At Last...A new and rational gun control opportunity

[DGS49]

Every time there is a school shooting, the Lefties scream in fake outrage that Congress refuses to DO SOMETHING!
It makes me want to vomit.

No one can propose a Constitutional law that would have made a damn bit of difference.

But now,...

Pass a law that makes the registered owner (usually the father) of the firearm (s) legally culpable for gun crimes committed by minors in their household. Minor meaning under 21.

It would go a long way to preventing crimes like Santa Fe.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Oh for Pete's sake.

The "lefties" have been saying that for along long time.

What makes me want to vomit is "christians" who pretend to care while refusing to.

Care.

 

[SavannahMann]

Every time there is a school shooting, the Lefties scream in fake outrage that Congress refuses to DO SOMETHING!
It makes me want to vomit.

No one can propose a Constitutional law that would have made a damn bit of difference.

But now,...

Pass a law that makes the registered owner (usually the father) of the firearm (s) legally culpable for gun crimes committed by minors in their household. Minor meaning under 21.

It would go a long way to preventing crimes like Santa Fe.

And if Junior steals the car and drives into a van load of nuns and orphans, is the father still culpable? Or is it only regarding guns that you want to hold someone else responsible?

To take something without permission is stealing. If you steal their words, that is plagiarism which is still stealing.

You certainly got on board the lefty bandwagon while denouncing them.

 

[there4eyeM]

'Gunners' have decided they have the unique right to define "infringe", and anything at all that deviates in any conceivable way from their orthodoxy is "infringement" and "leftist". There can be no rational discussion. This is how they are pushing the issue to the point where irrational, repressive controls will be passed by the frightened majority.
Keep it up, 'gunners'. You'll get what you deserve.

 

[SavannahMann]

'Gunners' have decided they have the unique right to define "infringe", and anything at all that deviates in any conceivable way from their orthodoxy is "infringement" and "leftist". There can be no rational discussion. This is how they are pushing the issue to the point where irrational, repressive controls will be passed by the frightened majority.
Keep it up, 'gunners'. You'll get what you deserve.

The problem with this argument is that we are holding the first crime victim responsible for all the others. That is actually only one of a long list of problems. We don’t treat the events in anything approaching a consistent manner.

In Georgia the age to get a drivers license is 16. Let’s say my 14 year old son takes my car. He is driving around despite the fact that he is not legally able to drive until he is 16. He drives into a building, and kills some people inside. If he intended to do so, or not doesn’t matter.

I did not drive the car into the building. I did not give him the keys and wish him well. He took the car without permission, and did something horrible. We would not arrest the Father in that case, because the Father is blameless with the possible exception of not raising his child to avoid crime.

If my child takes a checkbook that belongs to me, and writes out checks forging my name to them, I am not responsible for making the checks good. It was not me who signed them.

But when it comes to guns, we are going to hold the first victim responsible for all the others. You had guns in the house, and your weapons were not secure, proof of which is the fact that the youngster who had NO legal ability to get the guns on his own accessed them. I might have had them in a safe, but if he could open the safe with crowbars and the like, which I might add is absolutely possible, then the weapons were not actually secure, because someone could get to them. Most safes won’t hold up to ten minutes of hand tools prying them open.



A “good” amount of time is twenty minutes. Really? How safe are the weapons in that safe?

We are talking about holding someone else responsible for the actions of a different individual. Apparently I am My Brother’s keeper.

We are not talking about a situation where the adult provided the weapons to the child and wished him well. We are not talking about a situation where the child was using the weapons under the supervision of an adult. We are talking about the first victim being held responsible. The first victim, the one who owned the weapons that were stolen.

Why is it that only when we are dealing with Guns that this kind of asinine proposal is even mentioned as if it is serious. We’re not even debating the Second Amendment, we are talking about denying Gun Owners their rights under the 14th Amendment. The equal protection clause has to be thrown out of the window to get this kind of nonsense passed.

You shouldn’t have to be a Gunner to object to a fellow citizen being deprived of their rights, and subjected to an unfair legal standard. That kind of insanity shouldn’t even be proposed, much less considered seriously, but it is. Anyone who objects to the idea of holding someone who was NOT INVOLVED IN THE CRIME responsible is apparently the unreasonable one.

Why is that?

 

[abrere]

'Gunners' have decided they have the unique right to define "infringe", and anything at all that deviates in any conceivable way from their orthodoxy is "infringement" and "leftist". There can be no rational discussion. This is how they are pushing the issue to the point where irrational, repressive controls will be passed by the frightened majority.
Keep it up, 'gunners'. You'll get what you deserve.

fuck the frightened majority, they are just sheep. We can get all federal or state gun laws repealed easily, whenever we get serious about it.

 

[TNHarley]

Every time there is a school shooting, the Lefties scream in fake outrage that Congress refuses to DO SOMETHING!
It makes me want to vomit.

No one can propose a Constitutional law that would have made a damn bit of difference.

But now,...

Pass a law that makes the registered owner (usually the father) of the firearm (s) legally culpable for gun crimes committed by minors in their household. Minor meaning under 21.

It would go a long way to preventing crimes like Santa Fe.

Did you just turn into a bedwetter? Come on man..

 

[TNHarley]

'Gunners' have decided they have the unique right to define "infringe", and anything at all that deviates in any conceivable way from their orthodoxy is "infringement" and "leftist". There can be no rational discussion. This is how they are pushing the issue to the point where irrational, repressive controls will be passed by the frightened majority.
Keep it up, 'gunners'. You'll get what you deserve.

Do you know what "well regulated" meant in the 18th century?
It meant something needs to be fully functional and ready to be used.
In this case(2nd amend.), a fully functional gun with plenty of ammo.

 

[there4eyeM]

Perhaps the debate is over "well regulated". Is everyone, potentially the militia? What are the consequences to a militia member if he uses his weapon to wantonly waste school kids? He certainly wasn't regulated well, at least mentally.
And a mentally deranged eighteenth century militiaman could kill no more than a few people in a minute or so.
An AR15 can fire at least 45 times a minute.
That's a minute, man!

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

'Gunners' have decided they have the unique right to define "infringe", and anything at all that deviates in any conceivable way from their orthodoxy is "infringement" and "leftist". There can be no rational discussion. This is how they are pushing the issue to the point where irrational, repressive controls will be passed by the frightened majority.
Keep it up, 'gunners'. You'll get what you deserve.

I see, but only YOUR argument is the one that "matters"......

 

[TNHarley]

Perhaps the debate is over "well regulated". Is everyone, potentially the militia? What are the consequences to a militia member if he uses his weapon to wantonly waste school kids? He certainly wasn't regulated well, at least mentally.
And a mentally deranged eighteenth century militiaman could kill no more than a few people in a minute or so.
An AR15 can fire at least 45 times a minute.
That's a minute, man!

so can this one

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Perhaps the debate is over "well regulated". Is everyone, potentially the militia? What are the consequences to a militia member if he uses his weapon to wantonly waste school kids? He certainly wasn't regulated well, at least mentally.
And a mentally deranged eighteenth century militiaman could kill no more than a few people in a minute or so.
An AR15 can fire at least 45 times a minute.
That's a minute, man!

In a FREE society, there will always be a few who create havoc and endanger others. 100% safety is not even a realistic goal.
What do YOU suggest? An authoritarian state where every move is dictated by authorities?
Since when does taking away guns ensure a perfectly safe society?

 

[LuckyDuck]

Every time there is a school shooting, the Lefties scream in fake outrage that Congress refuses to DO SOMETHING!
It makes me want to vomit.

No one can propose a Constitutional law that would have made a damn bit of difference.

But now,...

Pass a law that makes the registered owner (usually the father) of the firearm (s) legally culpable for gun crimes committed by minors in their household. Minor meaning under 21.

It would go a long way to preventing crimes like Santa Fe.

There should be no culpability for parents/guardians who take what can be considered "adequate" measures to keep the firearms out of the reach of their minors (i.e., guns locked in a safe or other secure device that the minors cannot access without using extreme measures to get at them).

 

[there4eyeM]

Since when have we thought the original Constitution had the slightest inkling a commonly available weapon could fire at least 45 times in one minute?
Now, somehow it seems to work in Switzerland. The fact that it does not work in America, that "mass shootings" happen with such frequency, shows there is something wrong and cannot continue so. What does the gun lobby propose to convince the community they are well self regulated?

 

[LuckyDuck]

Perhaps the debate is over "well regulated". Is everyone, potentially the militia? What are the consequences to a militia member if he uses his weapon to wantonly waste school kids? He certainly wasn't regulated well, at least mentally.
And a mentally deranged eighteenth century militiaman could kill no more than a few people in a minute or so.
An AR15 can fire at least 45 times a minute.
That's a minute, man!

If you actually do your research, you will find that the entire purpose of the 2nd Amendment was so that "civilians" could form militias (those militias would regulate themselves) to defend against any government, whether that government is a foreign one OR our own domestic government, from becoming tyrannical and forcing its will upon the population. That said, it did not cite that this would only apply to that era and thus any civilian militia formed by such civilians, should be armed in such a manner as to be a credible threat to said opposing force and so be adequately armed against the opposing ground forces. Thus, muskets are out and modern weapons are in.

 

[TNHarley]

Since when have we thought the original Constitution had the slightest inkling a commonly available weapon could fire at least 45 times in one minute?
Now, somehow it seems to work in Switzerland. The fact that it does not work in America, that "mass shootings" happen with such frequency, shows there is something wrong and cannot continue so. What does the gun lobby propose to convince the community they are well self regulated?

What do you mean by "well safe regulated?" Is that in the 2nd?
Are guns the problem? We have had guns just like the AR for 50+ years and its only getting "real" bad now.

 

[TNHarley]

Perhaps the debate is over "well regulated". Is everyone, potentially the militia? What are the consequences to a militia member if he uses his weapon to wantonly waste school kids? He certainly wasn't regulated well, at least mentally.
And a mentally deranged eighteenth century militiaman could kill no more than a few people in a minute or so.
An AR15 can fire at least 45 times a minute.
That's a minute, man!

If you actually do your research, you will find that the entire purpose of the 2nd Amendment was so that "civilians" could form militias (those militias would regulate themselves) to defend against any government, whether that government is a foreign one OR our own domestic government, from becoming tyrannical and forcing its will upon the population. That said, it did not cite that this would only apply to that era and thus any civilian militia formed by such civilians, should be armed in such a manner as to be a credible threat to said opposing force and so be adequately armed against the opposing ground forces. Thus, muskets are out and modern weapons are in.

Thats not what "well regulated" meant

 

[there4eyeM]

'Gunners' have decided they have the unique right to define "infringe", and anything at all that deviates in any conceivable way from their orthodoxy is "infringement" and "leftist". There can be no rational discussion. This is how they are pushing the issue to the point where irrational, repressive controls will be passed by the frightened majority.
Keep it up, 'gunners'. You'll get what you deserve.

I see, but only YOUR argument is the one that "matters"......

"My" argument? What have I argued for? What program have I put forward, apart from at most some sign from the, can we say it nicely, strict second amendment supporters. Show a justifiably outraged community, America, that this strictness is justified, that owners of rapid fire weapons are well regulated! Don't do it and that America will probably do more than you would like about firearms.
That America has already done more than many would like concerning liberties we had before "false patriot" acts.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

'Gunners' have decided they have the unique right to define "infringe", and anything at all that deviates in any conceivable way from their orthodoxy is "infringement" and "leftist". There can be no rational discussion. This is how they are pushing the issue to the point where irrational, repressive controls will be passed by the frightened majority.
Keep it up, 'gunners'. You'll get what you deserve.

The problem with this argument is that we are holding the first crime victim responsible for all the others. That is actually only one of a long list of problems. We don’t treat the events in anything approaching a consistent manner.

In Georgia the age to get a drivers license is 16. Let’s say my 14 year old son takes my car. He is driving around despite the fact that he is not legally able to drive until he is 16. He drives into a building, and kills some people inside. If he intended to do so, or not doesn’t matter.

I did not drive the car into the building. I did not give him the keys and wish him well. He took the car without permission, and did something horrible. We would not arrest the Father in that case, because the Father is blameless with the possible exception of not raising his child to avoid crime.

If my child takes a checkbook that belongs to me, and writes out checks forging my name to them, I am not responsible for making the checks good. It was not me who signed them.

But when it comes to guns, we are going to hold the first victim responsible for all the others. You had guns in the house, and your weapons were not secure, proof of which is the fact that the youngster who had NO legal ability to get the guns on his own accessed them. I might have had them in a safe, but if he could open the safe with crowbars and the like, which I might add is absolutely possible, then the weapons were not actually secure, because someone could get to them. Most safes won’t hold up to ten minutes of hand tools prying them open.



A “good” amount of time is twenty minutes. Really? How safe are the weapons in that safe?

We are talking about holding someone else responsible for the actions of a different individual. Apparently I am My Brother’s keeper.

We are not talking about a situation where the adult provided the weapons to the child and wished him well. We are not talking about a situation where the child was using the weapons under the supervision of an adult. We are talking about the first victim being held responsible. The first victim, the one who owned the weapons that were stolen.

Why is it that only when we are dealing with Guns that this kind of asinine proposal is even mentioned as if it is serious. We’re not even debating the Second Amendment, we are talking about denying Gun Owners their rights under the 14th Amendment. The equal protection clause has to be thrown out of the window to get this kind of nonsense passed.

You shouldn’t have to be a Gunner to object to a fellow citizen being deprived of their rights, and subjected to an unfair legal standard. That kind of insanity shouldn’t even be proposed, much less considered seriously, but it is. Anyone who objects to the idea of holding someone who was NOT INVOLVED IN THE CRIME responsible is apparently the unreasonable one.

Why is that?

Anyone with a gun safe is likely to have an alarm system.
I know when my alarm was set off by my dogs pushing open a trap door the cops were there in five minutes.

 

[LuckyDuck]

'Gunners' have decided they have the unique right to define "infringe", and anything at all that deviates in any conceivable way from their orthodoxy is "infringement" and "leftist". There can be no rational discussion. This is how they are pushing the issue to the point where irrational, repressive controls will be passed by the frightened majority.
Keep it up, 'gunners'. You'll get what you deserve.

I see, but only YOUR argument is the one that "matters"......

"My" argument? What have I argued for? What program have I put forward, apart from at most some sign from the, can we say it nicely, strict second amendment supporters. Show a justifiably outraged community, America, that this strictness is justified, that owners of rapid fire weapons are well regulated! Don't do it and that America will probably do more than you would like about firearms.
That America has already done more than many would like concerning liberties we had before "false patriot" acts.

Rapid fire weapons such as machineguns are only in the hands of those with Federal Firearms Licenses. The most we lowly average individual can obtain are semi-automatic firearms, both pistol and rifle, whereby the weapon only fires once each time you pull the trigger once. However, such semi-automatic firearms could be used in a pinch, should our nation become tyrannical (Communist/Socialist/Theocratic/Military Junta) and try to impose draconian regulations against us. Any lessor type firearm would be pretty much useless (revolvers, bolt-actions, muzzleloaders-this last would be a joke to use).
It has been affirmed that one part of the reason whereby the Allies won against the Axis powers, was due to the differences in rifles in the conflict. Most German, Italian and Japanese were equipped with bolt action rifles, whereby most US ground forces were equipped with the M-1 which was a semi-automatic, clip fed rifle.