Question about legal guns vs. illegal guns

[HD0027]

I did. It seems to me that you are afraid that we are not safe enough with our guns and require training, which is a common liberal arguing point. What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you libs get?!

No you didn't. I specifically am talking about gun owner responsibility, not taking away. Yes, everyone needs proper training and to follow a standard set of rules. If you sir have never had the proper safety training around firearms, then you are the problem. It is nonsense like yours that gives the liberals ground to stand on.

Basic safety and responsibility is paramount in a gun culture. Hence the reason we have rules at the local ranges.

Infringement deals with ownership, not abdicating your responsibility to safety and proper use.

 

[Aielman]

Where in the above text does it state that the Federal Gov't may create any restriction, regulation or permit system regarding firearms? If at all, that matter should be left to the States... but then, the same would apply to them, wouldn't it?

The part where it says Well Regulated...a fact that's been backed by SCoTUS several times, including Heller.

#2 my right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed...the founding Fathers did not say it had to be locked in a case without a glass front

No, they didn't. But they also didn't say you couldn't be sued, or couldn't be charged with criminal negligence. But you can.

They didn't say alot of things. Not once, anywhere in the constitution, is it mentioned you can bury your dead either. And yet most people would consider that a right, and we certainly treat it like it is.

Don't mistake what ought to be with what is. The Supreme Court has affirmed many times that the right to bear arms can be regulated...and they even did so with the first case in 221 years that actually confirmed the right to keep arms for personal defense.

#3 you mention "my gun lawyer" ...you either needed one or are taking creative liberty here (lying/exaggerating?)...I am leaning towards you taking creative liberties here. I have never needed a "gun lawyer" but you made me smile with that comment

Patrick Buckley, Attorney at Law. He even has a 24 hour hotline in case you get hauled to the police station in the middle of the night. You probably have someone like this in your area, and if you don't have his contact information with you, then good luck if anything a LEO might question in a self defense situation happens.

I consider it just as foolish to not have a lawyer's contact information as it is not have a round in the chamber.

#4 You seem to forget that in order for someone to steal my guns they already have to break the law to enter my home and rob me. So using your own vehicle analogy...that means if someone steals your car (because it was parked on the street only protected by the "glass windows") and drives recklessly killing someone YOU would be liable?

For one, a car isn't a gun. If you don't understand there is a difference between the two in the eyes of a jury and quite a few overzealous prosecutors up for re-election, then good luck to you.

And if you leave your car unlocked with the keys in it, and some kid jumps in for a joy ride and kills someone, you will most likely, in most states, be looking at a reckless endangerment suit at the least. If you leave an unsecured loaded weapon in your house, it won't matter that they broke in. They sue people for things like that...and they win.

 

[DFuller]

The Supreme Court has affirmed many times that the right to bear arms can be regulated...and they even did so with the first case in 221 years that actually confirmed the right to keep arms for personal defense.



Patrick Buckley, Attorney at Law. He even has a 24 hour hotline in case you get hauled to the police station in the middle of the night. You probably have someone like this in your area, and if you don't have his contact information with you, then good luck if anything a LEO might question in a self defense situation happens.

I consider it just as foolish to not have a lawyer's contact information as it is not have a round in the chamber.



For one, a car isn't a gun. If you don't understand there is a difference between the two in the eyes of a jury and quite a few overzealous prosecutors up for re-election, then good luck to you.

And if you leave your car unlocked with the keys in it, and some kid jumps in for a joy ride and kills someone, you will most likely, in most states, be looking at a reckless endangerment suit at the least. If you leave an unsecured loaded weapon in your house, it won't matter that they broke in. They sue people for things like that...and they win.

OK we will try this again,

#1 Yes, it the right to bear arms can (and is) regulated....but there are no laws that you have referenced stating that they cannot be secured in a home in something that is not behind glass....you are grasping at straws here.

#2 You mention again the 221 years yet have not referenced even one case where someone had LEGAL Guns stolen from their HOME and were then held liable for their illegal use. I don't think you know of any???

#3 I think having a "gun lawyer" on speed dial is ridiculous unless you plan on breaking the law. Obey the law...you will be fine...really

#4 A car is not a gun....I am glad you agree! You tried to compare required auto insurance to my 2nd amendment rights which I thought was silly.

BUT!! Then you again reference "leaving your car unlocked with your keys in it" as if that compares to someone BREAKING INTO MY HOME to steal my guns....do you understand the apples to oranges analogy? Just curious

I guess that would be comparable if I loaded a handgun...left it on a sidewalk...and waited for someone to use it in a crime. (Maybe then you could use that comparison)






We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the law breaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is responsible for his actions....Ronald Reagan

 

[jg1967]

All originally legal maybe. But civilians are not the only ones loosing guns to criminals so does police and military. And let's not even mention the Narco cartels in Mexico which would be more than happy to make money on bringing in guns, too.

 

[Deserteagle]

Since all illegally owned guns were originally legally owned guns, then the reduction of legally owned guns would naturally lead to a reduction in illegally owned guns.

So maybe we should also take away legally owned money from all people so there is a reduction in stolen money.

Or maybe we should reduce the number of legally owned cars so there are fewer auto thefts and therefore fewer illegal cars.

 

[Aielman]

OK we will try this again,

#1 Yes, it the right to bear arms can (and is) regulated....but there are no laws that you have referenced stating that they cannot be secured in a home in something that is not behind glass....you are grasping at straws here.

Sure...lets.
#1 yes there are. They're call Criminal Negligence laws and guess what...they're not spelled out in the constitution but by golly there are people in jail for breaking them.
You also don't seem to understand the difference between criminal and civil court. You may not see a courtroom with a prosecutor unless your grossly negligent. But you sure as hell can see one in a civil case...where the burden of proof is much lower, and when the plaintiff has made a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the defendant to refute or rebut the plaintiff's evidence. You go in with "show me where it's in the constitution" your screwed.

#2 You mention again the 221 years yet have not referenced even one case where someone had LEGAL Guns stolen from their HOME and were then held liable for their illegal use. I don't think you know of any???

There aren't any. There's never been any need to take it that high. It's already established through precedent that criminal negligence exists as a chargeable offense in both criminal and tort cases. But you know, you go ahead and leave guns lying around unsecured and maybe you can be that first test case that makes it to the Court. That shouldn't set you back more than three quarters of a million when all is said and done, unless of course you can get the NRA to pay for your defense. Good luck with that.

#3 I think having a "gun lawyer" on speed dial is ridiculous unless you plan on breaking the law. Obey the law...you will be fine...really

In my county, prosecutor Angela Corey, the same prosecutor who charged Zimmerman, has successfully prosecuted just 60% of the cases who have claimed Stand Your Ground. She has about a 78% overall conviction rate, so you do the math on what your likelihood of having to go to court is in a self defense shooting.

Not having contact info to a lawyer on your person, is just foolish.

BUT!! Then you again reference "leaving your car unlocked with your keys in it" as if that compares to someone BREAKING INTO MY HOME to steal my guns....do you understand the apples to oranges analogy? Just curious

I do. A jury won't. They're going to see the gun as an order of magnitude more dangerous than a car, and that a responsible owner should have them locked away if they're not there with them.

There's the way it ought to be. And there's the way it is. You can choose to live in the fantasy of how it ought to be, but most things in my life, I prepare for the way it actually is.

Your choice.

So maybe we should also take away legally owned money from all people so there is a reduction in stolen money.

Don't confuse a statement of fact with a call to do something about it. If there are less legal guns, there will be less illegal guns. It's a statistical fact. That doesn't mean people won't try to find other ways to get them, like bringing them over the border. It doesn't mean there won't still be gun murders. It doesn't mean we should take away guns. It just means there will be less illegal guns.

 

[Nightmare45]

The BATF sent 5,000 arms to criminal drug lords, that makes them criminal and I will not surrender my arms to criminals, as far as by back, stopped by a by back program and picked up some very nice pieces, with a ffl by my side, most of the buy back stuff was crap.

 

[DFuller]

You also don't seem to understand the difference between criminal and civil court. You may not see a courtroom with a prosecutor unless your grossly negligent. But you sure as hell can see one in a civil case...where the burden of proof is much lower, and when the plaintiff has made a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the defendant to refute or rebut the plaintiff's evidence. You go in with "show me where it's in the constitution" your screwed.

There aren't any. There's never been any need to take it that high. It's already established through precedent that criminal negligence exists as a chargeable offense in both criminal and tort cases.


Don't confuse a statement of fact with a call to do something about it. If there are less legal guns, there will be less illegal guns. It's a statistical fact.

This whole disagreement is about whether or not it should be REQUIRED to keep guns locked in something "without a glass front"....and your statement that for 200+ years people have already been held accountable for it...

NOW you finally admit "there aren't any"!! Good job finally admitting that...was that so hard?

I think your LAST STATEMENT says everything about you that we need to know...you want less "legal" guns to reduce the illegal guns...and THAT you call a statistical fact.

You finally showed us your true colors, excellent!



We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the law breaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is responsible for his actions....Ronald Reagan