That was inevitable. But why he didn’t do it when he actually had the votes is beyond me. If you’re going to take on a demonstrably vote-killing issue, wouldn’t it at least behoove you to win the issue before losing the election? Now it’s going to happen anyway and it has no chance of passing.
Too bad. I was rather liking most of what the Democrats were doing. Oh, well. They’ll have nobody but themselves to blame.
When your adversaries do something that has no reasonable explanation, that is the time to look beyond the superficial announcement put out for public consumption. Obama is not going to hang on the cross of gun control; he will raise the issue, get Republicans all riled up about it, then trade it away for something he really wants, like health care or the economic issues.
Likely correct. Beyond that, he also gets to be seen by that portion of his base that supports gun control as making an attempt to further their agenda. In the great, cynical game that is DC politics, it is win-win. The Republicans get to look like heroes to the gun lobby, Obama gets whatever it is he actually wants + a little cred with the anti faction.
Anything locked is considered secure for the purpose of this discussion - a privately-owned house, garage, or car. A locked house is by definition “secure,” or at the very least as secure as it needs to be, by currently accepted conventions - conventions you feel are somehow inadequate under the contemporary knee-jerk state of affairs. Your position seems to be that a house containing firearms needs to be more secure than any other house. By that logic, people driving SUVs need to carry more insurance due to their potential for increased harm to others.
The term is obfuscating, not what I did, but your attempt at it is completely transparent. The gubmit is not making me refrain from randomly murdering people either, but there are laws against it. Gun owners need to be more deterred from allowing their weapons to be stolen? Sounds pretty ludicrous. Personally I’d hate to have any of my stuff stolen, especially firearms, who wouldn’t? What you don’t get is the cost vs. benefit tradeoff to security measures of any type. I suppose that might be a nebulous idea to people with little to protect or those who expect other people to provide for their own security, not being very familiar with the issues, generally speaking.
Of course, resort to the ad hominem when no actual argument in your favor exists - well done!
Exactly! The point is nobody can prevent a determined thief from stealing whatever they want.
I am not convinced your idea has the slightest merit in deterring thieves or encouraging more responsible gun ownership. There will always be thieves and irresponsible gun owners, no matter what asinine laws attempt to prevent them. Shall we include farmers who don’t keep their ammonium nitrate in hardened underground bunkers in case someone decides to steal it and use it to blow up a building? Make that penalty even harsher?
The idea that a law or laws of this type would do anything except cost alot of money and time in law enforcement resources is absolutely naive. It would be better applied to catching the bad guys before they commit crimes as opposed to after-the-fact enforcement against otherwise law-abiding citizens.
Compromise what, common sense? Puhleez.
That does make sense, but I don’t know if there’s another group as well organized as the NRA-ILA is and whatever concession that the anti’s will seek will probably end up costing them a lot more than they bargained for.
In the meantime I’m going to stock up on ammo, high cap magazines and AR uppers for Obamania Part Two - Cluricaun Gets Paid. 
But we can prevent theft by less determined thieves, who only go for targets of opportunity, and are deterrred by secure weapon storage.
Deterrent? How would said thieves know I had firearms in the first place let alone whether or not I have a safe or not?
When they tried to open the safe. I don’t care if they take your Xbox.
Get lowers.
Not messing around with selling actual firearms, I sold four uppers for at least half again what I paid for them last time with no problem and I’ll see if it’s worth it again this time.
But the Republicans don’t have to trade anything. They need only watch the Democrats talk themselves out of votes. The Democrats don’t have the votes, and after the recent court decisions they’re swimming against the tide. There is very little the Democrats can touch without hitting the third rail when it comes to guns.
If you believe that Democrats are stupid enough to sacrifice everything by going to the mat for gun control, you cannot honestly believe Republicans aren’t stupid enough to fight tooth and nail to prevent it.
Prevent WHAT? The Democrats cannot get it passed! But they’ll be seen to try, which will mobilize the gun owners, a large percentage of which helped Obama win in 2008. Do you think they’ll go for him again? Not a chance.
Do you believe Democrats do not know this?
I don’t know what they believe, but they’d better believe that they’ll lose big again if they try. Gun owners have been looking for this out of Obama from the moment he took office, and you’d better believe they’re still watching. This will only confirm in their minds what they already knew, that which Democrats have gone to great lengths to deny (including right here on this very board). Hell, as we speak the Republicans are rubbing their hands with glee at the prospect, because they remember 1996.
If the Democrats want to lose even more power, this is exactly he way to go about it.
Do you believe Democrats want to lose power?
By the same standards, wouldn’t this mean that Republicans have to be seen to defend gun owners? “They aren’t able to do this, so we’ll sit back and not do anything about it” isn’t an impressive stand to make, even if it is accurate and not counter-productive.
Or, they have another motive which is not clear to you.
What, exactly is your point? Why is securing an immediately dangerous weapon ludicrous? What cost? There is no immediate enforcement to this idea. That is the beauty of it. It’s all on the owner to determine his or her willingness to accept additional liability. There are no safe police randomly calling around, or additional staff needed to accept a fine to be paid.
If you have logical counterpoint, then please present one. The second merely give you the right to bear arms, it says nothing about how many, what type, how they may be stored, bought, sold, traded, destroyed, etc. Merely going “Nuh-uh!” like a kindergartner isn’t a rebuttal. There is no logical reason to oppose legislation that enforces voluntary securing of dangerous property when you aren’t at home other than “I don’t like the gubmint tellin me what ter do!” Which is what the entirety of your argument seems to be based upon so far.
So I suppose you’ll be removing your door locks, disabling your security system, car alarm, and computer passwords right? After all since a determined thief will get what they want there isn’t any reason to secure dangerous or sensitive material or possessions.
Under a voluntary compliant liability law there will be a lot less of them. People tend to sudden;y care a lot more about security when it is their own ass on the chopping block. The goal isn’t to eliminate guns, it’s to reduce the amount of stolen, unrecorded, unreported weapons floating about. If you KNOW that you will be responsible should your name be last on the list of owners, you will be certain to file that police report. You’ll be certain to note that trade to your buddy or gift to your girlfriend. If you want to avoid that eventuality you can. You just have to take out “insurance” in the form of a safe or some other additional security. Don’t want to? Fine by me, nobody will make you. You accept that risk then. If you’ve been keeping tabs on the thread, I suggested that there were lots of ways other than purchasing a safe that should count as relieving an owner of liability. The most basic of which would be to simply report a lost or stolen weapon immediately to the police. Fear itself, wanted stronger measures.
What would it cost and HOW?
You still don’t get how asinine this is? The only place this is even used is in fiduciary matters like tax laws. You are talking about tying criminal burglary activity to it? Ridiculous.
Definitely going for uncharted territory, I’ll give you that. :rolleyes: