Permit To Carry

^^ like. Most of my neighbors/friends in Florida are retired Military/Law Enforcement. I think they know how to use a firearm:)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by finsfurfeathers

From the west isn't Alaska in the way, over the pole wouldn't that trigger a NATO response, you got the states on the south, and from the east any attack literally would be seen from miles away. Think invasion is highly unlikely.

You got a pulse?...here's your permit.

---

LOL, I've read the theories from the US Army War College lesson plans. Without a very strong military deterrent force, Canada really is a sitting duck. By the time NATO and/or the UN was finished their dithering and wringing of hands,the damage would be done. Our cities would look like Gaza and Beirut.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gregger17

You got a pulse?...here's your permit.

You have no idea what you’re talking about. I’ve owned a home in Florida for a long time. Please stop spewing garbage.

---

FFF's statement is partially correct. In Florida, you do need a pulse. You don't need a permit.

https://giffords.org/lawcenter/state...ry-in-florida/

Quote:

---

In 2023, Florida eliminated its law that required a person to get a permit, background check, and safety training before carrying a hidden, loaded firearm in public.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marker

This is the problem with gun ownership in Canada also, it is far too easy and cheap to get a gun and that is reflected in disrespectful behaviour by some (certainly not all) gun owners. I have been out hunting with guys who have no concept of arc of fire, fire and movement, or trigger management. If the civilian gun courses included more field work and be more expensive this would create a much more responsible gun owner population.
Mathew McConaughey speaks of creating a more responsible gun population in order to avert the antis from eroding our gun privileges, until the testing standards are raised I doubt the occurrences of irresponsibility will change.

---

X2
Alas some irresponsible characters DO stain this reputation, and the public outcry is always many times stronger then the fact may be-i tend to believe, irresponsibleness is present as much as in any other sport.
Yes-in Europe,many countries have similar solutions(safe handling trainings and tests)some even annually-before hunting season.
Can not pass-can not hunt.

More and more states are doing away with the permit system all together - our constitution gives a citizen the right to bear arms so why is a permit to exercise a constitutional right required - there are laws that suppose to prevent convicted felons from owning guns - gun ownership is very important - ask any Oct 7 victim in Israel - their government disarmed the people and they were sitting ducks - remember - one guy with a gun came change the course of history

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marker

This is the problem with gun ownership in Canada also, it is far too easy and cheap to get a gun and that is reflected in disrespectful behaviour by some (certainly not all) gun owners. I have been out hunting with guys who have no concept of arc of fire, fire and movement, or trigger management. If the civilian gun courses included more field work and be more expensive this would create a much more responsible gun owner population.
Mathew McConaughey speaks of creating a more responsible gun population in order to avert the antis from eroding our gun privileges, until the testing standards are raised I doubt the occurrences of irresponsibility will change.

---

Cheap and easy? Back in the 1970's you could walk into a Canadian Tire, plunk down a150 bucks and walk out with a winchester 12ga semi automatic. No firearms course, no hunter safety course and no permits. All that and we didn't have near the gun problems back then. Don't blame the guns or access to them. Blame the decline in Canadian society.

The firearms course teaches the elements you list as missing... " no concept of arc of fire, fire and movement, or trigger management. " Sure, field work might help, but I suspect the people that you hunt with that are problematic would be problematic with additional training.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by werner.reiche

Cheap and easy? Back in the 1970's you could walk into a Canadian Tire, plunk down a150 bucks and walk out with a winchester 12ga semi automatic. No firearms course, no hunter safety course and no permits. All that and we didn't have near the gun problems back then. Don't blame the guns or access to them. Blame the decline in Canadian society.

The firearms course teaches the elements you list as missing... " no concept of arc of fire, fire and movement, or trigger management. " Sure, field work might help, but I suspect the people that you hunt with that are problematic would be problematic with additional training.

---

The current civilian courses do not teach the elements to the degree I am referring to, in the field with a practical test, its not possible to do so in two days inside class room/range. I do recall seeing pictures of arc of fire, I have no recollection at all learning about fire and movement, and trigger management while mentioned in class was largely ignored during the hands-on dry fire class training. Problematic people can be trained as many times as it takes, its all about the training not the individual.

In totality, I am referring to the concept of gun owners taking more responsibility for the legislation before the anti's do. If we as a group lobby the government to create more restrictive controls there would be less reason for the anti's to say 'you cannot control yourselves therefore we are going to do it for you' by removing your privileges. The government will just listen to the group with the most voting cards in hand, and looking back historically, the government has taken the 'lose privileges' approach.

We as a group of gun owners can take action to create more restrictive ownership rules to hedge against losing our privileges. We can ask ourselves, do we want tighter gun ownership rules, or do we want to lose our privileges. The Liberal government has made it clear they want to take away privileges, our only mechanism to control this is to control ourselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoePa

More and more states are doing away with the permit system all together - our constitution gives a citizen the right to bear arms so why is a permit to exercise a constitutional right required - there are laws that suppose to prevent convicted felons from owning guns - gun ownership is very important - ask any Oct 7 victim in Israel - their government disarmed the people and they were sitting ducks - remember - one guy with a gun came change the course of history

---

In my opinion the failure was their own government for taking away gun rights and at the same time not funding the military to create a rapid response unit. This flaw was exposed and attacked.
When I was in the UK the British army had a section (eight soldiers) on standby with a dedicated helicopter 24hrs a day, there were three sections that took rotating shifts, the helicopter was stationed on base right beside the mess hall, that was durring the first gulf invasion.

We as a group of gun owners can take action to create more restrictive ownership rules to hedge against losing our privileges. We can ask ourselves, do we want tighter gun ownership rules, or do we want to lose our privileges. The Liberal government has made it clear they want to take away privileges, our only mechanism to control this is to control ou-

Boy I have issue with this approach - the antigun group has one agenda - that is to take away everyone's guns - period - by agreeing to more restrictive gun laws all you are doing is making it easier for them to attain their goal - gun owners need to join forces and fight any more restrictive gun laws and do every possible to get rid of the laws now on the books - remember - an armed society is a free society - everyone should have the right to protect themselves and their families -

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marker

In totality, I am referring to the concept of gun owners taking more responsibility for the legislation before the anti's do. If we as a group lobby the government to create more restrictive controls there would be less reason for the anti's to say 'you cannot control yourselves therefore we are going to do it for you' by removing your privileges. The government will just listen to the group with the most voting cards in hand, and looking back historically, the government has taken the 'lose privileges' approach.

We as a group of gun owners can take action to create more restrictive ownership rules to hedge against losing our privileges. We can ask ourselves, do we want tighter gun ownership rules, or do we want to lose our privileges. The Liberal government has made it clear they want to take away privileges, our only mechanism to control this is to control ourselves.

---

Can't disagree more. The policy of acquiescence and appeasement is exactly what has gotten Canadian gun owners to the point where we now find ourselves. Instead of continually cowering in fear behind these policies hoping we'll only get beaten a little bit,we have no choice,now,but, to go on the offensive against all forms of Liberal "little bitism". That entails an active campaign to eliminate all regulations which have been enacted since the very beginning including The Firearms Act,it's add-on useless regulations and amendments and to amend the Criminal Code to make interferring with all things firearm related except criminal use,a very serious offense as a deterrent. No more "Nice guy".