Ahhhh, the old there are too many guns out there so it wont do jack shit argument. Ditto for global warming and pollution in China. Maybe it’s a valid point, but I view it as a marathon and not a sprint. Hell, it’s worked on smoking, so over time, getting law abiding folks responsible for their pieces to actually, ya know, step up to be responsible for their pieces then leaves the rest as outlaws.
Look, I’m a simple guy. I grew up with “you are responsible for your piece.” You either are or you’re not regardless of how inconvenient you might think compliance is. You have a registered piece, then you’re a “good guy with a gun” in LePierry parlance. You aren’t registered, then you’re a target. Battle lines are simple.
It *is *arbitrary. But at present all I have is your say so that you’re a responsible gun owner. With all due respect, there are enough gun owners out there that are not responsible. It’s something that needs regulating and self regulation has led to the highest gun deaths in any developed market.
Again, responsible gun ownership has absolutely nothing to do with having your name on a list. It’s theater. Might make you feel better, but accomplishes nothing.
Why is the onus on me to prove I’m a responsible gun owner? I shouldn’t be the subject of scrutiny without due cause.
In 2012 there were 8,855 homicides by gun in the US.
33,561 died in auto accidents in the US in the same year. 610,000 people die annually in the US from heart disease.
Gun violence is small potatoes. If you’re real intention is saving lives, you’d be wiser to institute a body mass index registry.
But it’s not really about saving lives. It’s about people who get hyped up about media depictions of shootings and the desire of the left to spit in the face of conservative, rural culture.
A blanket ban on guns is at least as stupid as a blanket ban on Muslims entering the country.
If you’re registered, well then your weapon is directly linked to you. And you are responsible for securing said piece, and held responsible if you don’t. Again, Uncle Sugar isn’t telling you how to secure your piece, but a shit rain will come down on your head if you don’t or if shit happens. That’s a real simple answer. No free pass that you self claim to be responsible yet have no liability if things go south.
I like battle lines. Call it something else if you have a better term that gets the same simple message across. I could care less on what you call it. You are a law abiding gun owner (registered in my view) or you’re a criminal – there is no middle ground.
I think that the attitude of “I’m responsible” is a crock, since there are enough gun owners that aren’t responsible who have poisoned the well. You know, I own a trampoline, and the recommended insurance coverage is USD1m as it is an attractive nuisance. I carry insurance for USD1m for that. It isn’t sufficient that I think the trampoline is secured and safe. Yet far too many gun owners think they can just hand out their piece to good ol’ Bob down the street and have no responsibility or sell their weapon to some internet “responsible” buyer…
Because it is a deadly weapon that in the wrong hands has been abused and caused death and destruction?
2nd amendment, no matter how your read the literal words, and place the commas, does not state that gun owners get a free pass.
Lessee “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Registration of guns and owners IMHO easily fits into “well regulation Militia”. I have trouble parsing “It’s my gun, I’m not in a Militia, I bow to no authority, and that’s why I have zero onus to prove I am a responsible gun owner” with the, ummm, actual, second amendment. YMMV.
I keep coming back to the basics of guns that was drilled into me “you’re responsible for your piece” and the 2nd amendment “well regulated militia” and as a consequence have trouble equating that with “it’s my right to have a firearm with zero restrictions.” Your move bucko.
I’m already responsible for securing my weapon. I’m already liable for what happens due to it’s use. A list changes none of that.
Besides, it’s a small leap from “you must register” to “you must secure in XYZ fashion.”
It’s not a “free pass”. It’s not treating somebody like a criminal before they’ve committed a crime.
Again, you’re throwing out arbitrary standards and then wanting to “battle” over it. Plus, you have no middle ground? And here I thought libs were suppose to be nuanced.
I find the idea that you’re cool with reducing others freedoms based of some stereotype about gun owners to be a crock. Where’s this epidemic of irresponsible gun owners? I don’t see it. There are criminals who use guns to commit crimes. Different issues.
Besides, you still haven’t shown what would be different between a responsible gun owner whose name is on a list somewhere versus a responsible owner whose name isn’t. Lists of names aren’t talisman.
Knives, prescription drugs, kerosene, baseball bats, automobiles, fuel oil mixed with fertilizer, alcohol, etc, etc, are can be abused and cause death and destruction.
Your desire to single guns out is purely emotional.
As I pointed out in an earlier post, if you are truly worried about death and destruction, you’re time would be better spent fining people for unhealthy lifestyles. So either you’re focusing on guns due to some less than fully rational reason, or it’s not really about saving lives for you. My money is on the latter.
“Free pass” is jaundiced language. Gun owners don’t have to prove themselves not to be criminals before they commit crimes. That’s not a free pass, it’s common sense.
Except the “shall not be infringed” part doesn’t square with forcing people to put their names on a list that will do absolutely nothing to improve the situation.
Except it is my right to own a gun. And there is already restrictions in place. And I’m already responsible for my piece. And your solution serves no purpose but to sooth your nerves and draw arbitrary “battle lines” because you have an irrational fear of gun owners.
Waymore, gun owners are not generally held responsible for “accidents” that happen or if your weapon goes to someone else and somewhere in the chain of ownership it is used illegally. You are generally not held criminally or civilly liable if your weapon is used in a crime.
Enrique Marquez Jr is not instantly being held accountable for providing Syed Rizwan Farook with his weapons. Decent gun registration would link that beyond a shadow of a doubt.
[quote]
Besides, it’s a small leap from “you must register” to “you must secure in XYZ fashion.”
[/endquote] Is your paranoia not mine. As I have consistently written, I really don’t care how you secure your piece, but if it proves insufficient, then the shitrain comes down on your head.
I’m not a “lib” except in your denigration. This ain’t a “lib” fight. As a responsible gun owner, you should be held responsible. You can’t handle that responsibility, then don’t have a piece.
Again, I’m not trying to reduce freedom, unless your definition is that you get all the freedom and none of the responsibility. And the track record shows that there are far too many “responsible” guy owners that aren’t. You can’t police your own shit, then it’s up to the Uncle Sugar to do it for you.
You’re being vague. What do you mean by accidents? What do you mean by “your weapon goes to someone else and somewhere in the chain of ownership it is used illegally”?
Marquez is already linked beyond a shadow of a doubt. A registry does nothing to change that.
It’s not paranoia. What’s the substantive difference between telling somebody they must put their name on a list and telling them how they must store their fire arm?
Except I already am responsible for what happens with my piece. Your list has no bearing on that.
If you force a person to do something they’d rather not, you’re making them less free. You need to own that.
I’m already responsible, a list doesn’t change that.
Why should I care what you have trouble parsing, or don’t have trouble parsing?
I can equally well point out that “restrictions,” by definition infringe. Therefore, I have “trouble” parsing your view that restrictions are harmonious with the phrase, “shall not be infringed.”
By the same token, I’m responsible for my money, but if my money is stolen and used to pay a hit man to murder the thief’s mother-in-law, I am in no meaningful way culpable in that death.
Nor should the law penalize me, regardless of what kind of bizarre and twisted definitions of the word “responsible,” you urge readers to adopt.
First off, your reference to “your piece” is strange. Is there a reason you are using this slang?
Second, the biggest problem is that you wish to impose liability on a unique way for firearms. People are not generally liable for harm caused by their property after it is stolen. You have previously stated that if a firearm is stolen it means it wasn’t properly stored, however every safe is defeatable over time which makes your imposition of liability in those cases rediculous. Extend this to all the other creative ways you want to impose liability and your position is easily dismissed.
If his experience is anything like mine, I’m guessing he’d rather not give you an excuse to derail the discussion with overly technical definitions of “gun” or “assault rifle.”
I think the issue should be about attitudes towards guns, mostly. Proliferation is also an issue but if people had the attitude towards guns like the Swiss do (or farmers and ranchers, etc.), for instance, there would be a lot less gun violence.
The machines are simply tools. One can use them or one can abuse them.
Good luck changing the attitudes of criminals, though.