Daley Proposes New Gun Laws
Um, yeah… I don’t think these would stand up to a Constitutional challenge either.
• Limit the number of handguns residents can register to one per month and prohibit residents from having more than one handgun in operating order at any given time.
• Require residents in homes with children to keep them in lock boxes or equipped with trigger locks.
• Require prospective gun owners to take a four-hour class and one-hour training at a gun range. They would have to leave the city for training because Chicago prohibits new gun ranges and limits the use of existing ranges to police officers. Those restrictions were similar to those in an ordinance passed in Washington, D.C., after the high court struck down its ban two years ago.
The measure, which draws from ordinances around the country, would ban gun shops in Chicago and prohibit gun owners from stepping outside their homes, even onto their porches or garages, with a handgun.
I love this one. How, exactly are you supposed to go train on the gun range when you can’t take your gun out of the house?
I also like the part of being part of the registry. Screw that. Just because one wants to exercise their right to bear arms, it shouldn’t be at the price of sacrificing one’s right to privacy.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 01, 2010 at 2312 hrs
Like Daly cares. He’s a thug, just like his old man.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 02, 2010 at 0505 hrs
The gun ban in chicago is working so great you can’t blame them for trying to keep it. They only have about 50 shootings aday.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 02, 2010 at 0604 hrs
The trigger locks are a good idea.
The rest? Sorry Charlie…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 02, 2010 at 0638 hrs
The trigger locks are a good idea.
Trigger locks are a great idea, until you actually need the weapon in an emergency. Then they can get you killed.
Posted by Jed on July 02, 2010 at 0725 hrs
...and prohibit residents from having more than one handgun in operating order at any given time.
Sorry, but this is just pure LUNACY to me! It’s like saying you can have more than one car, but the others have to be up on blocks…
The use of trigger locks or lock boxes is an individual decision. I personally think they should be used in homes with young children, and while it should be a recommendation, it should not be legislated.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 02, 2010 at 0800 hrs
laker?.....................LAKER!! Do you hear what you’re saying????
I knew that kool-aid effect would wear off if you stuck around long enough. Welcome to the real world, buddy.
See? Your head didn’t actually explode, or your brain melt if you rationalized and used logic before posting.Big thumbs up to you on this one.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 02, 2010 at 0848 hrs
None of these measures seem to address what is the real problem: Criminals getting their hands on and using guns in the commission of crimes. Nothing that Daley is proposing does a thing to hinder a criminal in the least bit. What about proposing stiff, draconian penalties (say 50 years in prison with no chance of parole) for having a fiream in your possession while committing a felony? How about 25 years in prison without parole for selling a firearm to a known felon? How about a person using a firearm to defend themselves against an intruder cannot be sued by the intruder or his dependents?
How about some real laws that inconvenience the criminal for once?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 02, 2010 at 0914 hrs
BTW, I own two pistols, a 45 and a 9mm, and am trained and ready to use them to proect home and family.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 02, 2010 at 0916 hrs
Trigger locks are a great idea, until you actually need the weapon in an emergency. Then they can get you killed.
I’m with Bill. Being required to safely store your firearms makes sense to me. Having a loaded handgun under your mattress is what seems like idiocy to me—especially in homes with children.
The rest of the list seems silly to me, though.
Posted by scott on July 02, 2010 at 1151 hrs
@Jim: This has nothing to do with keeping handguns out of the hands of the bad guys. The far Left needs chaos to survive. If there is no “crisis”, if people can protect themselves, there is no need for Leftists. If people have good jobs available, plentiful food and housing, there is no need for the Leftists. They exist solely to “save” the downtrodden. You can’t make it on your own. Evil Big Business, Big Insurance, Big….whoever is a boogieman who needs to be tamed by Big Government.
Posted by Deekaman on July 02, 2010 at 1358 hrs
Trigger locks are a great idea, until you actually need the weapon in an emergency. Then they can get you killed.
I’m with Bill. Being required to safely store your firearms makes sense to me. Having a loaded handgun under your mattress is what seems like idiocy to me—especially in homes with children.
The rest of the list seems silly to me, though.
My firearm is always in my holster and it won’t fit in there with a trigger lock on it. When I buy a new gun the first thing I do is pitch the trigger lock in the trash. “Constitutional Carry” has come to Wisconsin’s Jackson County today and more will follow. All you Jim Doyle sycophants can thank him for this.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 02, 2010 at 1403 hrs
I hate that I agree with Scott….it makes me wonder if I have somehow missed something or incorrectly analyzed the situation… but I agree. The whole thing is lunatic nonsense that will just create more unarmed victims for the out of control criminal thugs that are terrifying that beleaguered city. If this is what those aldermen consider a solution, then it’s no wonder that Chicago is in such dire straights.
I’m not a fan of forced trigger locks (actually, I hate them), but requiring guns to be properly stored (especially in homes with children) is a good idea. There are certainly gun safes that allow easy access to your gun in an emergency. Gun owners should be required to act in a safe and reasonable fashion, but not be restricted in the ownership or legal use of their guns.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 02, 2010 at 1403 hrs
There should be no safe storage requirement whatsoever. If you have kids, by all means, be safe—but it shouldn’t be any of the government’s business. There are those of us who have no kids, and should have every right to keep a locked and loaded weapon within easy reach.
Posted by Jed on July 02, 2010 at 1429 hrs
If someone dies because a child finds your gun, should there be a minimum mandatory sentence for the adult who didn’t store it safely? Say, 20 years?
Posted by scott on July 02, 2010 at 1437 hrs
If somebody dies in a car accident and your stolen car was at fault should you be looking at twenty years in prison because you failed to lock the doors.
For the ten millionth time guns or hardware dont kill people, bad people kill people, take away the guns and they will find another device to carry out there evil work. Why should so many suffer and give up there rights because of the minority that abuses.
Lets stop drunk driving so now nobody can drink? Terror in the skies great now nobody can fly. Obesity ban all sugar period. Online fraud lets ban the internet.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 02, 2010 at 1521 hrs
No. I’m against mandatory minimums, too, but that’s a whole different argument. And no child is going to have access to my guns, because I’m a responsible gun owner.
Posted by Jed on July 02, 2010 at 1524 hrs
Clue phone ringing off the hook for crusher: I’m not trying to take away anyone’s guns, pal. I’m just saying if you own one you’re responsible for it. Personal responsibility? Surely that’s a phrase you’re familiar with.
Posted by scott on July 02, 2010 at 1525 hrs
I’m a responsible gun owner
Glad to hear it. But are you against holding responsible the people who aren’t? If you leave a loaded, unlocked gun around a home with children you’re a fucking idiot. And if someone gets shot through your negligence you should be held accountable.
Rhetorical for me, anyway. I’d be in favor of just passing a law saying you have to secure it properly in the first place if you have children living in or visiting your home.
Posted by scott on July 02, 2010 at 1528 hrs
I never said people couldn’t be charged if they are suspected of reckless endangerment, but there should be no mandatory minimum.
And you are correct, it is “personal responsibility” we’re talking about here, not “government mandated responsibility.”
Posted by Jed on July 02, 2010 at 1559 hrs
Ok. Then put me down for a little government mandated responsibility in this case. You have a gun, you have kids, it has to be locked safely. It should be the law, plain and simple.
If you have a swimming pool in your yard it’s not good enough for me that you could be held liable in court if a neighbor’s kid drowns in it. There’s a law that says you have to exercise a certain amount of precaution; you have to have it fenced.
Posted by scott on July 02, 2010 at 1605 hrs
@ Scott: Forgive me if I appear to be underwhelmed by your vote of confidence, but you DID make me laugh with your post. There is a lot of kool-aid consumed on this board and I’ve seen you drink your share. The problem often seems to boil down to the “all or nothing” /”my-way-or-the-highway” opinions presented here which make it extremely difficult for someone like me to be in agreement with other viewpoints. In general, I have found that people who take the ‘all or nothing” approach usually go home empty handed. When we take down the requirements of total, 100% agreement, I think we would find that folks have a lot more in common than you think.
That being said, this is just a no-brainer! I have always felt that anything a person does within the confines of their home is their personal business. Period. The only exceptions are child endangerment, cruelty to animals, threatening people over the phone or internet, disturbing the public, and child pornography. If you want to walk naked around your house wearing in high heels, fine; just stay away from the front bay window!
If the government mandates that I can only purchase a handgun with the purchase of a trigger lock or lock box, so be it. But once that gun is in my house, all bets are off. It’s my gun and can store it anyway I want to. I can discard the locks. That may not be the smartest thing, but it’s my choice. Outside of my home, I am subject to the laws of society.
As a gun owner, my choice is to have my pistols in a lock box; I have a shotgun for home protection. And the only conflict I have with the law over firearms is marital law (not martial law, but my wife!) The lock box is a compromise; the shotgun is a constant bone of contention…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 02, 2010 at 1632 hrs
The only exceptions are child endangerment
Having a loaded gun in an insecure place is child endangerment if there are children on the premises.
Posted by scott on July 02, 2010 at 1636 hrs
Having a loaded gun in an insecure place is child endangerment if there are children on the premises.
Actually, I meant to say child neglect. But you bring up an interesting point. Child endangerment with guns is more about the accessibility of the guns. In other words, you can put a trigger lock on a gun, but if you leave the keys in plain view, well what good is it. This stupid law is about trigger locks and makes no mention of the security of where the gun is kept. many people are able to secure their guns without trigger locks. Personally, i was never willing to take that chance.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 02, 2010 at 1707 hrs
I keep a pistol where I can get at it in a moment’s notice. It is not loaded. But there is a loaded clip next to it and the gun is kept where it will be easy and quick for me to access should some criminal decide to attempt a home invasion. The second to last thing that they will hear is the sound of a 45 round being chambered. However, since the vast majority of times just the display of a handgun thwarts a criminal, I want to give them fair warning. Ergo, the clip is kept out of the pistol so that they will hear the sound of the round being chambered. I have trigger locks (they came with the pistols) but I don’t use them and certainly won’t use them with my personal defense pistol. That sort of defeats the purpose of “personal defense”.
“Having a loaded gun in an insecure place is child endangerment”? I’ve never heard such nonsense! On the contrary, in many places, particularly Chicago, having a loaded gun in the home is child protection. My daughter, as well as the kids of all of the gun owners that I know, grew up around guns. They were taught to respect them, how to handle them, how to use them. It should be noted that the children of criminals have never had that sort of training.
And don’t give me this crap about, if we can only save one child. I’m concerned about the children, too—especially the ones who would be preyed upon by the criminal element. If keeping a loaded gun in the house would only save one of those children, it would be worth it, wouldn’t it?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 02, 2010 at 1708 hrs
many people are able to secure their guns without trigger locks.
I’m all for that. Get a gun safe. Get one of those biometric ones and keep the gun loaded, if you really believe you need to shoot someone at a moment’s notice. But it should be secured and I have NO problem with laws saying that you have to. I figured that’s what I’ll do if/when I ever get around to buying a gun. Either that or pay to store it at the range.
“Having a loaded gun in an insecure place is child endangerment”? I’ve never heard such nonsense
You’re fooling yourself, Jim. Do you have kids in your house?
You guys are so close. You see how reliably you can alienate and totally freak out someone like myself, someone who is definitely NOT anti-gun? Christ, if we can’t even agree that a gun should be kept secure from children, then fuck it. I ain’t with ya. You want to keep guns and ammunition completely unsecured in homes with children. That ain’t right.
Posted by scott on July 02, 2010 at 1749 hrs
Scott, I have had kids, and do have kids, in the house. They’d have to be mighty strong to actually work the action on my Springfield XD-45. Further, they’d have to be mighty tall to lay their hands on it in the first place.
But don’t YOU care about the children? What about the home invasions in this country that happen on a daily basis? What sare parents supposed to do while their kids are being terrorized? Wait on the cops that may or may not get the call in time? Try to remember where the key to the trigger lock is kept? Fumble around trying to put bullets into the cylinder or clip? Trust me, the criminal isn’t going to wait for A.) you to get your act together and make the pistol operable, or B.) for the police to arrive.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 02, 2010 at 1850 hrs
This stupid law is about trigger locks and makes no mention of the security of where the gun is kept
Agreed. My “SHTF” weapon is kept in a very good ‘hide,’ and the grandchildren have never even seen the gun, much less know where it’s kept. (NOT under the mattress).
Only my wife & children (all over the age of 16) know where it is, and they ALL know to keep their mouths shut.
It’s all about discretion.
Posted by dad29 on July 02, 2010 at 1931 hrs
And there not going to wait for you to pull out your gun, either, hero. Anyone invading your home with the express intent of doing you bodily harm (rare as that is) is going to come armed and they’re going to strike first. A lot more likely you’re likely to shoot some druggie ransacking your garage in the middle of the night. If you’re that afraid, go ahead—keep a loaded gun in your home. Put it by your bedside. But there’s no reason why it can’t be both locked up and highly available. We have the technology. A biometric gun vault that opens when you put your hand on it probably costs a lot less than the gun you’re going to put in it. Bonus! You can be pretty sure you’re not going to come home and find a robber standing there with your own gun in their hand.
These fantasies you guys have of repelling murderers and rapists in your bedroom make me tired.
Posted by scott on July 02, 2010 at 1932 hrs
and the grandchildren have never even seen the gun, much less know where it’s kept. (NOT under the mattress).
Well that’s a relief! You have a gooood hiding place. One that kids cold never find.
Do you know the expression “famous last words”?
Seriously, I don’t know if your gun is safe or not, but what the hell is the major hardship here? Lock it up!
Posted by scott on July 02, 2010 at 1935 hrs
As faggy as guns are, these laws would all be ruled unconstitutional and are also blatent infringements on individual rights.
Scott, you’re right that the whole fantasy of fending off rapists and murderers attacking one’s home is so unlikely that such idea shouldn’t even be considered in this debate. But a kid finding a gun and killing somebody is just as unlikelt when you compare it to the long list of common items that are much much much more dangerous. Not just swing sets and swimming pools. Window blinds, small toys, traffic etc. etc. What’s funny is that guns should have more protection from regulation than all these other things. There’s a fricken constitutional amendment about them for Chrisake.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 02, 2010 at 2058 hrs
You know what? I’m inclined to agree. I don’t think these laws or any others like them mean a goddamned thing for the safety of their owners or in crime deterrence or self defense or any of it. I just don’t think it matters that much in a practical sense.
Still, the reason kids are shooting themselves with guns every other day is because most people have the effing sense to store them safely. I see no reason why there shouldn’t be a law saying you have to do that. At the very least you’d be able to charge someone who failed to do so and whose gun was subsequently involved in a shooting.
I don’t think such laws would be unconstitutional, though.
Posted by scott on July 02, 2010 at 2107 hrs
As proven in this dialog, locks hinder the right to bear arms.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 02, 2010 at 2122 hrs
You want to keep guns and ammunition completely unsecured in homes with children. That ain’t right.
I thank those people for helping to clean up the gene pool.
Posted by Jay4Liberty on July 02, 2010 at 2148 hrs
Scott, firearms are used over a million times a year to stop a crime. The vast majority of the cases those guns are not fired. Just the display of the gun stops the criminal. The vast, overwhelming, staggering by all proportions of cases where kids have been killed with a firearm, that firearm was illegally obtained, often by a felon in a street corner purchase. In places such as Wyoming, Montana, NORTHERN WISCONSIN, where firearm ownership is common, the number of kids per capita who are killing themselves via firearms is miniscule. Indeed, the vast majority of the fatal accidents involving children and firearms take place in cities with highly restrictive gun laws. Go figure.
For the life of me I cannot believe that anyone would willingly hand their protection over to a government that has no obligation to protect the individual. That’s right, the courts have decided over and over that you can’t sue the police becuase they weren’t there when a crook broke into your house and raped your wife. It is people like you, people who have decided to just roll over and do anything that the criminal wants, that to me just are taking up space in the this country. Why do we surrender entire sections of a community by saying that it just not safe to go there? Why do some people think that we should all act in a way that conveniences the criminal? A criminal should be wetting his pants with fear at the thought of invading someone’s home. According to you, the homeowner should be the one who is terrified and the criminal should have nothing to fear.
I dream of the day, and I recognize that it is only a dream, when anyone with a criminal intent is so petrified with fear of coming up against an armed and trained gunowner, that it is the criminal who offers up anything that the gunowner wants instead of the other way around. There should be entire areas of the city where criminals fear to go because it is suicide to go there. Yet, we have neighborhoods where the criminal element rules at night, and sometimes even during the day. The people live in fear behind closed blinds, no one goes out at night except the criminals and gangbangers, the parks are off limits. Why? Why surrender to the criminals? It should be the other way around!
BTW, I have trained in home defense and I practice regularly and compete in International Defensive Pistol Association competition. While I’m sure that there would be a normal apprehension were I have to protect my family, I feel very confident that the training that I’ve had would do the job. As I said, in the vast majority of cases, the mere presentation of a firearm by a homeowner has stopped a crime without a shot being fired.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 02, 2010 at 2201 hrs
Well said Jim.
For our entertainment, may I share a video of a home invasion that was stopped by an armed home owner.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApgSY1qSHf8
Posted by Jay4Liberty on July 02, 2010 at 2226 hrs
Jim, I think a lot of what you just wrote is bullshit. I didn’t see any links to back up the factual claims, either.
Posted by scott on July 02, 2010 at 2313 hrs
Of course you think it’s bullshit. You are a raging liberal with almost no knowledge of guns. The majority of his factual statements aren’t hard to find sources….
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 02, 2010 at 2347 hrs
These fantasies you guys have of repelling murderers and rapists in your bedroom make me tired.
My family has literally been 1 minute away from that very scenario. There is now a weapon available, secured, but VERY quickly accessible. I’ve practiced with it in my house, and I’ve practiced my shooting as well. Won’t happen again.
It’s far from a fantasy for some of us. Perhaps you live in a nice safe little burb, or perhaps you have just been lucky so far. When the day comes, I hope you won’t be as helpless as we were. If you are so naive as to believe it doesn’t happen then I would offer that you are simply quite ignorant of reality in the big city.
Scott, you’re right that the whole fantasy of fending off rapists and murderers attacking one’s home is so unlikely that such idea shouldn’t even be considered in this debate.
Ever had someone kick in your front door at 6AM? Your bulb is as dim as Scott’s on this issue.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 03, 2010 at 0008 hrs
the reason kids are shooting themselves with guns every other day
How many? And how do you define “kids”?
Posted by dad29 on July 03, 2010 at 0814 hrs
Self defense is a Christian principal that a secular government opposes like every other Christian principal.
The declaration of Independence and our Constitution provide for God given rights and that is why they keep attacking these things.
Happy 4th.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 03, 2010 at 0943 hrs
Happy 4th to you! Do they have fireworks at the mental hospital, too?
Posted by scott on July 03, 2010 at 0951 hrs
scott:
If you have a swimming pool in your yard it’s not good enough for me that you could be held liable in court if a neighbor’s kid drowns in it. There’s a law that says you have to exercise a certain amount of precaution; you have to have it fenced.
And here lies the reason we are loosing so many of our rights. Liberals like scott who don’t believe those who invade your personal space are at fault for the consequences of their actions, but rather hold the person who’s space has been invaded to bear all responsibility. This “it’s not good enough for me” mindset of the Liberals is used as justification for all of tiny bits of stolen liberty they’re responsible for that has led us to the point of excessive Governmental control we find ourselves under today.
It’s not the single bite of a piranha the claims it’s victim.Responsible gun owners know the devastation the weapon is capable of, that is why they choose them, and that is why they store them securely, yet accessible if needed. There are laws that deal with those who don’t do so, and adding restrictions, and mandating trigger locks is not going to negate irresponsibility of others. It will just make that tool less effective when needed. Equally deadly instruments are not held to the same standard because Liberals are not really concerned with the mayhem they create, but more with what a gun represents, that being our ability to retain our freedom through the use of force. I can guarantee you that once the Liberals succeed in taking gun rights away, the rest will lost with a stroke of a pen.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 03, 2010 at 1015 hrs
And here lies the reason we are loosing so many of our rights.
And here lies the reason that you are widely seen as an extremist. The vast majority of Americans think fencing your pool is a pretty reasonable concession to make in order to live in a close community of others. Only a fringe right-winger could turn that example into exhibit A of Why We Are Losing Our Freedoms.
Also, wake the F up, man. Nobody is taking your precious guns away. It’s a sacred cow of American politics, written right into our constitution. The shrieking and hyperventilation over Obama and his imaginary campaign to disarm you backyard patriots is as pathetic as it is absurd.
Furthermore, I’m not anti-gun. I’m actually for initiatives like concealed carry in Wisconsin. This is how you respond to someone who is a potential political ally? Basically accuse him of creeping communism? It’s no wonder you’re out of the mainstream.
Posted by scott on July 03, 2010 at 1041 hrs
“Ever had someone kick in your front door at 6AM? Your bulb is as dim as Scott’s on this issue.”
No. Because it almost never happens. And your anecdote doesn’t change that fact. Although the fact that you’re trying to refute a probability argument using an anecdote prooves that you’re very very stupid.
“Self defense is a Christian principal that a secular government opposes like every other Christian principal.”
Ha ha. I hope you’re being ironic here. If there’s one thing in America more retarded than guns, it’s Christianity and the lies you people tell about it’s place in our founding documents.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 03, 2010 at 1054 hrs
I should add that I fully admit that the real reason we have the right to have guns (to overthrow the government, not to “protect our families”) is extremely unlikely these days too. Still, regardless of their reasons, the framers put the second amendment in the constitution, so laws like the ones mentioned in this post are unconstitutional.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 03, 2010 at 1121 hrs
Every year Wisconsin has about 750,000 deer hunters take to the woods. In every hunting cabin and camp there are fire arms and ammunition that are unsecured. There are kids as young as 12 who are hunting and probably even younger ones who tag along. In Scott’s world this should be a recipe for mass death, especially among the children. Yet, the exact opposite is true. Compare that to the City of Chicago where there are more people and percentage-wise, far more firearm deaths. Scott would tell you that it is a universal axiom that firearms and ammunition unsecured is the precursor to immanent death. I disagree. Look at it this way: My uncle is a legal gunowner who has always kept his gun cabinet unlocked (he claims that he lost the keys) and his favorite deer rifle hung in the bedroom. The ammunition was kept in a desk drawer. My nieces and nephews knew from an early age that the punishment would be swift and severe if they messed with their dad’s guns or ammunition. The kids respect their dad and respect the firearms. That is common sense parenting. In the areas where the majority (per capita)of accidents involving guns and kids take place, there is largely a dependant culture. Families look to government to solve all of their problems, to keep the kids safe. I find it interesting to note that it seems like just about every attempt to put the NRA’s “Eddie the Eagle Gun Safety Program” into public schools has been met with strong opposition by liberals. And then they complain that so many kids are killed in firearms accidents. Go figure.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 03, 2010 at 1123 hrs
In Scott’s world this should be a recipe for mass death,
Bullshit.
Posted by scott on July 03, 2010 at 1141 hrs
I’m an extremist, and you’re…....................................what??? I don’t deny what I am, and as far as I’m concerned it takes extremists to counter extremists.I believe my cause is just, and the side I represent to be the correct side considering the country I live in. I don’t see the need to add more, and more laws that won’t be enforced, and more, and more mandates to restrict free will. You want a fence around your pool, do so. If some neighbor, or their kid is determined to swim in it they are going to do it. Kids are always hopping fences to swim in public pools, it happens. You’re not our Nanny so keep your nose out of our house. Sort of like you guys say the Government has no right in our bedrooms.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 03, 2010 at 1153 hrs
I’m an extremist, and you’re…....................................what?
Yes, I’m a what? A mainstreamist? On this issue, probably so.
you guys say the Government has no right in our bedrooms.
What, you don’t say that? What do you say?
Posted by scott on July 03, 2010 at 1156 hrs
jijawm:
“Ever had someone kick in your front door at 6AM? Your bulb is as dim as Scott’s on this issue.”
No. Because it almost never happens.
It happens more often than children killing themselves, or others with guns they find in the house. Talk about BS!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 03, 2010 at 1159 hrs
Violent home intruders being repelled with guns happens more than kids shooting someone with an accessible gun? Please. It’s likely untrue in the first place, but we’re talking about extremely rare events in the first place.
Violent home intruders: 0000.000x% of people will ever experience this.
Kids shooting someone with a found gun: 0000.000x% of people will ever experience this.
We’re clearly talking about a matter of great, great import for most American families.
Posted by scott on July 03, 2010 at 1203 hrs
scott:
Yes, I’m a what? A mainstreamist?
Only in your own mind. Liberalism has no room for mainstream thought, The Goal is all that matters. Masquerading as a “moderate” to gain acceptance used to work, unfortunately “moderates” always seem to lean Left, and we all know what that means.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 03, 2010 at 1211 hrs
Doing some grilling this afternoon but I’m out of tinfoil. Any chance a couple of you could spare your hats for a good cause?
People have a right to own guns. I also believe, as I suspect most people do, that kids have a right to not be harmed by their parents’ irresponsibility and negligence, whether that’s by leaving a firearm in a place where a kid can get it, or by refusing necessary medical treatment to a child because of whatever version of God the parents happen to believe in.
I am sure most gun advocates here are responsible owners and teach their children the same thing. Kids, however, deserve better than to have their fate decided lottery style, whereby they can only hope that they had good, responsible parents to teach them well. The rest, I think we have an obligation to look out for. And if that means nobody can leave their weapon loaded on the coffee table, I’m okay with that.
Funny how when it came to the Patriot Act, conservatives were all kinds of willing to trade away freedom for a few magic beans. But now they all seem to want to argue the other side of the equation. I guess when it comes to preserving liberty, there’s a different standard for the Second Amendment than there is for the First or the Fourth. Good to know.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on July 03, 2010 at 1217 hrs
jijawm said -
“Ha ha. I hope you’re being ironic here. If there’s one thing in America more retarded than guns, it’s Christianity and the lies you people tell about it’s place in our founding documents.”
I see that jijawm is just as delusional as he always has been. The anti-gun crowd is the same as the anti-Christian crowd. From guns, to marriage to free speech, etc. their efforts are to change the nations Christian principals to secular ones.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 03, 2010 at 1237 hrs
I don’t think there are any “anti-gun people” in this discussion.
Only in your own mind. Liberalism has no room for mainstream thought,
So, if I’m for concealed carry and I also think it’s reasonable that parents lock their guns from their children, that makes me a crazy left-wing liberal communist gun-hater. Right.
I say again: YOU are the extremist.
Posted by scott on July 03, 2010 at 1518 hrs
RS, you cannot legislate responsible behavior. The irresponsible adult who leaves a loaded Glock 19 on the coffee table is both a moron and irresponsible. My pistol is kept where I have quick access to it and a little kid would not. It is kept next to a loaded clip but the pistol itself is neither loaded nor is the slide locked back. I have to insert the clip and manually rack the slide in order to load the pistol. I cannot think of a kid under 12 who would have the hand strngth to load a round in that pistol. Yet, my pistol is considered “unsecured” by many. Hardly.
I favor a lot of education both in school and in the media, telling folks how to properly handle, maintain, and secure firearms in their homes. I DON’T favor any legislations that would mandate how an individual should do that. In the same vein, I think that it is perfectly fine if the government runs a public education program telling us to wah our hands to prevent the spread of disease. But the government should no mandate how and when we do that in the home.
Scott, you favor concealed carry but you don’t favor a person being allowed to have a pistol in their home for home defense? How do you reconcile those two?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 03, 2010 at 1530 hrs
That would be hard to reconcile—if in fact I actually held both of those beliefs. Which I don’t.
Posted by scott on July 03, 2010 at 1620 hrs
I favor a lot of education both in school and in the media, telling folks how to properly handle, maintain, and secure firearms in their homes.
Should such education programs tell people to keep their pistols next to a loaded clip, both unlocked?
Posted by scott on July 03, 2010 at 1622 hrs
Should such education programs tell people to keep their pistols next to a loaded clip, both unlocked?
By all means! Keep the pistol next to a loaded clip in a place that is not accessable to kids but is still convenient to get to in a time of emergency. It should also teach folks that the person with the primary responsibility for protecting them is themselves. It should also teach them how to teach their kids to respect firearms, that guns aren’t toys, and that adults don’t leave a loaded pistol sitting on a coffee table.
How can you reconcile your view that concelaed carry is okay with your view that we should not be allowed to have a firearm in our house for the purpose of personal protection?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 03, 2010 at 1844 hrs
Out of curiosity, how many commentators in the is thread, outside of the military, have ever had the need to use a firearm to protect themselves or their property from from harm?
For the record, I own a small shotgun that is useful for the rabbits that enjoy my garden a bit too much.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 03, 2010 at 1934 hrs
How can you reconcile your view that concelaed carry is okay with your view that we should not be allowed to have a firearm in our house for the purpose of personal protection?
Why do you keep asking me about “my view” that people shouldn’t be allowed to have a firearm in their home for self-defense? I clearly don’t believe that. So why do you keep asking it?
Posted by scott on July 03, 2010 at 2224 hrs
RS, you cannot legislate responsible behavior.
Jim, I agree with pretty much everything you wrote, including this statement. But society also cannot collectively punish behavior it considers irresponsible unless it criminalizes said behavior. And I would much rather have this one explicitly treated by legislative bodies than leave it to DA’s to try and prosecute firearm deaths caused by negligence under assorted reckless endangerment/child welfare statutes where penalties may not be adequate to serve as a deterrent to irresponsible behavior.
And please, let me know the next time a kid in America dies because someone didn’t wash their hands after using the bathroom.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on July 04, 2010 at 0117 hrs
http://www.kamjah.com, Career Coaching, Real Coaching, Life Coach, Relationship Coaching, Life Coach That Understands You, Geoffrey Schmidt, Business Coaching, More Confidence, More Clarity, Life Coach That Understands You
Life Coaching, Career Coaching, Real Coaching, life coaching, Relationship Coaching, Life Coach That Understands You, Geoffrey Schmidt, Business Coaching, More Confidence, More Clarity, Life Coach That Understands YouPosted by nicolespark on July 04, 2010 at 0352 hrs
http://www.kamjah.com, Career Coaching, Real Coaching, Life Coach, Relationship Coaching, Life Coach That Understands You, Geoffrey Schmidt, Business Coaching, More Confidence, More Clarity, Life Coach That Understands You
Life Coaching, Career Coaching, Real Coaching, life coaching, Relationship Coaching, Life Coach That Understands You, Geoffrey Schmidt, Business Coaching, More Confidence, More Clarity, Life Coach That Understands YouPosted by nicolespark on July 04, 2010 at 0353 hrs
http://143.evony.com/s.html?adv=tribalfusion1
Take Milwaukee where Democrats rule. Every week one, two or three people get killed. At the same time Ozaukee County, which borders Milwaukee, will go gun killing free for years. Lots of guns in Milwaukee, and lots of guns in Ozaukee County and very different shooting rates. The difference is that Democrat you have for a neighbor.Yes it’s true, guns don’t kill people, Democrats kill people. Milwaukee, Chicago, Washington D.C., St Louis, any place Democrats cluster be afraid be very afraid. There will be places where people tell you not to go, “it’s to dangerous”. Why, because it is invested with Democrats.
You are far more likely to be killed by a Democrat than not. Maybe we should ban Democrats, or at least lock them up. Or at least an ugly Democrat ban. How about a three day waiting period after getting consent for sex and the act. Democrats would never get laid. If we kept Democrats 1500 ft from the schools there would be no teachers. Just nonsense, just like banning guns.
Guns don’t kill people, Democrats kill people
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 04, 2010 at 0713 hrs
Guns don’t kill people, Democrats kill people
Well, your logic is no more strained than the logic used by the anti-gun crowd or those obtuse Chicago politicians.
Out of curiosity, how many commentators in the is thread, outside of the military, have ever had the need to use a firearm to protect themselves or their property from from harm?
How many commentators on this thread have needed to use the seat-belts or oxygen masks on an airplane? The lifeboats on a cruise ship? The fire escape in a hotel? Are you suggesting that those are not necessary because they are infrequently used?
How can you reconcile your view that concelaed carry is okay with your view that we should not be allowed to have a firearm in our house for the purpose of personal protection?
Scott actually never said anything like that. I agree with his position about 98% on this issue… and there is really no conflict between allowing concealed carry and advocating safe gun ownership. He has made sense on this issue.
Now please don’t ever make me defend Scott again. It will be years before I recover.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 04, 2010 at 1128 hrs
“It happens more often than children killing themselves, or others with guns they find in the house.”
Yes, as I noted above. Both are very rare.
“I see that jijawm is just as delusional as he always has been. The anti-gun crowd is the same as the anti-Christian crowd. From guns, to marriage to free speech, etc. their efforts are to change the nations Christian principals to secular ones.”
I’m not anti-gun or anti-Christian from a government power standpoint. I vigorously defend your right to own a gun and your right to believe in complete nonsense. That said, I think both guns and Christianity are fucking lame.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 04, 2010 at 1145 hrs
I’m late to the party, but I finally had time to read this thread (sorry, guys gotta make a living).
It occurs to me how much our views are shaped by our experience with guns. I grew up in a home with guns. Almost all of my extended family had guns - often in unlocked glass gun cabinets. As one who grew up with them, I learned an appreciation for their destructive power and treat them with respect. I always have because that’s what I was taught.
The instances of kids grabbing daddy’s gun from the drawer to play with are almost exclusively in families where guns are a novelty and not a normalty.
So I can see why those who did not grow up around guns have irrational fears of them. As usual, a little education would go a long way.
Posted by Owen on July 07, 2010 at 2249 hrs
While I agree with you in theory, I find it difficult to categorize any individual’s fear as “irrational”. Freedom of speech is only trumped by freedom of thought. I own guns, but I did not grow up with them in our house, although I learned later they were there all along. I’m not sure what I would have done as a young child had I stumbled across one of them. To me, that gave me a “healthy respect” and the basis of concern of the need to ensure guns are kept away from young children and their “curiosity”. As I stated earlier, my hand guns are kept locked due to MY choice (and my wife’s mandate).
The bottom line is no legislation surrounding locks or even education/training is appropriate for guns present in the confines of one’s own home. Period.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 08, 2010 at 1047 hrs
Total Entries: 19998
Total Comments: 134031
Most Recent Entry: 05/24/2012 05:43 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 05/24/2012 06:18 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 108
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/24/2012 06:21 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).