Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Then Amend the Constitution


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Then Amend the Constitution Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Then Amend the Constitution - 12/18/2012 11:17:03 AM   
Pulpsmack


Posts: 394
Joined: 4/15/2004
From: Louisiana
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pulpsmack
Well, thanks for the help. As I recall, MADD and the surrounding legislation was instrumental in eliminating drunk driving... an activity we haven't seen in decades (I will help you out with it... sarcasm)


Mitigation, mitigation, say it with me mit·i·ga·tion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: http://www.madd.org/statistics/
In the United States, the number of drunk driving deaths has been cut in half since MADD was founded in 1980.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration FARS data, 2011.



Perhaps you missed the point.

MADD and the responding legislators made a legal activity illegal for the sake of negligent law abiding citizens from committing a crime (vehicular manslaughter, for example)


The effect was that the legislation weeded out the law-abiding from the equation (who then stopped this activity) and the resulting law-dismissive continued to break what was now law.

Now you wish to apply the logic that making the legal firearm(s) illicit will stop the illegal activity by some significant percentage.

Like the MADD scenario, the law-abiding (who would not be ranked among the mass murders) will no longer seek these weapons while the mass murders will continue to seize upon the opportunity to deploy this now-illegal weapon on the public.


Mitigating Schmitigating. Horrible logic that doesn't work. If it did, school shootings would have skyrocketed after
04 when the '94-04 ban lifted. They have continued but at no disproportionate rate whatsoever.

< Message edited by Pulpsmack -- 12/18/2012 11:18:19 AM >

(in reply to GotSteel)
Profile   Post #: 61
RE: Then Amend the Constitution - 12/18/2012 11:18:10 AM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Pulpsmack


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

ahhh.... comprehension. Right. So do you comprehend that bringing a firearm into a fireams free zone is already a crime? Are you aware that murdering defenseless children is also a crime? Are you aware that neither of those laws did sweet fuck all to stop this from happening. So now in your infinite wisdom you think adding a third law (to break) will magically stop this from happening. Seriously THINK before posting.


Which illustrates the purpose of making gun owners responsible for who gets their hands on their guns.


I agree completely.


Good, you agree. So whats your solution to make people more responsible gun owners?

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to Pulpsmack)
Profile   Post #: 62
RE: Then Amend the Constitution - 12/18/2012 11:24:02 AM   
Pulpsmack


Posts: 394
Joined: 4/15/2004
From: Louisiana
Status: offline 		My plan (as I have for years now) is that I take new people out shooting (gun owners and non-gun owners) and I teach them the four rules of firearms safety and how to safely and responsibly handle a firearm. It's not the catch-all solution, but I wager I am one of the few if only people on this thread who makes an active and earnest effort to promote meaningful responsible handling of these weapons.

With respect to the generalized solution, there are criminal and civil penalties for reckless endangerment and negligence. the solution FIRST is to ensure the police are doing their job enforcing these laws, and the DA is making meaningful prosecution for such violation. Some may argue that more should be done. I say that may/may not be true, but if they are not interested in FIRST pursuing those involved to ensure the current laws are being enforced, then their argument and the resulting legislation proposed has no credibility whatsoever.

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 63
RE: Then Amend the Constitution - 12/18/2012 11:25:33 AM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline 		So, would you say that easy access is part of the problem? Keep in mind, my position is not to ban guns.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to Pulpsmack)
Profile   Post #: 64
RE: Then Amend the Constitution - 12/18/2012 11:29:29 AM   
Pulpsmack


Posts: 394
Joined: 4/15/2004
From: Louisiana
Status: offline 		Depending on your definition of "easy access". In the case of a legal owner who has a firearm in the home and the grandson ends up bringing it into "show and tell", then I agree... any time a child has accomplished this, you have a case of easy access.


If you mean that the current laws make it "too easy for criminals to get weapons" and they themselves are the problem in need of a restrictive solution, then NO, I disagree.

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 65
RE: Then Amend the Constitution - 12/18/2012 11:30:36 AM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline 		No, I am not speaking of how a gun owner comes about getting a gun. I am talking about the owners responsibilities in keeping those guns secure and out of the hands of others.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to Pulpsmack)
Profile   Post #: 66
RE: Then Amend the Constitution - 12/18/2012 11:32:54 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		You are few and certainly not only.   Uh, Education is a component, no doubt.  However, when I was 12 years old and on down into those who are now into their fourties, by god in Minnesota at least, and North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, maybe Wisconsin (who knows about cheeseheads?) male or female, you went to a goddamn nra and state sponsored  gun safety training course, sure as we went to confirmation school, whether you wanted to or not, and certificates were registered at the state BCA level, and thats how I used to get my permit to carry, just write a piece of paper up to the sherrif give em my name  and they would find me in that list, and issue the permit.

Now there is a law. Pay money, attend class every three years to get it.

Meh.

Some of those people have shot others, threatened others and some have turned guns on themselves.

< Message edited by mnottertail -- 12/18/2012 11:33:50 AM >

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 67
RE: Then Amend the Constitution - 12/18/2012 11:36:35 AM   
Pulpsmack


Posts: 394
Joined: 4/15/2004
From: Louisiana
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

No, I am not speaking of how a gun owner comes about getting a gun. I am talking about the owners responsibilities in keeping those guns secure and out of the hands of others.



Fair enough, and generally cited...

You don't leave a weapon unattended outside of the home. If minors are or are expected to be inside a home, all firearms not in immediate possession should be secured. Again, there are civil and criminal penalties in conjunction with that.

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 68
RE: Then Amend the Constitution - 12/18/2012 11:37:50 AM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline 		Ok. Why are we only concerned about minors? Anyone could break in and steal any guns lying about. Why are gun owners not responsible then?

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to Pulpsmack)
Profile   Post #: 69
RE: Then Amend the Constitution - 12/18/2012 11:50:47 AM   
Pulpsmack


Posts: 394
Joined: 4/15/2004
From: Louisiana
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Ok. Why are we only concerned about minors? Anyone could break in and steal any guns lying about. Why are gun owners not responsible then?



Because gun owners have no such charge against criminals.

A home is securely locked. A burglar breaks a window, enters, and finds a. 38 in a nightstand.

Criminally liable?



A home is securely locked. A burglar breaks a window, enters, finds a locked strong box, steals it breaks it open at his home and finds a .38.

Criminally liable?



A home is securely locked. A burglar breaks a window, enters, finds a gun locker type safe, prys through with a crow bar and makes off with a .38.

Criminally liable?

...


...


...


...


A home is securely locked. A burglar batters the door (as the windows are barred) enters, finds an 800 pound gun safe type safe, rolls it onto the bed of the truck with his two accomplices, brings it back, cracks the code, and makes off with a collection of firearms.

Criminally liable?



The point is that YOU can subjectively run down the list to YOUR OWN conception of reasonableness, but the end of the day, in ALL of these cases, thieves can and do defeat security measures. So, now how far is it supposedly reasonable to charge the owner for the ilicit acts of the criminal? And when the standard is set and the rashes ensue from smarter or better-equipped thieves, do we further raise the bar against the law-abiding homeowner. As per the idiotic banning, this "philosophy" attacks the law-abiding for the misdeeds of the criminal.



Instead you can look at the penalties for theft of a firearm. Is it treated like theft of property + illegal possession? Is that being enforced? Is that enough? Should mandatory charges apply? THIS is where the focus needs to be. The difference here is that the children in the earlier point are warranted or expected residents or "guests".

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 70
RE: Then Amend the Constitution - 12/18/2012 11:53:48 AM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline 		And that is the point. Not everyone who gets their hands on a gun should have one.

Criminals shouldnt true.

But neither should all your friends.

Nor the mentally ill.

But when we talk about securing firearms, all anyone thinks about is locking the door on their house.

How is that responsible ownership when gun safes are available?



_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to Pulpsmack)
Profile   Post #: 71
RE: Then Amend the Constitution - 12/18/2012 12:09:53 PM   
Pulpsmack


Posts: 394
Joined: 4/15/2004
From: Louisiana
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

And that is the point. Not everyone who gets their hands on a gun should have one.

Criminals shouldnt true.

But neither should all your friends.

Nor the mentally ill.

But when we talk about securing firearms, all anyone thinks about is locking the door on their house.

How is that responsible ownership when gun safes are available?





How is it not? I live alone. I have a safe. I have my guns locked in that safe. However, I have 2 unlocked and sequestered firearms in other parts of the house, because if I am in a part of the house away from the safe, I am now SOL during a forced entry.

So, now the Rule is that to have a gun you must have a safe in this application. And what about the woman who has just received death threats from her unstable ex? After getting a TRO and being informed the police can do nothing until he shows up on the property, she buys a firearm (thankfully no 1 week stupid obligatory waiting period). She carries the weapon legally as per her state law in an open holster while she applies for her concealed permit. Terrified of his intent, she carries it with her to the workplace (thanks to the understanding boss), and she goes straight home. The weapon lies on the nightstand as she sleeps. she has no safe.

Criminally liable?

First and formost, I maintain that to have one or more firearms without a secure locking device is plain stupid. Criminal is a different matter.



leaving the hypothetical and rejoining you... my friends in my home are also invited guests. I admit I missed your application about them, because any disrespectful idiot I would have to worry about would neither be my friend nor invited into my home. As for any idiots befriending idiots, you now have a case-by-case basis of the facts involved, (one/both parties inebriated, reasonable warning of recklessness, etc)


In my state and in much of the country, we are not responsible for the bad judgment of other adults. If I serve alcohol in my home and a 28 year old friend indulges and against everybody's protests beligerently grabs the keys and storms out, I am not liable for this person's DUI or accident, nor should I be. The ONE place I see wiggle room right off however (see case-by-case basis) is if this person is a known felon and I fail to secure the weapons.

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 72
RE: Then Amend the Constitution - 12/18/2012 12:10:22 PM   
LizDeluxe


Posts: 687
Joined: 10/2/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

One solution might be to attach strict liability standards to inherently dangerous weapons like automatic weapons. This way the liability for responsible gun ownership can be transferred directly to manufacturers, purchasers, and owners of such weapons.

The Gun industry would then have to share in the high external costs associated with its business and as such it would become more self-regulating.


I believe this is where we will be heading. Not necessarily liability standards but insurance. It's been suggested to require gun owners to carry liability insurance and to make that insurance so cost prohibitive that the average person will forgo gun ownership. I think that is what we will see.



_____________________________

While is there no liberal talk radio? There are at least five conservative talk radio shows available over the air every day in the radio market I live in. Why does the liberal message fail to attract listeners?

(in reply to cloudboy)
Profile   Post #: 73
RE: Then Amend the Constitution - 12/18/2012 12:15:54 PM   
Pulpsmack


Posts: 394
Joined: 4/15/2004
From: Louisiana
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LizDeluxe


quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

One solution might be to attach strict liability standards to inherently dangerous weapons like automatic weapons. This way the liability for responsible gun ownership can be transferred directly to manufacturers, purchasers, and owners of such weapons.

The Gun industry would then have to share in the high external costs associated with its business and as such it would become more self-regulating.


I believe this is where we will be heading. Not necessarily liability standards but insurance. It's been suggested to require gun owners to carry liability insurance and to make that insurance so cost prohibitive that the average person will forgo gun ownership. I think that is what we will see.




Unconstitutional. That would be a de facto violation of the Second Amendment and you can be certain a 14th Amendment cause of action on the indigent (and unfortunately, as these things go, on race). This would not pass muster.

(in reply to LizDeluxe)
Profile   Post #: 74
RE: Then Amend the Constitution - 12/18/2012 12:22:48 PM   
PowerXXXchange


Posts: 58
Joined: 9/26/2006
Status: offline
The first thing to do,
Is repeal No. 2

...and end all the silly BS about defending "freedom" by violent overthrow of the government.


PxC



Cerberus to Sell Freedom Group, a Gunmaker

The investment firm Cerberus Capital Management announced Tuesday that it would sell its stake in the country’s largest gunmaker after one of the company’s guns was used in the Connecticut school shootings.

Cerberus said that it was putting the company, Freedom Group, up for sale just hours after one of its largest investors, the California teachers’ pension fund, said it was reviewing its relationship with the firm. Also late Monday, the California treasurer raised concerns about the state’s pension funds’ investments in gun companies.

Cerberus, a private-equity and hedge fund firm based in New York, is owned by the billionaire financier Stephen A. Feinberg. His father lives in Newtown, Conn., where the shooting rampage occurred. The authorities say that Adam Lanza, the shooter, used a semiautomatic rifle made by Bushmaster, one of Freedom Group’s brands, to kill 26 people at Sandy Hook Elementary School, as well as his mother and himself.

(in reply to Pulpsmack)
Profile   Post #: 75
RE: Then Amend the Constitution - 12/18/2012 12:33:10 PM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
quote:

How is it not? I live alone. I have a safe. I have my guns locked in that safe. However, I have 2 unlocked and sequestered firearms in other parts of the house, because if I am in a part of the house away from the safe, I am now SOL during a forced entry.


Agreed. Do you carry? If you do, is there a need to keep those two guns out when you arent at home?

quote:

So, now the Rule is that to have a gun you must have a safe in this application. And what about the woman who has just received death threats from her unstable ex? After getting a TRO and being informed the police can do nothing until he shows up on the property, she buys a firearm (thankfully no 1 week stupid obligatory waiting period). She carries the weapon legally as per her state law in an open holster while she applies for her concealed permit. Terrified of his intent, she carries it with her to the workplace (thanks to the understanding boss), and she goes straight home. The weapon lies on the nightstand as she sleeps. she has no safe.


If she is home, I have no issue with her gun being out. At that point, she has physical custody of that weapon. Just like someone who is carrying legally in public.

But how many leave their weapons at home, unsecure, maybe just hidden beneath the bed, while they go out for the day?

quote:

Criminally liable?

First and formost, I maintain that to have one or more firearms without a secure locking device is plain stupid. Criminal is a different matter.


Agreed. I would go with having only one available without one. Home security is the right of every US citizen.

quote:

In my state and in much of the country, we are not responsible for the bad judgment of other adults. If I serve alcohol in my home and a 28 year old friend indulges and against everybody's protests beligerently grabs the keys and storms out, I am not liable for this person's DUI or accident, nor should I be. The ONE place I see wiggle room right off however (see case-by-case basis) is if this person is a known felon and I fail to secure the weapons.


Actually, you just may be liable.

States that observe social host liability: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

States that do not observe social host liability: Arkansas, California, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, West Virginia and Virginia.
Source: Insurance Information Institute, as of October 2008

http://www.insure.com/home-insurance/drunk-friends.html

True its just a civil suit. But, depending on the damage and the suit, it could wipe you out. Maybe we need to start doing that with gun owners? Make them liable if they dont safe guard the access to their weapons?

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to Pulpsmack)
Profile   Post #: 76
RE: Then Amend the Constitution - 12/18/2012 12:44:20 PM   
Pulpsmack


Posts: 394
Joined: 4/15/2004
From: Louisiana
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl



True its just a civil suit. But, depending on the damage and the suit, it could wipe you out. Maybe we need to start doing that with gun owners? Make them liable if they dont safe guard the access to their weapons?


There are various standards in a negligence case and from a litigious perspective, even victims acting in self-defense who have been determined by the law enforcement investigator to have performed a "good shoot" have been financially destroyed defending themselves from the parasitic family members of the dead perpetrator.

Thus, there is nothing to stop your suggestion other than certain states applying the privilege of self defense as a ground for civil immunity. But why go there, or JUST there. I mean if we are going to throw out liability to the innocent (but tenuously connected parties), why not extend civil liability to the parents and spouse of the murderer? Maybe (s)he will think twice knowing mom, and sig other and little Timmy will be destitute after the plan unravels.

What about the city in which the perp spent formative years. Did not the city fail in educating? In as much as the victim (whether the defender in the tragedy or the victim of gun theft) is answerable to these parasitic parents of the perp and/or victim, why shouldn't the city and the perp's family bear the burden?

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 77
RE: Then Amend the Constitution - 12/18/2012 12:54:33 PM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline 		This is not about self defense.

You are stuck in a mode of attack against the gun owner where the owner is in the right.

I am speaking of an owner being liable when they fail to secure their arms and someone uses them to kill someone else.

quote:

What about the city in which the perp spent formative years. Did not the city fail in educating? In as much as the victim (whether the defender in the tragedy or the victim of gun theft) is answerable to these parasitic parents of the perp and/or victim, why shouldn't the city and the perp's family bear the burden?


Is the last case, the "perp" grew up in that town. The mother is dead. The perp is dead, and if he wasnt, he would not be, in my opinion, much use to his own defense. Hard to sue a dead mother, then again, she did have insurance.

By making someone financially responsible for the damages their possessions may cause, it may make gun owners think harder about how they do secure them.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to Pulpsmack)
Profile   Post #: 78
RE: Then Amend the Constitution - 12/18/2012 12:56:16 PM   
Powergamz1


Posts: 1927
Joined: 9/3/2011
Status: offline 		And binge drinking and alcoholism among young people skyrocketed after the allure of 'taboo' was added, and the media did their magic.

What was accomplished was driving the root problem further out of sight, and making it harder to address... that's how the real world operates.
http://www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/BingeDrinking/


Expecting a bunch of venal legislators to magically come up with a workable solution follows the superstitious illogic of Prohibition, the War on Drugs, the War on Poverty, and all the wars to force 'the American way of life' down other people's throats.
The hypothesis of using mandates to force people to behave according to an articial and repressive morality is replete with scientifically predictable outcomes.
The rationality of 'Think of the children, won't somebody DO something??' is equally invalid.

Fascinating how many contortions people will go through to avoid actually dealing with the root problems.
quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pulpsmack
Well, thanks for the help. As I recall, MADD and the surrounding legislation was instrumental in eliminating drunk driving... an activity we haven't seen in decades (I will help you out with it... sarcasm)


Mitigation, mitigation, say it with me mit·i·ga·tion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: http://www.madd.org/statistics/
In the United States, the number of drunk driving deaths has been cut in half since MADD was founded in 1980.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration FARS data, 2011.





_____________________________

"DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment" Anthony McLeod Kennedy

" About damn time...wooot!!' Me

(in reply to GotSteel)
Profile   Post #: 79
RE: Then Amend the Constitution - 12/18/2012 1:06:21 PM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline 		It didnt sky rocket. We just started hearing more about it. The media has a way of doing that. Its like assuming there was never a kidnapping before the Lindbergh baby.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to Powergamz1)
Profile   Post #: 80
Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Then Amend the Constitution Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.156