Why is 'compromise' even in the vocabulary when it comes to a discussion of rights?
Printable View
Why is 'compromise' even in the vocabulary when it comes to a discussion of rights?
Here's my concept on "compromise". I'll compromise by letting the politicians go back to giving a shit about my economy, quit stealing from social security, get our troops home (for good), and stop wiping their feet on my Constitution.
Agreed. This is what the argument should be until they can come up with a good rebuttal.
When it comes to every other crime we usually blame the person but when guns are involved we blame the gun. HTF does that make sense, if someone can give a coherent answer that has no holes, I'll let the government have my pmags and tell me to get a safe.
"Safe storage" laws are intended to discourage ownership of firearms by intimidating gun owners.
Can we just back up a little bit, for a more macro perspective? If all these things that the anti-gun people are being talked about today are really true, then just how did we survive as mankind for this long? Guns weren't created in the last decade...
The shotgun stays next to the bed unless I am leaving overnight. It is a basic 870 I am out 250 bucks if does get stolen. Much cheaper than the other firearms and hell even the home theater equipment. It is big and hard to conceal unlike pistols and it is not worth a down payment on a car currently like my AR's.
You are mistaken. What you might be thinking of is that each firearm purchased must also have a lock (purchased within 30 days) or you give them make and model of your safe. Locks cost $7 and even then you just need one, and then sell it to a friend for $1, buy it back from your friend for $1 and write a bill of sale with the date on it. Perfectly 100% legal.
Or else, you are liable if you keep guns unlocked in your home and a kid takes the gun and does something stupid with it.
Slight tangent: what do people suggest as a safe way to store firearms if they live in an apartment where they cannot just go and buy a huge safe? Put cable locks on them and try to insure the hell out of them?
Hahaha genius!!
I wouldn't trust renters insurance to cover firearms, I go over SPECIFICALLY with the agent what I have and that if it gets stolen, I want it replaced, and not just FMV but what I originally paid for it. It has required some thorough documentation that might make some shudder, but it helps me sleep at night.
Massachusetts has such a law. A buddy of mine's father had a heart attack, wife calls 911 and police and ambulance come, take him to hospital, police see an 870 behind the door (home defense gun) police arrest 70 year old wife who's husband is in the ambulance for "unsafe storage"
case was dismissed, but cost her thousands in legal fees. Husband lives, but looses all guns (as Mass has another law that requires all gun owners to have a license- and the chief of police decided he was unsuitable because of his unsafe storage ). he transfers his collection to his son (my buddy) but because he has no license (and even if he did the state only allows 4 FTF transactions a year) is required to have FFL transfer them at a discounted rate of $20 per.
AND NOW THERE'S A 75 YEAR OLD WOMAN, AND HER 80 YEAR OLD HUSBAND WHO HAVE NO WAY TO DEFEND THEMSELVES IN CASE OF ROBBERY OR HOME INVASION.
all because of a safe storage law....
oh, the law also states that if you don't have direct control (on your person) the gun must be locked in a secure container or with a trigger lock. So a LAW ABIDING citizen who gets his home broken into in the middle of the night , gets woken from a dead sleep, has to get to his safe, fumble with the combination (most likely in the dark) before he can defend his life or the life of his children
say no to safe storage laws (and any compromise)
Exactly one of the many requirements that England put in place... Before they confiscated all the guns.
What many fail to realize is that we've been "compromising" since the early 1900s on this issue and all it does is keep moving the "middle ground" closer and closer to confiscation.
Make up your mind on where you stand on this issue: Is it a right or isn't it? If it's a right, look at restrictions of the first amendment as a model as to what's acceptable as restrictions on the second.
O2
I think you should have to take the gas out of your car and take the tires off when you aren't driving your it.
This would prevent people from stealing it and using it crimes, becoming involved in High speed pursuits or crimes against children.
It wouldn't add that much to your day, I see people on TV Take Tires off and replace them on Cars in just seconds... a few seconds...Think of the lives it would save.
Compromise means both sides losing something to come to an agreement. Since the left is offering absolutely nothing in the form of a loss, and since I believe we have offered more than we ever should have in the past, I will not compromise. To those gun owners attempting to sell us down the river, you will forever be remembered as cowards, traitors, and collaborators.
These people compromised, and their fate was sealed:
http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f1...ps06eecc20.jpg
Closed OP's request.