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.
So your solution is holding those who have zero to do with a shooting accountable. When you were part of the militia how many murders did you allow to happen and were you held accountable? Who is letting them do this? Did you give them permission? It’s really all you fault and we should hold you accountable
-------------------------------------------------------------------"You can take that strictly liability bullshit and shove it back up the ass...."
Yea we get it you want to punish people for being the victims of a crime. That’s a piss poor position to have but you are owning it.-------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, for the purposes of adult discourse let us put aside poster Mungus's angry vulgarities and concentrate on the intent of the suggestion for 'strict liability'.
Here's the deal: We American have the right to own 'arms'. It is not an unrestricted right (no RPG's, grenades, antipersonnel mines, etc). Still it is a right to have arms within the Court's purview. And as we all understand that with rights comes responsibility (You have the responsibility to NOT falsely scream 'FIRE" in a crowded theatre...despite your 1st Amendment rights).
And so it must be with our arms. We have the responsibility to adequately secure them so that they will not fall into the hands of the unqualified (6yr old children), the impaired (drunk, high); or mendacious thieves. Which means that if you leave your Glock21 lying on the seat of your unattended parked car as Mungus suggested in his example....and some drug-high thief reaches through the window and grabs it and goes shoots the 7/11 clerk.....well, the Owner-of-Record is on the hook for a share of the liability.
It is that simple.
And the goal of 'strict liability' strictures is that it will incentivize or at least encourage owners to ensure their arms are ALWAYS kept away from the mendacious or children. And if they do not adequately secure their arms...and bad juju happens when their 5yr old grandson lifts it out of the nightstand and plugs his meanie 6yr old sister....well, Grandpa, in addition to his broken heart, and overwhelming guilt.....must be held accountable to society. Criminally.
It is my belief that too many American gun owners do NOT take the responsibility of bringing that high-lethality tool into our society seriously enough. I'll offer this little personal revulsion that, to me, signifies in some sort of way, the casualness and unseriousness of too many gun owners:
Namely, the widely distributed photos of Colorado Representative Boebert and Kentucky Representative Massie illustrating their families, including small children, gripping guns as a Christmas photo.
As if........as if......these deadly high-lethality iron tools are merely Christmas toys for children.
Those photos signify to some degree the unseriousness of too many gun owners. Of course, not all.....but too many.
Hence, make owners know what the risk of gun ownership is when those guns are not adequately secured. And that they are responsible ---to a degree----when their guns get in those wrong hands and bad things happen. In short, you own the benefits of gun ownership, you own its harms.
Strict Liability, in my opinion, will force a re-think on how firearms are perceived, handled, and managed in America. For the better.
View attachment 899162
View attachment 899163
You don’t get to determine what someone else’s needs are. If you areOkay, now you are babbling like a five-year old who got told to stand in the corner.
You don't need a gun. You want a gun. The problem is that if we held gun ownership to any kind of sensible standard, a lot of people wouldn't be allowed to own them, and that is as it should be.
sure we do. We do that all the time. Remember when you could smoke in a public building? I do. We can't now and we are better off for it.You don’t get to determine what someone else’s needs are. If you are
I'm sorry, how is living with gun toting maniacs making us any more free.So unhappy with the freedoms we have then to someplace that is more restrictive. It’s a win win
Yea we get it you want to punish people for being the victims of a crime. That’s a piss poor position to have but you are owning it.
I understand perfectly you want to punish victims of a crime. Maybe you can punish women who are raped and incentivize then to dress more modest. How would you incentivize kids who are sexual assaulted to be more responsible in preventing the crime against them? You can try and justify that point of view to yourself all you want. It’s a crappy position to have but you are doubling down on itAh, that is a sad misread by the prolific poster, Mungus.
Instead, rather than 'punishing'.....it is 'incentivizing' gun owners to conduct the utmost vigilance in securing their firearms from unauthorized use.... be it the angry 15yr old killing the 14yr old girl who rebuffed his advances at school....or be it the druggie who reached into Mungus' hypothetical and unattended F-150 and snatching the SigSauer laying on the passenger seat.
You see, guns ain't like purses, or like a ball bats. One need exercise much more....much more.....responsibility in securing them from unauthorized users. Even thieves.
By their nature guns offer ease of use, concealability, portability, and most critically, higher lethality potential. And thus, possess much more risk of harm to our society. Accordingly, our society must ensure that those dangers do not come to be and cause that harm.
THAT.....should not be a difficult concept to grasp. If poster Mungus still does not understand the intent of a "Strict Liability' approach, well, we will be glad to continue to attempt to explain.
Jesus are you so stupid that you think smoking is a constitutional right. You’re free to move to a more restrictive country any time you want.sure we do. We do that all the time. Remember when you could smoke in a public building? I do. We can't now and we are better off for it.
I snicker when I see smokers huddled outside on a cold Chicago day.
I'm sorry, how is living with gun toting maniacs making us any more free.
Militarized, trigger-happy cops
Security Doors
Active Shooter Drills
Metal Detectors
HIghest crime rates in the industrialized world.
More incarcerated people than anywhere in the world, including Communist China.
I'm not feeling the "Freedom" guy.
I suspect the majority of us are getting a little tired of the gun fetishists' behavior. Heck, even sensible gun owners are.
That's not a solution. Nobody goes to get a Master's in teaching for the happy day they can shoot them a mentally disturbed kid.
Seriously, you want to take overstressed, underpaid teachers, and give them guns? that's just crazy talk.
What we need to do is make it harder for everyone to get guns, so they treat it responsibly.
Owning a gun isn't a constitutional right. The Second Amendment is about militias.Jesus are you so stupid that you think smoking is a constitutional right. You’re free to move to a more restrictive country any time you want.
(Confession: it is obvious silliness like above that I find so entertaining about this particular venue. Although QAnon's chatroom is fun --and similar -- too.)
- Maybe you can punish women who are raped and incentivize then to dress more modest.
- How would you incentivize kids who are sexual assaulted to be more responsible in preventing the crime against them?
I understand perfectly you want to punish victim
You are advocating punishing victims of crimes DUH. You want to try and draw distinctions because even you know deep down your position is stupid DUH. You are wrong on this issue full stop(Confession: it is obvious silliness like above that I find so entertaining about this particular venue. Although QAnon's chatroom is fun --and similar -- too.)
So, to address poor poster Mungus' silliness:
Neither women wearing lipstick and eye-shadow, nor kids assaulted by a dirty stepdad.......are parallels to a gun owner who voluntarily purchases a gun and then allows it to be acquired by someone who does harm to a third party with it.
That's sorta obvious to the cluefull. Duh!
Owning a gun requires ---demands ----a vast increase in responsible behavior than does a little 6 year in trying to hide from a dirty uncle. Duh!!
If you own a gun. You own it voluntarily. If you do not know.....you should know.....that it introduces a vastly greater risk to our society than do Yoga Pants.
It's potential for lethal harm puts it into a category solely by itself. (Unless we include explosives, and poisons.) As such, those who voluntarily introduce that risk to our society must be encumbered with a much higher expectation of care and vigilance that do young women in their Spanx.
Duh!!
You are wrong, but you know that already. The right is for the people to ow firearms without unnecessary goverment infringementOwning a gun isn't a constitutional right. The Second Amendment is about militias.
Two more SCOTUS appointments, the Second is about militias again.
If it was so obvious, why did it take 236 years for SCOTUS to find it in Heller?You are wrong, but you know that already. The right is for the people to ow firearms without unnecessary goverment infringement
If it was so obvious, why did it take 236 years for SCOTUS to find it in Heller?
More to the point, why just limit to firearms? Why am I not allowed to have weaponized anthrax or chemical weapons?
A surprise verdict by the jury. Now parents can be found responsible for their kid's crimes.
Jennifer Crumbley, mother of Ethan Crumbley, found guilty of involuntary manslaughter in son’s school shooting
The Michigan mother was convicted on four counts of manslaughter in connection with her son's deadly rampage at Oxford High School in 2021.www.nbcnews.com
What if you didn't secure your knives or hide the keys to your car?The issue is if the parent has a gun in the house then it is their responsibility to secure that gun. There are many ways to do this.
I fell sorry for the mother but I would need to know if she purchased the gun or did the father
If the father purchased the gun , then she should not have been on trial. Only the father assuming he is the one who purchased the gun and ultimately responsible for securing it.
Was she a bad parent, I don't know but this is is an extreme punishment and do both parents need to be punished?
This is an issue of purchasing a gun in a home with other people and not securing it.
How much does a trigger lock cost?
everybody talks about gun safety but is it just lip service?
Something like this won't happen to me is delusional thinking and makes one forget about gun safety when its stored.
....."debunked".......as has the 'stupidity' of Yoga Pants being as dangerous as a Glock17.The anthrax, nuke, chemical etc stupidity that you guys bring up has been debunked
What if you didn't secure your knives or hide the keys to your car?
---------------------------------------A good point. I suppose you would be liable if your kid stabs a person or hits someone with the vehicle.
What if you didn't secure your knives or hide the keys to your car?
No one is claiming a Glock and a handgun are equal. You are the fool claiming victims of a crime should be punished. The only stupidity is from you, someone who if they are consistent on their logic would be holding rape victims accountable for their part in the crime against them. If you think it’s a stupid position just remember it’s yours dumbass....."debunked".......as has the 'stupidity' of Yoga Pants being as dangerous as a Glock17.
