quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
No, my friend who is lacking in this knowledge about me, that isnt what I am saying at all. If you can prove you took reasonable measures, as determined by law, to prevent the theft of your weapons, as I have stated repeatedly on many threads so far (and no one seems to read them, instead they just assume they know what someone's position is and ends up looking .. well.. TOS prevents me from saying that part), then you would not be held liable for not taking those steps.
In other words, a fine and jail term... for failing to comply with that law, not for what the "thief" did.
And, with a half a million - 500,000 - guns stolen every year, yeah, I think this is a pretty damn big problem, considering there are those who have come on these threads to talk about flimsy house locks to keep intruders out.
You people never heard of a security system? Gun safe?

And, Tazzy, we are back to that word again: reasonable. I understand what reasonable means to you. I know what reasonable would mean to me. And, not owning guns and, therefore, not investigating adequate security measures for keeping them, I can agree with the methods you have mentioned most: security system, gun safe, and trigger lock.

However, what I do not agree with or to, is having some anti-gun nut making the decision on what is reasonable, especially after a tragedy such as Sandy Hook.

As is the case with most politicians (notice the intentional lack of Party affiliation), an event is a great way to get legislation passed that otherwise wouldn't be passable.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

fr

Not everyone will have to abide by Senator Dianne Feinstein's gun control bill. If the proposed legislation becomes law, government officials and others will be exempt.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LizDeluxe

Democrats are the masters of tripping over unintended consequences. People who would have never thought of owning a gun are now arming themselves. Go try and find a semi-auto rifle in the gun shops. Same with some ammunition. Even law enforcement is having a tough time keeping ammo on hand.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
No, my friend who is lacking in this knowledge about me, that isnt what I am saying at all. If you can prove you took reasonable measures, as determined by law, to prevent the theft of your weapons, as I have stated repeatedly on many threads so far (and no one seems to read them, instead they just assume they know what someone's position is and ends up looking .. well.. TOS prevents me from saying that part), then you would not be held liable for not taking those steps.
In other words, a fine and jail term... for failing to comply with that law, not for what the "thief" did.
And, with a half a million - 500,000 - guns stolen every year, yeah, I think this is a pretty damn big problem, considering there are those who have come on these threads to talk about flimsy house locks to keep intruders out.
You people never heard of a security system? Gun safe?

And, Tazzy, we are back to that word again: reasonable. I understand what reasonable means to you. I know what reasonable would mean to me. And, not owning guns and, therefore, not investigating adequate security measures for keeping them, I can agree with the methods you have mentioned most: security system, gun safe, and trigger lock.

However, what I do not agree with or to, is having some anti-gun nut making the decision on what is reasonable, especially after a tragedy such as Sandy Hook.

As is the case with most politicians (notice the intentional lack of Party affiliation), an event is a great way to get legislation passed that otherwise wouldn't be passable.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

fr

Not everyone will have to abide by Senator Dianne Feinstein's gun control bill. If the proposed legislation becomes law, government officials and others will be exempt.

Sorry but we`re not going for the lunatic fringe`s false argument that it`s unfair that law enforcement officials and the military can possess this class of firearms.



No one(normal) has a problem with them possessing fully automatic,hi-capacity weapons either.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

quote:

ORIGINAL: LizDeluxe

Democrats are the masters of tripping over unintended consequences. People who would have never thought of owning a gun are now arming themselves. Go try and find a semi-auto rifle in the gun shops. Same with some ammunition. Even law enforcement is having a tough time keeping ammo on hand.

Says the party that lied/tricked us into Iraq......killing thousands of our GIs....

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
No, my friend who is lacking in this knowledge about me, that isnt what I am saying at all. If you can prove you took reasonable measures, as determined by law, to prevent the theft of your weapons, as I have stated repeatedly on many threads so far (and no one seems to read them, instead they just assume they know what someone's position is and ends up looking .. well.. TOS prevents me from saying that part), then you would not be held liable for not taking those steps.
In other words, a fine and jail term... for failing to comply with that law, not for what the "thief" did.
And, with a half a million - 500,000 - guns stolen every year, yeah, I think this is a pretty damn big problem, considering there are those who have come on these threads to talk about flimsy house locks to keep intruders out.
You people never heard of a security system? Gun safe?

And, Tazzy, we are back to that word again: reasonable. I understand what reasonable means to you. I know what reasonable would mean to me. And, not owning guns and, therefore, not investigating adequate security measures for keeping them, I can agree with the methods you have mentioned most: security system, gun safe, and trigger lock.
However, what I do not agree with or to, is having some anti-gun nut making the decision on what is reasonable, especially after a tragedy such as Sandy Hook.
As is the case with most politicians (notice the intentional lack of Party affiliation), an event is a great way to get legislation passed that otherwise wouldn't be passable.

Reasonable is also a legal term.
"Reasonable doubt","reasonable suspicion" ,etc.
It`s not a weasel word there for people to abuse or misuse.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

The inept teabaggers and their minions are scaremongers.

Don't pay so goddamn much for an overpriced fuckin 22.   There will be bills introduced, and much weeping and gnashing of teeth.  But this will be just like the primer shortage.....

No bill will pass.

The prices will cave.

quote:

quote:

Reasonable is also a legal term.
"Reasonable doubt","reasonable suspicion" ,etc.
It`s not a weasel word there for people to abuse or misuse.

Any proof to back up your assertion?

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

quote:

Reasonable is also a legal term.
"Reasonable doubt","reasonable suspicion" ,etc.
It`s not a weasel word there for people to abuse or misuse.

Any proof to back up your assertion?

reasonable adj., adv. in law, just, rational, appropriate, ordinary or usual in the circumstances. It may refer to care, cause, compensation, doubt (in a criminal trial), and a host of other actions or activities.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/reasonable
For fuck sake.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

The inept teabaggers and their minions are scaremongers.

Don't pay so goddamn much for an overpriced fuckin 22.   There will be bills introduced, and much weeping and gnashing of teeth.  But this will be just like the primer shortage.....

No bill will pass.

The prices will cave.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

The NRA has done more to fear monger and scaring people into wanting more restrictions for guns than any other lobbying group.  And the stupid shit wouldn't pass like 1994, that was teabaggers shitting their pants cuz someone shot one.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

The NRA has done more to fear monger and scaring people into wanting more restrictions for guns than any other lobbying group.  And the stupid shit wouldn't pass like 1994, that was teabaggers shitting their pants cuz someone shot one.