gun control?
Like many of you since recent gun crimes I have been trying to come up with a law that would have stopped these crimes. Many of the facts however have not been reported. This is just an idea, the only law I could come up with that may have worked is a double locked box law. When you leave a gun it must be locked up. Since most of the recent crimes have used stolen guns lets make it harder for them to be stolen, lock guns in one container and ammo in another, everyone I know does this now because of theft and children. Of course in recent crimes owners have been killed also, with their own guns, what do you think? I am trying it figure a way to deny guns to kooks and not punish everyone.
0
-
I agree every gun owner should most likely have a safe but the government should not have a say in the matter. I don't know that any of the recent mass shootings involved stolen guns. 0 -
adam lanza murdered his mother and stole her guns, the shooting at the mall that killed 2 was a stolen gun, ar I think, I don't want the govt in anything they screw anything they try. trying to get everyone to secure their guns is not based on speculation, true they dont happen all that often but I think we could make it harder for thief's. an alarm, a safe, really good hiding place, trigger lock, for those guns not in use or when not supervised, and what makes it so complicated is every situation is different. you don't usually know there is a thief around until something is gone 0 -
Big assumtion there that the lanza guns were stolen. 0 -
quote:Big assumtion there that the lanza guns were stolen.
Of course they were stolen. They were stolen from his dead mother unless you think he inherited them after he killed her0 -
For the person who wrote all lists at the top, you forgot one. PEOPLE ON WELFARE SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO VOTE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
They will vote for who ever gives the most free stuff. LIKE YOUR TAX MONEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!0 -
quote:Originally posted by Clayhill
Ok, back to the post topic. Two suggestions: First, require mental health professionals to report anyone with potentially violent problems to the ATF so they can be flagged and not be allowed to buy a gun. Also the mental health industry could adopt a new approach by talking to a troubled person's family about the risks of violence by that person. Second, give out a booklet with gun purchases that talks about the risks of having weapons in a home with mentally unstable people.
Will not prevent all the violence in the sanctuary cities such as Chicago and Oakland recently in the news.
The mental people come to the attention like any other person who commits a crime not because some doctor's opinion. A judge must adjudicate the person a danger to others.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Waco Waltz
quote:Originally posted by salzo
quote:Originally posted by Waco Waltz
I only care about the Second Amendment and closing the avenues of attack exploited by the media.
We clear now? Cause you don't seem to get it at all.
Oh I get it. YOu believe the way to close the attack on the second amendment is by attacking the second amendment.
I love you guys! We've been hearing a lot lately the "I believe in the second amendment, and dont want to take your guns", and then the next breath they say how they want to violate the second amendment, and take away guns.
THe second amendment is quite clear; read it. Read it ten times in a row, and then apply your little gun safe law to the amendment, and see if it holds up-it doesnt.
It is quite clear that the amendment prohibits the federal government from enacting gun laws. If you cant see that, you are hopeless. But lets assume you belive that "shall not be infringed", means "shall be infringed"; read the rest of the constitution in its entirety, and show me where you believe the federal government gets the authority to make a law mandating gun safes?
There is no such authority. Now if you would feel "safer" living with mandatory safe laws, there are several places right here in the United States where you can live in such safety. I know Massachusetees has mandatory storage laws, and I would imagine Illinois, New York, Marlyland, DC, Jersey, etc probably also have similar laws.If you prefer a society with such laws, you should move to such a place, where people share your sentiments.
Funny, my idea is not a gun control law it's a safe or gun cabinet law that does nothing to attack the second amendment. Nothing at all, not a single person who wants a gun would be barred from getting one under the current laws already on the books. And yet you insist I am attacking the Second Amendment with my position. I think you have me greatly confused with Diane Feinstein.
That's funny cause I was sure it was you advocating that a person not be allowed to buy a gun if they didn't have a registered safe. Can you show me the provision in Amendment 2 that requires that sort of restriction and regulation?
I think I was speaking only about mentally ill people and guns in the home. Buy all the guns you want. Store them at home in a safe if a mental patients lives there and is deemed a danger. If not store it elsewhere. NO one said anything about baring any sales.
I think you simply read into whatever you read by me more then then you had to. [:D]
I advocate all gun owners have a secure storage facility and what constitutes that can depend on where you live. If your out in the Alaska wilderness then a gun rack in a locked cabin is
fine. If you live near a school like I do I'd think it best to have at least a lockable gun cabinet on hand to use at your own discretion. Don't think I ever said there ought to be a law but i will say I'd trade that as a proposed law mandated rather then what has been proposed in reality.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Waco Waltz
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Waco Waltz
quote:Originally posted by salzo
quote:Originally posted by Waco Waltz
I only care about the Second Amendment and closing the avenues of attack exploited by the media.
We clear now? Cause you don't seem to get it at all.
Oh I get it. YOu believe the way to close the attack on the second amendment is by attacking the second amendment.
I love you guys! We've been hearing a lot lately the "I believe in the second amendment, and dont want to take your guns", and then the next breath they say how they want to violate the second amendment, and take away guns.
THe second amendment is quite clear; read it. Read it ten times in a row, and then apply your little gun safe law to the amendment, and see if it holds up-it doesnt.
It is quite clear that the amendment prohibits the federal government from enacting gun laws. If you cant see that, you are hopeless. But lets assume you belive that "shall not be infringed", means "shall be infringed"; read the rest of the constitution in its entirety, and show me where you believe the federal government gets the authority to make a law mandating gun safes?
There is no such authority. Now if you would feel "safer" living with mandatory safe laws, there are several places right here in the United States where you can live in such safety. I know Massachusetees has mandatory storage laws, and I would imagine Illinois, New York, Marlyland, DC, Jersey, etc probably also have similar laws.If you prefer a society with such laws, you should move to such a place, where people share your sentiments.
Funny, my idea is not a gun control law it's a safe or gun cabinet law that does nothing to attack the second amendment. Nothing at all, not a single person who wants a gun would be barred from getting one under the current laws already on the books. And yet you insist I am attacking the Second Amendment with my position. I think you have me greatly confused with Diane Feinstein.
That's funny cause I was sure it was you advocating that a person not be allowed to buy a gun if they didn't have a registered safe. Can you show me the provision in Amendment 2 that requires that sort of restriction and regulation?
I think I was speaking only about mentally ill people and guns in the home. Buy all the guns you want. Store them at home in a safe if a mental patients lives there and is deemed a danger. If not store it elsewhere. NO one said anything about baring any sales.
I think you simply read into whatever you read by me more then then you had to. [:D]
I advocate all gun owners have a secure storage facility and what constitutes that can depend on where you live. If your out in the Alaska wilderness then a gun rack in a locked cabin is
fine. If you live near a school like I do I'd think it best to have at least a lockable gun cabinet on hand to use at your own discretion. Don't think I ever said there ought to be a law but i will say I'd trade that as a proposed law mandated rather then what has been proposed in reality.
You must have the shortest memory of any member on this forum. I think you should read some of your previous posts in this thread because you're making yourself look like a fool.0 -
Speaking of the Lanza's, has a credible media outlet done a reliable analysis of what took place in the home where the weapon(s) were alleged to have been stolen? Much of what has been said here seems to follow the story that Adam killed his mom and took her guns. I have not heard of a forensic report but I could have missed it. Also, a tax deduction for purchasing a safe (with some reasonable minimum requirements) sounds like a good idea to me....the left should get behind it (a middle class tax break), it would put a lot of people to work, and we all seem to think it is a good thing....as long as it's voluntary....otherwise it's just another gun control law.
Ed0 -
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Waco Waltz
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Waco Waltz
quote:Originally posted by salzo
quote:Originally posted by Waco Waltz
I only care about the Second Amendment and closing the avenues of attack exploited by the media.
We clear now? Cause you don't seem to get it at all.
Oh I get it. YOu believe the way to close the attack on the second amendment is by attacking the second amendment.
I love you guys! We've been hearing a lot lately the "I believe in the second amendment, and dont want to take your guns", and then the next breath they say how they want to violate the second amendment, and take away guns.
THe second amendment is quite clear; read it. Read it ten times in a row, and then apply your little gun safe law to the amendment, and see if it holds up-it doesnt.
It is quite clear that the amendment prohibits the federal government from enacting gun laws. If you cant see that, you are hopeless. But lets assume you belive that "shall not be infringed", means "shall be infringed"; read the rest of the constitution in its entirety, and show me where you believe the federal government gets the authority to make a law mandating gun safes?
There is no such authority. Now if you would feel "safer" living with mandatory safe laws, there are several places right here in the United States where you can live in such safety. I know Massachusetees has mandatory storage laws, and I would imagine Illinois, New York, Marlyland, DC, Jersey, etc probably also have similar laws.If you prefer a society with such laws, you should move to such a place, where people share your sentiments.
Funny, my idea is not a gun control law it's a safe or gun cabinet law that does nothing to attack the second amendment. Nothing at all, not a single person who wants a gun would be barred from getting one under the current laws already on the books. And yet you insist I am attacking the Second Amendment with my position. I think you have me greatly confused with Diane Feinstein.
That's funny cause I was sure it was you advocating that a person not be allowed to buy a gun if they didn't have a registered safe. Can you show me the provision in Amendment 2 that requires that sort of restriction and regulation?
I think I was speaking only about mentally ill people and guns in the home. Buy all the guns you want. Store them at home in a safe if a mental patients lives there and is deemed a danger. If not store it elsewhere. NO one said anything about baring any sales.
I think you simply read into whatever you read by me more then then you had to. [:D]
I advocate all gun owners have a secure storage facility and what constitutes that can depend on where you live. If your out in the Alaska wilderness then a gun rack in a locked cabin is
fine. If you live near a school like I do I'd think it best to have at least a lockable gun cabinet on hand to use at your own discretion. Don't think I ever said there ought to be a law but i will say I'd trade that as a proposed law mandated rather then what has been proposed in reality.
You must have the shortest memory of any member on this forum. I think you should read some of your previous posts in this thread because you're making yourself look like a fool.
Well I see my statement. I do support it as law but only if they dump all the other insane ideas so like I said I'd trade that idea for what we are going to get. Safe in anyone's home with a mental patient and guns yes. A safe required in every home with guns prior to Sandy hook? Sure. Looking back I would have supported the idea if it would have secured her guns and I know it would have.
I guess I got ahead of myself in the debate.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Waco Waltz
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Waco Waltz
quote:Originally posted by salzo
quote:Originally posted by Waco Waltz
I only care about the Second Amendment and closing the avenues of attack exploited by the media.
We clear now? Cause you don't seem to get it at all.
Oh I get it. YOu believe the way to close the attack on the second amendment is by attacking the second amendment.
I love you guys! We've been hearing a lot lately the "I believe in the second amendment, and dont want to take your guns", and then the next breath they say how they want to violate the second amendment, and take away guns.
THe second amendment is quite clear; read it. Read it ten times in a row, and then apply your little gun safe law to the amendment, and see if it holds up-it doesnt.
It is quite clear that the amendment prohibits the federal government from enacting gun laws. If you cant see that, you are hopeless. But lets assume you belive that "shall not be infringed", means "shall be infringed"; read the rest of the constitution in its entirety, and show me where you believe the federal government gets the authority to make a law mandating gun safes?
There is no such authority. Now if you would feel "safer" living with mandatory safe laws, there are several places right here in the United States where you can live in such safety. I know Massachusetees has mandatory storage laws, and I would imagine Illinois, New York, Marlyland, DC, Jersey, etc probably also have similar laws.If you prefer a society with such laws, you should move to such a place, where people share your sentiments.
Funny, my idea is not a gun control law it's a safe or gun cabinet law that does nothing to attack the second amendment. Nothing at all, not a single person who wants a gun would be barred from getting one under the current laws already on the books. And yet you insist I am attacking the Second Amendment with my position. I think you have me greatly confused with Diane Feinstein.
That's funny cause I was sure it was you advocating that a person not be allowed to buy a gun if they didn't have a registered safe. Can you show me the provision in Amendment 2 that requires that sort of restriction and regulation?
I think I was speaking only about mentally ill people and guns in the home. Buy all the guns you want. Store them at home in a safe if a mental patients lives there and is deemed a danger. If not store it elsewhere. NO one said anything about baring any sales.
I think you simply read into whatever you read by me more then then you had to. [:D]
I advocate all gun owners have a secure storage facility and what constitutes that can depend on where you live. If your out in the Alaska wilderness then a gun rack in a locked cabin is
fine. If you live near a school like I do I'd think it best to have at least a lockable gun cabinet on hand to use at your own discretion. Don't think I ever said there ought to be a law but i will say I'd trade that as a proposed law mandated rather then what has been proposed in reality.
You obviously did advocate for such a law, and even your caveat is a problem.
'I'd trade that as a proposed law....' is giving up the field before the battle in entered.
So the negotiation begins with: 'OK, we all know that we are going to give up some of our freedoms. Now let us just work together to determine which freedoms it will be.'
Not the best way to halt our slide towards serfdom if you ask me.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Waco Waltz
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Waco Waltz
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Waco Waltz
quote:Originally posted by salzo
quote:Originally posted by Waco Waltz
I only care about the Second Amendment and closing the avenues of attack exploited by the media.
We clear now? Cause you don't seem to get it at all.
Oh I get it. YOu believe the way to close the attack on the second amendment is by attacking the second amendment.
I love you guys! We've been hearing a lot lately the "I believe in the second amendment, and dont want to take your guns", and then the next breath they say how they want to violate the second amendment, and take away guns.
THe second amendment is quite clear; read it. Read it ten times in a row, and then apply your little gun safe law to the amendment, and see if it holds up-it doesnt.
It is quite clear that the amendment prohibits the federal government from enacting gun laws. If you cant see that, you are hopeless. But lets assume you belive that "shall not be infringed", means "shall be infringed"; read the rest of the constitution in its entirety, and show me where you believe the federal government gets the authority to make a law mandating gun safes?
There is no such authority. Now if you would feel "safer" living with mandatory safe laws, there are several places right here in the United States where you can live in such safety. I know Massachusetees has mandatory storage laws, and I would imagine Illinois, New York, Marlyland, DC, Jersey, etc probably also have similar laws.If you prefer a society with such laws, you should move to such a place, where people share your sentiments.
Funny, my idea is not a gun control law it's a safe or gun cabinet law that does nothing to attack the second amendment. Nothing at all, not a single person who wants a gun would be barred from getting one under the current laws already on the books. And yet you insist I am attacking the Second Amendment with my position. I think you have me greatly confused with Diane Feinstein.
That's funny cause I was sure it was you advocating that a person not be allowed to buy a gun if they didn't have a registered safe. Can you show me the provision in Amendment 2 that requires that sort of restriction and regulation?
I think I was speaking only about mentally ill people and guns in the home. Buy all the guns you want. Store them at home in a safe if a mental patients lives there and is deemed a danger. If not store it elsewhere. NO one said anything about baring any sales.
I think you simply read into whatever you read by me more then then you had to. [:D]
I advocate all gun owners have a secure storage facility and what constitutes that can depend on where you live. If your out in the Alaska wilderness then a gun rack in a locked cabin is
fine. If you live near a school like I do I'd think it best to have at least a lockable gun cabinet on hand to use at your own discretion. Don't think I ever said there ought to be a law but i will say I'd trade that as a proposed law mandated rather then what has been proposed in reality.
You must have the shortest memory of any member on this forum. I think you should read some of your previous posts in this thread because you're making yourself look like a fool.
Well I see my statement. I do support it as law but only if they dump all the other insane ideas so like I said I'd trade that idea for what we are going to get. Safe in anyone's home with a mental patient and guns yes. A safe required in every home with guns prior to Sandy hook? Sure. Looking back I would have supported the idea if it would have secured her guns and I know it would have.
I guess I got ahead of myself in the debate.
I will give you credit for at least at this point being willing to own up to your error. But your error continues. Can you explain for us all how Mr. Lanza, with a gun safe law in effect, would have been deprived of weapons if his intent was to shoot up a school? Keeping in mind of course that the gun used to shoot up the Clakamas Co. mall was stolen.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Waco Waltz
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Waco Waltz
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Waco Waltz
quote:Originally posted by salzo
quote:Originally posted by Waco Waltz
I only care about the Second Amendment and closing the avenues of attack exploited by the media.
We clear now? Cause you don't seem to get it at all.
Oh I get it. YOu believe the way to close the attack on the second amendment is by attacking the second amendment.
I love you guys! We've been hearing a lot lately the "I believe in the second amendment, and dont want to take your guns", and then the next breath they say how they want to violate the second amendment, and take away guns.
THe second amendment is quite clear; read it. Read it ten times in a row, and then apply your little gun safe law to the amendment, and see if it holds up-it doesnt.
It is quite clear that the amendment prohibits the federal government from enacting gun laws. If you cant see that, you are hopeless. But lets assume you belive that "shall not be infringed", means "shall be infringed"; read the rest of the constitution in its entirety, and show me where you believe the federal government gets the authority to make a law mandating gun safes?
There is no such authority. Now if you would feel "safer" living with mandatory safe laws, there are several places right here in the United States where you can live in such safety. I know Massachusetees has mandatory storage laws, and I would imagine Illinois, New York, Marlyland, DC, Jersey, etc probably also have similar laws.If you prefer a society with such laws, you should move to such a place, where people share your sentiments.
Funny, my idea is not a gun control law it's a safe or gun cabinet law that does nothing to attack the second amendment. Nothing at all, not a single person who wants a gun would be barred from getting one under the current laws already on the books. And yet you insist I am attacking the Second Amendment with my position. I think you have me greatly confused with Diane Feinstein.
That's funny cause I was sure it was you advocating that a person not be allowed to buy a gun if they didn't have a registered safe. Can you show me the provision in Amendment 2 that requires that sort of restriction and regulation?
I think I was speaking only about mentally ill people and guns in the home. Buy all the guns you want. Store them at home in a safe if a mental patients lives there and is deemed a danger. If not store it elsewhere. NO one said anything about baring any sales.
I think you simply read into whatever you read by me more then then you had to. [:D]
I advocate all gun owners have a secure storage facility and what constitutes that can depend on where you live. If your out in the Alaska wilderness then a gun rack in a locked cabin is
fine. If you live near a school like I do I'd think it best to have at least a lockable gun cabinet on hand to use at your own discretion. Don't think I ever said there ought to be a law but i will say I'd trade that as a proposed law mandated rather then what has been proposed in reality.
You must have the shortest memory of any member on this forum. I think you should read some of your previous posts in this thread because you're making yourself look like a fool.
Well I see my statement. I do support it as law but only if they dump all the other insane ideas so like I said I'd trade that idea for what we are going to get. Safe in anyone's home with a mental patient and guns yes. A safe required in every home with guns prior to Sandy hook? Sure. Looking back I would have supported the idea if it would have secured her guns and I know it would have.
I guess I got ahead of myself in the debate.
I will give you credit for at least at this point being willing to own up to your error. But your error continues. Can you explain for us all how Mr. Lanza, with a gun safe law in effect, would have been deprived of weapons if his intent was to shoot up a school? Keeping in mind of course that the gun used to shoot up the Clakamas Co. mall was stolen.
Well I would think if a gun safe law was required either just for mental patients in a home with guns or for gun alone that odds are she would have had them locked in the gun cab. Once I got a safe they went from the Garrison rack to the safe because I don't have to worry about them now, either theft or fire damage.
The Liberals can't or don't seem to be able top exploit the small shootings. Without Sandy Hook I just don't think we would be where we are today. And I don't like where we are.
I don't really see it as a compromise, no one is going to trade for it anyway. The point is we'd not be in a position where by we may have to compromise in the first place.
Anyone with some welding gear can get into a locker but the Lanza kid was a nerd and a psycho. Hope that helps.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Waco Waltz
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Waco Waltz
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Waco Waltz
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Waco Waltz
quote:Originally posted by salzo
quote:Originally posted by Waco Waltz
I only care about the Second Amendment and closing the avenues of attack exploited by the media.
We clear now? Cause you don't seem to get it at all.
Oh I get it. YOu believe the way to close the attack on the second amendment is by attacking the second amendment.
I love you guys! We've been hearing a lot lately the "I believe in the second amendment, and dont want to take your guns", and then the next breath they say how they want to violate the second amendment, and take away guns.
THe second amendment is quite clear; read it. Read it ten times in a row, and then apply your little gun safe law to the amendment, and see if it holds up-it doesnt.
It is quite clear that the amendment prohibits the federal government from enacting gun laws. If you cant see that, you are hopeless. But lets assume you belive that "shall not be infringed", means "shall be infringed"; read the rest of the constitution in its entirety, and show me where you believe the federal government gets the authority to make a law mandating gun safes?
There is no such authority. Now if you would feel "safer" living with mandatory safe laws, there are several places right here in the United States where you can live in such safety. I know Massachusetees has mandatory storage laws, and I would imagine Illinois, New York, Marlyland, DC, Jersey, etc probably also have similar laws.If you prefer a society with such laws, you should move to such a place, where people share your sentiments.
Funny, my idea is not a gun control law it's a safe or gun cabinet law that does nothing to attack the second amendment. Nothing at all, not a single person who wants a gun would be barred from getting one under the current laws already on the books. And yet you insist I am attacking the Second Amendment with my position. I think you have me greatly confused with Diane Feinstein.
That's funny cause I was sure it was you advocating that a person not be allowed to buy a gun if they didn't have a registered safe. Can you show me the provision in Amendment 2 that requires that sort of restriction and regulation?
I think I was speaking only about mentally ill people and guns in the home. Buy all the guns you want. Store them at home in a safe if a mental patients lives there and is deemed a danger. If not store it elsewhere. NO one said anything about baring any sales.
I think you simply read into whatever you read by me more then then you had to. [:D]
I advocate all gun owners have a secure storage facility and what constitutes that can depend on where you live. If your out in the Alaska wilderness then a gun rack in a locked cabin is
fine. If you live near a school like I do I'd think it best to have at least a lockable gun cabinet on hand to use at your own discretion. Don't think I ever said there ought to be a law but i will say I'd trade that as a proposed law mandated rather then what has been proposed in reality.
You must have the shortest memory of any member on this forum. I think you should read some of your previous posts in this thread because you're making yourself look like a fool.
Well I see my statement. I do support it as law but only if they dump all the other insane ideas so like I said I'd trade that idea for what we are going to get. Safe in anyone's home with a mental patient and guns yes. A safe required in every home with guns prior to Sandy hook? Sure. Looking back I would have supported the idea if it would have secured her guns and I know it would have.
I guess I got ahead of myself in the debate.
I will give you credit for at least at this point being willing to own up to your error. But your error continues. Can you explain for us all how Mr. Lanza, with a gun safe law in effect, would have been deprived of weapons if his intent was to shoot up a school? Keeping in mind of course that the gun used to shoot up the Clakamas Co. mall was stolen.
Well I would think if a gun safe law was required either just for mental patients in a home with guns or for gun alone that odds are she would have had them locked in the gun cab. Once I got a safe they went from the Garrison rack to the safe because I don't have to worry about them now, either theft or fire damage.
The Liberals can't or don't seem to be able top exploit the small shootings. Without Sandy Hook I just don't think we would be where we are today. And I don't like where we are.
I don't really see it as a compromise, no one is going to trade for it anyway. The point is we'd not be in a position where by we may have to compromise in the first place.
Anyone with some welding gear can get into a locker but the Lanza kid was a nerd and a psycho. Hope that helps.
Wouldn't he just get a gun somewhere else, where they weren't locked up? Yes. Yes he would.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
74 comments