Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
'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.
'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.
And if like me you live in a rural area where the cops are at least twenty minutes away and probably much more?
In Georgia you are required to register your alarm. False alarms are fined, and if you don’t pay the fine, you are notified that the cops ain’t coming for any more. False alarms severely reduce the income from speeding tickets.
