CDZ gun magazine bullet limits...they only effect law abiding gun owners so why do we need them.

[Skull Pilot]

Excellent! My compliments on your set up.

One question: If you feel such security is necessary shouldn't every gun owner be required to do the same? Or at least have some sort of minimum security standards for their guns.

No I do not think people should be told what to do in their own homes.
If a gun is stolen it is never the victims fault and always the criminal's fault.
Holding the public responsible for the acts of criminals doesn't make sense

If there is a young child in your house that finds a gun and kills someone with it, who is responsible? Is there a way to prevent such a tragedy?

A parent is always and always has been responsible for the actions of his minor children.
Can the government prevent it you mean?

No the government cannot prevent it

 

[Skull Pilot]

Yes but my car was not designed to kill people.

Neither are my guns.
They are designed to fire a projectile at a target of my choice

Do you have a gun you specifically bought for self defense? What is the design purpose of guns with large capacity magazines?

I'll repeat. I gun is a tool designed to fire a projectile (s) at a chosen target.
And we've been through the whole red herring of magazine size. A large magazine just means more projectiles to fire at a chosen target before a reload is necessary.

I have all kinds of things I can use for self defense and a gun is just one of them. Anything can be used as a weapon.

 

[alang1216]

If there is a young child in your house that finds a gun and kills someone with it, who is responsible? Is there a way to prevent such a tragedy?

A parent is always and always has been responsible for the actions of his minor children.
Can the government prevent it you mean?

No the government cannot prevent it[/QUOTE]
Actually the government can prevent it. What you really mean is that you don't WANT the government to prevent it.

 

[Skull Pilot]

If there is a young child in your house that finds a gun and kills someone with it, who is responsible? Is there a way to prevent such a tragedy?

A parent is always and always has been responsible for the actions of his minor children.
Can the government prevent it you mean?

No the government cannot prevent it

Actually the government can prevent it. What you really mean is that you don't WANT the government to prevent it.[/QUOTE]

The government can try but it will fail.
The government cannot prevent any of the activities it has deemed illegal

 

[alang1216]

The government can try but it will fail.
The government cannot prevent any of the activities it has deemed illegal

The Feds have mandated plenty of automobile safety standards and the rate of fatalities has been cut in half since the 60's while the number of miles have doubled.

The government prevents plenty of activities through a combination of regulation, prevention, and punishment. Nothing is 100% but this combination is very effective and to say the government can use only one of these means certain failure.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The government can try but it will fail.
The government cannot prevent any of the activities it has deemed illegal

The Feds have mandated plenty of automobile safety standards and the rate of fatalities has been cut in half since the 60's while the number of miles have doubled.

The government prevents plenty of activities through a combination of regulation, prevention, and punishment. Nothing is 100% but this combination is very effective and to say the government can use only one of these means certain failure.

How are you going to mandate that a parent not let a kid get a hold of a gun? registration of guns will not stop them from being stolen, will not stop a kid accidentally shooting himself because of a parent's negligence, will not stop a criminal from buying an illegal gun, will not stop one murder

People are not machines. You cannot design a safety feature into the genome

The only way to lower gun crime is to put people found guilty of those crimes away for a long time.

The mere possession, or sale of an illegal gun is a felony

SO here's how you target the people causing the most problems with guns

Mandatory no parole sentencing

Possession of an illegal firearm 10 years
Crime while in possession of an illegal firearm 15 years
Crime with an illegal firearm resulting in any death Life in prison

 

[alang1216]

How are you going to mandate that a parent not let a kid get a hold of a gun? registration of guns will not stop them from being stolen will not stop a kid accidentally shooting himself because of a parent's negligence will not stop a criminal from buying an illegal gun will not stop one murder

People are not machines. You cannot design a safety feature into the genome

I think we'd both agree that if every gun owner had to have the same security for their guns that you have there would be fewer gun thefts and accidents. Not a suggesting that as a solution but it is something the government could mandate, like seat belts in cars.

 

[Skull Pilot]

How are you going to mandate that a parent not let a kid get a hold of a gun? registration of guns will not stop them from being stolen will not stop a kid accidentally shooting himself because of a parent's negligence will not stop a criminal from buying an illegal gun will not stop one murder

People are not machines. You cannot design a safety feature into the genome

I think we'd both agree that if every gun owner had to have the same security for their guns that you have there would be fewer gun thefts and accidents. Not a suggesting that as a solution but it is something the government could mandate, like seat belts in cars.

There is no way to mandate that and enforce it unless of course you do away with the 4th amendment and allow random home searches

Just because there are seat belts in cars does not mean everyone wears them and those that don't rarely if ever get caught.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

There is no right to life in the Bill of Rights

It's an unenumerated right. It's also included in the Declaration of Independence.

The declaration of Independence is not the document which establishes our legal rights
The Constitution does not guarantee a right to life anywhere.

The right to life is mentioned in the preamble only and the preamble is not the legally binding text of the document

Oh for the Love of God.

First of all, the ENTIRE COTUS is the legally binding document

Second of all, the COTUS does not give any of us ANY rights, we already have those rights. It in fact only gives the federal government rights and specifies which rights the government may never interfere with.

 

[alang1216]

There is no way to mandate that and enforce it unless of course you do away with the 4th amendment and allow random home searches

Just because there are seat belts in cars does not mean everyone wears them and those that don't rarely if ever get caught.

Don't underestimate how coercive government can be. A law saying no gun safe installed in your home (receipts required), no guns.

You're right about seat belts but before they were mandated you had to purchase them as an after-market item (if I recall correctly) so almost nobody did. At least now they are there if you want them and have sense enough to use them.

 

[Divine Wind]

Don't underestimate how coercive government can be. .....

No truer words have been written. This is why we must fight every single encroachment of the Federal government on our rights.

This is why the NRA fights so hard against any additional gun laws, because they know every time we give an inch to the anti-gun motherfuckers, they take a mile.

 

[Divine Wind]

Yes, but you, like many other anti-Constitution/authoritarian nanny staters, miss the point; it's not the cars, it's the drivers.

It's both.

A car, no matter how powerful or expensive is just a very large paperweight without a human being to drive it. Same for guns.

The major difference, of course, is that having cars are not enumerated rights yet I have not seen one LW anti-gun prick say we shouldn't have cars or who seeks to put limits on how powerful and big they can be. Why? Because the lying, two-faced assholes use cars.

 

[alang1216]

Don't underestimate how coercive government can be. .....

No truer words have been written. This is why we must fight every single encroachment of the Federal government on our rights.

This is why the NRA fights so hard against any additional gun laws, because they know every time we give an inch to the anti-gun motherfuckers, they take a mile.

I guess the difference between us is that I don't see the government as an evil occupying force, I see it as a reflection of we the people. For better or for worse.

 

[alang1216]

Yes, but you, like many other anti-Constitution/authoritarian nanny staters, miss the point; it's not the cars, it's the drivers.

It's both.

A car, no matter how powerful or expensive is just a very large paperweight without a human being to drive it. Same for guns.

The major difference, of course, is that having cars are not enumerated rights yet I have not seen one LW anti-gun prick say we shouldn't have cars or who seeks to put limits on how powerful and big they can be. Why? Because the lying, two-faced assholes use cars.

Why? Because there are already limits on how powerful and big they can be. Keep working on those anger issues.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Yes, but you, like many other anti-Constitution/authoritarian nanny staters, miss the point; it's not the cars, it's the drivers.

It's both.

A car, no matter how powerful or expensive is just a very large paperweight without a human being to drive it. Same for guns.

The major difference, of course, is that having cars are not enumerated rights yet I have not seen one LW anti-gun prick say we shouldn't have cars or who seeks to put limits on how powerful and big they can be. Why? Because the lying, two-faced assholes use cars.

That' won't be true for cars for long.


Your point stands, however.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Yes, but you, like many other anti-Constitution/authoritarian nanny staters, miss the point; it's not the cars, it's the drivers.

It's both.

A car, no matter how powerful or expensive is just a very large paperweight without a human being to drive it. Same for guns.

The major difference, of course, is that having cars are not enumerated rights yet I have not seen one LW anti-gun prick say we shouldn't have cars or who seeks to put limits on how powerful and big they can be. Why? Because the lying, two-faced assholes use cars.

Why? Because there are already limits on how powerful and big they can be. Keep working on those anger issues.

There's no limit on how powerful a vehicle may be. Government imposed limit , I mean. Dodge builds a vehicle with 707 HP right out of the factory. Now , why would they do that? The damn thing does 0-60 in <4 seconds and has a top speed of 198 MPH. Why? Obviously there is no public road where that is necessary, or legal. Should Dodge be responsible for making sure no one can use their cars to speed?

 

[2aguy]

The government can try but it will fail.
The government cannot prevent any of the activities it has deemed illegal

The Feds have mandated plenty of automobile safety standards and the rate of fatalities has been cut in half since the 60's while the number of miles have doubled.

The government prevents plenty of activities through a combination of regulation, prevention, and punishment. Nothing is 100% but this combination is very effective and to say the government can use only one of these means certain failure.

And in the 1990s there were 200 million guns in private hands...in 2016 there are now 357,000,000 guns in private hands...and the gun murder rate was cut by 49%.......so your point is made.......more guns does not = more gun murder....thanks for playing....

 

[Divine Wind]

I guess the difference between us is that I don't see the government as an evil occupying force, I see it as a reflection of we the people. For better or for worse.

I don't see it as an occupying force either, so I think you are delusional in thinking I do.

The problem is that too many uninformed voters are willing to give up their rights, won by our forefathers and mothers, because they are spineless and weak. What was one of the greatest giveaways of our rights in recent history? The Patriot Act. Pushed by and supported by a fearful, spineless population. It's been resigned 3(?) times so far. Twice by President Obama.

I see gun laws as based on the same type of fears. People worry about gun violence, and they should, but banning guns won't stop criminals, cure mental illness, stop domestic abuse nor stop suicides. So why do it? Because too people are spineless wimps who feel "We need to do something!". You know. Just like we did with the Patriot Act to stop terrorism.

 

[2aguy]

Yes but my car was not designed to kill people.

Neither are my guns.
They are designed to fire a projectile at a target of my choice

Do you have a gun you specifically bought for self defense? What is the design purpose of guns with large capacity magazines?

To make it easier to defend yourself from one or more determined attackers...since you never know how much ammunition you will need to fight off an attack. Also, you may be injured...so a low magazine limit means you would have to try to reload, under pressure of an attack, injured, with your small motor skill hampered by adrenaline and shock....so a large magazine capacity for the law abiding person means they don't have to change their magazine as often....

This is only a concern for law abiding people...mass shooters...can change magazines easily during an attack, as actual research shows.....and criminals will get whatever magazines they want.....

 

[2aguy]

Traffic laws...they only effect law abiding car owners so why do we need them.

Needing a license to practice medicine laws... they only effect law abiding doctors so why do we need them.

Banking laws... they only effect law abiding bankers so why do we need them.

All the FDA laws...they only effect law abiding food and drug manufacturers so why do we need them


I'm beginning to see a pattern here.

again....this argument is silly....yet you guys keep going to it....

It is against the law to speed...if you do you get punished.

It is against the law to commit murder....and when you do commit murder you can be punished...

That is how laws work..they define behavior that is not allowed, and if you do it what the punishment will be.

It is against the law to use a gun to commit a crime..if you do you can be arrested...see the pattern here.....you get punished for actually committing a crime, not before you commit the crime.