Armed and trained citizens: BEST defense against crime, period. If the bad guys (cowards, hiding behind a gun) know that their intended victim might be armed, they might just think twice about assault, robbery, rape, etc. Criminals should be shot to death on the streets by armed citizens-not arrested by cops and sent into the system to be released again to a continued life of crime. Dead criminals can't hurt anyone. Always shoot to kill-within the law-and make the world a better place. Guns in the Federal Parks is a good idea. Gotta protect yourself. Good call.

Or, to take this to an equally logical conclusion, let's say (just as an example) that a pair of outcast loner-type students break into their parents gun lockup, bring some firearms to school, and begin shooting at fellow students. Armed staff members respond to the sound of the first few shots and end the attack swiftly, before there's any large loss of life.

You can play the "what if" game both ways. The fact is, any time law-abiding people are kept from carrying proper weapons to protect themselves while non-law-abiding people will have no such restraints, and prey upon the law-abiding at will.

The ultimate what if... what if it were you trapped in a class room with a deranged teacher shooting at students. Behind door A, you are unarmed or door B, you are armed. The majority of people would rather be armed. One needs to look no further than VT to see what it is like to be trapped like fish in a barrel with a deranged shooter in the building. In National Parks, while there might be bear, but ultimately it is the transient serial killer camping out there that you would rather be armed. Danny Rollins camped out in the woods in between his killing spree.

THINK WE SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO ARM BEARS.!!!

THe same dire predictions of "dodge city" were espoused by the anti-gunners back in 1987 when Florida passed it's concealed weapons permit law. And facts (FBI UCR) show just the opposite; Florida's violent crime & gun-related incidents became HALF the national average. So go yell your chicken-little diatribe to the ignorant gun grabbers.

Hmmmmmmm...just checking to how safe every one is where law abiding citizens are not allowed to own guns...oh here...Washington D.C. and Detroit are two very safe places w/ no gun violence because guns are illegal and everyone knows that outlawing guns protects...oh...wait a minute...that doesn't seem to be the case at all.

Wow...who woulda thought that places that outlaw guns have such high gun violence? I wonder why that is. And Chan's example made such perfect sense to me.

I just want the right to bring a gun in case I'm attacked by a bear or a gator! Why is this a BAD idea???

I love how all the media types run to the “single-shot muskets” when a Second Amendment issue arises. What you forget (or choose to ignore) is that this electronic blog is the same as guns. Freedom of speech can be just as dangerous when misused. Where did the Columbine killers get the information to make the pipe bombs? From books and the internet, as in free speech. Should we shut down the internet and burn the books?

We have cooling off periods to buy a gun so we don’t run out and buy a gun because we’re mad at someone, yet the media can print papers and run news stories in minutes without bothering to check the facts or caring if they report the truth, no matter who it hurts, as long as they beat the other guy to the story.

What I would like to see are more stories in the news showing how many people were able to fight off their attackers because they had a gun. I saved a young girls life because I was armed and I didn’t have to shoot anyone in the process. So I guess that “If it saves just one life” argument is one-sided.

The facts are out there if you really wanted to do the research, law abiding citizens who own firearms are responsible, safe and considerate of their fellow man. They said concealed weapons would lead to blood in the streets. No blood. They said the no retreat law would lead to the return of the “Wild, wild West”. It’s still sunny Florida.

The truth is firearms are safer than cars and doctors….and at time journalists. We can’t idolize the First Amendment and demonize the Second Amendment because without the Second, there would be no First.

The simple fact is that we DO have the right to bear arms, regardless of any "what if's" can be imagined. The government does not have the constitutional power to ignore this right. Period.

The STate of Vermont had 4 (read it again- FOUR) homicides in 2009. Do you know what the gun laws in Vermont are? No permit needed- carry pretty much anywhere. Gee how come crime is higher in S#itcago and Detroilet and Washington DC. Get a life...

Hmmmm. . . This is the first time that I can recall seeing the words "streched" and "second amendment" used to justify gun control.

people want to take away the 2nd amendment LMAO...so why not take away the 1st or 4th or 5th?!?!? how about this, speak out against the constitution and have your head chopped off? nevermind, the CONSTITUTION PROTECTS YOU, just as it does in the 2nd amendment

i agree there does need to be a better grip on who owns guns, but you can not deprive the law abiding citizens of their right to own firearms

/and you are a naive fool if you believe that any kind of ban would stop or lower crime...chicago is doing excellent huh

"The Founding Fathers, writing in an age when single-shot muskets were all the rage, may not have known to what lengths their precious Second Amendment was destined to be stretched."

They didn't know how far the First Amendment would be stretched (protected). You think the constitutional right to bear arms is dangerous? How many people is Hitler responsible for killing? How many did he shoot? How many did he kill by ordering their deaths with words?

Let's put this into perspective. Firearms are the second most heavily regulated aspect of American life, the first is automobiles. Government currently regulates who can purchase a firearm, who can carry a firearm in public, how they can carry it and where. Government even regulates how firearms can be stored in the home. Yet, the 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution is very explicit. It states "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." This very probably the clearest section of the entire Constitution; "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." And, yet, that very right is heavily infringed from the smallest taxing district, in some states, all the way to the federal government, even after the Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd Amendment applies to State and local governments as well, via the 14th Amendment. So, is more governmental regulation needed? Obviously not.

As to who can legally carry firearm in public in the state of Florida, the answer is anyone who has not been convicted of a felony or a crime of domestic violence or has not been committed for psychiatric evaluation and has taken and passed a firearms safety course. They have to submit to a criminal background check and become licensed, but they can do so. And yet, only about 775,000 licenses have been issued in Florida out of an estimated 13,000,000 eligible adults. That is about 6% of the eligible population. Obviously there are not a large number of people legally carrying firearms on the streets of this state. And, many of those do not carry a firearm on a regular basis. Even under the currently pending bills in the Florida legislature, the percentage of firearms toting citizens is unlikely to increase significantly. So, where is the danger of a pitched gun battle between civilians going to come from? This was the same argument used by those opposing the changes in concealed carry permit laws in 1987, "blood would flow in the streets". Didn't happen.

Now asking the government to adhere to the wording of the Constitution is, I suppose, asking a little too much. But, the firearms owning population of Florida adheres to the existing laws, though sometimes reluctantly. It is not these people who should be feared, rather those that exhibit a blatant disregard for the law, the criminal, should be feared.

Protecting ones self is getting harder each year their are not enough cops to cover the crime sceans galore nor will their ever be. Packing some heet would drop the crime rate real fast. Is their not a single day any more that you pick up the paper and read about some one being pistol wipped or robbed even rapped or beaten. So where is the law and the cops to defend your life.

Thomas is wrong about cars being more regulated.

Any person, at any age, can buy ANY car, truck, whatever, and drive it as fast as they want on their private property. It only has to be registered, insured, person licensed, etc if it is to be driven on public roads or property.

The founding fathers wrote the first amendment before the age of the internet, mass printed newspapers and magazines, cell phones, and television. They had similar outdated technology. So is the author advocating ending freedom of the press and his ability to write the article we are all commenting on with technology the founders never envisioned? If we use the same faulty thinking, he clearly is.

This is a case where civilian disarmament advocates such as the author KNOW what the true original intent was, but they still want to ban it anyway simply because they don't like it. Even if he did get his way and had firearms banned, it would be every bit as much of a success as the prohibition on alcohol, illegal drugs, or illegal immigration -- except the majority of americans are pro gun and there is a historical following of firearm advocates in America and there always will be, so it would be even worse.

Read the article....and thought "Who is this idiot writing this. To write an article about gun control and add a whole bunch of "what ifs" is just poor journalism. As for the people that carry handguns in Florida I have only know good honest people. Most of them were in the military or leo and just want to stand up for their rights and protect their families. The gun nuts are the gangs who do not have a license to carry a concealed weapon and are the ones that will visit you in the middle of the night. Do some research and see how many crimes were committed by persons with ccw.

"Founding Fathers, writing in an age when single-shot muskets were all the rage, may not have known to what lengths their precious Second Amendment was destined to be stretched"

Claiming that the 2nd does not apply to modern firearms is like trying to claim the 1st only covers religions that existed at the time and that free speech only covers the mediums around at the time... Including only newspapers that were printed on printing press.

"One of the core arguments used by gun advocates is that when guns are regulated, only outlaws will carry guns. If everyone packs heat, then everyone is protected thanks to a kind of mutual assured destruction doctrine."

Nonsense... The fact is that the police are not able to provide 1:1 protection and the SC has ruled that the police are not obligated to provide personal protection. Some of us realize that to protect our family that we can't hope for a cop to be there. Or in bumper sticker speak "when seconds count, cops are only minutes away!"