Question about legal guns vs. illegal guns

[longslide10]

I don't have any proof, but I would dare say that most illegally-owned guns come across our borders to be sold illegally here. It won't matter if you stop selling guns legally, the problem will never go away.

As long as you have greed and the lust for power and control of fellow man it never will.

 

[longslide10]

What about ILLEGALS with legal and illegal guns. 20 million + illegals and a high percentage are hardened felons that just waltz across the border. They bring their drugs, guns and crime here. Is it just me or is this country totally pathetic.

 

[Blackthorn]

We glorify crime. We pump our children full of psych drugs because we are to lazy to be parents. We have coddled our children and taught them that everyone is a winner so we don't hurt their feelings. We allow people to cross our borders and abuse rights that do not even apply to them. We even try to cover this fact by not calling them illegals because we might offend them. Most of our politicals belong in jail. They abuse their position with their complete and utter arrogance for the people that got them there. We have leveaged our childrens future to foreign entities who in less than a generation ago were our sworn enemies. We have allowed the sale of illict drugs in the guise medicine prescribed by quacks that shouldn't be doling out green tea disgracing legitimate doctors. We blame everyone except ourselves when something goes awry. The list goes on and on.....

This country obtained greatness by people who belived in something and passed on that belief. They worked hard and were not afraid to struggle or do without. They were to proud to take handouts but would give everything they could to help. They sacraficed to help save people they didn't even know but thet did it because it was the right thing to do. They believed in justice and punished those who violated the law. Police walked a beat and knew the people they protected. They believed in family and the values that it contained. They went to church and believed in a higher power.
Our values have been distorted by by sleezy grubby politicians and lawyers that only have one goal in mind, money. They have disrespected all who have served before them and most of all those who gave everything.
So yes our country has become completely pathetic..... Hopefully we can change.....

 

[HD0027]

Tricolordad did you even read my post? I am going to assume you didn't and mistakenly posted about something else.

 

[HD0027]

DFuller, There is no requirement for good faith effort to secure your firearms. However, as a member of the gun owning community, it is just the smart thing to do. Just like many of the other safety rules we all follow as responsible gun owners. Education and Training|NRA Gun Safety Rules

I don't want the government telling me what I can or can't do either. If the gun owning community doesn't maintain some sort of self oversight, then they will inevitably try to regulate it for us.

 

[tricolordad]

Thanks for the insight. I didn't really see anything new, but reading it in well thought out, direct responses to the specific issue raised by my friend was a huge help in pulling all together for me in a way I can use to respond.

For those that went off on the tangents about outlawing all guns or confiscating guns, I don't think he is advocating that. (I sure hope not.) He realizes it isn't realistic or in keeping with the 2nd amendment no matter how you skew it. I don't think he is considering that such an act would make many more guns illegal just by making criminals of their current legal, responsible, owners.

I certainly hope that gun owners are responsible. But I certainly don't want the government to determine what that means! So that's just one of the risks we take.

I hope all those rushing out to buy their first gun this week take the time to learn how to handle and store it responsibly if they don't already know. We need them to be part of the solution and not a contributor to the problem.

They might not want it, but most do and the one who don't fall into the mob mentality aka the libtard way and sell themselves out just to be a part of it.

 

[dogshawred]

What about Medicines

Let us say that your friends line of thought has merit (which it doesn't) does that really give anyone the right to over ride The Constitution and restrict gun ownership, NO.
Legally issued prescription medicine that is stolen and sold on the street illegally for profit, is a product of the same line of thought. So we are not going to issue prescription medicines to irresponsible people, sick people. People who may not have their wits about them due to their illness. This too in the hand of children could be a tragedy in the making.
These kinds of comparisons could go on and on, becoming quite silly in comparison to what we are talking about.
No one buys a firearm with the express intention of loosing it through robbery/burglary and no set or sets of locks will keep someone who really wants in to your home out. Locks keep honest people honest, locks for the criminially minded are just part of the job discription.
We can only do our best to be vigilante in the security of our weapons and that goes with the ownership of firearms. Truly some people shouldn't own firearms, yet that is a personal decision.

 

[Aielman]

I have zero responsibility for what another individual does, even if it's murder with one of my stolen weapons.

I hope you know the number of a good lawyer. Because 200+ years of tort and case law say you're wrong.

I'm curious what part of the 2nd amendment mentions a good faith effort securing your firearms in something that doesn't include a glass door?

Keeping MY GUNS in MY HOUSE should be enough to eliminate liability even if somebody breaks in to steal them...attaching liability to someone other then the shooter is opening Pandora's box and will ultimately erode our rights.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I'm curious...which part of the constitution says you have to have car insurance? Which part says that you can't drive while texting/eating/watching a movie? Which part of the constitution says you need a license to fish or hunt? Hell...which part says you have to buy health insurance?

Well that would be Article 1 Section 8 of the constitution as well as the 10th amendment, which give both Congress and state legislatures the right to make any law they like as long as they don't abridge the rights of the citizenry that are spelled out, or implied, in the constitution.

So, let me ask you a question in return. What part of the constitution says the government can't hold you responsible for negligence? Or to define negligence? Which part says you can't be sued for negligence?

Because 200+ years of precedent says you most certainly can be sued for negligence, and sometimes even jailed, if you don't make a good faith effort to prevent harm to another individual. If you don't believe that to be true, ask yourself why there are safeties, internal or external, on firearms.

Do you have personal responsibility to ensure the safety of everyone just because you exercise your second amendment right? Of course not. But if you leave a loaded weapon lying out in plain sight in an unlocked house, and someone loses their life because some scumbag walks in, takes it, and kills someone, you're very likely going to get to find out just how far the government can go without something spelled out clearly in the constitution. Link Removed.

I don't know about who you use, but my gun lawyer requires a $40k retainer up front before he'll even take the case on a negligence charge. We can sit here and prattle on about what rights we have and how noone can say otherwise. You say screw anyone else if they don't like it. But reality is going to take a big bite out of your rear end if something happens because of your bad choices trying to prove just how free you are to be careless. How much money do think it costs to prove your innocence in a tort case like the one I linked?

There's the way it ought to be...there's the way it's supposed to be...and there's the way it is. You can stick your fingers in your ears, close your eyes and go la la la la la all you want, but it's not changing reality. Half the problem with those asshats that want to take our rights away is people in the gun culture who spout off about how they can be as wreckless as they want to be because the Constitution doesn't say they can't. Scaring the hell out of people who are already scared of guns in the first place just gives them ammunition to sit around together and come up with new ways to take away our liberty.

 

[maine04619]

How do we counter this argument that a friend of mine has made:

"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. And taking that a step further, if gun owners are supposedly so responsible about gun ownership, then how were so many of them so criminally negligent to allow their legally owned guns to fall into the hands of irresponsible people? And, if the answer to that is that not all gun owners are responsible enough, then why does the NRA consistently block any attempt to make the acquisition of guns more difficult for irresponsible people?"

The argument really comes down to numbers: If there are less legal guns, there are less legal guns that could become illegal guns through theft, irresponsibility, etc. Is it just totally irrelevant? If so, why?

Yes, I feel stupid having to ask this question so please don't jump on me for that. Help me become better informed and a better 2nd amendment advocate.

Lemme Splain somthin to ya..

The ONLY reason we have the word illegal attached to firearm is a direct result of the 2nd being abused and ignored over the years. When they wanted to ban cheap pistols so free blacks could not buy them people said sure. Each and every small bite was meet with pro rights people saying this a bad idea and will lead to banning the people form owning arms. Every time our leaders said no we do not want to take you're right we just want to make America safer. Even today pro 2nd people are saying well maybe a little is ok maybe it is ok to ban this or that.

The second amendment "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." does not say except, but, limited to, check required, special tax, age limit, race limit, sex limit, magazine capacity, barrel length, caliber, color, configuration, or anything about a permit to carry one. These are all the freedoms that have already been taken form us in the name of safety. Let us not forget the primary reason the founders gave us the right to bear arms above only the right to SPEAK FREELY is for defense of all the rights listed in the bill of rights, home, family and country. Though many today seem to think the 2nd is somehow linked to hunting when that is nowhere near the truth.

So argue away but remember this with each law we the people loose a bit more freedom. At what point do we say enough stop leave us alone. Punish those who commit crime hold them responsible for there actions but leave those us who obey the law alone and do not take our rights because of those who choose to ignore the laws we already have. If anything history shows us more laws do not in any way make us a safer country if they did we would be the safest place on the globe.

 

[CapGun]

To the OP... I propose IQ tests that will enable you to get a Federal License to procreate! That along with psychological testing. I believe this would drastically cut down on the amount of idiots in society. Less people procreating with out the proper tests and training would lead to less irresponsible negligent parenting leading to less idiots and socially maladjusted offspring. Oh, while I am at it. You must be married by law to qualify before you bring forth any new progeny! Anyone caught procreating without the proper background check and training will be rendered sterile!

 

[gunnerbob]

I hope you know the number of a good lawyer. Because 200+ years of tort and case law say you're wrong.



I'm curious...which part of the constitution says you have to have car insurance? Which part says that you can't drive while texting/eating/watching a movie? Which part of the constitution says you need a license to fish or hunt? Hell...which part says you have to buy health insurance?

Well that would be Article 1 Section 8 of the constitution as well as the 10th amendment, which give both Congress and state legislatures the right to make any law they like as long as they don't abridge the rights of the citizenry that are spelled out, or implied, in the constitution.

So, let me ask you a question in return. What part of the constitution says the government can't hold you responsible for negligence? Or to define negligence? Which part says you can't be sued for negligence?

Because 200+ years of precedent says you most certainly can be sued for negligence, and sometimes even jailed, if you don't make a good faith effort to prevent harm to another individual. If you don't believe that to be true, ask yourself why there are safeties, internal or external, on firearms.

Do you have personal responsibility to ensure the safety of everyone just because you exercise your second amendment right? Of course not. But if you leave a loaded weapon lying out in plain sight in an unlocked house, and someone loses their life because some scumbag walks in, takes it, and kills someone, you're very likely going to get to find out just how far the government can go without something spelled out clearly in the constitution. Link Removed.

I don't know about who you use, but my gun lawyer requires a $40k retainer up front before he'll even take the case on a negligence charge. We can sit here and prattle on about what rights we have and how noone can say otherwise. You say screw anyone else if they don't like it. But reality is going to take a big bite out of your rear end if something happens because of your bad choices trying to prove just how free you are to be careless. How much money do think it costs to prove your innocence in a tort case like the one I linked?

There's the way it ought to be...there's the way it's supposed to be...and there's the way it is. You can stick your fingers in your ears, close your eyes and go la la la la la all you want, but it's not changing reality. Half the problem with those asshats that want to take our rights away is people in the gun culture who spout off about how they can be as wreckless as they want to be because the Constitution doesn't say they can't. Scaring the hell out of people who are already scared of guns in the first place just gives them ammunition to sit around together and come up with new ways to take away our liberty.

If somebody stole your car, and than ran over somebody else with it... are you responsible for that?

 

[gunnerbob]

Well that would be Article 1 Section 8 of the constitution as well as the 10th amendment, which give both Congress and state legislatures the right to make any law they like as long as they don't abridge the rights of the citizenry that are spelled out, or implied, in the constitution.

~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.~

Actually, this means that unless the Constitution(we're talking prior to 1791) specifically tells the Federal Gov't to do something, it CAN'T do it. It means that if a particular State, by the order of the people of that State wish to have something made law, that isn't specifically already law, that them and only them can create such a thing. Everything else is unconstitutional.

~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.~

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?

 

[CapGun]

The question is not how do we reduce the numbers, but "How do we require gun owners to accept the responsibility required to own / handle firearms" Just because the 2nd Amendment gives us the right to own firearms it does not give us the right to abdicate the responsibilities of owning them. Answer that question, and you will find your answer. So How do we move the argument to ownership responsibility and away from the guns themselves?

We evidently "require" them through the legal pitfalls of arbitrary and conflicting gun laws facing any legal gun owner.
I find that legal gun owners are far more responsible then other average citizens.
No one should be excused the due diligence required in responsible gun ownership.
How do we require politicians to be responsible and not say things like NRA members should be shot. (When I go out later I will wear my NRA hat, not something I usually do) How do we make people that have a license to drive responsibly? As a percentage comparison irresponsible drivers kill many times more then the guns of legal but irresponsible gun owners.
You know, like texting while driving. Like being under the influence. Talking to a passenger with both hands while driving and no hand on the wheel intermittently. Tell me you never saw that?
When you get the guns out of the hands out of gang members and other felons. Mentally challenged individuals and anyone else that would never pass a NICS check I will feel so safe I'll give mine up! If I had any that is.
NO I WON'T!! There is always a tyrannical government to worry about. This is America! That can't happen here!
Guess I'm just brainless and paranoid. Good thing they wrote the Second Amendment but that must not apply to me because I don't hunt!:help:

 

[rehalfacre]

Only up to a point. Was your house locked? Did you make a good faith effort to secure your weapons in something that didn't include a glass door?

Yes? Then of course not. .

I'm curious what part of the 2nd amendment mentions a good faith effort securing your firearms in something that doesn't include a glass door?

Keeping MY GUNS in MY HOUSE should be enough to eliminate liability even if somebody breaks in to steal them...attaching liability to someone other then the shooter is opening Pandora's box and will ultimately erode our rights.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

There is one state and I believe it's New York can and have charged the owner of a stolen gun that was used by the thief in another crime.

 

[localgirl]

Decreasing the total number of guns might have an overall effect of reducing illegal guns, but it would take years and result in a huge upswing of violence, as only those who broke the law and had huge sums of money could own firearms.

A good example is fully automatic weapons. They heavily regulated them and made ownership prohibitively expensive. How many law-abiding citizens do you know who own them? Now how many gangsters, drug dealer and cartel bosses do you suppose own them?

 

[DFuller]

I hope you know the number of a good lawyer. Because 200+ years of tort and case law say you're wrong.



I'm curious...which part of the constitution says you have to have car insurance? Which part says that you can't drive while texting/eating/watching a movie? Which part of the constitution says you need a license to fish or hunt? Hell...which part says you have to buy health insurance?


So, let me ask you a question in return. What part of the constitution says the government can't hold you responsible for negligence? Or to define negligence? Which part says you can't be sued for negligence?



I don't know about who you use, but my gun lawyer requires a $40k retainer up front before he'll even take the case on a negligence charge.

I will take this response in order

#1 Driving is a PRIVILEGE not a RIGHT protected by the Constitution therefore it is regulated differently...same thing with texting, fishing, etc...etc....

#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

#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

#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?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[DFuller]

I hope you know the number of a good lawyer. Because 200+ years of tort and case law say you're wrong.

Oops missed this one!

OK, so you say the in the last 200+ years people have been being held responsible for how STOLEN guns (from a legal owners HOME) were used AFTER being stolen?

Care to name some cases and provide links? Possibly going back 200+ years?




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[tricolordad]

Tricolordad did you even read my post? I am going to assume you didn't and mistakenly posted about something else.

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?!

 

[CapGun]

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?!

Let's add parent training before anyone is allowed to have kids. Bet he would think that is an "infringement" of his natural rights and not support it. So then I ask isn't self preservation a "natural" right?

 

[maine04619]

There is one state and I believe it's New York can and have charged the owner of a stolen gun that was used by the thief in another crime.

Not quite true. In NY you must by law notify the police when a firearm is stolen. The charge was not reporting the theft of the weapon.