Ideas for Dealing with Illegal Guns/and Irresponsible Behavior

[Saorsa]

Yes but remember, flintlocks were the most powerful weapons of the day and our founders didn't see fit to restrict them in favor of slingshots and bows and arrows.

History would indicate battle ships and cannon where the most powerful weapons in the late 1700s. But you can continue your fantasy if you'd like.

The weapons of choice for PRIVATEERS.

 

[mr_fabulous]

So cars are not mentioned. That's what I thought.

I am afraid James Madison's crystal ball needed cleaning that day and he failed to foresee automobiles...as a result so all the SC's since about 1823 have used in dictum arguments pertaining to obviousness...

But thanks for raising the point that the framers intended the Constitution to be a living document, subject to revisions and amendments from time to time, for the very reason you point out, which is that history moves on, with unanticipated innovations that require re-thinking of the original spirit now and then...which is why things like tanks and nukes and such excluded from coverage in the second amendment...You know....that old chestnut...

 

[Saorsa]

So cars are not mentioned. That's what I thought.

I am afraid James Madison's crystal ball needed cleaning that day and he failed to foresee automobiles...as a result so all the SC's since about 1823 have used in dictum arguments pertaining to obviousness...

But thanks for raising the point that the framers intended the Constitution to be a living document, subject to revisions and amendments from time to time, for the very reason you point out, which is that history moves on, with unanticipated innovations that require re-thinking of the original spirit now and then...which is why things like tanks and nukes and such excluded from coverage in the second amendment...You know....that old chestnut...

Subject to revisions? Amendments yes, just making revisions at will doesn't seem to be mentioned.

Are you campaigning for repeal of the second amendment? I don't see a lot of that going on.

 

[frenchie]

Yes but remember, flintlocks were the most powerful weapons of the day and our founders didn't see fit to restrict them in favor of slingshots and bows and arrows.

History would indicate battle ships and cannon where the most powerful weapons in the late 1700s. But you can continue your fantasy if you'd like.

herpity, derpity?

Continental Navy: 1,242 cannon on 64 ships.

Private citizens: 14,872 cannon on 1,697 ships.

http://www.usmm.org/revolution.html

 

[Regatta Dog]

OK, Do we agree that the uncontrolled private sale of firearms represents a significant area that requires improvement? What improvements are possible?

You see, the problem is gun control is a catch 22. If a gun grabber proposes it, its bad no matter how reasonable and popular, it cannot be considered because a gun grabber likes it. The only control considered will have to come from the gun clingers. But the gun clingers will never propose any gun control. So any control cannot be considered.

What the gun clingers don't realize is how unpopular they are. They think they are mainstream.

As much as you might like this to be a simple majority issue with one extreme winning over the other, this is a Constitutional issue.

Why in the world would you refer to gun owners as "gun clingers"? Are you a computer clinger, car clinger, dish rag clinger? If you legally own something, you are not a "clinger". You simply own it. If you feel that you own your property only at the whim of the Gov't, you use words like "clinger".

 

[Regatta Dog]

Yes but remember, flintlocks were the most powerful weapons of the day and our founders didn't see fit to restrict them in favor of slingshots and bows and arrows.

History would indicate battle ships and cannon where the most powerful weapons in the late 1700s. But you can continue your fantasy if you'd like.

herpity, derpity?

Continental Navy: 1,242 cannon on 64 ships.

Private citizens: 14,872 cannon on 1,697 ships.

http://www.usmm.org/revolution.html

Word. And then the peeps from France swung by with their shit.

 

[El Mariachi]

I think Clinger had some...uhm, oh shit, how can I put this delicately, hmmmmm, ok, let's try this.......sexual orientation issues?.....

 

[tq2000]

So cars are not mentioned. That's what I thought.

I am afraid James Madison's crystal ball needed cleaning that day and he failed to foresee automobiles...as a result so all the SC's since about 1823 have used in dictum arguments pertaining to obviousness...

But thanks for raising the point that the framers intended the Constitution to be a living document, subject to revisions and amendments from time to time, for the very reason you point out, which is that history moves on, with unanticipated innovations that require re-thinking of the original spirit now and then...which is why things like tanks and nukes and such excluded from coverage in the second amendment...You know....that old chestnut...

Which amendment guarantees the right to own and drive vehicles that is now extended to cars? That would be a logical equivalent of muskets and cannons of the time extending to AR15s today.

 

[Saorsa]

So cars are not mentioned. That's what I thought.

I am afraid James Madison's crystal ball needed cleaning that day and he failed to foresee automobiles...as a result so all the SC's since about 1823 have used in dictum arguments pertaining to obviousness...

But thanks for raising the point that the framers intended the Constitution to be a living document, subject to revisions and amendments from time to time, for the very reason you point out, which is that history moves on, with unanticipated innovations that require re-thinking of the original spirit now and then...which is why things like tanks and nukes and such excluded from coverage in the second amendment...You know....that old chestnut...

Which amendment guarantees the right to own and drive vehicles that is now extended to cars? That would be a logical equivalent of muskets and cannons of the time extending to AR15s today.

Rights are assumed.

Amendments are only to ensure that they cannot be taken away (Bill of rights) or specifically stating them as applying to a particular group of citizens.

There was, of course, prohibition which specifically denied a right but that foolishness was seen for what it was and repealed.

 

[Greever]

Step one when you pick up a gun: clear.

They shoulda done it and so should you.

He's right Boothy.

I bet you will never pick up a firearm again without checking the chamber.

When I am at a gunshop and they clear the chamber/cylinder before handing it to me, I check it again. When they say it's ok to point it at people because it is unloaded, I decline. If the gunshop is so busy that I have no safe place to point it, I keep it pointed at the ceiling.

What gun shop says it's ok to point at people at any time in their shop?????

I have had that happen several times. Both in Arizona, and here in Michigan. People want to point the gun around to get a feel for the grip and pointing ability. I have been "swept" several times in gunshops.

 

[Greever]

Step one when you pick up a gun: clear.

They shoulda done it and so should you.

He's right Boothy.

I bet you will never pick up a firearm again without checking the chamber.

When I am at a gunshop and they clear the chamber/cylinder before handing it to me, I check it again. When they say it's ok to point it at people because it is unloaded, I decline. If the gunshop is so busy that I have no safe place to point it, I keep it pointed at the ceiling.

they tell you its alright to point at people??? Wow, I would never say that to anyone. When I was taught gun safety by my father the rule was never point a gun at anyone. ever. I have always liked that rule and have passed it down to my sons.

As I was thinking about this I just realized that rule is so ingrained in me I had a tough time (at first) playing capture the fort with my sons and Nerf guns

Me too. I can't point a capgun at anyone. Hell, my parents wouldn't let us have squirtguns, or capguns because they didn't want us to ever think guns were toys. Of course there were always loaded firearms in a house with 5 kids, but we never touched them.

 

[Matt B]

Step one when you pick up a gun: clear.

They shoulda done it and so should you.

Agreed. Sorry Rick, but you fucked up. NEVER EVER touch a gun without checking the chamber. EVER!

Oh yeah Guys, trust me, I'm f'ng real pissed at EVERY one involved in this one. The guy in Colorado who I first bought it from December last, the pawn shop/FFL 001 guy in Florida who I had it shipped to back in March, my pawn shop/FFL 001 guy right here in So Cal where I had it shipped to the second time a couple of months ago (and eventually picked up from yesterday).....and most importantly, at myself----the fourth g-damn person who had this gun in their hands in the last fifteen months. Like I mentioned earlier, I'm still shocked & awed that nothing bad happened....'cuz THIS could have ended in a major f'ng disaster of epic proportions...... :angry:

Wow - An entire group of "Responsible Gun Owners" missed that one? Go figure.

 

[mr_fabulous]

Step one when you pick up a gun: clear.

They shoulda done it and so should you.

Agreed. Sorry Rick, but you fucked up. NEVER EVER touch a gun without checking the chamber. EVER!

Oh yeah Guys, trust me, I'm f'ng real pissed at EVERY one involved in this one. The guy in Colorado who I first bought it from December last, the pawn shop/FFL 001 guy in Florida who I had it shipped to back in March, my pawn shop/FFL 001 guy right here in So Cal where I had it shipped to the second time a couple of months ago (and eventually picked up from yesterday).....and most importantly, at myself----the fourth g-damn person who had this gun in their hands in the last fifteen months. Like I mentioned earlier, I'm still shocked & awed that nothing bad happened....'cuz THIS could have ended in a major f'ng disaster of epic proportions...... :angry:

Wow - An entire group of "Responsible Gun Owners" missed that one? Go figure.

So, can we agree that semi-design could be improved to include a storage/lock position that removes/insures removal of rounds for the firing chamber as a design improvement?

Terry Kath (Chicago Band guitarist who stupidly shot his head off goofing around with his guns...last words were "don't worry, it's not loaded...") might still be around if that design feature were a part of the design.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Anyone stupid enough to point a gun at his own head already ignored the "it's loaded" indicator: It's a gun! He would find a way to win a Darwin award no matter how many warning devices you add.

 

[zzrider]

Step one when you pick up a gun: clear.

They shoulda done it and so should you.

He's right Boothy.

I bet you will never pick up a firearm again without checking the chamber.

When I am at a gunshop and they clear the chamber/cylinder before handing it to me, I check it again. When they say it's ok to point it at people because it is unloaded, I decline. If the gunshop is so busy that I have no safe place to point it, I keep it pointed at the ceiling.

What gun shop says it's ok to point at people at any time in their shop?????

I have had that happen several times. Both in Arizona, and here in Michigan. People want to point the gun around to get a feel for the grip and pointing ability. I have been "swept" several times in gunshops.

JFC. Never seen that happen in any of the gun stores I've been in. I'd GTFO of such a store right quick, never to return. I never point a gun at anything I don't fully intend to kill or destroy.

 

[El Mariachi]

Anyone stupid enough to point a gun at his own head already ignored the "it's loaded" indicator: It's a gun! He would find a way to win a Darwin award no matter how many warning devices you add.

Sounds to me like his gun had absolutely no manufacturing defects at all, and did exactly what it was designed to do....

 

[tq2000]

Step one when you pick up a gun: clear.

They shoulda done it and so should you.

He's right Boothy.

I bet you will never pick up a firearm again without checking the chamber.

When I am at a gunshop and they clear the chamber/cylinder before handing it to me, I check it again. When they say it's ok to point it at people because it is unloaded, I decline. If the gunshop is so busy that I have no safe place to point it, I keep it pointed at the ceiling.

What gun shop says it's ok to point at people at any time in their shop?????

I have had that happen several times. Both in Arizona, and here in Michigan. People want to point the gun around to get a feel for the grip and pointing ability. I have been "swept" several times in gunshops.

JFC. Never seen that happen in any of the gun stores I've been in. I'd GTFO of such a store right quick, never to return. I never point a gun at anything I don't fully intend to kill or destroy.

The public ranges here have gotten a little nuts with the latest buying binge. I avoid them for now, even though it is quite a bit closer to me than my gun club, and so is convenient for short trips. I have had to talk to a few folks who were muzzling the entire line.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

1) Begin manufacturing of weapons with electronic proximity trigger interlocks, similar to modern car keys, wherein the trigger mechanism is locked out without a bracelet/ring/belt whatever RIFID transponder to deactivate the trigger interlock. Responsible owners will not mind this. Cost is minimal. Technology exists. Easy Peasy. Offer incentives for turning in guns without interlocks, for those that do have them.

I have been learning about gun safes and gun locks on firearms forums from those who actually use them.

The electronic ones have two failure modes when the batteries dies, as batteries do:

1. You can't open it. Call a locksmith. When seconds count, the police are minutes away. Locksmiths can be hours away.

2. It opens itself! Yikes!

The next part of my post is not political, and I thought about posting it in GA this morning, but really doubt that people could keep it non-political. To the extent it's political, it's an indictment of capitalism, specifically the assumption that there is knowledge in the market that will punish bad actors.

If you have a gun lock that says "Master" or "Remington" on it, you might think it can protect your kids. IT CAN NOT!!

An 11 year old with a screwdriver can quickly defeat it.

Maybe a safe would be better?

Except that a three year old can defeat it simply by dropping it on the floor.

This is really doubleplusungood. By far the most likely tragedy to result from our ownership of guns has to do with neighbor kids or their friends getting hold of our guns. We have real safes with mechanical, not electrical, locks to prevent that occurrence. If you have one of those fancy electronical safes, use it as a target and get something that does not depend on batteries that can die or solenoids that can discharge from being bumped.

Spread this message far and wide, fellow gun owners. And if you don't mind helping avert tragedy, help us spread it, gun control people.

 

[Enigma0]

 

Enigma0, on 17 January 2013 - 09:15 AM, said:

 

Functional crew-served and vehicle-mounted weapons probably should be in the sole control of a formally-regulated state militia's officers.

 

"Who the fuck has been asking for those?? Anyone? Yet another straw man answer looking for a problem."

On the contrary. You apparently don't view that Red Jacket series. That gun-shop proprietor and his minions regularly repair or upgrade crew-served and vehicle-mounted weapons and then play with them out on some ranges in Louisiana.

I don't begrudge them their play-times, but apparently he is privileged due to his relationships with law enforcement and military contractors. I reckon that such weapons should always be in the custody and care of either a state militia officer or regular military armorers, except when made non-functional.

Mercenaries in particular should be required to keep their automatic and crew-served weapons in either the custody of a regulated militia or the regular military until they are immediately ready to board transport to leave US territories.

I'm not worried about the mercenaries themselves, but about what could happen if some teenage boys or an aggrieved group got into one of their armories.

Yes, I'm aware that some private persons can own automatic weapons by registering, being back-grounded, and paying some federal license fee, But those are usually collectors who may own a single example of each type, not house an armory of similar weapons all accepting the same ammunition.

 

[Guest]

Given the language of the second amendment i decect the right to own a suitcase nuke.

Any objections?

Yes, I object to your poor use of grammar and spelling, and your lack of education from that school for Down's Syndrome kids you attended all the while attempting to portray an air of superiority..... which only results in your increasing douchiness.