gun-control efforts calls for sheriff to inspect gun owner's homes

[NoNukes]

How is risking everything including deportation "taking the easy way out?"

And yes, alot of Irish immigrants are illegal, the difference is they speak the language, have no issue assimilating into american culture and more often than not come here with a viable skill.

The limits on Irish immigration are set far to low. We want people like that coming here.

Mexican immegration is different, due to the ease of crossing the border. What we get from mexico are largely untrained uneducated workers, who are far more of a burden on our social structure than the Irish are.

To get here from ireland illegally, you need the means for a tourist visa, and a flight or a boat trip. you also are admittedly not leaving a hellhole such as mexico.

To leave mexico you need to walk and hop a fence or swim.

Are you still standing by your statement that America gets all of Ireland's productive citizens?

Are the Mexicans who come to America the productive ones?

You know what? I'll admit that was a bit of hyperbole. I have been posting on Truthmatters posts, and I guess some of my vitrol against her spilled over here.

No, we do not get all of your productive citizens. What we get are those who see not future in Ireland (or Europes for that matter) current economic situation. Those who see people living off the system, and really can't stand it.

What you get is an increased ratio of moochers to producers, a ratio that is not sustainable.

Thank you.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Well if insurance for thier firearms in unaffordable, what are they supposed to do? You are setting having the insurance as part of owning a gun. Nevermind that this is "infringement," what are they supposed to do?

Why are you making poor people decide between putting food on the table or being able to defend themselves?

Answer the question if you have the conviction to do so (which I doubt).

Poor people can safely secure a firearm at a cost much much less than the purchase of a firearm and ammunition; as for insurance, they won't need to buy insurance, but they will be held responsible for any tort. Notice I didn't even imply a criminal penalty and hell, with a gun they can shoot game or hold up the local mini-mart.

It does not infringe the right to bare arms. If you want to walk around your home looking like a gangster locked and loaded, or simply loaded, that's your absolute right. And when you leave your home you have the right to leave loaded weapons in plain sight, unlocked or hidden; however, in doing so you assume liability and in CA such behavior makes you culpable for civil and criminal sanctions. If you don't have insurance you could suffer a catastrophic financial setback. It's all about personal responsibility.

We already have a punishment for using a firearm irresponsibly, its called "criminal law"
Are you saying you intitally did not say "require insurance" for owning a firearm?

That said, all firearms should be stored safely and the owner should be required by law to do so and to carry liability insurance.

Also your suggestions would basically rewrite tort law as we see it. How is leaving a firearm in a locked house, and someone breaking in and stealing it irresponsible?

Actually its as usual, all about people like you trying another end run around the 2nd amendment.

"You can sue a ham sandwich" is an old expression and tort law recognizes "attractive nuisances"; not all harm is caused by a burglar who steals your gun to harm another. If a neighborhood kid and your child enter your home and find a loaded gun and one gets hurt, you will as an irresponsible gun owner pay dearly, both in terms of a loss of liberty and if the child killed or injured is the neighbors kid, expect a big judgment in their favor.

"people like you"? I speak only for myself and I respect a persons right to own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm. I'm not stupid and I recognize those who signed off on the Second Amendment were not stupid either; I suspect they would be appalled by the event at Sandy Hook and the abject callousness and lack of sagacity of Wayne LaPierre and 'people like him'.

 

[martybegan]

Poor people can safely secure a firearm at a cost much much less than the purchase of a firearm and ammunition; as for insurance, they won't need to buy insurance, but they will be held responsible for any tort. Notice I didn't even imply a criminal penalty and hell, with a gun they can shoot game or hold up the local mini-mart.

It does not infringe the right to bare arms. If you want to walk around your home looking like a gangster locked and loaded, or simply loaded, that's your absolute right. And when you leave your home you have the right to leave loaded weapons in plain sight, unlocked or hidden; however, in doing so you assume liability and in CA such behavior makes you culpable for civil and criminal sanctions. If you don't have insurance you could suffer a catastrophic financial setback. It's all about personal responsibility.

We already have a punishment for using a firearm irresponsibly, its called "criminal law"
Are you saying you intitally did not say "require insurance" for owning a firearm?

That said, all firearms should be stored safely and the owner should be required by law to do so and to carry liability insurance.

Also your suggestions would basically rewrite tort law as we see it. How is leaving a firearm in a locked house, and someone breaking in and stealing it irresponsible?

Actually its as usual, all about people like you trying another end run around the 2nd amendment.

"You can sue a ham sandwich" is an old expression and tort law recognizes "attractive nuisances"; not all harm is caused by a burglar who steals your gun to harm another. If a neighborhood kid and your child enter your home and find a loaded gun and one gets hurt, you will as an irresponsible gun owner pay dearly, both in terms of a loss of liberty and if the child killed or injured is the neighbors kid, expect a big judgment in their favor.

"people like you"? I speak only for myself and I respect a persons right to own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm. I'm not stupid and I recognize those who signed off on the Second Amendment were not stupid either; I suspect they would be appalled by the event at Sandy Hook and the abject callousness and lack of sagacity of Wayne LaPierre and 'people like him'.

Thats like saying a teenager and a friend opens the fridge, drinks my beer, then causes a DWI and me being liable for it. They did not have permission to use said item, but they did anyway. Do I need beer insurance?

 

[Wry Catcher]

We already have a punishment for using a firearm irresponsibly, its called "criminal law"
Are you saying you intitally did not say "require insurance" for owning a firearm?



Also your suggestions would basically rewrite tort law as we see it. How is leaving a firearm in a locked house, and someone breaking in and stealing it irresponsible?

Actually its as usual, all about people like you trying another end run around the 2nd amendment.

"You can sue a ham sandwich" is an old expression and tort law recognizes "attractive nuisances"; not all harm is caused by a burglar who steals your gun to harm another. If a neighborhood kid and your child enter your home and find a loaded gun and one gets hurt, you will as an irresponsible gun owner pay dearly, both in terms of a loss of liberty and if the child killed or injured is the neighbors kid, expect a big judgment in their favor.

"people like you"? I speak only for myself and I respect a persons right to own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm. I'm not stupid and I recognize those who signed off on the Second Amendment were not stupid either; I suspect they would be appalled by the event at Sandy Hook and the abject callousness and lack of sagacity of Wayne LaPierre and 'people like him'.

Thats like saying a teenager and a friend opens the fridge, drinks my beer, then causes a DWI and me being liable for it. They did not have permission to use said item, but they did anyway. Do I need beer insurance?

Thanks for sharing Marty, it's always 'interesting'.

 

[martybegan]

"You can sue a ham sandwich" is an old expression and tort law recognizes "attractive nuisances"; not all harm is caused by a burglar who steals your gun to harm another. If a neighborhood kid and your child enter your home and find a loaded gun and one gets hurt, you will as an irresponsible gun owner pay dearly, both in terms of a loss of liberty and if the child killed or injured is the neighbors kid, expect a big judgment in their favor.

"people like you"? I speak only for myself and I respect a persons right to own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm. I'm not stupid and I recognize those who signed off on the Second Amendment were not stupid either; I suspect they would be appalled by the event at Sandy Hook and the abject callousness and lack of sagacity of Wayne LaPierre and 'people like him'.

Thats like saying a teenager and a friend opens the fridge, drinks my beer, then causes a DWI and me being liable for it. They did not have permission to use said item, but they did anyway. Do I need beer insurance?

Thanks for sharing Marty, it's always 'interesting'.

So you dont have an answer to that one, do ya?

Just like you couldnt answer the one about you saying you would require liability insurance, then backtracking when i pointed out how anti progressive the policy would be.

 

[NoNukes]

We already have a punishment for using a firearm irresponsibly, its called "criminal law"
Are you saying you intitally did not say "require insurance" for owning a firearm?



Also your suggestions would basically rewrite tort law as we see it. How is leaving a firearm in a locked house, and someone breaking in and stealing it irresponsible?

Actually its as usual, all about people like you trying another end run around the 2nd amendment.

"You can sue a ham sandwich" is an old expression and tort law recognizes "attractive nuisances"; not all harm is caused by a burglar who steals your gun to harm another. If a neighborhood kid and your child enter your home and find a loaded gun and one gets hurt, you will as an irresponsible gun owner pay dearly, both in terms of a loss of liberty and if the child killed or injured is the neighbors kid, expect a big judgment in their favor.

"people like you"? I speak only for myself and I respect a persons right to own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm. I'm not stupid and I recognize those who signed off on the Second Amendment were not stupid either; I suspect they would be appalled by the event at Sandy Hook and the abject callousness and lack of sagacity of Wayne LaPierre and 'people like him'.

Thats like saying a teenager and a friend opens the fridge, drinks my beer, then causes a DWI and me being liable for it. They did not have permission to use said item, but they did anyway. Do I need beer insurance?

Guns should be locked away from where kids can get their hands on them. Thus, perhaps if you are a gun owner you have to be open for an inspection of how they are being stored. Beer is a different matter, the beer itself is not lethal.

 

[martybegan]

"You can sue a ham sandwich" is an old expression and tort law recognizes "attractive nuisances"; not all harm is caused by a burglar who steals your gun to harm another. If a neighborhood kid and your child enter your home and find a loaded gun and one gets hurt, you will as an irresponsible gun owner pay dearly, both in terms of a loss of liberty and if the child killed or injured is the neighbors kid, expect a big judgment in their favor.

"people like you"? I speak only for myself and I respect a persons right to own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm. I'm not stupid and I recognize those who signed off on the Second Amendment were not stupid either; I suspect they would be appalled by the event at Sandy Hook and the abject callousness and lack of sagacity of Wayne LaPierre and 'people like him'.

Thats like saying a teenager and a friend opens the fridge, drinks my beer, then causes a DWI and me being liable for it. They did not have permission to use said item, but they did anyway. Do I need beer insurance?

Guns should be locked away from where kids can get their hands on them. Thus, perhaps if you are a gun owner you have to be open for an inspection of how they are being stored. Beer is a different matter, the beer itself is not lethal.

The gun itself is not lethal, unless you use it to shoot someone. I can clonk someone over the head with a fosters oilcan repeatedly, and they would be just as dead as if I shot him.

Or maybe you can teach your kids that firearms are not toys, and not to touch them. Plenty of parents do it that way with no issue.

 

[Truthmatters]

yeah but shooting them is so much more efficient

 

[NoNukes]

Thats like saying a teenager and a friend opens the fridge, drinks my beer, then causes a DWI and me being liable for it. They did not have permission to use said item, but they did anyway. Do I need beer insurance?

Guns should be locked away from where kids can get their hands on them. Thus, perhaps if you are a gun owner you have to be open for an inspection of how they are being stored. Beer is a different matter, the beer itself is not lethal.

The gun itself is not lethal, unless you use it to shoot someone. I can clonk someone over the head with a fosters oilcan repeatedly, and they would be just as dead as if I shot him.

Or maybe you can teach your kids that firearms are not toys, and not to touch them. Plenty of parents do it that way with no issue.

What is wrong with having them secured out of the reach of kids?

 

[Truthmatters]

then you cant kill quicky any trayvons on your lawn

 

[martybegan]

Guns should be locked away from where kids can get their hands on them. Thus, perhaps if you are a gun owner you have to be open for an inspection of how they are being stored. Beer is a different matter, the beer itself is not lethal.

The gun itself is not lethal, unless you use it to shoot someone. I can clonk someone over the head with a fosters oilcan repeatedly, and they would be just as dead as if I shot him.

Or maybe you can teach your kids that firearms are not toys, and not to touch them. Plenty of parents do it that way with no issue.

What is wrong with having them secured out of the reach of kids?

The problem is allowing the government access without a warrant to check and see if you are following some arbitrary rules. Look at DC where you had to basically keep the weapon unusable to be following the law. The purpose was not to improve safety, it was to disarm citizens.

Why dont we trust our citizens to follow guidlines on thier own? If they screw up they can be punished criminally AFTER they screw up.

Again, these rules are never about safety, they are about making the guns so annoying to have people stop keeping them.

Do you want to have to run to your gun safe, load the gun, remove the stupid trigger lock and THEN be able to defend youself against someone following NONE of these rules?

 

[NoNukes]

The gun itself is not lethal, unless you use it to shoot someone. I can clonk someone over the head with a fosters oilcan repeatedly, and they would be just as dead as if I shot him.

Or maybe you can teach your kids that firearms are not toys, and not to touch them. Plenty of parents do it that way with no issue.

What is wrong with having them secured out of the reach of kids?

The problem is allowing the government access without a warrant to check and see if you are following some arbitrary rules. Look at DC where you had to basically keep the weapon unusable to be following the law. The purpose was not to improve safety, it was to disarm citizens.

Why dont we trust our citizens to follow guidlines on thier own? If they screw up they can be punished criminally AFTER they screw up.

Again, these rules are never about safety, they are about making the guns so annoying to have people stop keeping them.

Do you want to have to run to your gun safe, load the gun, remove the stupid trigger lock and THEN be able to defend youself against someone following NONE of these rules?

Gun safety is about gun safety. No, people cannot be trusted do do the right thing, especially with something as serious as firearms.

 

[Bigfoot]

I grew up with a filled gun rack on the wail in my bedroom.

 

[martybegan]

What is wrong with having them secured out of the reach of kids?

The problem is allowing the government access without a warrant to check and see if you are following some arbitrary rules. Look at DC where you had to basically keep the weapon unusable to be following the law. The purpose was not to improve safety, it was to disarm citizens.

Why dont we trust our citizens to follow guidlines on thier own? If they screw up they can be punished criminally AFTER they screw up.

Again, these rules are never about safety, they are about making the guns so annoying to have people stop keeping them.

Do you want to have to run to your gun safe, load the gun, remove the stupid trigger lock and THEN be able to defend youself against someone following NONE of these rules?

Gun safety is about gun safety. No, people cannot be trusted do do the right thing, especially with something as serious as firearms.

That is the crux of the argument. If YOU dont think you can be trusted enough to own a firearm, then don't own one. I know I can safely handle and own one, and I likewise trust my fellow citizens to be able to.

I swear progressives are like the freaking Sith in Star Wars movies. They Sith understand the Force, so they seek to use it to control everyone and everything. Progressives can't understand how people want to live in a different way then they do, thus they need to use government to FORCE them to live a certain way.

 

[Truthmatters]

loughner thought he was sane enough to own a gun

 

[M14 Shooter]

I will bet that the only mistake here was that it was published before it was voted on.

One of the major gun-control efforts in Olympia this session calls for the sheriff to inspect the homes of assault-weapon owners. The bill’s backers say that was a mistake.
As Orwellian as that sounds, it isn’t hypothetical. The notion of police home inspections was introduced in a bill last week in Olympia.
Misstep in gun bill could defeat the effort | Local News | The Seattle Times

Finally, it's about fucking time we start kicking in some door.

I didn't know you hated the constitution so much.
:lie:
Tell us - what probabale cause does the state have to "kick in the door of someone who owns an 'assault weapon'? What compelling state interest does the inspection of the residence of someone who woens an 'assault weapon' serve? How do you know ho has an 'assault werapon'?

 

[martybegan]

loughner thought he was sane enough to own a gun

And YOU think you are smart enough to post about political issues.

Oxygen thief.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Thats like saying a teenager and a friend opens the fridge, drinks my beer, then causes a DWI and me being liable for it. They did not have permission to use said item, but they did anyway. Do I need beer insurance?

Guns should be locked away from where kids can get their hands on them. Thus, perhaps if you are a gun owner you have to be open for an inspection of how they are being stored. Beer is a different matter, the beer itself is not lethal.

The gun itself is not lethal...

Exactly.
Simpe owership/posession of any firearm harms no one; simple ownership/posession of any firearm places no one in a condtition of clear, present and immediate danger.
As such, there's no constitutionally permissible basis for the restriction of simple ownership/posession of any firearm.

 

[Truthmatters]

the scotus doesnt agree with you

 

[Truthmatters]

face it guys.

gun laws are perfectly constitutional and lying about that it is not already decided makes you look insane