Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I'm not afraid of being hit by lightning but that doesn't mean I stand out in the open during a thunder storm.I live in a dem city. So, your assumptions are wrong.
LOL
What can I do but laugh.
Where were you the last time you saw someone use a gun to force his will on another?
It's been a while. I am no longer out and about as I was.
Of course, that is the story of my life the last 10 years in regards to anything.
Last time was when my hillbillies neighbors by my country home had a shouting match and one reached for a gun to show how dangerous it was to argue with him. Douche bag. This I witnessed outside my window within the last 10 years.
I grew up in the country. Ish. I never had neighbors like that.
lucky you
then another neighbor actually shoots his gun in the air in the middle of the night to complain and threaten because of a barking dog!
Mind you, my country place is only one hour from Manhattan. It is not like I am in the middle of Indiana or Alabama.
I got more stories. Only one from where you might expect it, from an inner city.
I live in the Rust Belt. City now. Ruralish suburbs when I was younger. Never seen shit like that.
I was an inner city kid who was lucky enough to have spent summers on grandfathers working farm. So I got to see both worlds. Then, as I said, I spent high school years in upper middle class suburbs, later another 5 years in a suburban area when my kids were young.
Way more time in the cities, way way more experiences with guns in the country. Oh, and college in NH, saw the gun come out on a Friday night a couple times too.
As we all have different experiences AND different interpretations of these experiences hence we all have different opinions. Still, I was never anti gun, I still own 3, until the FL high school massacre. Interestingly enough, it was not the shooting itself that changed me, it was the posts of the pro gun people afterward that made me say, "we got a problem."
peace brother
How many do you own now?
Rifle, shotgun and pistol.
Why? Are you paranoid?
nope, just stuff that has been around. None of it is for "protection"
I can handle myself just fine and am not scared of being hit by lightening.
I disagree. Again, you're using an equivalency where, if the law reacted thusly, you could hold just about anyone criminally or civil liable for any crime committed using their property, such as loaning a neighbor a tool.I looked it up, only info I could find on it is in about 4 states it only said it was a law to keep vehicles from being stolen, but mentioned nothing about holding owners responsible for what thieves did with a stolen vehicle.Thats a dangerous way of thinking about it because you are going down a path that anything in your life that is not "properly secured" could lead you to legal problems.and if someone steals your car, and drives it into a crowd, you're partially responsible for any deaths and damages it causes?I'm a gun owner. Got a bunch of 'em downstairs in the safe. Got my first gun at 11yrs old. Bought it with my chore money. Used to be a member of the NRA. Until they went stupid.
I think American gun-culture is stupid and crazy.
I've long advocated that when a tool of such potential destructive/disruptive potential is brought into our civil society then what comes with it is ----- strict liability.
If there is ANY harm to humans or property after that weapon is fired then the OWNER of the gun bears a significant liability. NOT just the jackass who fired it ....... but also the owner of record.
That means if your Glock is stolen from underneath the seat of your Ford-150 and it is used to shoot somebody's cheatin' wife.....well, the shooter gets arrested and tried, and the owner of the gun gets a whopper of a fine.
It was his gun. He brought it into our society. He failed to secure it adequately. Ergo......he has a share of the responsibility.
THEN.......you would see a more serious, responsible, cautious approach to owning those things.
IMHO
Sure, if you leave it with the keys in it and maybe running while left unattended. There is no keys for a gun and it's always running. For those that don't show "Reasonable" security then they are as guilty as the person that pulled the trigger. I saw a young in a quick stop who had a gun on her hip. She was tossing her hip in that direction knowing (or unknowingly) to broadcast she was carrying an open carry. I can just see the bad guy now who decides to mug here. "Hey, jake, look a free gun and a free piece of ass".
Loan your buddy a hammer and he kills someone with it, you are on the hook. Leave your garage door open while working in the back yard and someone steals a hatchet and kills someone else with it you are on the hook.
Leave your car parked on the driveway, even though locked, its not in the garage and therefore not "secured", and someone breaks in and steals a knife and kills someone with it, you're on the hook.
Look, I agree that you should always secure your belongings, especially firearms, but trying to make a case for legal damages on behalf of the owner simply because he left his truck running while he ran into the store to grab some coffee, and someone steals his truck....that can open a can of worms that could potentially make EVERYONE a criminal.
Newsflash: that driver that runs into the store and leaves his vehicle running is already liable for anything it's used for. If not criminal, civil.
Really? I've never heard of anyone being held liable for leaving their vehicle running.
Any thoughts as to the rest of my post?
Many states have a Puffing law. Look it up. You might learn something. Or not.
Trust me, an lawyer worth their salts will use that law to put financial burden on the car owner. It's not criminal, it's civil.
However, if your gun is secure in your vehicle that is secure and you are in a state where its legal to carry a firearm in your vehicle, then if someone breaks into your vehicle, finds your gun, steals it, then commits a crime, then no, the owner of the vehicle should not be held liable.
However, if your gun is secure in your vehicle that is secure and you are in a state where its legal to carry a firearm in your vehicle, then if someone breaks into your vehicle, finds your gun, steals it, then commits a crime, then no, the owner of the vehicle should not be held liable.
I would demur, in this manner:
A gun is a unique and distinct piece of 'property' with specific characteristics not shared by other properties.....in contradistinction to your vehicle, or even a hammer or a knife.
It's potential power is manifest, and the sole reason it even exists. Again in contrast to your automobile or hoe.
Firearms (and wonks can determine relative lethality of each).....but firearms posses the clear and obvious potential of destructive power that other properties do not.
As such, any individual who elects to bring that tool into our society bears the responsibility that its potential power is ONLY used for societal approved purpose.
If it's power is used otherwise, for whatever reason, then the owner is strictly liable. Perhaps not solely liable but he/she bears considerably more than zero.
However, if your gun is secure in your vehicle that is secure and you are in a state where its legal to carry a firearm in your vehicle, then if someone breaks into your vehicle, finds your gun, steals it, then commits a crime, then no, the owner of the vehicle should not be held liable.
I would demur, in this manner:
A gun is a unique and distinct piece of 'property' with specific characteristics not shared by other properties.....in contradistinction to your vehicle, or even a hammer or a knife.
It's potential power is manifest, and the sole reason it even exists. Again in contrast to your automobile or hoe.
Firearms (and wonks can determine relative lethality of each).....but firearms posses the clear and obvious potential of destructive power that other properties do not.
As such, any individual who elects to bring that tool into our society bears the responsibility that its potential power is ONLY used for societal approved purpose.
If it's power is used otherwise, for whatever reason, then the owner is strictly liable. Perhaps not solely liable but he/she bears considerably more than zero.
A gun is a unique and distinct piece of 'property' with specific characteristics not shared by other properties.....in contradistinction to your vehicle, or even a hammer or a knife.
However, if your gun is secure in your vehicle that is secure and you are in a state where its legal to carry a firearm in your vehicle, then if someone breaks into your vehicle, finds your gun, steals it, then commits a crime, then no, the owner of the vehicle should not be held liable.
I would demur, in this manner:
A gun is a unique and distinct piece of 'property' with specific characteristics not shared by other properties.....in contradistinction to your vehicle, or even a hammer or a knife.
It's potential power is manifest, and the sole reason it even exists. Again in contrast to your automobile or hoe.
Firearms (and wonks can determine relative lethality of each).....but firearms posses the clear and obvious potential of destructive power that other properties do not.
As such, any individual who elects to bring that tool into our society bears the responsibility that its potential power is ONLY used for societal approved purpose.
If it's power is used otherwise, for whatever reason, then the owner is strictly liable. Perhaps not solely liable but he/she bears considerably more than zero.
The law is clear it is illegal to sell to an out of state person with out sending the firearm to the stte ffl he is from it is illegal to sell with out a background chec and it is required all sales from a licensed ffl must be reported to atf.LOL liar tje atf can track anyone that buys lots of firearms and there is a law against it, requiring you to register and get an ffl.The paranoia concerning imaginary Big Blue Meanies coming to take precious shooties away, notwithstanding, if the problem were limited to "criminals in the hood" it would be comparatively easy to confront.
The tragic reality of horrific, ubiquitous, mass shootings such as at Sandy Hook Elementary School, Stoneman Douglas High School, Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church, the Amish West Nickel Mines School, Mandalay Bay concert in Las Vegas, etc., etc., etc. cannot be avoided by pointing at scapegoats.
Except those kind of mass shootings are an anomaly, not the norm. Look at how many get shot and killed in Chicago on a holiday weekend, or any weekend for that matter.
And most of the Chitown shootings are done by legally procured guns. Just jet over about 40 or 50 miles into Indianna and you can buy a gun fairly easily. Then motor back into Chicago slums. There are people making big bucks by legally purchasing in Indy, transporting them across the Ill state line and reselling them. According to the Chicago Police Chief, that comprises over 60% of the "Illegal" guns on the street.
And most of the Chitown shootings are done by legally procured guns.
'Legally' procured?
I don't expect you to understand as it would make your head explode if you did.
I'm trying to understand how someone could 'legally' buy a firearm, especially when it is ILLEGAL to buy a firearm in a state you don't live in.
including handguns.
They can be purchased, but have to be sent to an FFL in the purchasers home state.
Unless it's a private sale, pay and go isn't allowed.
Okay, let's say you are just misinformed. A Legal Indy person can guy the guns. He goes from place to place and buys even more guns until his van is filled up. He then drives the Van and it's contents into Chitown and sells the Van and all it's cargo for a nice tidy profit. These guns were purchased legally although what happens after that isn't. BTW, many guns make it into Mexico the same way from Texas where it's even easier.
The problem isn't with Ill, it's with Indy who refuses to clean their system up and go after these gun runners. Same goes for Texas. BTW, Kansas is bitching about MJ being legally purchased in Colorado and then transported to Kansas.
So OAN told you that, right. Newsflash: You can buy as many guns as you want in the Denny's parking lot without recording a damned thing. Plus,in Indy, you can purchase 2 or 3 at a single location but go to many locations to get the numbers you want. I can tell you are a Rumper. You don't want it fixed. It gives you something to whine around.
I disagree. Again, you're using an equivalency where, if the law reacted thusly, you could hold just about anyone criminally or civil liable for any crime committed using their property, such as loaning a neighbor a tool.I looked it up, only info I could find on it is in about 4 states it only said it was a law to keep vehicles from being stolen, but mentioned nothing about holding owners responsible for what thieves did with a stolen vehicle.Thats a dangerous way of thinking about it because you are going down a path that anything in your life that is not "properly secured" could lead you to legal problems.and if someone steals your car, and drives it into a crowd, you're partially responsible for any deaths and damages it causes?I'm a gun owner. Got a bunch of 'em downstairs in the safe. Got my first gun at 11yrs old. Bought it with my chore money. Used to be a member of the NRA. Until they went stupid.
I think American gun-culture is stupid and crazy.
I've long advocated that when a tool of such potential destructive/disruptive potential is brought into our civil society then what comes with it is ----- strict liability.
If there is ANY harm to humans or property after that weapon is fired then the OWNER of the gun bears a significant liability. NOT just the jackass who fired it ....... but also the owner of record.
That means if your Glock is stolen from underneath the seat of your Ford-150 and it is used to shoot somebody's cheatin' wife.....well, the shooter gets arrested and tried, and the owner of the gun gets a whopper of a fine.
It was his gun. He brought it into our society. He failed to secure it adequately. Ergo......he has a share of the responsibility.
THEN.......you would see a more serious, responsible, cautious approach to owning those things.
IMHO
Sure, if you leave it with the keys in it and maybe running while left unattended. There is no keys for a gun and it's always running. For those that don't show "Reasonable" security then they are as guilty as the person that pulled the trigger. I saw a young in a quick stop who had a gun on her hip. She was tossing her hip in that direction knowing (or unknowingly) to broadcast she was carrying an open carry. I can just see the bad guy now who decides to mug here. "Hey, jake, look a free gun and a free piece of ass".
Loan your buddy a hammer and he kills someone with it, you are on the hook. Leave your garage door open while working in the back yard and someone steals a hatchet and kills someone else with it you are on the hook.
Leave your car parked on the driveway, even though locked, its not in the garage and therefore not "secured", and someone breaks in and steals a knife and kills someone with it, you're on the hook.
Look, I agree that you should always secure your belongings, especially firearms, but trying to make a case for legal damages on behalf of the owner simply because he left his truck running while he ran into the store to grab some coffee, and someone steals his truck....that can open a can of worms that could potentially make EVERYONE a criminal.
Newsflash: that driver that runs into the store and leaves his vehicle running is already liable for anything it's used for. If not criminal, civil.
Really? I've never heard of anyone being held liable for leaving their vehicle running.
Any thoughts as to the rest of my post?
Many states have a Puffing law. Look it up. You might learn something. Or not.
Trust me, an lawyer worth their salts will use that law to put financial burden on the car owner. It's not criminal, it's civil.
How about this, if you can be held liable if someone breaks into your truck and steals your gun and shoots someone with it, then wouldn't that means you'd be held liable if someone broke into your home and stole your guns and shot someone with them? I would think not. At some point, your are to be secure in your belongings and property.
Now, I agree that, if you have a gun in plain sight in your vehicle, and you leave your vehicle unlocked in a public place, there could be some liability there. Possibly negligence. However, if your gun is secure in your vehicle that is secure and you are in a state where its legal to carry a firearm in your vehicle, then if someone breaks into your vehicle, finds your gun, steals it, then commits a crime, then no, the owner of the vehicle should not be held liable.
Not banned by the 1934 Firearms Act. The word is Regulated. You can own it if you have the proper documentation and licensing. Hell, I can own a fully functional Surplus M-1A Abrams with either the 105 or the 120mm barrel plus that functional M-2 Machine Guns but most states won't allow that.
"....on the contrary, a knife is just as dangerous as a firearm....... In the hands of a killer, it's an instrument of death."
......................................................................................"One can kill as readily with a ball-point pen."
Because your communist ilk made us argue all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court on the issue of whether it is an individual right, which is so ridiculous a position, that we can only conclude that you want a complete ban.Why are Republicans so paranoid about guns? America has more guns in circulation than they have people. A few less guns in the hands of criminals and children seems like common sense to me.
Not banned by the 1934 Firearms Act. The word is Regulated. You can own it if you have the proper documentation and licensing. Hell, I can own a fully functional Surplus M-1A Abrams with either the 105 or the 120mm barrel plus that functional M-2 Machine Guns but most states won't allow that.
No not "banned" (effectively banned as mentioned though) in 1934 but yes regulated. Come to 1986.
Now look at the 1986 ban, FOPA. You and I CANNOT own any post 1986 MG, period. That's a ban. The feds did that, (you said they can't) they banned all MG's for civilians made post 1986. 35 years now this stupid unconstitutional BAN.
It's a stupid ban, increased MG prices tremendously. Makes sense that I can go thru NFA and buy a M16 made in 1985 but not made in 1986? Can't buy a simple M4 (1994 the first) and that is somehow different from the operation of an M16?
Free people are entitled to purchase state of the art weapons for defense of self and against all enemies. PERIOD. That is freedom.Not banned by the 1934 Firearms Act. The word is Regulated. You can own it if you have the proper documentation and licensing. Hell, I can own a fully functional Surplus M-1A Abrams with either the 105 or the 120mm barrel plus that functional M-2 Machine Guns but most states won't allow that.
No not "banned" (effectively banned as mentioned though) in 1934 but yes regulated. Come to 1986.
Now look at the 1986 ban, FOPA. You and I CANNOT own any post 1986 MG, period. That's a ban. The feds did that, (you said they can't) they banned all MG's for civilians made post 1986. 35 years now this stupid unconstitutional BAN.
It's a stupid ban, increased MG prices tremendously. Makes sense that I can go thru NFA and buy a M16 made in 1985 but not made in 1986? Can't buy a simple M4 (1994 the first) and that is somehow different from the operation of an M16?
I never said I agreed with any of this. But it stopped the full auto weapons used in the performance of a crime which was the intent. About a year ago, I said that buying a M-16A1 for 30K wasn't worth it when you could buy a Model 601 for right around 3000 and get the same basic weapon. Not long after that, the Colt Model 601 went to over 30K. I wished I had the forethought to purchase what few of the 601s that were for sale at that time. Okay, you get to blame me on that one.
If being able to fondle a shooty infuses confidence, why are so many of the gun-dependent so insecure?
I never said I agreed with any of this. But it stopped the full auto weapons used in the performance of a crime which was the intent. About a year ago, I said that buying a M-16A1 for 30K wasn't worth it when you could buy a Model 601 for right around 3000 and get the same basic weapon. Not long after that, the Colt Model 601 went to over 30K. I wished I had the forethought to purchase what few of the 601s that were for sale at that time. Okay, you get to blame me on that one.
I never said I agreed with any of this. But it stopped the full auto weapons used in the performance of a crime which was the intent. About a year ago, I said that buying a M-16A1 for 30K wasn't worth it when you could buy a Model 601 for right around 3000 and get the same basic weapon. Not long after that, the Colt Model 601 went to over 30K. I wished I had the forethought to purchase what few of the 601s that were for sale at that time. Okay, you get to blame me on that one.
You never admitted there WAS a BAN either, 1986. You said "Feds can't do that". Well they did, for 36 years now and you won't admit it. One simple gun, one question. WHY CAN'T I BUY AN M4, Feds banned sales of anything mfg past 1986. It's not right. Totally unconstitutional. You know it.
1934 act for crime prevention with an MG? Capone era, well more but they were criminals using illegal guns and no NFA act could stop that. Nothing will, except prosecute criminals and use the 20,000+ gun laws on the books will help. Do you get NRA mags or have access? (cut out send you the article if you wish) Wonderful article, last month. Titled, "It's the criminal stupid" Even in VA they had a simple law drastically reduced crime, even the present Gov was behind it and fully supported it. Was a while back. Chiraq crime firearm crime dropped during "stop and frisk" They stopped that for lib tears, "picking on those poor gangbanger druggies" Too fucking bad, they do the crime, use anything available to stop it. It worked.
Yes prices went insane and getting worse thanks to the 1986 ban. How familiar are you with that ban and yes if you google it's not commonly called FOPA but the "1986 MG ban". I remember Mac's for $1100 bucks, $9K now. Rieslings $4500, can't find one. SHIT! Damn, if we only had that foresight. Heck, I'm old, 66. I remember Colt 1911's, nickel for less than $100 at my gunshop.
Yes sometimes I mention "effective ban" Which is what 1934 was and they knew it. Example. Left knows there is no chance of doing away with the 2nd or getting our firearms. If ammo was banned, mfg's stopped from making it, you must turn your stockpile in. Doesn't that "effectively" ban firearms?
I don't like it either but I am not under the false pretense no one is touching our guns, because they have, are, and will try again. State laws irk me, but a rampant leftist govt and ATF free to do what they wish with fed laws is worse. I was immersed for decades, this shit runs thru me and disgusts me. Biden is talking EX order on gun control.
You keep using that word "Karen."I never said I agreed with any of this. But it stopped the full auto weapons used in the performance of a crime which was the intent. About a year ago, I said that buying a M-16A1 for 30K wasn't worth it when you could buy a Model 601 for right around 3000 and get the same basic weapon. Not long after that, the Colt Model 601 went to over 30K. I wished I had the forethought to purchase what few of the 601s that were for sale at that time. Okay, you get to blame me on that one.
You never admitted there WAS a BAN either, 1986. You said "Feds can't do that". Well they did, for 36 years now and you won't admit it. One simple gun, one question. WHY CAN'T I BUY AN M4, Feds banned sales of anything mfg past 1986. It's not right. Totally unconstitutional. You know it.
1934 act for crime prevention with an MG? Capone era, well more but they were criminals using illegal guns and no NFA act could stop that. Nothing will, except prosecute criminals and use the 20,000+ gun laws on the books will help. Do you get NRA mags or have access? (cut out send you the article if you wish) Wonderful article, last month. Titled, "It's the criminal stupid" Even in VA they had a simple law drastically reduced crime, even the present Gov was behind it and fully supported it. Was a while back. Chiraq crime firearm crime dropped during "stop and frisk" They stopped that for lib tears, "picking on those poor gangbanger druggies" Too fucking bad, they do the crime, use anything available to stop it. It worked.
Yes prices went insane and getting worse thanks to the 1986 ban. How familiar are you with that ban and yes if you google it's not commonly called FOPA but the "1986 MG ban". I remember Mac's for $1100 bucks, $9K now. Rieslings $4500, can't find one. SHIT! Damn, if we only had that foresight. Heck, I'm old, 66. I remember Colt 1911's, nickel for less than $100 at my gunshop.
Yes sometimes I mention "effective ban" Which is what 1934 was and they knew it. Example. Left knows there is no chance of doing away with the 2nd or getting our firearms. If ammo was banned, mfg's stopped from making it, you must turn your stockpile in. Doesn't that "effectively" ban firearms?
I don't like it either but I am not under the false pretense no one is touching our guns, because they have, are, and will try again. State laws irk me, but a rampant leftist govt and ATF free to do what they wish with fed laws is worse. I was immersed for decades, this shit runs thru me and disgusts me. Biden is talking EX order on gun control.
Hate to break it to everyone but the gunnuters have entered into the Karens of the world.
FFL retard you claimed legal sles from fflThe law is clear it is illegal to sell to an out of state person with out sending the firearm to the stte ffl he is from it is illegal to sell with out a background chec and it is required all sales from a licensed ffl must be reported to atf.LOL liar tje atf can track anyone that buys lots of firearms and there is a law against it, requiring you to register and get an ffl.The paranoia concerning imaginary Big Blue Meanies coming to take precious shooties away, notwithstanding, if the problem were limited to "criminals in the hood" it would be comparatively easy to confront.
The tragic reality of horrific, ubiquitous, mass shootings such as at Sandy Hook Elementary School, Stoneman Douglas High School, Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church, the Amish West Nickel Mines School, Mandalay Bay concert in Las Vegas, etc., etc., etc. cannot be avoided by pointing at scapegoats.
Except those kind of mass shootings are an anomaly, not the norm. Look at how many get shot and killed in Chicago on a holiday weekend, or any weekend for that matter.
And most of the Chitown shootings are done by legally procured guns. Just jet over about 40 or 50 miles into Indianna and you can buy a gun fairly easily. Then motor back into Chicago slums. There are people making big bucks by legally purchasing in Indy, transporting them across the Ill state line and reselling them. According to the Chicago Police Chief, that comprises over 60% of the "Illegal" guns on the street.
And most of the Chitown shootings are done by legally procured guns.
'Legally' procured?
I don't expect you to understand as it would make your head explode if you did.
I'm trying to understand how someone could 'legally' buy a firearm, especially when it is ILLEGAL to buy a firearm in a state you don't live in.
including handguns.
They can be purchased, but have to be sent to an FFL in the purchasers home state.
Unless it's a private sale, pay and go isn't allowed.
Okay, let's say you are just misinformed. A Legal Indy person can guy the guns. He goes from place to place and buys even more guns until his van is filled up. He then drives the Van and it's contents into Chitown and sells the Van and all it's cargo for a nice tidy profit. These guns were purchased legally although what happens after that isn't. BTW, many guns make it into Mexico the same way from Texas where it's even easier.
The problem isn't with Ill, it's with Indy who refuses to clean their system up and go after these gun runners. Same goes for Texas. BTW, Kansas is bitching about MJ being legally purchased in Colorado and then transported to Kansas.
So OAN told you that, right. Newsflash: You can buy as many guns as you want in the Denny's parking lot without recording a damned thing. Plus,in Indy, you can purchase 2 or 3 at a single location but go to many locations to get the numbers you want. I can tell you are a Rumper. You don't want it fixed. It gives you something to whine around.
All sales? Does that include private sales? Private sales out of a 53 Roadmaster at Denny's won't be required a background check in many states. There will be no record of the sale.
Would you stop this nonsense. We already know how the weapons gets into the "Hood". But you are so busy gaslighting that you are hoping that we all will be distracted.
Yep, guns can be deadly, i don't disagree there, but so can a 8000 lb vehicle. You talk about a guns destructive power, but dismiss the potential lethality of a 1 ton turbo diesel. Also, its not about the amount of people an item can kill, its about the liability if said item is used in a crime.However, if your gun is secure in your vehicle that is secure and you are in a state where its legal to carry a firearm in your vehicle, then if someone breaks into your vehicle, finds your gun, steals it, then commits a crime, then no, the owner of the vehicle should not be held liable.
I would demur, in this manner:
A gun is a unique and distinct piece of 'property' with specific characteristics not shared by other properties.....in contradistinction to your vehicle, or even a hammer or a knife.
It's potential power is manifest, and the sole reason it even exists. Again in contrast to your automobile or hoe.
Firearms (and wonks can determine relative lethality of each).....but firearms posses the clear and obvious potential of destructive power that other properties do not.
As such, any individual who elects to bring that tool into our society bears the responsibility that its potential power is ONLY used for societal approved purpose.
If it's power is used otherwise, for whatever reason, then the owner is strictly liable. Perhaps not solely liable but he/she bears considerably more than zero.
