Gun owner paranoia---

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

• Name one time my guns have cause any harm but the shit stain in your pants, motherfucker!

  [*]Fuck you. You don't belong in a free society.

• When are you motherfucking pieces of cock sucking shit gonna give up on this dumb buttfuck, bullshit, illogical, insane "argument"

• You faggots brought this on yourselves. Go fuck yourselves in the ass. You can keep shitting your pants at the thought of us having guns and cry yourself to sleep, bitch.

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

With no intention to focus on any singular post or poster on this venue, we still, as a responsible society invested in the welfare of all, we still must be mindful of those members of our society who struggle with anger issues and a degree of alarming instability.
What harms can such individuals inflict upon our free and open society if they come into possession of these portable, easily concealed, high-lethality tools?

Hence, we have reasoned and articulate discourse on the potential impact these high-lethality tools may have on that welfare for all.

IMHO

What part of "right" do you not understand?

We have millennia of history showing what happens to ordinary people when their government disarms them.

We will keep all of our high-lethality tools because government is highly lethal and it is our only defense.

So far, you have given me no legitimate reason why we the people should not have equal or greater force than our corrupt, out-of-control government run 100% by narcissists, every goddamn one of them.

 

[Chillicothe]

Bringing weapons into society is a Constitutional Right.

You don't get a free ride with the Constitution, poster 9thl.
With "Rights".....comes responsibility.

If you are responsible .....the 'agency' so to speak,.....for introducing that firearm into our society you have a responsibility ....which, under my suggested rubric, would be 'strict liability'......but you have a responsibility to ensure that that high-lethality tool does no harm.

Period.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Bringing weapons into society is a Constitutional Right.

You don't get a free ride with the Constitution, poster 9thl.
With "Rights".....comes responsibility.

If you are responsible .....the 'agency' so to speak,.....for introducing that firearm into our society you have a responsibility ....which, under my suggested rubric, would be 'strict liability'......but you have a responsibility to ensure that that high-lethality tool does no harm.

Period.

Nope. The right shall not be infringed. Period.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Bringing weapons into society is a Constitutional Right.

You don't get a free ride with the Constitution, poster 9thl.
With "Rights".....comes responsibility.

If you are responsible .....the 'agency' so to speak,.....for introducing that firearm into our society you have a responsibility ....which, under my suggested rubric, would be 'strict liability'......but you have a responsibility to ensure that that high-lethality tool does no harm.

Period.

I am responsible for my actions or any actual negligence on my part. If I use a firearm to do harm or show actual negligence such as leaving a loaded firearm where children, liberals, or other incompetents can play with it I accept responsibility for my negligence. Tools do no harm. Never have; never will and only fools think otherwise. It is the person who wields a tool that determines whether his action is legal or not. His; not your; not mine and certainly not my lack of action any more than yours. Your so called strict liability is no more than a desire to punish the innocent for the crimes of the guilty and would further undermine law and order in this Country. This does not speak well of you.

 

[Chillicothe]

"This does not speak well of you."

Oh, I am challenged by my faults.
So stipulated.
Mea culpa.

But the poster is unfortunately missing the nuance that a Glock19 ain't a Phillips screwdriver.

They are not the same.
And a AR-15 has some defining characteristics that a speeding Ford 150 does not.

And therein lies the nub of our discussion. Guns are unique.
And require different societal expectations that that screwdriver.

The potential for lethality is an indivisible quality of a firearm. It's concealability, portability, effectiveness (lethality)......defines what it is. And WHY people own them.

So, my position remains. If you are the agency for introducing that weapon into society you bear a share of the responsibility when that weapon causes harm.

Period.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So, my position remains. If you are the agency for introducing that weapon into society you bear a share of the responsibility when that weapon causes harm.

Weapons don't cause harm--people do. The claims by the left are a false narrative. I watched my guns when they thought I wasn't looking. None of my guns jumped off my dresser or out of my headboard, and went towards my back door.

One of the reasons the left and the right can never share a country together is because we on the right have what's called logic. The left has zero logic. It's why we need to have a divided country. We can never get along peacefully. The left constantly excuses people who are directly responsible for our problems, and instead, blame those who are not.

Illegals in this country: The left wants to punish American employers for them coming, whether they knew they were illegals or not, we on the right want to punish the illegals.

Poverty and low income: The left wants to blame employers for only paying workers what they are worth, we on the right say it's the individuals responsibility to make themselves worth more to employers.

Police shootings: The left wants to lock up police officers who were forced into a position of using deadly force to stop bodily harm or death coming to them. We on the right blame the suspect who put those officers in that defensive position or didn't listen to their orders in the first place.

Obesity in America: The left wants to hold schools accountable, fast food, and companies that produce snacks for our obesity problems. We on the right want to hold the individuals responsible who don't do something about their weight problem like kids getting away from video games and playing ball outside and riding their bikes to their friends house instead of face chatting with them.

Violent crime and deaths: The left wants to hold guns responsible, entities where criminals got the guns, poverty which they actually inflict on themselves. We on the right want to hold the attacker responsible, and believe that our gun laws are too lenient for those breaking our gun laws. People illegally carrying should get a minimum sentence of 10 years, 25 years if caught using a firearm in the commission of a crime, and the death penalty if a person murdered somebody or some people with a firearm.

Wealth inequity: The left wants to blame too low taxation and not overpaying employees for the wealth inequity in this country. We on the right realize that those with wealth got it from people on the other side. If you think the rich have too much money, quit buying their products. Quit buying their services. Don't give them any of your money unless you have to. The Amish and Quakers don't!

The only solution to our problems is to divide this country into two countries instead. One half for the liberals and like kind, and the other half for us conservatives and like kind. At least those of us on the right would be thrilled with that. Because you leftists will never stop using blame transference, and never hold the individual responsible.

 

[9thIDdoc]

"This does not speak well of you."

Oh, I am challenged by my faults.
So stipulated.
Mea culpa.

But the poster is unfortunately missing the nuance that a Glock19 ain't a Phillips screwdriver.

They are not the same.



And therein lies the nub of our discussion. Guns are unique.
And require different societal expectations that that screwdriver.

The potential for lethality is an indivisible quality of a firearm. It's concealability, portability, effectiveness (lethality)......defines what it is. And WHY people own them.

So, my position remains. If you are the agency for introducing that weapon into society you bear a share of the responsibility when that weapon causes harm.

Period.

So, my position remains. If you are the agency for introducing that weapon into society you bear a share of the responsibility when that weapon causes harm.
Which is why your position is untenable.
Weapons and other tools are, and always have been, a vital and defining part of human society. They enabled mankind to rise to the top of the food chain and stay there. No single individual can introduce something to society that has already been part of it throughout history.
Objects cause neither harm nor good but may be used for either by humans who must be responsible for their actions. Simple reality.

 

[Chillicothe]

Weapons don't cause harm--people do. The claims by the left are a false narrative. I watched my guns when they thought I wasn't looking. None of my guns jumped off my dresser......"
............................................................
That is sort of a silly analogy. No offense intended. However, it ain't the gun that is liable. It ain't the gun that will be fined. Rather, it is the owner of that gun who was negligent....by definition.....when he lost control of that gun. He is strictly liable for its' security, and for its' use.....for good or for harm.
...........................................................................

The left constantly excuses people who are directly responsible for our problems, and instead, blame those who are not.

Ummm, poster. No one is blaming someone who doesn't own or posses a gun and then through negligence, loses control of it. Rather, the individual who is being blamed is the owner of record.
Hope I am clear on that.
........................................................

No single individual can introduce something to society........."

Yes, a "single individual" can.
It is called 'agency'.
For sake of illustration: It is YOU who purchased that very specific Browning 9mm, serial # XXXXXXX at Bob's Gunshop.
YOU brought it home.
YOU left it under the seat of your truck....where it was stolen.
YOU.....are the single individual who was responsible for the gun's introduction into our social milieu.

The criminal jerk who stole is responsible for theft from vehicle, possessing a stolen firearm, and for whatever criminal activity the gun aided in.
But YOU....the negligent owner.....ain't home free.
YOU.....don't get to say......"But, it wasn't MY fault. Waaaaa!"
Period.

Objects cause neither harm nor good but may be used for either by humans who must be responsible for their actions.

Objects are "instrumental" in enhancing or detracting from human activity. Guns, bombs, poisons, all serve beneficial purposes. I suppose one could say they are, ah, 'inert'.....without human agency.
Which brings us right back to the 'strict liability' aspect.
A human agency left that Glock17 under the truck seat. A human agency broke into the truck and stole it.
Both human "agencies".....bear responsibility.
One certainly criminal.
The other likely some degree of civil negligence....... unless the court could find a 'criminal negligence' aspect.

 

[Rigby5]

Bringing weapons into society is a Constitutional Right.

You don't get a free ride with the Constitution, poster 9thl.
With "Rights".....comes responsibility.

If you are responsible .....the 'agency' so to speak,.....for introducing that firearm into our society you have a responsibility ....which, under my suggested rubric, would be 'strict liability'......but you have a responsibility to ensure that that high-lethality tool does no harm.

Period.

Sure, but that just means locking it up in your house.
People steal guns from police because they leave them in their cars, where they are much easier to steal.

 

[Rigby5]

"This does not speak well of you."

Oh, I am challenged by my faults.
So stipulated.
Mea culpa.

But the poster is unfortunately missing the nuance that a Glock19 ain't a Phillips screwdriver.

They are not the same.
And a AR-15 has some defining characteristics that a speeding Ford 150 does not.

And therein lies the nub of our discussion. Guns are unique.
And require different societal expectations that that screwdriver.

The potential for lethality is an indivisible quality of a firearm. It's concealability, portability, effectiveness (lethality)......defines what it is. And WHY people own them.

So, my position remains. If you are the agency for introducing that weapon into society you bear a share of the responsibility when that weapon causes harm.

Period.

Sure, but so what?
Firearms also do tremendous good, such as protecting family and property, not to mention free us from dictators, criminals, etc.

 

[Rigby5]

...

Objects are "instrumental" in enhancing or detracting from human activity. Guns, bombs, poisons, all serve beneficial purposes. I suppose one could say they are, ah, 'inert'.....without human agency.
Which brings us right back to the 'strict liability' aspect.
A human agency left that Glock17 under the truck seat. A human agency broke into the truck and stole it.
Both human "agencies".....bear responsibility.
One certainly criminal.
The other likely some degree of civil negligence....... unless the court could find a 'criminal negligence' aspect.

The value of the Glock17 is so much greater than the slight risk of someone stealing it, that it is not really worth considering.
It is true there is a slight risk of firearm theft, but there is much greater risk of theft, murder, rape, etc., if one is not armed.
And the War on Drugs has already caused firearms to not only be fairly ubiquitous, but also easily obtained through the same smuggling channel as the drugs.
That does not make the theft of firearms any better, but it does make gun control laws entirely useless.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Ummm, poster. No one is blaming someone who doesn't own or posses a gun and then through negligence, loses control of it. Rather, the individual who is being blamed is the owner of record.
Hope I am clear on that.

I don't think you even know what you're clear on. Earlier I asked your opinion if I'm liable when somebody busts down my door and steals my unlocked guns? To that you replied yes I am. I'm the only one that lives in my apartment. There is no need for me to lock my guns up. You suggest that I should buy a gun safe to stop an illegal intruder into my home? That's ridiculous.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Weapons don't cause harm--people do. The claims by the left are a false narrative. I watched my guns when they thought I wasn't looking. None of my guns jumped off my dresser......"
............................................................
That is sort of a silly analogy. No offense intended. However, it ain't the gun that is liable. It ain't the gun that will be fined. Rather, it is the owner of that gun who was negligent....by definition.....when he lost control of that gun. He is strictly liable for its' security, and for its' use.....for good or for harm.
...........................................................................

The left constantly excuses people who are directly responsible for our problems, and instead, blame those who are not.

Ummm, poster. No one is blaming someone who doesn't own or posses a gun and then through negligence, loses control of it. Rather, the individual who is being blamed is the owner of record.
Hope I am clear on that.
........................................................

No single individual can introduce something to society........."

Yes, a "single individual" can.
It is called 'agency'.
For sake of illustration: It is YOU who purchased that very specific Browning 9mm, serial # XXXXXXX at Bob's Gunshop.
YOU brought it home.
YOU left it under the seat of your truck....where it was stolen.
YOU.....are the single individual who was responsible for the gun's introduction into our social milieu.

The criminal jerk who stole is responsible for theft from vehicle, possessing a stolen firearm, and for whatever criminal activity the gun aided in.
But YOU....the negligent owner.....ain't home free.
Which is why your position is untenable.

Period.

Objects cause neither harm nor good but may be used for either by humans who must be responsible for their actions.

Objects are "instrumental" in enhancing or detracting from human activity. Guns, bombs, poisons, all serve beneficial purposes. I suppose one could say they are, ah, 'inert'.....without human agency.
Which brings us right back to the 'strict liability' aspect.
A human agency left that Glock17 under the truck seat. A human agency broke into the truck and stole it.
Both human "agencies".....bear responsibility.
One certainly criminal.
The other likely some degree of civil negligence....... unless the court could find a 'criminal negligence' aspect.

YOU.....don't get to say......"But, it wasn't MY fault. Waaaaa!"

Untrue. I can and would do exactly that and I have every expectation of exoneration in any court that would be silly enough to even hear such a charge which in my locality I would not expect to find. You are the one who has no right to make such a claim and the possibility of facing charges of slander or liable.

 

[Chillicothe]

You are the one who has no right to make such a claim and the possibility of facing charges of slander or liable.

Ah, poster Ddoc, evidently I wasn't clearly clear.
It would not be me....or my avatar......who would make the claim of negligence.

Under my rubric of "strict liability" it maybe could be a DA? or perhaps the tort attorney of whoever was shot or terrorized by your gun held in the hands of the criminal thief.

 

[Chillicothe]

That does not make the theft of firearms any better, but it does make gun control laws entirely useless.

Ummm, nope.
A "strict liability" legal view makes owning a gun a bigger deal.
It adds a greater societal expectation of responsible ownership.
The expectation that we will, to some yet unknown degree, discourage the lazy gun owner who won't even walk downstairs to take extra measures to secure his high-lethality instrument.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

You suggest that I should buy a gun safe to stop an illegal intruder into my home?

No one, that I've seen on this thread has suggested you must have a gun safe.
In contradistinction, what has been suggested is that if you own the firearm, you own the responsibility of securing it from all risks of theft of misuse.

How you do that is another matter. Maybe you could start a separate thread on it. It could be lively.

 

[Rigby5]

That does not make the theft of firearms any better, but it does make gun control laws entirely useless.

Ummm, nope.
A "strict liability" legal view makes owning a gun a bigger deal.
It adds a greater societal expectation of responsible ownership.
The expectation that we will, to some yet unknown degree, discourage the lazy gun owner who won't even walk downstairs to take extra measures to secure his high-lethality instrument.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

You suggest that I should buy a gun safe to stop an illegal intruder into my home?

No one, that I've seen on this thread has suggested you must have a gun safe.
In contradistinction, what has been suggested is that if you own the firearm, you own the responsibility of securing it from all risks of theft of misuse.

How you do that is another matter. Maybe you could start a separate thread on it. It could be lively.

Wrong.
If you leave a gun irresponsibly, there already are plenty of laws involved.
But the fact you can not take a gun into a post office, court house, etc., is what forces you to hide them in a vehicle and causes them to be stolen, so it it wrong to blame the gun owner.
The gun owner is the one who needs it, for example, to carry valuable to and from their business, safely.
No one has the authority to intimidate them into being unarmed and defenseless, just because someone might be able to steal a firearm. That is not where most criminals get their firearms. They buy them from drug smugglers.

 

[JustAGuy1]

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.

How would you go about keeping guns out of the hands of Criminals?

 

[Chillicothe]

"what forces you to hide them in a vehicle and causes them to be stolen,"

Nope.
Post offices, court houses, etc., do not force anyone to be irresponsible in securing their weapon.
That is on the weapon's owner. Let's not try to shift the responsibility to the mailman.
Period.

Look, weapon owners need to recognize and accept that they bring into the social milieu an instrument with the potential for high-lethality consequences to society.
Their burden of responsibility is much much higher than the carpenter carrying a hammer.

Acknowledge that.
Accept that.
And act accordingly, as much depends upon it.
For potential victims harmed by the thief of THEIR weapon.
And for society. And for them.

Duh.

 

[Rigby5]

You can't keep criminals from guns with a law having a penalty less than the murder they intend to commit.

 

[freyasman]

"what forces you to hide them in a vehicle and causes them to be stolen,"

Nope.
Post offices, court houses, etc., do not force anyone to be irresponsible in securing their weapon.
That is on the weapon's owner. Let's not try to shift the responsibility to the mailman.
Period.

Look, weapon owners need to recognize and accept that they bring into the social milieu an instrument with the potential for high-lethality consequences to society.
Their burden of responsibility is much much higher than the carpenter carrying a hammer.

Acknowledge that.
Accept that.
And act accordingly, as much depends upon it.
For potential victims harmed by the thief of THEIR weapon.
And for society. And for them.

Duh.

Nah.....



We aren't going to do that.