2nd amemdment

[michbich]

Ok, you lost me on that one. The only thing i said was that i concider that the firearm in that story wasn't secured correctly to prevent unauthorized use.

I don't care what you do, you can store your firearms however you want, but don't tell me that my ideas are ridiculous because you simply don't agree with them. I don't tell you that yours are rediculous because i don't agree.

[grEnAlEins]

Hypothetical situation alert So lets see you leave your handgun on the table and little Gren picks it up and carries it to school and shoots one of his playmates you don't think you should be held liable for that or hell next time you're feeling too lazy to go to the store to pick up a six pack why not just toss the kid the keys

First, I would not, and indeed do not, leave my handgun out in the opened. I see that as irresponsible. I never said that this would be a good idea. You should not be allowed to dictate how I live in my home though. There should be liability yes, but you should not assume what you did until the facts regarding storage are known.

Second, there is no little grEn, praise the Lord . He (or she ) is still a few years off, which is a good thing. Note: nothing against women, I just want my first rug-rat to be a dude

Third, that (the driving thing) is not remotely close to the same issue and is yet another logical fallacy I also try not to get too lazy

[Hilltop Customs]

I would tend to disagree. I think you should have the right to ingest what you want, but you have the responsibility to deal with the consequences. If your drug use causes medical problems you should not be entitle to free medical care. You assumed the responsibility when you took the risk associated with usage and impaired yourself. That is my take on it.

They are not taking it away, they are just infringing upon it. Wait, didn't I read similar language about that somewhere...
Common sense regulations are not a violation huh? Have you read and understood the legal language and ramifications of broad and arbitrary terms in the last ban? How about of the Obama sponsored legislation in Illinois that would have banned all handguns, all semi-autos, and anything that could fire a cartridge more powerful that outdated .22LR ammunition? But that is "common sense" and "for the greater good" and therefore not a violation of the US Constitution, right? I take it that you have not looked into the issue to this extent. Maybe you should do some reading. The full text of the last ban and regulations, and all of Obama's bills from Illinois, are available online. They are a significant impedance on my rights in my eyes. Shall not be infringed means just that. The fact that the the ban does directly violate the "spirit of the law" behind the amendment is a more than valid argument. In fact, it is the correct one to make. The only problem is that nobody cares about the Constitution anymore. It is a hollow document today. The purpose of the 2nd amendment was to have a heavily armed populace nation wide. This was the reason for things like the CMP, which used to a function of the Dept. of the Army.

I leave you to ponder this:

I wasnt trying to say I agree with the common sense regulation, I think any regulations which can be seen as common sense to one person can also be seen as extreme to another. I was saying basing an argument on the second amendment; which is interpretable in different ways, is not making a strong argument. I read a little bit last night, I think Obama wants to do something similar to Washington DC(I think it was), where weapons have to remain disassembled, locked and keyed, and separated from ammo, which would make them virtually useless for home defense, but the weapon would still be useful in an invasion like you mentioned.....so they are still useful for "security of State". I'm not saying I agree with it, I'm just saying that using the Second Amendment is not a good basis for stopping "common sense" regulation.

What I dont understand is: How can anyone use common sense as justification of a law? Yes, there are dumbass people out there who will use a gun to shoot a hole through a wall; yes, there are dumbass people out there who will leave guns out and allow accidents to occur....these people are at fault, not the guns. Stuff like this will happen even if there are only little pea shooters left for us to own. Just like people who leave their kids drowned in buckets of water, just like the guy who packed up his kids stuff when the child said he was going to run away(and the kid was found dead in the woods a few days later).....you cant have laws for common sense, because common sense is to f'ing broad and covers every moment of every day of every single persons life.

Impeding on my right to own what I want, and use what I own in a completely safe manner,(especially when the item in question could be used to protect myself and my country) goes against the basic foundation of this country. The belief that enforcing common sense comes from the banning and regulating items goes against common sense itself.

/

All that being said.
If you cant keep a firearm in a safe situation at ALL time, you dont deserve one....PERIOD.

[Coralis]

I don't care what you do, you can store your firearms however you want, but don't tell me that my ideas are ridiculous because you simply don't agree with them. I don't tell you that yours are rediculous because i don't agree.

but that is the typical internet (I could also mention political) way of arguing a point , just make up facts and slander anyone that doesn't agree with your point of view .

edit ok this is a little harsh ,sorry and gets away from the point I wanted to make

[grEnAlEins]

but don't tell me that my ideas are ridiculous because you simply don't agree with them.

The circular logic had nothing to do with said claim of ridiculousness, right?

I respect your point of view, and understand where you are coming from; but, I feel you need to define things in objective terms and not beg the question with statement in order for it not to be ridiculous.

[grEnAlEins]

but that is the typical internet (I could also mention political) way of arguing a point

Can't the same be said about your circular logic?

[Coralis]

and what circular logic was that .... that i believe that if you are going to own a firearm that you should do it responsibly or the fact that I feel that if a 8 year kid can access the family firearm without his parents knowledge that they didn't have it secured properly.

[grEnAlEins]

Also I will leave you with this

The source for this was the National Vital Statistics Reports for 2000, by the CDC. The analysis is accurate from what I can see. Guns are really not that dangerous compared to other issues and the accident rate is minuscule.

[grEnAlEins]

and what circular logic was that ....

Junior got the firearm because it was not properly secure. It was not properly secure based on the fact that junior got it.

It is a classic example of circular logic, and one which both of you used. All I am saying is taht you need to be objective and use sound logic (which will come when you cease to use a subjective standard, so it will work itself out).

[maxama10]

Woah guys! I go away for an hour and come back and



The thing of it is, Coralis I think you're right, gun ownership comes with responsibilities and consequences if you fall short of those responsibilities. The problem here is that when these things happen gun control advocates are given an inch and take a mile.

The situation is regrettable however I say we wait until theres further news on this before discussing more.

[Coralis]

ok I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree apparently you have different ideas about parenting and responsibility than I do.

[grEnAlEins]

Woah guys! I go away for an hour and come back and

It has been rather civil for a thread of this nature. There have only been 3 or 4 insults thrown around, which is pretty good if you remember some of the "gems" from the olden days

Most transgressions have either been expounded upon or apologized for, which shows that we are staying relatively civil. Also things always seem angrier or less civil when on the intrawebz because we cannot read tone or body language, so it is really not that bad when that is taken into account. I cannot speak for all, but I have not taken anything to be personal and have not intended to make anything personal. I hope the same is true across the board.

[Coralis]

The thing of it is, Coralis I think you're right, gun ownership comes with responsibilities and consequences if you fall short of those responsibilities. The problem here is that when these things happen gun control advocates are given an inch and take a mile.

Exactly ! these type of stories are just fuel to the gun control fire.

That's the thing all you ever hear is " we have the right to this etc etc etc. when you do you ever hear anyone talking about the responsibility that goes with it.

[grEnAlEins]

ok I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree apparently you have different ideas about parenting and responsibility than I do.

Not as much as you might think. To clarify, I think that you are partially right and there is an obligation of responsibility. I object to mandating the responsibility by way of government. Responsibility should come from within an individual.

[Hilltop Customs]

grEnAlEins, I agree that responsibility should come from within an individual, but I dont think anyone wants to suffer the repercussions of someone elses lack of responsibility.(even though the %'s are so low of it occurring, people are still scared)