Guns should not be kept in houses where children are present
I don't care how careful you are, we are all human, and we all make careless mistakes from time to time. Whether it's finding a set of keys, carelessly leaving the gun unlocked, or just sheer brute force, kids/teenagers manage to get ahold of guns all the time.
Perhaps gun ranges, National Guard armories, etc could set up a system whereby a gun owner could store their firearms and access them when they want to go hunting, target shooting, etc. Guns would be much safer from theft in these places, as these places tend to have very good security systems. You wouldn't have to worry about your kids somehow getting ahold of your gun and shooting themselves or someone else. You don't have to worry about little Johnny finding your gun and taking it to school for show-and-tell with his friends.
As far as home defense goes, if you have children in your house, you stand a much better chance of your kids getting ahold of your gun than you do some intruder breaking in.
Same thing would go for households with a resident who is mentally unstable, such as Adam Lanza. If you know that someone in your house is mentally unstable, you should NOT be keeping guns there.
= new reply since forum marked as read
To which I respond, "
". I tell her I'll just get more safes to keep them in.
Seriously. More fun with kids and your wife will have the same look on her face. 
Many times you don't die from an overdose or by cutting. Check the stats.
It's a subject I know just a little about so I'm quite serious. But thanks for the snark anyway.
So I assume that there should not be cars or liquor kept in homes where children are present, either?
Because it's not all that uncommon for some of those determined 16 year old's to steal some booze from their parents liquor cabinet and take the family car for a spin and the sad reality is that such occurrences sometimes end in tragedy. So unless we are simply being arbitrary and selective in our prophylactic measures, then better get rid of the car's & booze, too, no? 
Because right now, they are in a dead heat and gun deaths are about to surpass vehicular deaths.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm
Can't you see that what each is designed for is highly relevant. Cars are designed to transport humans as conveniently and SAFELY as possible.
Guns are designed to be efficient at KILLING.
For decades we have fought for safer cars, resulting in a huge reduction in fatalities. There are more cars on the road at any one time than there are gun owners.
Makes one wonder what you might not be seeing.
Guns can kill, as can cars or booze. 99% of the time that guns are used, however, they don't kill. Your perception of both the purpose and the reality of gun usage in this country is substantially flawed. But don't let facts get in the way of a good prejudice. 
Because after all, "millions upon millions" of adults are "responsible" gun owners, and criminals don't obey gun laws anyways, so why have ANY gun laws.
"so why then does the NRA seems to think it is in charge of (not) writing any and all gun laws?
because they are extremists."
Oh, so now the definition of "extremist" is powerful lobby group...Mkay...better let AARP and the other powerful lobby groups know.
"i don't want examples. i also don't want to hear your 'opinion'."
Then don't read my posts.
You could always spend spend time on the brady "were not a gun ban group, we dont support gun bans" campaign website reading about how they're sup[porting another gun ban.
"so today its more like 500,000. good reason to have them registered and licensed."
Registration of firearms at the federal level is against federal law, per the firearm owners protection act of 1986. Go ahead and do away with it so you can register them, and you do away with the hughes amendment allowing brand new fully automatic weapons to be sold. Have fun with that.
"perhaps because they are completely fair."
Exhibit A.
"great, 14 states have basically NO gun laws, and you agree with that."
"Basically". LOL. Weasle worded sophistry, nothing more.
Anything short of registration and licensing is "basically no gun laws" in your view. Thanks for letting me and everyone else know where you stand.
"it isn't my job to explain the gun laws that you don't seem to give a crap about. YOU look it up, there are 14 states on the chart, completely blank."
Yes, isn't it special? The thing is, my friend, the chart may be blank, but that doesn't mean the state has ZERO gun laws. In this thing we call reality, a place in which I'm firmly rooted, and you appear to be peeking in and making ill informed and factually devoid observations, those states DO have gun laws. Just not the gun control crowds chosen gun laws. Welcome to reality in America. Most states don't have "gun control supporter" approved law packages. in fact, besides CA, NY and NJ, you're just shit out of luck for the most part. The elected representatives of most jurisdictions are told by their bosses - the people they represent - that such things are not desired. See, thats how things work, in reality.
"only TWO of them are 'blue' states, which might make you think, if you were more open-minded."
Non-sequitur. The divide on the gun issue is far less red vs blue than it is rural vs urban.
"so what if you are happy with your state's laws? what is good? what laws do you 'agree' with? free access to sniper rifles? you think everything is hunky dory all over america, and all the laws are just perfect the way they are? That is simply preposterous. of course you are being extreme- "all facts are doo doo and i know exactly how things should be" sounds pretty non-compromising to me. and to the MAJORITY of people, who don't really give a crap about defending guns or some warped version of the 2nd amendment."
It is far less preposterous than your inability to punctuate, spell correctly, or form coherent paragraphs. Continuing to try to paint as extreme, people that have already walked half way across the room - already compromised - as extremists and uncompromising, I see. Have fun with that. It isn't working, here, or nationally.
"why would i take your opinion as a fact? what about the fact that the NRA opposes all gun laws? it must be a fact, its on their site."
Dont take my word for it. I really don't care if you do or not. That doesn't change the reality of the matter, that it is factual truth.
The nra opposes all gun laws? Bwahahahaaa. Another fact devoid statement lol. At least you're consistant.
"we aren't living in the wild west anymore (which actually had more gun control laws than we do)"
And another factually devoid statement. Do you really think they had background checks back then? Maybe they had NICS checks over the telegraph wire right? You think they had restrictions on violent offenders, or prohibitions on domestic abusers? How old did one have to be back then to buy a handgun hmm? Do you think airplains in flight explosively decompress when shot with a bullet too? You think "cop killer" bullets are an issue?
Heres some free advise - get your history from somewhere other than movies.
"what does 'you get nothing in return' mean? you already said you have all the guns you want."
Wow, I guess you really don't get it.
Here, I'll give you an example of getting something in return:
Pro-gunners: "We gun owners will agree with restrictions that say no more than 30 rounds on a rifle magazine, and "natural capacity" only, on handguns (that means mags which basically fit flush to the bottom of the handgun and do not protrude more than 1/2 inch) IN RETURN, we get national concealed carry." (for example)
What normally happens and is historically factual time and time again, however, is this:
Anti-gun lobby: "Ok gun owners, were going for an assault weapon ban, magazine ban, We'll be back for more next legislative session, and you get nothing in return, go suck an egg."
So as I said:
Compromise with the anti-gun movement, has ALWAYS meant "if you meet us half way on this, we'll be content this year, and wait until next year or the year after to come back for more, and you'll get nothing in return then either". Thats a fact jack, and one you seem very eager to ignore. Me, I think thats JUST the way you like it and want it.
"this leads me to believe you are a representative of the gun industry."
Snort. I actually LOL'd when I read that. I'm a mostly retired former machinist, who runs an MMO gaming guild on an everquest EMU server, raises small furry loveable animals, and lives out in the middle of nowhere, in a state that as far as I know has no gun manufacturers.
That you would say such a thing, does confirm something to me though:
The thought of anyone supporting gun rights, based on principle, is completely alien to you.
"my point is 'we get nothing' sounds foolish. how many guns can you possibly want? oh, right, its a multi-million dollar industry, so in reality your drmatic invokation of human rights is about $$$."
I never said I wanted any more guns, in fact, if I recall correctly, I said I didn't want any more, and that I had all I need. Go put that shoe on someone who it actually fits lol.
"a lot of which go out of the country (russian ar-15s, big business). good for you, what a patriot!"
OMG I can't stop laughing hahahahahaha. I actually had to clear the tears from my eyes because i was laughing so hard.
Sincerely, thank you for that.
"this was from 1939, you legal whiz, and says that not just the 'militia' has the right to guns, all people do. they have the right to use the same guns as the militia. those in common use. in 1939. NOT the type used by the MILITARY, by the way."
LOL. Another armchair lawyer. Miller is part of the legal underpinning of Heller, which says:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but
does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative
clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it
connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretationof the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.
The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in
order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing
army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress
power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear
arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.
Pp. 22–28.
Incidentally, that is also supported by the preamble to the bill of rights which reads:
THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution
The decision goes on:
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous armsbearing
rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately
followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious
interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals
that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms.
Pp. 30–32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts
and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the
late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation.
Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor
Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individualrights
interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not
limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather
limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by
the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.
2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed
weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment
or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast
doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by
felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms
in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or
laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of
arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those
“in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition
of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
Pp. 54–56.
3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to
self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban
on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an
entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the
lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny
the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—
in the place where the importance of the lawful defense
of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional
muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the
home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible
for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and
is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument
that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily
and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy
his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement.
Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment
rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and
must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.
478 F. 3d 370, affirmed.
Get someone to explain what that means, if necessary.
"semi-auto for hunting is disgustingly unsportsmanlike, in my book."
Thats nice. I feel the same way about your book, as you do about my opinion. And, I don't hunt, fwiw. 4 out of 5 gun owners dont, in fact.
"smoking laws stopped people from smoking in bars. that is an actual addiction, whereas guns are kind of a fetish the NFA seems to have stopped murders committed by fully automatic machine gun pretty well.
so try and be a little more informed."
I bet you really believe nobody smokes in bars anymore in spite of the prohibition, too.
Fully automatic weapons were never commonplace for the average gun owner. Semi-automatic weapons are. Rather than tell me to be a little more informed, could you tell me more about those russian ar-15s that are such big business? I'll just bet its a cool story bro.
"oh, all those poor millions in CA and MA being oppressed! there will be a revolt! for sure!"
Non-sequitur.
"the people that do the bad things own the guns, so... you are projecting something somebody typed on a chatboard into a vast conspiracy."
In some cases, not in all. And its a tiny tiny percentage that misuse them. Three hundred million plus guns, 80 plus million gun owbners. Less than 1 percent misuse them, according to stastics. But some blame ALL gun owners, which you seem to give your blessing.
"C. has been attacking gun ownership for decades"
"more conspiracy."
Yeah, these folks were only kidding, right? Good grief you really do live in an alternate reality:
In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea . . . . Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation." Charles Krauthammer
We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily -- given the political realities -- going to be very modest. . . . e'll have to start working again to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we'd be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal -- total control of handguns in the United States -- is going to take time. . . . The first problem is to slow down the number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition-except for the military, police, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors-totally illegal.
Pete Shields, founder of Handgun Control, Inc. which is now the brady campaign
"Brady Bill is "the minimum step" that Congress should take to control handguns. "We need much stricter gun control, and eventually we should bar the ownership of handguns except in a few cases,"
Rep. William L. Clay D-St. Louis, Mo
I think you have to do it a step at a time and I think that is what the NRA is most concerned about, is that it will happen one very small step at a time, so that by the time people have "woken up" to what's happened, it's gone farther than what they feel the consensus of American citizens would be. But it does have to go one step at a time and the beginning of the banning of semi-assault military weapons, that are military weapons, not "household" weapons, is the first step."
Stockton, California Mayor Barbara Fass
"I shortly will introduce legislation banning the sale, manufacture or possession of handguns (with exceptions for law enforcement and licensed target clubs). . . . It is time to act. We cannot go on like this. Ban them!"
Sen. John H. Chafee R.-R.I., In View of Handguns' Effects, There's Only One Answer: A Ban, Minneapolis Star Tribune, June 15, 1992
""My staff and I right now are working on a comprehensive gun-control bill. We don't have all the details, but for instance, regulating the sale and purchase of bullets. Ultimately, I would like to see the manufacture and possession of handguns banned except for military and police use. But that's the endgame. And in the meantime, there are some specific things that we can do with legislation."
Bobby Rush; Democrat, U.S. House of Representatives, Chicago Tribune, Dec. 5, 1999
"Mr. Speaker, my bill prohibits the importation, exportation, manufacture, sale, purchase, transfer, receipt, possession, or transportation of handguns and handgun ammunition. It establishes a 6-month grace period for the turning in of handguns. It provides many exceptions for gun clubs, hunting clubs, gun collectors, and other people of that kind."
Rep. Major Owens (D-Brooklyn, N.Y.), 139 Cong. Rec. H9088 at H9094, Nov. 10, 1993
"I would like to dispute that. Truthfully. I know it's an amendment. I know it's in the Constitution. But you know what? Enough! I would like to say, I think there should be a law -- and I know this is extreme -- that no one can have a gun in the U.S. If you have a gun, you go to jail. Only the police should have guns."
Rosie Takes on the NRA, Ottawa Sun, April 29, 1999
"A gun-control movement worthy of the name would insist that President Clinton move beyond his proposals for controls -- such as expanding background checks at gun shows and stopping the import of high-capacity magazines -- and immediately call on Congress to pass far-reaching industry regulation like the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act introduced by Senator Robert Torricelli, Democrat of New Jersey, and Representative Patrick Kennedy, Democrat of Rhode Island. Their measure would give the Treasury Department health and safety authority over the gun industry, and any rational regulator with that authority would ban handguns."
Josh Sugarmann (executive director of the Violence Policy Center, Dispense With the Half Steps and Ban Killing Machines, Houston Chronicle, Nov. 5, 1999
"We will never fully solve our nation's horrific problem of gun violence unless we ban the manufacture and sale of handguns and semiautomatic assault weapons."
Jeff Muchnick, Legislative Director, Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, Better Yet, Ban All Handguns, USA Today, Dec. 29, 1993
"The goal of CSGV is the orderly elimination of the private sale of handguns and assault weapons in the United States."
Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, http://www.csgv.org/content/coalition/coal_intro.html (visited June 20, 2000) (boldface added) ("The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence is composed of 44 civic, professional and religious organizations and 120,000 individual members that advocate for a ban on the sale and possession of handguns and assault weapons."
"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal." U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, December 1993
"We're bending the law as far as we can to ban an entirely new class of guns." Rahm Emmanuel
"We're going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy! We're going to beat guns into submission!" Charles Schumer
"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe." Diane Feinstein
"I don't care about crime, I just want to get the guns." Howard Metzenbaum
"I am one who believes that as a first step the U.S. should move expeditiously to disarm the civilian population, other than police and security officers, of all handguns, pistols and revolvers ...no one should have a right to anonymous ownership or use of a gun." Dean Morris
"I do not believe in people owning guns. Guns should be owned only by the police and military. I am going to do everything I can to disarm this state." Michael Dukakis
"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them...'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it." Diane Feinstein
"No, we're not looking at how to control criminals ... we're talking about banning the AK-47 and semi-automatic guns." --U.S. Senator Howard Metzenbaum
"What good does it do to ban some guns? All guns should be banned." U.S. Senator Howard Metzanbaum, Democrat from Ohio
"Until we can ban all of them , then we might as well ban none." U.S. Senator Howard Metzenbaum, Senate Hearings 1993
"I'm not interested in getting a bill that deals with airport security... all I want to do is get at plastic guns." -U.S. Senator Howard Metzenbaum, 1993
"Nobody should be owning a gun which does not have a sporting purpose." Janet Reno
"We have to start with a ban on the manufacturing and import of handguns. From there we register the guns which are currently owned, and follow that with additional bans and acquisitions of handguns and rifles with no sporting purpose." Major Owens
"If it were up to me we'd ban them all." Mel Reynolds CNN's Crossfire, December 9, 1993
Yeah, I guess those folks were just kidding, and its all just a wacked out conspiracy theory that gun ownership has been under attack for decades.
"again with the conspiracy."
The brady "were not a gun ban group, we don't support gun bans" campaign is supporting the newly proposed "assault weapon ban". They were either lieing then, or they're lieing now. You tell me which one it is, and how that doesn't qualify as dishonest or untrustworthy.
Next.
"you have to read the whole sentence to get at the meaning there! the historical tradition
of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."
Oh I did. it says prohibit the "carrying", not prohibit the "ownership".
"Most states limit the magazine capacity to five rounds, and many semi-automatic hunting rifles have only four round magazine capacity."
Only when hunting, chief. Not where ownership is concerned.
And hunting has fuckall to do with this debate.
The second amendment wasn't written to protect hunting. If you didn't hunt or fish back when it was written, you starved more often than not. Hunting was a given back then.
"that;s why nobody is banning things in 'common use', you are just spouting more conspiracy."
A ban on standard capacity magazines is by definition a ban on something in common use.
Mags of between 11 and 19 rounds are STANDARD equipment for most of the handguns in America. Thats a fact.
30 round mags are STANDARD equipment on modern sporting rifles - that is, rifles which some folks call "assault weapons".
You can argue all you like, but 30 round rifle mags exist in the hundreds of millions in America, and that makes them by definition "in common use".
And lastly this little gem:
"trying to impose your 'concerns' on an entire country is foolish. especially when you have all the guns you need. you are standing up for millions of strangers, many of them CRIMINALS. aren't the people getting shot dead literally every 45 minutes strangers, too? so why don't you care about them? some are criminals. some are little kids. way too many little kids. and please don't post any crap about using kids for politics, that crap is inhumane."
Oh, but trying to impose your concerns isn't? LOL. pot meet kettle. Yes, thats right, I'm standing up for complete strangers, some of them criminals, just the same as when I stand up for freedom of speech, or when I stand up for a womans right to choose. I stand for those things, based on something called principle. Principle dictates that I stand up for freedom of speech, even though on occasion, the kkk benefits from it. The ACLU, of which i'm a member, agrees with that.
Just because I'm principled doesn't mean I don't care. It means there are some things I wont agree to, in spite of the fact I care. Thats about as text book a definition of principled as you can get.
see lapierre's 10 craziest quotes. nobody is saying 'pry my social security card from my dead hands.'
because is sounds so silly. to normal people. the members of the NRA don't even elect the board of directors. because they are clueless sheep, following an outdated and disgusting ideology.
Registration of firearms at the federal level is against federal law, per the firearm owners protection act of 1986.
there you go with not reading whole sentences again.
It just means that the federal government cannot require that records be kept by a state - I'm not sure it bears explanation in the article, it's in the plain meaning of the statute: "No such rule or regulation... may require that records... be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof." It refers to federal rules and regulations, not state statutes
wiki. it means the feds can't require states. NOT no federal reg.
"Basically". LOL. Weasle worded sophistry, nothing more.
see how you completely ignore the facts and type childishly? i say 14 states have no gun laws, which is correct, and you accuse me of weaseling.
in, reality, AZ says 18 year old can buy any sniper rifle they want, with no reg. or license. 21 for handguns
on the other hand, MA says:
Massachusetts Law requires firearm owners to be licensed through their local Police Department or the Massachusetts State Police if no local licensing authority is available. A license is required by state law for buying firearms and ammunition. An applicant must have passed a State approved firearm safety course before applying for a license.
All applications, interviews, fees, and fingerprinting are done at the local Police Department then sent electronically to the Massachusetts Criminal History Board for the mandatory background checks, and processing. All approved applicants will receive their license from the issuing Police Department. All licensing information is stored by the Criminal History Board. Non residents who are planning on carrying in the state must apply for a temporary license to carry (LTC) through the State Police before their travel.
so you are really just ignoring my correct statement that 14 states have crap for gun laws.
you have absolutely no facts to back you up, so you descend to BS and name calling. weak.
The elected representatives of most jurisdictions are told by their bosses - the people they represent - that such things are not desired. See, thats how things work, in reality.
here is an actual reality of an NRA board member (not elected by members) blatantly admitting in public that they are total whackos and work constantly to block all sane regulations, like a city council guy doing buyback: (rathner being the board member)
Rathner says the NRA will ask for an accounting of every weapon turned in and then go to court to stop the firearms from being destroyed. If that doesn't work, Rathner says they'll change the law.
"We just go back and we tweak it and tune it up, and we work with our friends in the Legislature and fix it so they can't do it," Rathner adds.
http://www.npr.org/2013/01/09/168926749/nra-vows-to-stop-tuscon-from-destroying-guns
let me warn you that link contains a pic of a big box of GUNZ that got SHREDDED, so you might want to grab your hanky b4 u click!
Non-sequitur. The divide on the gun issue is far less red vs blue than it is rural vs urban.
steaming crock of BS, there. more like conscience vs. immorality
Continuing to try to paint as extreme, people that have already walked half way across the room - already compromised - as extremists and uncompromising, I see. Have fun with that. It isn't working, here, or nationally
they put out an ad using obama's kids. 99% of people find that completely deplorable. there you go ignoring reality AGAIN.
The nra opposes all gun laws? Bwahahahaaa. Another fact devoid statement lol. At least you're consistant.
We believe that if neither the criminal nor the political class is limited by magazine capacity, we shouldn’t be limited in our capacity either.
We believe in our country. We believe in our Bill of Rights. And we believe in our Second Amendment, all of our Second Amendment.
Because we believe in the freedom and safety that it, and it alone, guarantees absolutely.
Mister President, you might think that calling us “absolutists” is a clever way of “name-calling” without using names. But if that is “absolutist,” then we are as “absolutist” as the Founding Fathers and framers of the Constitution … and we’re proud of it!
you get one guess who said that. first name starts with W. response to inaugural. total whack job. your boss?
i wouldn't even say you are digging your own hole even deeper-
more like you are already at the bottom of the hole, and you are spinning around and yodeling dizzily. "whee! mor gunz!"
honestly, it sounds, from my end, like you are prejudiced against commonsense gun regulations.
beyond narrow minded, more of a militant.
And another factually devoid statement. Do you really think they had background checks back then? Maybe they had NICS checks over the telegraph wire right? You think they had restrictions on violent offenders, or prohibitions on domestic abusers?
http://www.politico.com/...
The irony ... is that Tombstone lawmakers in the 1880s did more to combat gun violence than the Arizona government does today.
For all the talk of the “Wild West,” the policymakers of 1880 Tombstone—and many other Western towns—were ardent supporters of gun control. When people now compare things to the “shootout at the OK Corral,” they mean vigilante violence by gunfire. But this is exactly what the Tombstone town council had been trying to avoid.
In late 1880, as regional violence ratcheted up, Tombstone strengthened its existing ban on concealed weapons to outlaw the carrying of any deadly weapons within the town limits. The Earps (who were Republicans) and Doc Holliday maintained that they were acting as law officers—not citizen vigilantes—when they shot their opponents. That is to say, they were sworn officers whose jobs included enforcement of Tombstone’s gun laws.
Adam Winkler, author of Gunfight: The Battle to Bear Arms in America, concurs:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
Yet this is all based on a widely shared misunderstanding of the Wild West. Frontier towns -- places like Tombstone, Deadwood, and Dodge -- actually had the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation.
In fact, many of those same cities have far less burdensome gun control today then they did back in the 1800s.
Guns were obviously widespread on the frontier. Out in the untamed wilderness, you needed a gun to be safe from bandits, natives, and wildlife. In the cities and towns of the West, however, the law often prohibited people from toting their guns around. A visitor arriving in Wichita, Kansas in 1873, the heart of the Wild West era, would have seen signs declaring, "Leave Your Revolvers At Police Headquarters, and Get a Check."
A check? That's right. When you entered a frontier town, you were legally required to leave your guns at the stables on the outskirts of town or drop them off with the sheriff, who would give you a token in exchange. You checked your guns then like you'd check your overcoat today at a Boston restaurant in winter. Visitors were welcome, but their guns were not.
Anti-gun lobby: "Ok gun owners, were going for an assault weapon ban, magazine ban, We'll be back for more next legislative session, and you get nothing in return, go suck an egg."
see how silly that looks all by itself? boo hoo, you are so oppressed...
I never said I wanted any more guns, in fact, if I recall correctly, I said I didn't want any more, and that I had all I need. Go put that shoe on someone who it actually fits lol.
then WHY do you spout standard gun lobby doo doo at a semi-automatic rate?
me:"a lot of which go out of the country (russian ar-15s, big business). good for you, what a patriot!"
OMG I can't stop laughing hahahahahaha. I actually had to clear the tears from my eyes because i was laughing so hard.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/15/business/a-kalashnikov-factory-in-russia-survives-on-sales-to-us-gun-owners.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
yuk it up, laughing boy...
i think it is weird how you think you are valiant defender of the 2nd amendment, even though you don't want mor gunz OR understand laws.
like the way you completely ignored the common use thing and the 1939 thing and posted a big hunk of nothing.
got it, i'm an armchair lawyer, but your experience in the machine shop and with fuzzy animals makes your expert opinion hold more weight than actual facts that i post.
cukoo!
Fully automatic weapons were never commonplace for the average gun owner. Semi-automatic weapons are.
the majority of semi-auto owners are ex-military who think the guns are more comfortable.
the 'average' gun owner obviously would say the semi-auto military fetishists are not average.
some testosteone-addled gun 'expert' saying an ak-47 is better for self defense doesn't really fly with soccer moms and old ladies who want a gun in their purse. get it?
THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT PART OF MY RESPONSE:
that whole huge block of crap you posted was lifted from an ar-15 chat board, which kinda proves that you are a gun lobby shill. are you also this guy? or did you just paste his crap?
Originally Posted By ghostwalker:
I have been and the result is the following.
get it? that whole block of crap? was it yours or not? and why post it?
you proved that you are a 'save our gunz' sycophant really well there, thanks!
Yeah, I guess those folks were just kidding, and its all just a wacked out conspiracy theory that gun ownership has been under attack for decades.
just give up. it is responsible gun ownership and regulation that is 'under attack', not the misguided needs of some semi-auto fetishists.
Oh, but trying to impose your concerns isn't? LOL. pot meet kettle. Yes, thats right, I'm standing up for complete strangers, some of them criminals,
you are standing up for the hysterical notion that 'they are coming to take our gunz' without even knowing what is proposed or citing any real facts or statistics.
completely unprincipled or misguided or whatever.
"No weapons will be taken from anyone," she emphasized. "The purpose is to dry up the supply of these weapons over time."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/24/dianne-feinstein-assault-weapons-ban_n_2541743.html?ref=topbar
so stop wasting your time crying about a false pretense. i've posted a few links with real statistics. you are off in some alternate reality of NRA induced panic.
i find it a bit amusing, which is the only reason i'm wasting time replying to you.
the parts of your previous post, for instance, that i ignored- i don't see how they are even worth a response...
if they bit you @ the ass.
I thought you said AZ had no gun laws. Let me scroll back...Ah yes, here we go ""i say 14 states have no gun laws, which is correct". But now you're saying AZ says people have to be 18 to buy a rifle and 21 to buy a handgun. So now they DO have gun laws? Make up your mind already.
stop being childish. you know exactly what i mean.
i posted you a chart, because you seem to have trouble with words. you still don't get it.
i personally, wouldn't qualify 'anyone over 18 gets a sniper rifle' as any kind of law. it is a glaring lack of laws, especially when the GUY WHO MAKES THE SNIPER RIFLES is ON THE NRA BOARD: RONNIE BARRETT .50cal SNIPER RIFLE AVAILABLE IN 48 STATES.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/nra-board-members-selleck-nugent?page=2
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/nra-board-newtown-bushmaster?page=1
14 states have BASICALLY NO GUN LAWS. any sane person with eyes can see that by looking at a simple chart.
you are bascially saying the entire populations of CA and MA are weaklings and dumb for allowing themselves to be oppressed.
real mature.
from that point on, i didn't even read your crap, because it is another big jumble of plagiarized groupthink.
Thats the fact of the matter, and proof of it can be found in the original posting of those names in that order in the guns forum here on DU. I guarantee you that anywhere else you find that list posted exactly as it is here in the guns forum, was posted AFTER it was here. So I guess you're wrong again. A+ for being consistent though.
hardy freaking har. some guy on an NRA chat board stole your carefully prepared 'positions'?
you are so full of it i can smell it thru the internet.
i personally think you ARE that dude you claim stole your shit, so WTF are you doing? really?
your shill is really shrill, that's about all i have to say.
i'm done with ya, but here's some stuff for other people to read.
i really couldn't care less what you say you 'think' about guns, stop wasting my time!
and stop defending the NRA, they are a bunch of greedy assholes!
http://swampland.time.com/2013/01/24/fact-check-the-gun-registry-red-herring/
"He wants to put every private, personal transaction under the thumb of the federal government, and he wants to keep all those names in a massive federal registry. There are only two reasons for that federal list of gun owners —to tax them or take them."-Wayne LaPoopoo
Obama has not proposed a federal gun registry, which is currently barred under federal law. But LaPierre’s words–part fact, part falsehood, part paranoia–require careful parsing.
***
SCHUMER: Heller also said that there should be reasonable limitations, that they’re allowed reasonable limitations. I don’t think that lady needs an assault weapon. I don’t think she needs a 100-round clip. I don’t think, for instance, that those things would help her in any way. So so to say she has a right to bear arms: yes. To say, just like on the first amendment — we say you can’t scream “fire” in a crowd falsely, we have anti-pornography laws, anti-libel laws. There are reasonable limitations. And the NRA [National Rifle Association], in many instances, doesn’t believe in any limitation at all. That’s not unconstitutional. That just is dumb.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/01/20/1474481/schumer-rips-ted-cruzs-pro-gun-propaganda-that-just-is-dumb/
***
In a Wall Street Journal article, allegedly substantiating his more-guns-less-crime thesis, Lott presents statistical “evidence” containing an incredible implication: a 33 percent increase in gun ownership would eradicate violent crime (i.e. reduce this crime rate to 0).
http://www.ahwatukee.com/opinion/article_6708c04e-59b2-11e2-bcd6-0019bb2963f4.html
***
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/debunking-the-gun-culture_b_2332088.html
REALITY: Nope. Not true. I'll let conservative analyst and former Bush speechwriter David Frum take this one:
A gun in the house minimally doubles the risk that a household member will kill himself or herself. (Some studies put the increase in suicide risk as high as 10 times.) An American is 50% more likely to be shot dead by his or her own hand than to be shot dead by a criminal assailant. More than 30,000 Americans injure themselves with guns every year.
And here's Science Daily:
In a first-of its-kind study, epidemiologists at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine found that, on average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. The study estimated that people with a gun were 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not possessing a gun.
Need more? Here's the American Journal of Lifestyle:
Author David Hemenway studied the various risks of having a gun in the home, including accidents, suicide, homicide, and intimidation. Additionally, the benefits of having a firearm in a household were also examined and those benefits included deterrence, and thwarting crimes (self-defense). From this in-depth look, it was concluded that homes with guns were not safer or deter more crime than those that do not. In fact, it was found that in homes with children or women, the health risks were even greater. "Whereas most men are murdered away from home," wrote Hemenway. "Most children, older adults, and women are murdered at home. A gun in the home is a particularly strong risk factor for female homicide victimization."
***
Protection Or Peril? Gun Possession Of Questionable Value In An Assault, Study Finds
Sep. 30, 2009 — In a first-of its-kind study, epidemiologists at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine found that, on average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. The study estimated that people with a gun were 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not possessing a gun
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090930121512.htm
***
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/12/nra-propaganda-shootings-newtown
The document's text and its illustrations are so over-the-top that when they were first leaked by Wonkette, there was speculation that they were a hoax. But the NRA confirmed they were real, though it maintained they were from a stolen draft of a publication that has still yet to be publicly released.
In their introductory note, NRA president Waye LaPierre and chief NRA lobbyist Chris Cox warn of "the coming confrontation" between the "pro-freedom voting bloc" and "the gun-ban crowd." Though they focused on the threat of anti-gun legislation carried out under the guise of fighting terrorism, LaPierre and Cox also anticipated the calls for action that might follow an event such as the Newtown massacre:
***
Guns were last straw for me with GOP
By Steve Kozachik, Special to CNN
updated 5:43 PM EST, Tue January 22, 2013
Steve Kozachik organized a gun buyback in Tucson, the city where Gabby Giffords was shot
He was vilified and threatened by pro-gun people, who staged a "Cash for Guns" flea market
This spurred Kozachik to leave the GOP, which he says is beholden to gun lobby
Kozachik: Discussion of sensible reforms is drowned out by extremists
Editor's note: Steve Kozachik is vice mayor and a member of the Tucson City Council.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/22/opinion/kozachik-gun-buyback/index.html?iid=article_sidebar
***
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerkay/2013/01/22/who-knew-the-leading-cause-of-gun-death-is-suicide/
"stop being childish. you know exactly what i mean."
I know exactly what you SAID. Say what you mean, or don't complain that people should know what you mean.
"i posted you a chart, because you seem to have trouble with words. you still don't get it."
Wait - I have problems with words? I'm the one that can't be bothered to even attempt to use paragraphs or punctuation or say what they mean and mean what they say? Really? Thats a mighty bad case of projection you have there, I must say. Beyond that...I get it just fine. You posted a chart in support of your assertion that there are "14 states with NO gun laws. Not "weak" gun laws, or "lacking" gun laws. No gun laws. You know you're wrong, I know you're wrong, and now you're trying to stealth backpeddle.
"I personally, wouldn't qualify 'anyone over 18 gets a sniper rifle' as any kind of law. it is a glaring lack of laws, especially when the GUY WHO MAKES THE SNIPER RIFLES is ON THE NRA BOARD: RONNIE BARRETT .50cal SNIPER RIFLE AVAILABLE IN 48 STATES."
Being that the "sniper rifles" you're referring to basically aren't used in crime, I don't see what your problem with them is. A solution in search of a problem is about all I can extrapolate about your views on them, from that screed.
"14 states have BASICALLY NO GUN LAWS. any sane person with eyes can see that by looking at a simple chart."
Exhibit A. First it was "no gun laws" now its "basically no gun laws". Textbook backpeddling, with a side order of "i didn't mean what I said".
"you are bascially saying the entire populations of CA and MA are weaklings and dumb for allowing themselves to be oppressed. real mature."
I said nothing of the sort.
"from that point on, i didn't even read your crap, because it is another big jumble of plagiarized groupthink."
Lol. My positions are mine. I formulate them, based on my own thinking. Not from of any groupthink.
"hardy freaking har. some guy on an NRA chat board stole your carefully prepared 'positions'?"
Those are examples of public officials and statements, of those who want to ban all guns who came out and said so. The list was created for the purpose of reminding ignorant people that yes, indeed, there are those that DO want to ban all guns. Nothing more, nothing less.
"you are so full of it i can smell it thru the internet."
I bet you can tell what people are thinking too.
"i personally think you ARE that dude you claim stole your shit, so WTF are you doing? really?"
Look, I've been an active poster and reader on DU since 2004, and I really don't care what you think. The dates and timestamps prove that what I claimed was true, is true. If you don't want to check it out for yourself, and would rather base your opinions of me on your own prejudice, well, that says alot more about you than it does me.
"your shill is really shrill, that's about all i have to say."
I'm not shilling for anyone or anything. I state my opinion, and spell out my position, and I've been far more pleasant and far less insulting, arrogant and abusive doing it in this subthread than you have.
"i really couldn't care less what you say you 'think' about guns, stop wasting my time!"
Save yourself the time and don't bother responding to me then. Blame yourself rather than someone else if you can't stop yourself from doing so. This IS a discussion board, not your personal space.
"and stop defending the NRA, they are a bunch of greedy assholes!"
I haven't really defended the nra. In fact, its essentially you thats been talking about them. Maybe if you adressed my actual positions, rather than contriving one and assigning it to me, we could have a discussion.
Look buddy, I've been a poster on DU for a very very long time. I make no effort to hide the fact that I lean pro-gun rights, and I'm not about to, just to make you happy. I've seen people playing the games you are. The "I said x but I meant y" game. Trust me, you aren't coming up with anything new here. Its all been seen and done before, and recognised for what it is. Eventually, those that play the "I said x but I meant Y" game go the way of iverglas.
but you make EVERY effort to disguise the FACT that gun laws SUCK, even thought you have all the guns you want.
the only reason i can figure is that you have blinders on. i hope you are being well compensated for your efforts, because it seems to be a huge waste of time from this end.
I haven't really defended the nra.
yes, it seems that you also deny that they have any bearing on this subject whatsoever, yet continue to spew their talking points.
perhaps that is also part of your contract.
and would rather base your opinions of me on your own prejudice, well, that says alot more about you than it does me.
I bet you can tell what people are thinking too
you're the one who posted a bunch of crap ^^^ from a used glock sales site.
i'm sure that 'wisdom' has been floating around for longer than you have been posting here. whatever.
power to the people? please. (that is the 'caption' for that wonderful pic. DEAD BAND GUNS DOT COM! really?)
The list was created for the purpose of reminding ignorant people that yes, indeed, there are those that DO want to ban all guns.
that kinda sounds like you DIDN'T make the list. good for you. nice pasting.
You posted a chart in support of your assertion that there are "14 states with NO gun laws. Not "weak" gun laws, or "lacking" gun laws. No gun laws. You know you're wrong, I know you're wrong, and now you're trying to stealth backpeddle.
the chart- 14 states with NO-
licensing for dealers, gun registration, background check, waiting period, AWB, or carry restrictions.
all of those states allow you to use a gun against someone WITHOUT one.
nice talking to you, i hope you don't cry when your buddies can't play rambo anymore!
Silly me. I don't know where I ever came up with that notion.
There are small "quick access" safes which can secure a gun so that a child can not get it while still being suitable for home defense.
The gunvault comes to mind. Secure steel construction and a quick combination system with spring loaded door. The buttons are placed inside finger grooves so that you can find them at night. It even has an automatic disable if more than a certain number of false codes are entered. They also make a biometric version.
[img]
[/img]
i think the OP is addressing the statistic that 16% of gun owners leave them loaded and unlocked. (like mrs. lanza and mr. griego)
http://timeswampland.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/nij-guns-in-america-national-survey.pdf
thanks for another great, honest post!
i sometimes think you might be my wife's uncle from Fla., but then you go and say something nice about obama...
