I'm dissappointed in Fl.

This is a discussion on I'm dissappointed in Fl. within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by Cartman I am torn on this one. While I agree that many of the courses out there leave a lot to be ...

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 48

Thread: I'm dissappointed in Fl.

  1. #16
    GM
    GM is offline
    VIP Member Array GM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    6,866
    Quote Originally Posted by Cartman View Post
    I am torn on this one. While I agree that many of the courses out there leave a lot to be desired, I am hesitant to give The State, local or federal, any more excuses to expand its control of our daily lives. Gun ownership (including carrying) isn't like a driver's license or other privilege, it is the right of a free person. An expanded class requirement from the government means another mass hire of government employees and an expanded bureaucracy (I promise they would not be able to do it with available resources...promise). The mediocrities who do not seek knowledge and expertise will continue to be mediocre after the classes. There is an instinct in our society to solve any issue by increasing the government's control/responsibility for it, and at the risk of being melodramatic, I think the Republic will eventually cease to exist if we do not reverse this trend (I personally feel it's too late, but we have to try) I think our best bet is to increase awareness of your concern, a very valid one, through organizations like the NRA. It is politically dicey, as such organizations will tend to want to focus on the positive aspects of CCW holders versus our shortcomings. But if enough of us sound the call, we can create a culture of high standards that can influence people. It will never be perfect, but we can make it better without the government.
    I agree with Cartman.
    Furthermore, I should not blame the state, but the instructor. I do agree with you that 90 minutes is way to short time; but again, it was the instructor’s fault.
    Consider the consequences of having mandatory training. Do you really want the state or the feds to decide that? And what about the 2nd Amendment? Our Constitution and the state gave you the right to carry a firearm (since you refer to FL “a weapon”), it is your responsibility now to be proficient with your firearm/weapon and a good CCWer with all it imply. And if you mess it up in any way, it is your own fault, not the state’s.
    "The Second Amendment: America's Original Homeland Security"

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #17
    Moderator
    Array RETSUPT99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    44,398
    Some of you fellows are missing the BIG point. We shouldn't have to take a course anyway...it's a right. We should have the RKBA without the need for a course or training.
    The country might be better served by having a certificated and required, extensive training courses in 'raising children'.

    Having stated the initial point, one is only risking his/her own life by not getting advanced/extended training on SD.
    If one thinks that instead of taking a 2-hour course and firing one round is any less dangerous than taking an 8-hour course and firing 50 rounds...explain, because in today's world of dirtbags and crime, an armed citizen needs LOTS of training and practice to manitain an awareness and readiness level not offered in any firearms license course...1 hour or 8 hours.OMHO
    The last Blood Moon Tetrad for this millennium starts in April 2014 and ends in September 2015...according to NASA.

    ***********************************
    Certified Glock Armorer
    NRA Life Member[/B]

  4. #18
    VIP Member Array 9MMare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,309
    I see 2 sides to this (as others have).

    I think that the right to carry should be just that...unless you are a convicted felon or have mental illness, you should have the right to carry....no questions asked, no training required.

    In my state, that IS all that was required. It is our responsibility to get training and to know the laws. And we pay the consequences if we dont.

    Does that make us less safe in WA?

    In a recent post I compared it to parenthood. Anyone can have a kid...should everyone? IMO, no. And with parenthood comes many responsibilities (but there's no training required! ;-) ) But there's no way we can or should restrict this right.

    Same with carrying a gun. You cant make people be responsible, even if they have some training, even if they 'qualify'. You can only rely on education and personal responsibility.

    Hence my signature line. Do we want more laws that bind us so the govt can try to 'protect' us? Or do we want to be responsible for ourselves? (As a group, I think that means education on gun ownership, outreach, and discourse ...as we do here.)
    Fortune favors the bold.

    Freedom doesn't mean safe, it means free.

    The thing about "defense" is that it has practically nothing to do with guns. (As passed on by CCW9MM)

  5. #19
    VIP Member Array 9MMare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,309
    Quote Originally Posted by retsupt99 View Post
    Some of you fellows are missing the BIG point. We shouldn't have to take a course anyway...it's a right. We should have the RKBA without the need for a course or training.
    The country might be better served by having a certificated and required, extensive training courses in 'raising children'.
    LOL, I was typing as you wrote this.
    Fortune favors the bold.

    Freedom doesn't mean safe, it means free.

    The thing about "defense" is that it has practically nothing to do with guns. (As passed on by CCW9MM)

  6. #20
    GM
    GM is offline
    VIP Member Array GM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    6,866
    Quote Originally Posted by retsupt99 View Post
    Some of you fellows are missing the BIG point. We shouldn't have to take a course anyway...it's a right. We should have the RKBA without the need for a course or training.
    The country might be better served by having a certificated and required, extensive training courses in 'raising children'.

    Having stated the initial point, one is only risking his/her own life by not getting advanced/extended training on SD.
    If one thinks that instead of taking a 2-hour course and firing one round is any less dangerous than taking an 8-hour course and firing 50 rounds...explain, because in today's world of dirtbags and crime, an armed citizen needs LOTS of training and practice to manitain an awareness and readiness level not offered in any firearms license course...1 hour or 8 hours.OMHO
    I must say you got a point here
    By the way, I agree with the rest of your post too.
    "The Second Amendment: America's Original Homeland Security"

  7. #21
    Senior Member Array Rob P.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    In the sticks
    Posts
    631
    I believe that we're all missing something here.

    IF, there is a right to keep and bear arms, then the STATE has the ability to regulate HOW those arms are carried. Fl obviously chose to regulate arms by requiring them to be concealed. Thus, the State has nothing to do with "how" the arm is used or proficiency of the bearer other than minimal licensing requirements.

    The INSTRUCTOR also has nothing to do with proficiency or "how" the arms is used other than the minimal required for certification by the State. And, in fact, doing more than the standard required could possible subject the instructor to legal liability.

    IF, there were free and open carry/use of arms then the ONLY requirement would be to comply with the laws for justification for the use of the arm. THAT is a responsibility of the bearer and not the State. The burden has not shifted just because the State requires that the arms be concealed and the bearer to have a license for that concealment.

    Thus the State can use the licensing requirement as a revenue stream PROVIDED that the licensing requirement doesn't become a substitute which replaces and nullifies the original right. Which then begs the question, if you cannot bear arms except by permission from the State on HOW those arms are borne, then the right is subjective and not a "right" because the State can deny that permission even in "shall issue" States. (Don't pay the fee don't get the license means that the "right" is subject to being taxed or a fee. If so, it's not a "right" but a privilege.) Which is another question for ANOTHER THREAD than this one so lets not get sidetracked here.

    So, I do not feel as the OP does. The ultimate responsibility is that of the bearer and not the State or the instructor. Thus, neither the State nor the instructor need to go beyond minimal requirements during the class.

  8. #22
    EBC
    EBC is offline
    Member Array EBC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Norwich, CT
    Posts
    94
    Quote Originally Posted by 9MMare View Post
    I see 2 sides to this (as others have).

    I think that the right to carry should be just that...unless you are a convicted felon or have mental illness, you should have the right to carry....no questions asked, no training required.

    In my state, that IS all that was required. It is our responsibility to get training and to know the laws. And we pay the consequences if we dont.

    Does that make us less safe in WA?

    In a recent post I compared it to parenthood. Anyone can have a kid...should everyone? IMO, no. And with parenthood comes many responsibilities (but there's no training required! ;-) ) But there's no way we can or should restrict this right.

    Same with carrying a gun. You cant make people be responsible, even if they have some training, even if they 'qualify'. You can only rely on education and personal responsibility.

    Hence my signature line. Do we want more laws that bind us so the govt can try to 'protect' us? Or do we want to be responsible for ourselves? (As a group, I think that means education on gun ownership, outreach, and discourse ...as we do here.)
    I agree with you whole heartily. ( two kids screaming and playing in the background)
    ***NRA Life Member***
    ***DAV member***
    ***American Legion member***
    ***CCDL member***

  9. #23
    Member Array ItsMyRight2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    SouthFlorida
    Posts
    315
    I too think there should be more training involved. Its real simple to get a permit without showing any kind of competency with a firearm at all. I myself know a few people with CCW's that have no business carrying a gun and I get scared everytime I am around them when they are armed. But I guess I dont make the laws so who am I to say.
    When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.
    The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
    - Thomas Jefferson

  10. #24
    Member Array Cartman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Fort Lauderdale
    Posts
    286
    Quote Originally Posted by retsupt99 View Post
    Some of you fellows are missing the BIG point. We shouldn't have to take a course anyway...it's a right. We should have the RKBA without the need for a course or training.
    The country might be better served by having a certificated and required, extensive training courses in 'raising children'.
    You're right of course. But the perfect fulfillment of what our constitution means is no longer a realistic expectation in the 21st century. Beginning with the end of state sovereignty after the Civil War, continuing with the direct election of senators versus appointment, and finalized with the acceptance of an activist judiciary, our Constitution is forever and permanently compromised. Now we are down to protecting what we still have, because our pathetic public school system, coupled with poor parenting, has resulted in a population that is breathtakingly ignorant and willing to surrender freedom for security. "Keep the government out of my medicare" was being said by people who think they're conservative, for goodness' sake! Sorry to rant, but the ideal you describe is dead. We'll continue the fight of course, but "should have" is gonna lose in this country. Oh well, everything passes away, ay?
    "Some men, you just can't reach"

  11. #25
    GM
    GM is offline
    VIP Member Array GM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    6,866
    Quote Originally Posted by Guns and more View Post
    If taking a class makes you an expert, 16yr. old kids would be great drivers.

    Passing gets you a license, now the real learning begins.
    Amen!
    "The Second Amendment: America's Original Homeland Security"

  12. #26
    GM
    GM is offline
    VIP Member Array GM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    6,866
    Quote Originally Posted by Cartman View Post
    You're right of course. But the perfect fulfillment of what our constitution means is no longer a realistic expectation in the 21st century. Beginning with the end of state sovereignty after the Civil War, continuing with the direct election of senators versus appointment, and finalized with the acceptance of an activist judiciary, our Constitution is forever and permanently compromised. Now we are down to protecting what we still have, because our pathetic public school system, coupled with poor parenting, has resulted in a population that is breathtakingly ignorant and willing to surrender freedom for security. "Keep the government out of my medicare" was being said by people who think they're conservative, for goodness' sake! Sorry to rant, but the ideal you describe is dead. We'll continue the fight of course, but "should have" is gonna lose in this country. Oh well, everything passes away, ay?
    Like Benjamin Franklin said, "Those who give up liberty for the sake of security deserve neither liberty nor security."
    "The Second Amendment: America's Original Homeland Security"

  13. #27
    VIP Member Array 9MMare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,309
    Quote Originally Posted by GM View Post
    Like Benjamin Franklin said, "Those who give up liberty for the sake of security deserve neither liberty nor security."
    Always a favorite! Somewhat related to my sig line
    Fortune favors the bold.

    Freedom doesn't mean safe, it means free.

    The thing about "defense" is that it has practically nothing to do with guns. (As passed on by CCW9MM)

  14. #28
    sgb
    sgb is offline
    VIP Member Array sgb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    You don't need to know
    Posts
    2,414
    Quote Originally Posted by Rob P. View Post
    I believe that we're all missing something here.

    IF, there is a right to keep and bear arms, then the STATE has the ability to regulate HOW those arms are carried. Fl obviously chose to regulate arms by requiring them to be concealed. Thus, the State has nothing to do with "how" the arm is used or proficiency of the bearer other than minimal licensing requirements.

    The INSTRUCTOR also has nothing to do with proficiency or "how" the arms is used other than the minimal required for certification by the State. And, in fact, doing more than the standard required could possible subject the instructor to legal liability.

    IF, there were free and open carry/use of arms then the ONLY requirement would be to comply with the laws for justification for the use of the arm. THAT is a responsibility of the bearer and not the State. The burden has not shifted just because the State requires that the arms be concealed and the bearer to have a license for that concealment.

    Thus the State can use the licensing requirement as a revenue stream PROVIDED that the licensing requirement doesn't become a substitute which replaces and nullifies the original right. Which then begs the question, if you cannot bear arms except by permission from the State on HOW those arms are borne, then the right is subjective and not a "right" because the State can deny that permission even in "shall issue" States. (Don't pay the fee don't get the license means that the "right" is subject to being taxed or a fee. If so, it's not a "right" but a privilege.) Which is another question for ANOTHER THREAD than this one so lets not get sidetracked here.

    So, I do not feel as the OP does. The ultimate responsibility is that of the bearer and not the State or the instructor. Thus, neither the State nor the instructor need to go beyond minimal requirements during the class.
    Well said.

    The State requires the barest of minimum standards to obtain a Florida Concealed Weapons & Firearms license.

    The OP chose to take a Class that fit the Bare Minimum Standard, I place the blame for inadequate training on those who choose it rather than seeking more qualified Instruction. Blame where blame belongs.
    "There is a secret pride in every human heart that revolts at tyranny. You may order and drive an individual, but you cannot make him respect you." William Hazlitt (1778 - 1830)

    Best Choices for Self Defense Ammunition

  15. #29
    Distinguished Member Array GunGeezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,249
    Teenagers get to be better drivers by years of experience behind the wheel after they learn the "rules of the road" and get their license. By that reasoning, a citizen should become a more responsible gun toter after he or she takes the CCW class and after many years of facing life threatening situations, finally figures out when to draw and shoot. I don't think so! Unfortunately it's nearly impossible to practice and teach responsible judgment, especially where firearms are concerned.

    I really believe we , as a population, have forgotten what our forefathers took for granted with regard to firearms responsibility. Now that so many states have liberalized their carry laws and large numbers of citizens have felt the need to exercise their 2A rights, there's bound to be some problems with judgment and responsibility. Quite frankly, I'm surprised it's not worse than it is.

  16. #30
    VIP Member Array 9MMare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,309
    Gun geezer has a point. It wasnt so long ago that kids carried their rifles to school so they could hunt after, that long guns were just normally in the cab of a pickup, that guns...were just that...normal part of society, rather than becoming the focus of public paranoia and violence...the blame is on the tools rather than the society.

    It's evidenced here too...by the self-importance of some people seem to attach to their CC permits. Like it's special...and I'm writing this because we have other threads on the subject right now. (And I recognize that most people here have stated they dont do this...)
    Fortune favors the bold.

    Freedom doesn't mean safe, it means free.

    The thing about "defense" is that it has practically nothing to do with guns. (As passed on by CCW9MM)

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

cwp class naples fl

,

i'm an nra instructor, how do i get setup to teach florida cwp courses

,

minimum live fire qualification for florida cwfl

,

naples fla ccw classes

Click on a term to search for related topics.