Mass Shooting Las Vegas...

[JimL]

The Founders had no idea concerning the communications media of the future either, so that the peoples right to put quill to paper "shall not be infringed" still holds today. You could amend the Constitution in order to correct for the imprecise language due the Founders ignorance, but the courts I believe found that unnecessary, you do have a right to free speech, but they obviously didn't have the internet in mind at the time of the writing.

Does that sound convincing to you?

Thats right they had no idea about the media of the future either and so weren't concerned with that when it came to free speech any more so than they were with that of future weaponry. So what? If it turned out that there was some urgent need to curtail the modern media then that could be done as well, but prima facie there is no good reason to curtail speech as there is with modern weaponry. The point is they had muskets, and thats all they had in mind at the time, If at the time it were tanks, bazookas, machine guns, or ground to air missiles, then anyone with half a brain could figure out that the right to own them would definitely have been infringed upon. The Founding Fathers weren't idiots you know! SCOTUS apparently agrees with me, so there's that. The problem with you knuckleheads is that you think the Constitution is writ in stone, that the Founding Fathers were Gods or something and could see into the future. The Constitution is a guide, not a Bible!

[Sparko]

Thats right they had no idea about the media of the future either and so weren't concerned with that when it came to free speech any more so than they were with that of future weaponry. So what? If it turned out that there was some urgent need to curtail the modern media then that could be done as well, but prima facie there is no good reason to curtail speech as there is with modern weaponry. The point is they had muskets, and thats all they had in mind at the time, If at the time it were tanks, bazookas, machine guns, or ground to air missiles, then anyone with half a brain could figure out that the right to own them would definitely have been infringed upon. SCOTUS apparently agrees with me, so there's that. The problem with you knuckleheads is that you think the Constitution is writ in stone, that the Founding Fathers were Gods or something and can see the future. The Constitution is a guide, not a Bible!

Jim they had freaking CANNONS! Yet they didn't put an exception in for cannons did they? And there were primitive machine guns then too. I even posted a link to all of the various assault weapons of the time. did you forget?

[Jedidiah]

It is a straw man - it's an easy target that does not address the opponents actual argument. Gun control advocates do not argue that guns fire themselves - what's dishonest is saying that they do or implying that their concerns have nothing to do with the weapon's capabilities.

The point is to demonstrate the dishonest arguments (that certainly do not address the opponents actual arguments) of the anti gunners. Thus it is not a straw man since it is not in itself an argument.

[Jedidiah]

fine, but then you have no right to complain - the errors are your talking points so they are in your favor.

I do not understand what you think you are saying here.

[Jedidiah]

There's a good idea - let's let people murder one another when convenient. Naw, no one could possibly misuse the situation to truly commit murder.

This is why we hold people accountable for their actions - if justified, fine; if not, then justice should be served.

Okay, I did way overstate my point. I just think that any self defense during a riot is justifiable. Innocent until proven guilty.

[Jedidiah]

A gun laying on your couch is not available for defense when you are not home, either. I addressed that long ago - if you are present and have control of the weapon, fine. If not, put it up where it can't be stolen easily or mishandled by those not allowed access. You have a responsibility to the rest of us to keep the weapon you are licensed for in your hands and your possession.

I certainly do not have any guns laying around my house. I am not really a gun person, but if you have your gun locked in your home in a place not visible it is actually secured. Why should I be responsible for the actions of someone who breaks into my home and steals my property? That is irrational.

[Jedidiah]

Someone used floccinaucinihilipilification in a sentence!!!!!

I had to look it up. I had no idea what it meant, or even if it was really a word.

[Sparko]

This gun does shoot itself. Be very afraid.

[Sea of red]

The founding fathers were mostly lawyers so they knew what they were writing. Lawyers are very precise with their wording. And they knew the implications of their words for future generations.

The founders are GODS! We must follow all of their beliefs and make them law!

[Jedidiah]

In a country that has extremely few aggressive enforcements, why do you go straight to aggressive enforcement? Worse, it's not what I said - I said he should not be allowed to purchase. The enforcement would be at point of sale and, if he's dumb enough to display the weapon, at the time of display.

You guys keep arguing that gun owners are largely responsible - okay, if so, then they are responsible for the weapons in their possession - and to KEEP those weapons in their possession until legally disposed of. Unless you really want to argue that felons and lunatic should be allowed to purchase and own guns, then this is a perfectly reasonable requirement. Joel is arguing that guns are not a special case when in fact they already are - and cannot be purchased legally without permit. It undermines the permit laws (which is his wish) to allow gun owners a free pass on negligent possession.

If the vast majority of gun owners were not responsible there would be far, far more murders and accidents. A couple of orders of magnitude more.

A gun safe is not an unreasonable requirement. Using same when the weapon is not on your person/under your direct supervision is also not an unreasonable requirement.

In my opinion it is an unreasonable requirement. Out of sight in a locked house is adequate.

[Sea of red]

I have a serious question: how does this idea of resisting the government via arms work? Who decides what criteria must be met?

[Jedidiah]

But if you couldn't even be bothered to lock it away when you weren't there, why shouldn't you be liable for the negligence?

If your house is locked it is locked away.

[JimL]

Jim they had freaking CANNONS! Yet they didn't put an exception in for cannons did they? And there were primitive machine guns then too. I even posted a link to all of the various assault weapons of the time. did you forget?

I guess the Founding Fathers assumed that we were intelligent enough to use common sense. They can't spell everything out in detail for you. For instance, what does "the peoples" stand for in "the peoples" right to bear arms, mean? Does it mean 4 year olds can keep and bear arms? Of course not.

[Sea of red]

If the vast majority of gun owners were not responsible there would be far, far more murders and accidents. A couple of orders of magnitude more.


In my opinion it is an unreasonable requirement. Out of sight in a locked house is adequate.

I don't think anyone disagrees with that.

I believe parents like Adam Lanza mother (if they aren't killed themselves) should be held liable, since they knowingly bought firearms for what they knew to be a mentally ill person.

[JimL]

And btw, the bill of rights only protected the people from a federal ban on arms, the states could do as they pleased.