Hey gun nuts, is this your idea of a perfect society?

Beefbisquit

Well-Known Member
Arent you the one advocating the taking away of people's liberties?
I want people to have guns.

I also want people to be responsible.

Being responsible by properly storing a gun is akin to not-parking in front of a fire hydrant.

Not being able to park where you want would technically be violating your liberty too, but no one is trying to take your car away. You catchin' what I'm throwing?
 

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
I want people to have guns.

I also want people to be responsible.

Being responsible by properly storing a gun is akin to not-parking in front of a fire hydrant.

Not being able to park where you want would technically be violating your liberty too, but no one is trying to take your car away. You catchin' what I'm throwing?
No, I am not. You havent thought it through.

If there is some sort of law requiring firearms to be secure how is it enforced? Are gun owners regularly subject to seach? (reduction of liberty)

There is no legislation you can propose that does not arguably limit liberty...

What our side is arguing is that people who dont care (criminals, the insane, etc) will not follow the regulations that are limiting the liberty of the rest of us.

Therefore, you are suggesting limiting my liberty...

You are throwing bullshit and I am not trying to catch it.
 

Beefbisquit

Well-Known Member
No, I am not. You havent thought it through.

If there is some sort of law requiring firearms to be secure how is it enforced? Are gun owners regularly subject to seach? (reduction of liberty)
You're arguing against things I haven't even suggested. That's called a straw man.

No searches - no other developed countries that have storage laws require searches. Where did you get that from, thin air?

Honestly, I'm not sure how it would be enforced. KPMarine suggested getting the gun store owners to ensure proper storage guidelines were being followed before they sold someone a firearm. There's got to be a way to have citizen run enforcement of these common sense laws.

There is no legislation you can propose that does not arguably limit liberty...
That's correct, there is no legislation or law that won't in some way limit your liberty in some way. No-parking signs limit your 'parking liberty' too.

What our side is arguing is that people who dont care (criminals, the insane, etc) will not follow the regulations that are limiting the liberty of the rest of us.
That doesn't mean that getting law abiding citizens to follow proper storage laws wouldn't reduce deaths. Children that get a hold of their parents guns, would be thieves; this is who would be thwarted by storage laws.

Therefore, you are suggesting limiting my liberty...

You are throwing bullshit and I am not trying to catch it.
It's not bullshit, it's a reasonable precaution aimed at minimizing the reduction in liberty to law abiding citizens, while maximizing the reduction in needless deaths to innocent people.

Not saying it's perfect, but with the 'dig-in-my-heels' attitude you're displaying, no common ground can be found. We need input from both sides to come to a compromise; shutting your eyes, covering your ears, and screaming "NO!!!", does nothing to further progress.
 

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
What I am saying is that in a country of 300 million people with 300 million guns that things are going to happen.

And that some vague law enforced by gun sellers which is arguably unconstitutional as they have no power to compel a gun purchaser to do anything is not going to do anything but make you *feel* better until the next shooting upon which you will jump back on your soap box and demand another solution.
 

althor

Well-Known Member
Funny how they are all wearing USA donation clothes but each has money to buy themselves a nice AK47 assault rifle.
 

Beefbisquit

Well-Known Member
What I am saying is that in a country of 300 million people with 300 million guns that things are going to happen.

And that some vague law enforced by gun sellers which is arguably unconstitutional as they have no power to compel a gun purchaser to do anything is not going to do anything but make you *feel* better until the next shooting upon which you will jump back on your soap box and demand another solution.
If it actually saves lives, which would have to be assessed over a long period of time, it's not making anyone "feel" safer; it would actually serve to make people safer.

How would we know unless we try something? I think it's a better idea than say;

a) Do nothing
b) Ban guns
 

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
If it actually saves lives, which would have to be assessed over a long period of time, it's not making anyone "feel" safer; it would actually serve to make people safer.

How would we know unless we try something? I think it's a better idea than say;

a) Do nothing
b) Ban guns
You are advocating doing something against the constitution that must be assessed over a long period of time? ROFLMAO!!

You havent even proposed a sane, constitutional suggestion at this point...

Here is my problem with YOU... I own a firearm. It is sitting in it's case unlocked in my bedroom closet. I am single and nobody else lives with me.

Because some NUTCASE over 2000 miles away from me flips out and kills a bunch of people, you decide that it would make you FEEL better to impose additional legislation upon my rights and force me to secure my firearm in a way that might not let me reach it in time to defend myself.

Essentially you are trying to put me in further personal jeopardy to make yourself FEEL better.

And I have a serious problem with that.

How about we focus on the nutcases and not the guns eh? That way you are not fucking with the 99.9999% of responsible gun owners out there to assuage your personal feelings.
 

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
You are advocating doing something against the constitution that must be assessed over a long period of time? ROFLMAO!!

You havent even proposed a sane, constitutional suggestion at this point...

Here is my problem with YOU... I own a firearm. It is sitting in it's case unlocked in my bedroom closet. I am single and nobody else lives with me.

Because some NUTCASE over 2000 miles away from me flips out and kills a bunch of people, you decide that it would make you FEEL better to impose additional legislation upon my rights and force me to secure my firearm in a way that might not let me reach it in time to defend myself.

Essentially you are trying to put me in further personal jeopardy to make yourself FEEL better.

And I have a serious problem with that.

How about we focus on the nutcases and not the guns eh? That way you are not fucking with the 99.9999% of responsible gun owners out there to assuage your personal feelings.

Beef argues under certain assumptions. #1, almost all the guns ever made are just laying around, loaded, with safeties off. Assumption #2: since people are not forced by law to store their guns, they just leave them laying around. Assumption # 3: Trigger locks keep guns from being stolen. Assumption #4 an unenforceable law will be enforced only by mere chance.
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
Not saying it's perfect, but with the 'dig-in-my-heels' attitude you're displaying, no common ground can be found. We need input from both sides to come to a compromise; shutting your eyes, covering your ears, and screaming "NO!!!", does nothing to further progress.
this sums the argument up perfectly.

progressives kick in their toes to make footholds that they may better push their agenda, conservatives dig in their heels to resist that agenda, but the conservatives are being unreasonable.

the crux of your "storage requirement" nonsense is that if one DOES need their gun to defend themselves or their home, and they have it available to do so they are guilty of not storing their guns safely, obviously.

once your gun is "Properly Stored" by, for example, the methods demanded in Washington DC for a shotgun, your shotgun must be unloaded, disassembled, locked away in a gun safe, with the ammunition locked in another safe across the house. this means that should someone kick in your door shouting "RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE!" if you do not get raped, then you didnt store your shotgun properly, and are thus a criminal.

in most european countries you must store your gun at the shooting club, which presumes you are a member of a shooting club, pay the dues, and pay for the storage of your gun in a location where it is useless unless you are mugged IN the shooting club...

its what we call a catch 22. if you defend yourself with a gun, youre a criminal because you gun was available for defense, thus you should save the trouble and not have a gun at all, since you cannot legally defend yourself.

boom shaka laka.
 

kpmarine

Well-Known Member
this sums the argument up perfectly.

progressives kick in their toes to make footholds that they may better push their agenda, conservatives dig in their heels to resist that agenda, but the conservatives are being unreasonable.

the crux of your "storage requirement" nonsense is that if one DOES need their gun to defend themselves or their home, and they have it available to do so they are guilty of not storing their guns safely, obviously.

once your gun is "Properly Stored" by, for example, the methods demanded in Washington DC for a shotgun, your shotgun must be unloaded, disassembled, locked away in a gun safe, with the ammunition locked in another safe across the house. this means that should someone kick in your door shouting "RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE!" if you do not get raped, then you didnt store your shotgun properly, and are thus a criminal.

in most european countries you must store your gun at the shooting club, which presumes you are a member of a shooting club, pay the dues, and pay for the storage of your gun in a location where it is useless unless you are mugged IN the shooting club...

its what we call a catch 22. if you defend yourself with a gun, youre a criminal because you gun was available for defense, thus you should save the trouble and not have a gun at all, since you cannot legally defend yourself.

boom shaka laka.
To be fair, you are sensationalizing his position a bit. He was advocating people storing their guns properly when they are not within their control. If you leave the house, take reasonable measures to prevent it's theft/misuse. Not taking your gun apart into 18 pieces and hiding it in 18 different safes at all times. An 8 rifle locker will run you 1/5th the price of a decent gun, and you can bolt it to the floor. You wouldn't need to keep it at the "shooting club" because we have a recognized right to keep and bear arms. I'm not in favor of the legislative aspect, I still have hope for community responsibility, but you're misrepresenting this to make it look worse than it is.
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
If it actually saves lives, which would have to be assessed over a long period of time, it's not making anyone "feel" safer; it would actually serve to make people safer.

How would we know unless we try something? I think it's a better idea than say;

a) Do nothing
b) Ban guns
But to know that it does save lives requires a control group. This is of course unethical when the test articles are real people who have rights.

So alternative metrics need to be found. The one that I find compelling is the increase in violent crime when Britain and Australia instituted gun controls predicated on public safety.

So to argue saving lives, murder stats are insufficient. All violent crime needs to be measured, since the prima facie reason to carry a handgun is to have an option when faced with the imminent reality of being a violent crime target. cn
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
To be fair, you are sensationalizing his position a bit. He was advocating people storing their guns properly when they are not within their control. If you leave the house, take reasonable measures to prevent it's theft/misuse. Not taking your gun apart into 18 pieces and hiding it in 18 different safes at all times. An 8 rifle locker will run you 1/5th the price of a decent gun, and you can bolt it to the floor. You wouldn't need to keep it at the "shooting club" because we have a recognized right to keep and bear arms. I'm not in favor of the legislative aspect, I still have hope for community responsibility, but you're misrepresenting this to make it look worse than it is.
i live in california, the "law" in cali is that your gun MUST be locked away at all times when not in use, and the ammunition must be stored separately.

in Washington DC its already the "law" that your shotgun MUST BE DISASSEMBLED (essentially field stripped) to such a degree as to "provide a substantial delay" before it can be used, as well as locked up, and your ammunition must also be locked up in a different location.

in many european nations the law requires that all arms be stored at the shooting club rendering them inaccessible.

beefy doesnt make clear what he means by "safe storage" these three examples are provided as possibilities. each one is a REAL WORLD example.

i misrepresent nothing, he has provided no details, save that guns must be locked away.
 

ASMALLVOICE

Well-Known Member
i live in california, the "law" in cali is that your gun MUST be locked away at all times when not in use, and the ammunition must be stored separately.

in Washington DC its already the "law" that your shotgun MUST BE DISASSEMBLED (essentially field stripped) to such a degree as to "provide a substantial delay" before it can be used, as well as locked up, and your ammunition must also be locked up in a different location.

in many european nations the law requires that all arms be stored at the shooting club rendering them inaccessible.

beefy doesnt make clear what he means by "safe storage" these three examples are provided as possibilities. each one is a REAL WORLD example.

i misrepresent nothing, he has provided no details, save that guns must be locked away.
If the folks that live in those states follow those rules, I can see why so many get robbed, mugged and/or killed.

Keep the gun in a safe place, but to keep it where it is inoperable is about as stupid as one can be. Hold on Mr. bad guy, I have to assemble my weapon before I can use it, pure bullshit, nothing more.

All of my weapons are at the ready, granted there are no rounds in any of the chambers, but the clips are at max capacity at all times. All there is to do is slap the bolt, rip the slide or cycle the pump and its game the hell on!

Stupid ass laws like that bring about dead innocent people.

No guns=no peace
know guns=know peace

Asmallvoice
 

kpmarine

Well-Known Member
i live in california, the "law" in cali is that your gun MUST be locked away at all times when not in use, and the ammunition must be stored separately.

in Washington DC its already the "law" that your shotgun MUST BE DISASSEMBLED (essentially field stripped) to such a degree as to "provide a substantial delay" before it can be used, as well as locked up, and your ammunition must also be locked up in a different location.

in many european nations the law requires that all arms be stored at the shooting club rendering them inaccessible.

beefy doesnt make clear what he means by "safe storage" these three examples are provided as possibilities. each one is a REAL WORLD example.

i misrepresent nothing, he has provided no details, save that guns must be locked away.
The way you stated it assumed that was his goal. He advocated "proper storage" along the same lines I did; which can be summed up in one sentence: Render your guns reasonably inaccessible when you aren't in control of them. If you look at his open statements that he has fully assembled guns in his own home, then you can pretty reasonably assume he isn't for the "field strip your shotgun" method.
.
 

kpmarine

Well-Known Member
If the folks that live in those states follow those rules, I can see why so many get robbed, mugged and/or killed.

Keep the gun in a safe place, but to keep it where it is inoperable is about as stupid as one can be. Hold on Mr. bad guy, I have to assemble my weapon before I can use it, pure bullshit, nothing more.

All of my weapons are at the ready, granted there are no rounds in any of the chambers, but the clips are at max capacity at all times. All there is to do is slap the bolt, rip the slide or cycle the pump and its game the hell on!

Stupid ass laws like that bring about dead innocent people.

No guns=no peace
know guns=know peace

Asmallvoice
Minor pet peeve of mine; "Clips" are not "Magazines". A clip is just a means of keeping rounds together to load a magazine conveniently. For example: A rifle with a clip and no mag is single shot; a rifle with a mag and no clip shoots as many rounds as you can fit into the mag.

On the major points, I agree. I am a Cali resident, and my house guns are always loaded and out when I'm home.
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
The way you stated it assumed that was his goal. He advocated "proper storage" along the same lines I did; which can be summed up in one sentence: Render your guns reasonably inaccessible when you aren't in control of them. If you look at his open statements that he has fully assembled guns in his own home, then you can pretty reasonably assume he isn't for the "field strip your shotgun" method.
.
your statement is cogent and reasonable, were i to argue that YOU proposed the Washington DC" disassemble your heater and lock it up" Safe Workplace For Home Invaders And Armed Robbers Protection Act, i would be guilty of any number of rhetorical fallacies.

beefy has made clear his opinion that HE is one of the few people he would trust with arms, and trust to keep them out of the hands of the unfortunate people who will be dominated and overcome by the evil spirit within every firearm, and then be forced to commit crime after crime by that demonic possession. (see now im exaggerating...) while everyone else is of course, questionable.

most people who swallow the gun control bait think that way, "they aint coming after MY guns, cuz im one of the good guys..." just before the left sets the hook and starts reeling them in. the "common sense reasonable measures" the left always asks for are just the latest step in their ongoing march towards total elimination of all private arms in the nation.

for proof that this is FACT and not hyperbole, read:

the "mission statement" of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence (formerly Handgun Control Inc)
"The Brady Campaign works to pass and enforce sensible federal and state gun laws, regulations, and public policies through grassroots activism, electing public officials who support common sense gun laws, and increasing public awareness of gun violence. Through our Million Mom March and Brady Chapters, we work locally to educate people about the dangers of guns, honor victims of gun violence, and pass sensible gun laws, believing that all Americans, especially children, have the right to live free from the threat of gun violence." ~http://www.bradycampaign.org/about/

and the statements of the founding president:

"We'll take one step at a time, and the first is necessarily – given the political realities – very modest. We'll have to start working again to strengthen the law, and then again to strengthen the next law and again and again. Our ultimate goal, total control of handguns, is going to take time. The first problem is to slow down production and sales. Next is to get registration. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and ammunition (with a few exceptions) totally illegal" ~ Nelson "Pete" Shields president of HCI in the 1970's before it became the "brady campaign" Quoted by: Richard Harris, "A Reporter at Large: Handguns," New Yorker, July 26, 1976, 53, 58;

or if thats too hard to comprehend:
the collected works of Aaron Sorkin, Rob Reiner, and Alan Alda.
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
Minor pet peeve of mine; "Clips" are not "Magazines". A clip is just a means of keeping rounds together to load a magazine conveniently. For example: A rifle with a clip and no mag is single shot; a rifle with a mag and no clip shoots as many rounds as you can fit into the mag.

On the major points, I agree. I am a Cali resident, and my house guns are always loaded and out when I'm home.
however the M1 Garand uses a "clip" within the magazine, and the "clip" gets ejected automatically after all rounds are spent. since the Garand was the first US Issued rifle to have what might be called a "detachable magazine" (though it really is justy a steel clip that holds the rounds within the otherwise fixed magazine well) many have come to associate the words clip and magazine as synonymous in the context of firearms.

many people also assume that all magazines are detachable, and many would be horrified at the prospect of an 3000 round magazine (sitting in my closet right now) but greatly comforted by the idea of a rifle with NO magazine at all, as they would assume that its a one shot breech loader.

which of course leads me to consider the diagrams my late uncle drew up for his proposed Belt Fed Bottom Ejecting Automatic Shotgun... his proposal included alternating 00 shot and sabot slugs for maximum devastation on hard targets as well as personnel. it was proposed based on his oinion of the shortcomings of the M60 in jungle warfare as a vehicle mounted weapon or a crew served machinegun. i thought it was brilliant.
 

Canna Sylvan

Well-Known Member
Am I just stupid, or does, "children, have the right to live free from the threat of gun
violence," mean their mission is to repeal the 2nd? Is all gun violence bad? How do we keep everyone from doing evil things? Does the gun take you over, like Kynes mocks? I thought we had no "rights" excecpt those in the Constitution? It states quite the opposite of their mission.

Until humanity magically becomes a Kumbaya society without the urge to compete and we no longer have thoughts of fucking our neighbor's wife, the gun's wrath (violence) will thunder upon those who dare try liberty depriving acts against me and my family.
 
Top