Gun owner paranoia---

[justinacolmena]

Prog policies and agendas have driven people insane. Schools were supposed to be so much better and civil with Prog Socialist social justice policies. Many schools have Prog Female social justice warriors making things worse. This will end at some point.

At some point colleges and universities are nothing but fluff for females with all that Title IX sexual harassment litigations and endless rape claims while males are engaged exclusively in manual trades and semi-skilled labor because they can't even set foot on the property of a college campus without being charged with rape and servied with dorm-room domestic violence restraining orders.

 

[Chillicothe]

"I will live to see all of those dirty cops and their crooked drug-dealing doctors suffer and scream in agony when they are punished for what they did to me.................. all that Title IX sexual harassment litigations and endless rape claims while males ..........can't even set foot on the property of a college campus without being charged with rape and servied with dorm-room domestic violence restraining orders."

....................................................................................................

Is it just me, but does anyone else here feels there may be a lurking back-story?
One that has got nothing to do whatsoever with the issue of guns?

 

[justinacolmena]

Is it just me, but does anyone else here feels there may be a lurking back-story?
One that has got nothing to do whatsoever with the issue of guns?

Sure there's a lot of lurking back-story. But the cops have all got guns and they've been shooting at me and sniping at me with their firearms, and attempting to murder me by other means every chance they get, whenever and wherever they think they can kill me and get away with it.

They don't have any bona fide criminal complaint whatsoever on the record against me and they never have. They just went to court to revoke my rights and treat me as a common criminal just because they could, and that's what the system allowed them to do, when I was denied a proper defense to their false accusations, lies, and slander in court.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

Democrats: "We need to keep guns out of the hands of children, criminals, and the mentally retarded"

Republican Translation: Them damn Liberals are gonna take all our shootin irons away!!



Why are Republicans so paranoid about guns? America has more guns in circulation than they have people. A few less guns in the hands of criminals and children seems like common sense to me.

Democrats want to ban all guns. There's no paranoia to it.

 

[Chillicothe]

"........cops have all got guns and they've been shooting at me and sniping at me with their firearms, and attempting to murder me by other means every chance they get......."

"They just went to court to revoke my rights and treat me as a common criminal just because they could, and that's what the system allowed them to do........

..........................................................................................

Thank you, poster.

 

[justinacolmena]

Thank you, poster.

There's more from you and your kind where that crap came from, too:

Bathroom Politics: Male Special Operators Rebuff Unisex Restrooms to Keep Men-Only Status Quo, Study Finds

A recently published study found that male soldiers opposed unisex bathrooms, citing risk, women's hygiene needs and privacy.

www.military.com

Female Air Force Pioneer's Message to Women: 'Don't Ever Accept a Barrier'

Retired Lt. Col. Kathy La Sauce, known as a mobility legend within the community and the Air Force, broke barriers.

www.military.com

Male-male brotherhood Assholes and Democrat bitches.

Combat veterans push for gun reform: ‘This isn’t right’

www.stripes.com

This veterans advocate supports an assault weapons ban and buyback program. Here’s why.

In this opinion piece, a veterans advocate carrying on her son's legacy says the former soldier would have wanted to keep weapons of war out of the hands of civilians.

www.militarytimes.com

More capital Assholes.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Democrats: "We need to keep guns out of the hands of children, criminals, and the mentally retarded"

Republican Translation: Them damn Liberals are gonna take all our shootin irons away!!



Why are Republicans so paranoid about guns? America has more guns in circulation than they have people. A few less guns in the hands of criminals and children seems like common sense to me.

I had no idea there were no laws making it illegal for felons to have guns.
In which nation does this occur?

FYI - Joe will never get my guns. I keep them upstairs.

 

[Mac-7]

I'm a gun owner. Got a bunch of 'em downstairs in the safe. Got my first gun at 11yrs old. Bought it with my chore money. Used to be a member of the NRA. Until they went stupid.

I think American gun-culture is stupid and crazy.
I've long advocated that when a tool of such potential destructive/disruptive potential is brought into our civil society then what comes with it is ----- strict liability.

If there is ANY harm to humans or property after that weapon is fired then the OWNER of the gun bears a significant liability. NOT just the jackass who fired it ....... but also the owner of record.

That means if your Glock is stolen from underneath the seat of your Ford-150 and it is used to shoot somebody's cheatin' wife.....well, the shooter gets arrested and tried, and the owner of the gun gets a whopper of a fine.

It was his gun. He brought it into our society. He failed to secure it adequately. Ergo......he has a share of the responsibility.

THEN.......you would see a more serious, responsible, cautious approach to owning those things.

IMHO

If the same kid who stole the gun steals the whole truck instead and runs down a pedestrian resulting in death is the owner of the truck liable also?

 

[Chillicothe]

owner of the truck liable also?

Truck?
Depends.

A court may be able to assign liability on a degree of negligence. Depends on circumstance.
In contradistinction to a firearm weapon it would not be 'strict liabilty'.

Meaning, if you as an owner of the uniquely high-lethality firearm/weapon then you are responsible for the harm it may cause.
So if you unintentionally shoot your hunting partner.....you are, to a significant degree, - liable. Period.

If you shoot at a car-thief and the bullet hits the paperboy bicycling by......you are, in a significant degree, liable.
Period.

And if some burglar breaks into your Ford 150 and steals the SigSauer under your seat and then shoots the 7-11 clerk.....you are liable. Period.
(for a degree of the liability. Your liability does not alleviate the the thief /trigger puller of any liability for the murder, or the theft.)

The thing is: Guns are uniquely lethal compared to other tools that can be weaponized. Their lethality, portability, concealability, and ease of use.......burden the owner-of-record with any harm they may be instrumental in.

Period.

 

[Mac-7]

owner of the truck liable also?

Truck?
Depends.

A court may be able to assign liability on a degree of negligence. Depends on circumstance.
In contradistinction to a firearm weapon it would not be 'strict liabilty'.

Meaning, if you as an owner of the uniquely high-lethality firearm/weapon then you are responsible for the harm it may cause.
So if you unintentionally shoot your hunting partner.....you are, to a significant degree, - liable. Period.

If you shoot at a car-thief and the bullet hits the paperboy bicycling by......you are, in a significant degree, liable.
Period.

And if some burglar breaks into your Ford 150 and steals the SigSauer under your seat and then shoots the 7-11 clerk.....you are liable. Period.
(for a degree of the liability. Your liability does not alleviate the the thief /trigger puller of any liability for the murder, or the theft.)

The thing is: Guns are uniquely lethal compared to other tools that can be weaponized. Their lethality, portability, concealability, and ease of use.......burden the owner-of-record with any harm they may be instrumental in.

Period.

Thats a bunch of mumbo numbo

you tell us the owner of a stolen gun is responsible if its used in a crime

then so should the owner of an automobile that is stolen and used as a getaway car our causing a traffic fatality

 

[Mac-7]

The thing is: Guns are uniquely lethal compared to other tools that can be weaponized.

If guns are so horrible why does every gun-grabbing lib politican insist that his bodyguards have guns?

 

[Chillicothe]

1. you tell us the owner of a stolen gun is responsible if its used in a crime
2. then so should the owner of an automobile that is stolen and used as a getaway car our causing a traffic fatality

1. Yes.

2. Depends on circumstance and if a degree of negligence is determined in a court.
Don't equate your Ford 150 with a Glock19. They are not the same. Their defining characteristics and intent of purpose is determinatively different.

 

[Blues Man]

owner of the truck liable also?

Truck?
Depends.

A court may be able to assign liability on a degree of negligence. Depends on circumstance.
In contradistinction to a firearm weapon it would not be 'strict liabilty'.

Meaning, if you as an owner of the uniquely high-lethality firearm/weapon then you are responsible for the harm it may cause.
So if you unintentionally shoot your hunting partner.....you are, to a significant degree, - liable. Period.

If you shoot at a car-thief and the bullet hits the paperboy bicycling by......you are, in a significant degree, liable.
Period.

And if some burglar breaks into your Ford 150 and steals the SigSauer under your seat and then shoots the 7-11 clerk.....you are liable. Period.
(for a degree of the liability. Your liability does not alleviate the the thief /trigger puller of any liability for the murder, or the theft.)

The thing is: Guns are uniquely lethal compared to other tools that can be weaponized. Their lethality, portability, concealability, and ease of use.......burden the owner-of-record with any harm they may be instrumental in.

Period.

If a gun is reported stolen the owner has no liability for what the criminal does with it.

 

[Blues Man]

1. you tell us the owner of a stolen gun is responsible if its used in a crime
2. then so should the owner of an automobile that is stolen and used as a getaway car our causing a traffic fatality

1. Yes.

2. Depends on circumstance and if a degree of negligence is determined in a court.
Don't equate your Ford 150 with a Glock19. They are not the same. Their defining characteristics and intent of purpose is determinatively different.

The intent of any tool is defined by the person wielding that tool.

If I put a plow on my truck for the purpose of running down a gaggle of grannies I have defined the intent of the truck and the plow for this occasion.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

And if some burglar breaks into your Ford 150 and steals the SigSauer under your seat and then shoots the 7-11 clerk.....you are liable. Period.
(for a degree of the liability. Your liability does not alleviate the the thief /trigger puller of any liability for the murder, or the theft.)

The thing is: Guns are uniquely lethal compared to other tools that can be weaponized. Their lethality, portability, concealability, and ease of use.......burden the owner-of-record with any harm they may be instrumental in.

I'm single and always have been, never had any kids, and my guns are not secured in a safe. I have one in my headboard and another on my dresser in the event somebody decides to intrude my home in the middle of the night.

I go out for a family doing, somebody or some people breakdown my locked door to enter my home, steal my firearms along with other valuable items. If they sell my gun to a gang banger, and he kills another gang banger over a drug sale, should I be held responsible because I didn't secure my guns in the event a burglar breaks into my home while I'm not there?

 

[Sunsettommy]

I'm a gun owner. Got a bunch of 'em downstairs in the safe. Got my first gun at 11yrs old. Bought it with my chore money. Used to be a member of the NRA. Until they went stupid.

I think American gun-culture is stupid and crazy.
I've long advocated that when a tool of such potential destructive/disruptive potential is brought into our civil society then what comes with it is ----- strict liability.

If there is ANY harm to humans or property after that weapon is fired then the OWNER of the gun bears a significant liability. NOT just the jackass who fired it ....... but also the owner of record.

That means if your Glock is stolen from underneath the seat of your Ford-150 and it is used to shoot somebody's cheatin' wife.....well, the shooter gets arrested and tried, and the owner of the gun gets a whopper of a fine.

It was his gun. He brought it into our society. He failed to secure it adequately. Ergo......he has a share of the responsibility.

THEN.......you would see a more serious, responsible, cautious approach to owning those things.

IMHO

I agree with a lot of what you say about PERSONAL Responsibility, guns that are stolen too easily because they were not properly secured such as your example if being under the seat of a car, that is pretty casual ownership of a dangerous weapon that can and occasionally has been used in crime and murder in various parts of the country. In such cases the owner should get a fine for failure for keeping the gun secured and out of sight.

However if the gun was stolen from a secured place, out of sight and hard to find, the owner shouldn't be fined or arrested for it at all if a criminal manage to find it anyway and use in a major crime. The owner did their part to secure it and keep it out of sight, then that owner who was being responsible for keeping proper control of the weapon isn't a liability to society.

 

[easyt65]

Paranoia?

'Hell yes, we are coming for your AR-15."

There is now a bill in the works to make owning an AR-15 illegals because the Democrats have declared an AR-15 is an 'assault weapon', which there is no such thing, and that 'assault weapon' will be illegal.

Do you know what an 'assault weapon' is?
It's an AR-15
It's a .9mm pistol
It is a KNIFE
It is a HAMMER
It is a SCISSOR
It is a BRICK

An 'assault weapon' is ANYTHING that can be used to ASSAULT another human being. It is a term manufactured and applied by Democrats to certain firearms so they can pass laws to strip LAW-ABIDING citizens of their 2nd Amendment, which can NOT be denied because that is exactly what they are doing.

 

[Sunsettommy]

I'm a gun owner. Got a bunch of 'em downstairs in the safe. Got my first gun at 11yrs old. Bought it with my chore money. Used to be a member of the NRA. Until they went stupid.

I think American gun-culture is stupid and crazy.
I've long advocated that when a tool of such potential destructive/disruptive potential is brought into our civil society then what comes with it is ----- strict liability.

If there is ANY harm to humans or property after that weapon is fired then the OWNER of the gun bears a significant liability. NOT just the jackass who fired it ....... but also the owner of record.

That means if your Glock is stolen from underneath the seat of your Ford-150 and it is used to shoot somebody's cheatin' wife.....well, the shooter gets arrested and tried, and the owner of the gun gets a whopper of a fine.

It was his gun. He brought it into our society. He failed to secure it adequately. Ergo......he has a share of the responsibility.

THEN.......you would see a more serious, responsible, cautious approach to owning those things.

IMHO

and if someone steals your car, and drives it into a crowd, you're partially responsible for any deaths and damages it causes?

Well if there is no key in the ignition left behind then the car owner CAN NOT be held responsible, it is the thief who steals it and hurt or kill people. If there is a key in the ignition and the vehicle left unattended (making it easy for car thieves to steal) then the owner is in part responsible for the attack made by a car thief because the owner made it too easy for it to happen.

Vehicles are designed and made to move people and materials from point A to point B. It was never designed to use it to hurt kill anyone, that takes a conscious effort to make it become a weapon. Vehicles are not designed for the purpose of hurting or killing living things.

Guns are made for self defense, hunt animals or attack people with lethal intentions. It is designed to hurt and kill living things.

Owners are expected to be responsible for keeping their property secured in a manner that no one else can easily take it from you, then owners will have done their responsible part to make crime harder for others to commit.

 

[Sunsettommy]

And if some burglar breaks into your Ford 150 and steals the SigSauer under your seat and then shoots the 7-11 clerk.....you are liable. Period.
(for a degree of the liability. Your liability does not alleviate the the thief /trigger puller of any liability for the murder, or the theft.)

The thing is: Guns are uniquely lethal compared to other tools that can be weaponized. Their lethality, portability, concealability, and ease of use.......burden the owner-of-record with any harm they may be instrumental in.

I'm single and always have been, never had any kids, and my guns are not secured in a safe. I have one in my headboard and another on my dresser in the event somebody decides to intrude my home in the middle of the night.

I go out for a family doing, somebody or some people breakdown my locked door to enter my home, steal my firearms along with other valuable items. If they sell my gun to a gang banger, and he kills another gang banger over a drug sale, should I be held responsible because I didn't secure my guns in the event a burglar breaks into my home while I'm not there?

Agee with you because you have hidden the firearms this makes it hard for criminals to know where they are. You shouldn't be held liable if they were found and used in a crime, you had done the responsible thing by keeping them reasonably secured and out of sight.

Guns in a vehicle are easy to find and stolen in seconds after entering the vehicle, because they will be in the glove box or under the seat, that is too easy for the criminal. The owner shouldn't be leaving them in the vehicle anyway for storage in that manner, that is really dumb. They will be held responsible for not properly securing a dangerous weapon from easy theft.

 

[9thIDdoc]

I'm a gun owner. Got a bunch of 'em downstairs in the safe. Got my first gun at 11yrs old. Bought it with my chore money. Used to be a member of the NRA. Until they went stupid.

I think American gun-culture is stupid and crazy.
I've long advocated that when a tool of such potential destructive/disruptive potential is brought into our civil society then what comes with it is ----- strict liability.

If there is ANY harm to humans or property after that weapon is fired then the OWNER of the gun bears a significant liability. NOT just the jackass who fired it ....... but also the owner of record.

That means if your Glock is stolen from underneath the seat of your Ford-150 and it is used to shoot somebody's cheatin' wife.....well, the shooter gets arrested and tried, and the owner of the gun gets a whopper of a fine.

It was his gun. He brought it into our society. He failed to secure it adequately. Ergo......he has a share of the responsibility.

THEN.......you would see a more serious, responsible, cautious approach to owning those things.

IMHO

and if someone steals your car, and drives it into a crowd, you're partially responsible for any deaths and damages it causes?

Well if there is no key in the ignition left behind then the car owner CAN NOT be held responsible, it is the thief who steals it and hurt or kill people. If there is a key in the ignition and the vehicle left unattended (making it easy for car thieves to steal) then the owner is in part responsible for the attack made by a car thief because the owner made it too easy for it to happen.

Vehicles are designed and made to move people and materials from point A to point B. It was never designed to use it to hurt kill anyone, that takes a conscious effort to make it become a weapon. Vehicles are not designed for the purpose of hurting or killing living things.

Guns are made for self defense, hunt animals or attack people with lethal intentions. It is designed to hurt and kill living things.

Owners are expected to be responsible for keeping their property secured in a manner that no one else can easily take it from you, then owners will have done their responsible part to make crime harder for others to commit.

People should be held responsible for their own actions. Thieves commit a crime when they steal. The person they stole from did not commit a crime. Does not matter what was stolen or how it was or was not secured unless the owner deliberately intended for the thief to take it. What the object was designed to do also doesn't matter as long as it has legal uses. Hunting, self defense, punching holes in targets, competition, collection, investment, and art are all valid reasons to own guns. It should be obvious that the more "secure" a weapon is the less useful it is for self defense or crime prevention.
So great, secure your weapons unloaded and locked up in a vault somewhere hidden and when a gang of thugs break in, kill you, rape your wife and children, and steal everything valuable you worked all your life for but don't get your guns you will have died a responsible citizen. Right? I don't think so.