Children Sacrificed to Pay for Easy Access to Guns

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, I bet your boys have a dozen toy guns. Fess up, they do. So why not start changing the world with yourself? No one brought up Ghandi to you yet? Me thinks it's time you looked in the mirror.

Nope. Not dozens. I think there's a Nerf gun and a couple mini blasters for Star Wars Lego figures, but that's about it. We are more of a sports house than a gun house. I own three actual guns myself, but they are stored elsewhere, in a location without children. So yeah, I do walk the walk.

Sounds like you yourself are a safe storage house. So why are you so opposed to steps that make other gun houses safe?

I am the "guns and ammo in separate safes" guy, not the PP you are replying to. It's not my responsibility to make other houses safe. People have an individual right to own guns, but also an associated individual responsibility to do so in a safe manner. You can't claim the right to own a gun and then pass off the associated responsibility to someone else, especially doing so in such an invasive manner. I am up for mandatory safety classes, however. Heck, tack on the cost of a safety class on top of every fire arm sale. First thing I did before buying my first gun was to attend a 3-hour safety class. I would even be willing to pay additional taxes to fund state-run gun safety classes. Perfect solution: tax individual firearm sales to provide free mandatory gun safety classes. You don't have to register your guns, but when you go buy one, you have to show proof that you've taken a safety class in the past 1/3/5/10 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:By the way, a few states (too few) already require registration of certain guns. http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/gun-owner-responsibilities/registration-of-firearms/

Has there been a wave of state-sponsored gun confiscations in those states? Have those state registries led to any infringement of the Second Amendment? Nope.

Have registrations lowered the number of accidents? Link?

None of the accidental shootings posted so far occurred in either Hawaii or DC (where registration required). Most (all?) from states with no registration required.

Also, my proposal was not simply registration, but also a mandatory home check to ensure gun safely stored if children are also in the home. Seems simple and reasonable. Not sure why you'd oppose it. If you keep guns and ammo locked up (as you claimed previously) it should be easy for you to comply. Might save some of these other kids though.

Sorry, I don't want bureaucrats anywhere near my children. Thank you, but no, thank you. I'm cool with registrations of all sorts, but your paws need to be off and away from my family.

That's fine. In my view, you have the freedom to choose between your guns and reasonable safety regulations. If you don't want to comply with safety regs, don't have guns. If you want guns, comply with the regs. It's not hard. Your choice.

No, you cannot pass conditions so drastic as to make it excessively difficult to own guns. This is the same logic that the SCOTUS used to strike down Texa's abortion laws. Forcing someone to open their private home to police inspection is excessive. The US goes to great lengths to protect the privacy of individuals, especially in their own home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It's not a good idea to sacrifice the rights of law abiding citizens just to make it easier for the government to do something.

Exactly what right of yours is being sacrificed by requiring gun registration?

None whatsoever. Quit your whining.

Per the ninth amendment of the US constitution:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

And the tenth amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Taken together, it's clear that everything not delegated to the Federal government, nor prohibited by the constitution, is a right that the state/people have. It's therefore my right to not have to register my ownership of a gun because the constitution and the US code does not give the Federal government the ability to perform gun registration.

Federal registration could be easily arranged under the Commerce Clause or several other avenues. State-by-state registration is perfectly permissible, and already exists in a few states.

But bottom-line, you've still pointed to no "rights" of yours that would be infringed by requiring registration.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thankfully, I don't need your help in providing a safe home for my family. I have little interest in those who do.

Exactly. And that attitude explains why the current crop of gun owners has failed its responsibility to keep the hobby safe. So now, the rest of us need to clean up the mess for you. You had your chance, and you failed.

Again, based on statistics shared earlier in this thread, gun ownership is very safe in the US. You can feel free to disagree if you want to. You'd be wrong, but it's your prerogative to be wrong in the face of facts. I respect your right to free speech and continue to make incorrect statements.

[Anonymous]

New laws in Hawaii that directly link to our discussion about gun registration, and how state governments can get guns out of the hands of people who should not have them. Key bits below.

June 26, 2016 -- http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/USA-Update/2016/0626/Hawaii-gun-owner-law-joins-state-by-state-legislation-trend

Hawaii’s governor signed a bill on Thursday that will make his state the first to put its gun owners in a federal criminal record database. The system, FBI’s “Rap Back” service, will notify Hawaiian law enforcement when a Hawaiian firearm owner or applicant is arrested anywhere in the country, so police can evaluate whether the owner may continue to legally own the weapon.

Hawaii, which had the fewest gun deaths per capita of any state in 2015, already had some of the nation’s strictest gun laws, including a requirement that all guns in the state be registered with local police.

He signed two other gun-control measures on the same day intended to prevent people convicted of sexual assault and people diagnosed with a significant mental disorder from owning guns.

In response to concerns that law-abiding citizens are being entered into a database for exercising their constitutional right, Maj. Richard Robinson from the Honolulu Police Department described the new law as providing essentially “an ongoing background check on firearm owners to determine their eligibility to own and possess a firearm," as CNN reported.

Yay Hawaii! Lead the way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:New laws in Hawaii that directly link to our discussion about gun registration, and how state governments can get guns out of the hands of people who should not have them. Key bits below.

June 26, 2016 -- http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/USA-Update/2016/0626/Hawaii-gun-owner-law-joins-state-by-state-legislation-trend

Hawaii’s governor signed a bill on Thursday that will make his state the first to put its gun owners in a federal criminal record database. The system, FBI’s “Rap Back” service, will notify Hawaiian law enforcement when a Hawaiian firearm owner or applicant is arrested anywhere in the country, so police can evaluate whether the owner may continue to legally own the weapon.

Hawaii, which had the fewest gun deaths per capita of any state in 2015, already had some of the nation’s strictest gun laws, including a requirement that all guns in the state be registered with local police.

He signed two other gun-control measures on the same day intended to prevent people convicted of sexual assault and people diagnosed with a significant mental disorder from owning guns.

In response to concerns that law-abiding citizens are being entered into a database for exercising their constitutional right, Maj. Richard Robinson from the Honolulu Police Department described the new law as providing essentially “an ongoing background check on firearm owners to determine their eligibility to own and possess a firearm," as CNN reported.

Yay Hawaii! Lead the way.

A couple of things wrong with this.

First it doesn't do what you think it does. There's something called due process. The police cannot unilaterally determine whether someone is still qualified to own a gun based on an arrest. Someone can only be disqualified based on outcome of a court decision. Sure they can look up a person when an arrest occurs, but by then that means the person has already triggered the disqualification in the past. The disqualification list for gun ownership in Hawaii does not list "arrest" as a condition. Sure, the police can trace the outcome of the arrest, but wouldn't it be easier just to monitor prosecution results of Hawaiian residents? Why trigger a review on an arrest?

Second, this use of Rap Back may violate Federal law, where it is illegal to maintain a Federal database of gun owners. Using Rap Back to store gun owner information violates this rule, maybe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It's not a good idea to sacrifice the rights of law abiding citizens just to make it easier for the government to do something.

Exactly what right of yours is being sacrificed by requiring gun registration?

None whatsoever. Quit your whining.

Per the ninth amendment of the US constitution:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

And the tenth amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Taken together, it's clear that everything not delegated to the Federal government, nor prohibited by the constitution, is a right that the state/people have. It's therefore my right to not have to register my ownership of a gun because the constitution and the US code does not give the Federal government the ability to perform gun registration.

So we should read "well regulated" out of the Bill of Rights in its entirety (just like "militia") because ... ya know ... it's the Second Amendment, which has only been interpreted to afford a private right to gun ownership for the past six years by SCOTUS. Ya know, unlike the First Amendment which has been interpreted in a manner to restrict freedom of speech, assembly and religion, or Fourth Amendment or Fifth Amendment

[Anonymous]

We get it gun rights people. You are ok with the status quo, propose no changes, are fine with all these lives lost every singe day. You advocate inaction. Is that correct?

[Anonymous]

Just this afternoon my sitter texted me that he had dropped off my teen DD and her 2 friends at a movie. He said 15 police cars raced by, he had checked twitter, and seen that there was an active shooter in an office building nearby and that people were running out of the building. He asked me what I would like him to do.

SMH at this country. What a fiasco and an embarrassment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:By the way, a few states (too few) already require registration of certain guns. http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/gun-owner-responsibilities/registration-of-firearms/

Has there been a wave of state-sponsored gun confiscations in those states? Have those state registries led to any infringement of the Second Amendment? Nope.

Have registrations lowered the number of accidents? Link?

None of the accidental shootings posted so far occurred in either Hawaii or DC (where registration required). Most (all?) from states with no registration required.

Also, my proposal was not simply registration, but also a mandatory home check to ensure gun safely stored if children are also in the home. Seems simple and reasonable. Not sure why you'd oppose it. If you keep guns and ammo locked up (as you claimed previously) it should be easy for you to comply. Might save some of these other kids though.

Sorry, I don't want bureaucrats anywhere near my children. Thank you, but no, thank you. I'm cool with registrations of all sorts, but your paws need to be off and away from my family.

That's fine. In my view, you have the freedom to choose between your guns and reasonable safety regulations. If you don't want to comply with safety regs, don't have guns. If you want guns, comply with the regs. It's not hard. Your choice.

No, you cannot pass conditions so drastic as to make it excessively difficult to own guns. This is the same logic that the SCOTUS used to strike down Texa's abortion laws. Forcing someone to open their private home to police inspection is excessive. The US goes to great lengths to protect the privacy of individuals, especially in their own home.

According to conservatives, privacy is a made up right that does not exist in the constitution. That whole zone of privacy is what y'all mock as "penumbras and emanations". Griswold v. Connecticut

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just this afternoon my sitter texted me that he had dropped off my teen DD and her 2 friends at a movie. He said 15 police cars raced by, he had checked twitter, and seen that there was an active shooter in an office building nearby and that people were running out of the building. He asked me what I would like him to do.

SMH at this country. What a fiasco and an embarrassment.

Exactly. Just the other day, I told my daughter, who had apparently witnessed a verbal altercation a couple houses down while outside jumping rope, to run back in the house if she saw that car again for fear the idiot might return with a gun.

Is this the society we want for our children?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just this afternoon my sitter texted me that he had dropped off my teen DD and her 2 friends at a movie. He said 15 police cars raced by, he had checked twitter, and seen that there was an active shooter in an office building nearby and that people were running out of the building. He asked me what I would like him to do.

SMH at this country. What a fiasco and an embarrassment.

Exactly. Just the other day, I told my daughter, who had apparently witnessed a verbal altercation a couple houses down while outside jumping rope, to run back in the house if she saw that car again for fear the idiot might return with a gun.

Is this the society we want for our children?

Some citizens are just fine with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just this afternoon my sitter texted me that he had dropped off my teen DD and her 2 friends at a movie. He said 15 police cars raced by, he had checked twitter, and seen that there was an active shooter in an office building nearby and that people were running out of the building. He asked me what I would like him to do.

SMH at this country. What a fiasco and an embarrassment.

Exactly. Just the other day, I told my daughter, who had apparently witnessed a verbal altercation a couple houses down while outside jumping rope, to run back in the house if she saw that car again for fear the idiot might return with a gun.

Is this the society we want for our children?

You sound afraid of your own shadow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just this afternoon my sitter texted me that he had dropped off my teen DD and her 2 friends at a movie. He said 15 police cars raced by, he had checked twitter, and seen that there was an active shooter in an office building nearby and that people were running out of the building. He asked me what I would like him to do.

SMH at this country. What a fiasco and an embarrassment.

Exactly. Just the other day, I told my daughter, who had apparently witnessed a verbal altercation a couple houses down while outside jumping rope, to run back in the house if she saw that car again for fear the idiot might return with a gun.

Is this the society we want for our children?

You sound afraid of your own shadow.

Oh, really? Because these things don't ever actually happen? Assholes don't ever use their guns to settle arguments, right?

I'm not the one carrying a gun around saying I need it for protection - or thinking I may need it to protect myself from someone else with a gun?

Keep your own damn arguments straight

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We get it gun rights people. You are ok with the status quo, propose no changes, are fine with all these lives lost every singe day. You advocate inaction. Is that correct?

Anyone? Bueller? Wayne LaPierre?