Cops want you to lock up your guns...they don't want to lock up their guns....

[WinterBorn]

Lighten the fuck up. If you don't want a gun safe, don't buy one. But gov't entities are looking at requiring them. The legislation in the OP is a prime example. You can continue with the "the 2nd amendment says everyone can have any gun" mentality as the only response to any gun law discussion, or you can open up to dialogue about things that will actually help with both keeping children safe AND with lessening accidental shooting, while not interfering with self defense at all.

And if you would like to show where I have advocated requiring people use these biometric gun safes, you MIGHT have a point. But I didn't, so you don't.

if you are OK with government saying that people have to lock their guns up or face criminal charges, you are advocating it.

Again, if you are so confident these safes will work the way you say they do 100% of the time, man up.

I have no need to "man up". Once agains, please point out where I have said I am ok with the gov't requiring safe storage.

Your willingness to "compromise" on this is enough.

Am I willing? I suggested a good compromise between guns being inaccessible and guns being left out unsecured.

You are just bound and determined to paint me as some sort of anti-gun nut who wants to hand over all our rights, aren't you?

If you want someone to "man up", why don't you man up and admit that you jumped in without paying attention.

Any compromise will be used to further whittle down gun rights. Considering I live in a state that already stops me from getting a CCW unless I "prove to NYPD I need it", I am not in a forgiving mood on any compromise whatsoever until I get MY rights back.

I probably should have quoted the post I was replying to, but I didn't figure anyone would demand that I "man up" and pay for people's injuries.

This is the post to which I referred when talking about a compromise: "A weapon locked away in a safe that isn't ready to be a weapon at a moment's notice, like when a bad guy smashes youw indow and is climbing into your home, isn't a weapon.

Weapons are only weapons loaded and (ideally) condition 3."

Now I hate that you live in such a place. But that is not even close to my fault. So before you blow up at someone and call for them to "man up", you should be ready to man up and admit you were wrong, and you should make sure that they are actually calling for a compromise of your rights.

Otherwise, move out of whatever state abridges your rights.

 

[martybegan]

if you are OK with government saying that people have to lock their guns up or face criminal charges, you are advocating it.

Again, if you are so confident these safes will work the way you say they do 100% of the time, man up.

I have no need to "man up". Once agains, please point out where I have said I am ok with the gov't requiring safe storage.

Your willingness to "compromise" on this is enough.

Am I willing? I suggested a good compromise between guns being inaccessible and guns being left out unsecured.

You are just bound and determined to paint me as some sort of anti-gun nut who wants to hand over all our rights, aren't you?

If you want someone to "man up", why don't you man up and admit that you jumped in without paying attention.

Any compromise will be used to further whittle down gun rights. Considering I live in a state that already stops me from getting a CCW unless I "prove to NYPD I need it", I am not in a forgiving mood on any compromise whatsoever until I get MY rights back.

I probably should have quoted the post I was replying to, but I didn't figure anyone would demand that I "man up" and pay for people's injuries.

This is the post to which I referred when talking about a compromise: "A weapon locked away in a safe that isn't ready to be a weapon at a moment's notice, like when a bad guy smashes youw indow and is climbing into your home, isn't a weapon.

Weapons are only weapons loaded and (ideally) condition 3."

Now I hate that you live in such a place. But that is not even close to my fault. So before you blow up at someone and call for them to "man up", you should be ready to man up and admit you were wrong, and you should make sure that they are actually calling for a compromise of your rights.

Otherwise, move out of whatever state abridges your rights.

Ok, then sorry about that. And I can't move because of family.

The point is most of these proposed locked up gun laws take no exceptions into account, so basically keeping a gun by you when you are sleeping is illegal.

 

[2aguy]

There is a compromise that works. I have mine in a locked gunbox with a biometric lock. Access is almost instantaneous, and I can't forget a combination or lose a key.

Does it work on a battery? And if that is how you want to secure your property...great....the politicians have no say what you do in your home with your own property.....

 

[2aguy]

Eh, I didn't say it was a perfect solution. And you can get a biometric pistol safe for around $200 or so.

Here is one for $112.42.

GunVault GV1000C-STD Pistol Safe Mini Standard GV1000C-STD

Then you buy it, and let other people worry about their own houses.

Here's another exercise, if you care about them so much, agree to this: If someone dies because the government required them to have one of these and it failed, or caused them a delay that got them hurt, you suffer the exact same injury. Put your body where your keyboard is.

Lighten the fuck up. If you don't want a gun safe, don't buy one. But gov't entities are looking at requiring them. The legislation in the OP is a prime example. You can continue with the "the 2nd amendment says everyone can have any gun" mentality as the only response to any gun law discussion, or you can open up to dialogue about things that will actually help with both keeping children safe AND with lessening accidental shooting, while not interfering with self defense at all.

And if you would like to show where I have advocated requiring people use these biometric gun safes, you MIGHT have a point. But I didn't, so you don't.

if you are OK with government saying that people have to lock their guns up or face criminal charges, you are advocating it.

Again, if you are so confident these safes will work the way you say they do 100% of the time, man up.

I have no need to "man up". Once agains, please point out where I have said I am ok with the gov't requiring safe storage.

Your willingness to "compromise" on this is enough.

He just suggested a good idea for storing guns and made no comment on the government being involved in it.....he has been a good supporter of the 2nd Amendment and deserves to be treated as a good guy.

Biometric safes are a good way to store guns for quick access, I am not going to support any law that mandates it though....again...it is a poll tax and literacy test for ownership.....so poor people who may only be able to afford an inexpensive gun are now banned because they can't afford a gun safe....

That is how the gun grabbers think.....you always have to look behind what they say......magazine capacity limits are just like that. Colorado went to a limit on capacity...and one of the politicians stated....we didn't know that it would make certain guns illegal because they accept over 15 rounds.....and you know she was lying her ass off.....

If they can't get an outright ban, they will pick away at the Right every chance they get.........

 

[Missourian]

Doubt that law will fair any better than this one.

In a stunning repudiation of Governor Andrew Cuomo, his anti-gun Democrat allies, and the hastily-passed and clearly unconstitutional NY SAFE Act, New Yorkers refused to register an estimated one million firearms that the 2013 law arbitrarily determined were “assault weapons.”

"Since New York’s SAFE Act gun control law went into effect in January 2013, a total of 23,847 people have applied to register their newly defined assault-style weapons with the State Police..."
​

Bearing ArmsEMPIRE STATE REBELLION New Yorkers REFUSED To Register More than 95-Percent Of Assault Weapons - Bearing Arms​