for a license and straw-man it into whether or not a license is appropriate in the first place. I see those as two different questions. The fact is, whether right or wrong, we do have a license right now, and that license has expenses associated with producing it and issuing it. I believe the proper place to source the revenue to provide it is on the recipients. I would expect someone seeking a fishing license (yes, I realize the difference between right and privilege, just using this as an example) to pay for their license; I wouldn't expect the revenue to come from a bed tax on hotel stays.
You made the false equivalency of a license fee (aka tax) for a Constitutional Right and covering GAS expenses or poster board expenses to get to a protest. LOL!

Also... look up Straw Man. I did not substitute your argument with an exaggerated position. I refuted the notion that a tax on a Right is appropriate at all.

Comparing it to gas expenses on the way to a protest is really a non sequitur if we want to delve into the realm of logical fallacies.

It just seemed really odd coming from you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,587 Posts
Racer, I teach what a straw man argument is for a living. Time and time again I've seen you sling that phrase around when it truly doesn't apply and have held my tongue. But not here, since you're teaching exactly what it and false equivalency is NOT. Please consider this professional courtesy, as I'm sure you would do that for me were I to mistakenly spread misinformation about the practice of dentistry.

False equivalence is when a proposition is set forth that makes the claim that A is the equivalent of B. False equivalence is NOT when you use an example of one thing to illustrate the point of another thing, such as a simile. The claim that A is like B is not false equivalence. If I were to say that taking an Uber ride is like (<-key word there) taking a taxi, I am not making the claim that Uber is the equivalent of a taxi, only that it bears similarity, in this case you get a ride and you pay a fee. To claim it's false equivalency is to make the assumption that the writer is claiming they are one in the same, which isn't true. There are obvious differences between the two, such as licensing/permitting, mileage metering, etc. If I said an Uber is exactly the same as a taxi, THAT would be false equivalence. The test for false equivalence is, does the assertion claim they are identical? If so, and they're not identical, it's false equivalence. If it's merely a comparison that demonstrates commonality or similarity, it's not false equivalence. To say that a cat and a dog are alike because both are mammals with fur is not the same as saying a cat is the same as a dog. To compare their behavior - both my cat and my dog like to sleep on my lap - is not to say that both animals are equivalent.

A Straw Man argument at it's essence is a distortion of truth that contains a mistake. Usually, the mistake falls into one of two categories. It either distorts the position asserted in the original argument, or it provides information, either true or false, that does nothing to support or refute the original argument.

If you look back in this thread, I responded to the question of why is there a fee for a license with the argument that those licenses have costs associated with them, and the argument that I believe those who benefit should bear the cost. You answered this with the argument that "There should be no LICENSE AT ALL. It's not that there is a fee. It's that there is a license to assert and practice our Constitutional Rights." So put your statement to the test: Does it distort the position I took? Yes, since I made no comment on whether or not a license is appropriate, I only addressed the license fee. Second, did you answer provide information that supported or refuted what I said about license fees? No. You in effect answered my comment on fees with an answer on the appropriateness of a license in the first place. It's the failure of both of those things that causes your argument to fall into fallacy, in this case, a Straw Man fallacy.

Many times you will hear it commonly stated that the purpose of a Straw Man is to make the original argument easier to attack, but you have to be careful with this because that's only true if the original position IS attacked under this mode of fallacious argument, and most often it isn't attacked, but some other argument never stated is attacked in its place. Our discussion about fees is an example of that. It's also possible to fall into a related fallacy of Steelmanning, which is where the original argument is strengthened before it's refuted. It once again distorts the truth of the original argument.


For what it's worth, I don't think there ought to be a license to practice a constitutional right, per se. But then I have to consider that our justice system routinely takes away some of those rights such as convicted felons not being allowed to possess firearms. If I accept the latter as good policy, I must then contend with the question of how do we sort out the legal ones from the illegal ones, and one schema of doing that is the licensing process. Another way would be to assume everyone is legal, but that would allow those who violate the law to escape culpability. Yet another way would be to assume everyone is IL-legal, and anyone caught carrying is hauled down to the local LEA for it to be sorted out. Neither seems as practicable a solution as licensing, and that's not to say there might not be a better solution out there. Is licensing the best way to go about it? Does the burden of licensing the legal ones become such a hurdle that we stop stripping the right from felons?

Each of those are separate but related questions, and my point in presenting them is to demonstrate that the issue involved is more complex than simply a question of "license to exercise a constitutional right, yes or no?"
 
  • Like
Reactions: knite7

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,012 Posts
TLDR.

I'll just leave this here, Teach.

Font Art Rectangle Circle Number



I did not overstate your argument in order to defeat it. Instead I made a SEPARATE argument that a fee / tax to exercise a Right is unconstitutional.

The end.

Do you think I went to a "tech school?" That my education is limited to the very specific tasks that are part of my work? I'm therefore unqualified to opine about ANYTHING else, by your estimation? That's BS. Maybe you're not aware of the education involved... that goes WAY beyond the technical side of my work.

That's not to include the 30+ years of continuing education, much of it self-directed in various subjects.

BTW, I hear opinions from laypersons on my field ALL THE TIME. ALLLLLLLL the time. DAILY! LOL! It goes with the territory.

But, anyhooo... carry on. I shall bow my way out. But, any time anyone attacks our Rights, I'll be there. You don't like it? Tough sh*t.

Oh... here's another logical fallacy to call on you: Appeal to Authority. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
400 Posts
Discussion Starter · #59 ·
Racer, I teach what a straw man argument is for a living. Time and time again I've seen you sling that phrase around when it truly doesn't apply and have held my tongue. But not here, since you're teaching exactly what it and false equivalency is NOT. Please consider this professional courtesy, as I'm sure you would do that for me were I to mistakenly spread misinformation about the practice of dentistry.

False equivalence is when a proposition is set forth that makes the claim that A is the equivalent of B. False equivalence is NOT when you use an example of one thing to illustrate the point of another thing, such as a simile. The claim that A is like B is not false equivalence. If I were to say that taking an Uber ride is like (permitting, mileage metering, etc. If I said an Uber is exactly the same as a taxi, THAT would be false equivalence. The test for false equivalence is, does the assertion claim they are identical? If so, and they're not identical, it's false equivalence. If it's merely a comparison that demonstrates commonality or similarity, it's not false equivalence. To say that a cat and a dog are alike because both are mammals with fur is not the same as saying a cat is the same as a dog. To compare their behavior - both my cat and my dog like to sleep on my lap - is not to say that both animals are equivalent.

A Straw Man argument at it's essence is a distortion of truth that contains a mistake. Usually, the mistake falls into one of two categories. It either distorts the position asserted in the original argument, or it provides information, either true or false, that does nothing to support or refute the original argument.

If you look back in this thread, I responded to the question of why is there a fee for a license with the argument that those licenses have costs associated with them, and the argument that I believe those who benefit should bear the cost. You answered this with the argument that "There should be no LICENSE AT ALL. It's not that there is a fee. It's that there is a license to assert and practice our Constitutional Rights." So put your statement to the test: Does it distort the position I took? Yes, since I made no comment on whether or not a license is appropriate, I only addressed the license fee. Second, did you answer provide information that supported or refuted what I said about license fees? No. You in effect answered my comment on fees with an answer on the appropriateness of a license in the first place. It's the failure of both of those things that causes your argument to fall into fallacy, in this case, a Straw Man fallacy.

Many times you will hear it commonly stated that the purpose of a Straw Man is to make the original argument easier to attack, but you have to be careful with this because that's only true if the original position IS attacked under this mode of fallacious argument, and most often it isn't attacked, but some other argument never stated is attacked in its place. Our discussion about fees is an example of that. It's also possible to fall into a related fallacy of Steelmanning, which is where the original argument is strengthened before it's refuted. It once again distorts the truth of the original argument.


For what it's worth, I don't think there ought to be a license to practice a constitutional right, per se. But then I have to consider that our justice system routinely takes away some of those rights such as convicted felons not being allowed to possess firearms. If I accept the latter as good policy, I must then contend with the question of how do we sort out the legal ones from the illegal ones, and one schema of doing that is the licensing process. Another way would be to assume everyone is legal, but that would allow those who violate the law to escape culpability. Yet another way would be to assume everyone is IL-legal, and anyone caught carrying is hauled down to the local LEA for it to be sorted out. Neither seems as practicable a solution as licensing, and that's not to say there might not be a better solution out there. Is licensing the best way to go about it? Does the burden of licensing the legal ones become such a hurdle that we stop stripping the right from felons?

Each of those are separate but related questions, and my point in presenting them is to demonstrate that the issue involved is more complex than simply a question of "license to exercise a constitutional right, yes or no?"
THIS ^^^^ TIMES 10

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk
 
41 - 60 of 65 Posts
Top