Second Amendment

[9-10ths_Penguin]

and your rights ends at my door.

No, they don't.

 

[Mister Emu]

For a reasonable person, "threatening" covers a range: anything from "mildly troubling" to "immediate, inescapable threat to life if you don't take action this second", with increasing levels of threateningness warranting increasing level of response.

You suggested something different: an on/off switch where we go from "that guy's gun is none of your business" to "that guy is so threatening you need to shoot him right now" with no transition in between.

So where's YOUR line? The reasonable person test doesn't help us answer this question if you aren't being reasonable.

You've veered off the discussion, mate. This is about reaction to someone with a gun and what constitutes active imperiling of one's life. My line is reason, I'm not going to enumerate all possible variations of behavior that can make a situation either life threatening or not. That is insane.

 

[Underhill]

Odd....I don't see an <alert> for your quoting me.
I could'a missed your post.
Clean up yer act, RF!

Rapid access safes are cheap.
The NRA even sells my favorite at a heavily discounted price now & then.
I say safes are a reasonable requirement.

I forget which country it is (maybe Sweden?) where most people join their version of the national guard out of high school and are issued a gun they can keep when they leave the service. But they are required to keep guns locked up. They even go so far as to have municipal safes where those who don't have a safe can store their guns.

 

[Revoltingest]

I forget which country it is (maybe Sweden?) where most people join their version of the national guard out of high school and are issued a gun they can keep when they leave the service. But they are required to keep guns locked up. They even go so far as to have municipal safes where those who don't have a safe can store their guns.

I joined the national draft evasion service.

 

[Underhill]

I joined the national draft evasion service.

I wasn't so much commenting on the mandatory service as the mandatory safe storage rules....

 

[Revoltingest]

I wasn't so much commenting on the mandatory service as the mandatory safe storage rules....

I know.
But draft dodging was very important to me at the time.

 

[Apex]

At the same time, though, I've heard plenty of anti-gun-control people argue against making things like rapid access safes mandatory, since they're expensive (and could therefore stop poorer people from arming thrmselves legally). They seem to not only acknowledge that there are armed people without these sorts of safety measures, but argue that this *should* be the case.

My personal opinion is that safes should only be mandatory if a minor resides in the household. And should you choose to keep them in the open, assuming no minors live with you, you then become liable should they be used in an accident. I would see that as a good compromise.

 

[esmith]

My personal opinion is that safes should only be mandatory if a minor resides in the household. And should you choose to keep them in the open, assuming no minors live with you, you then become liable should they be used in an accident. I would see that as a good compromise.

So, if you leave your keys in the car or not under lock you should be held responsible if there is an accident involving your car???????

 

[Revoltingest]

So, if you leave your keys in the car or not under lock you should be held responsible if there is an accident involving your car???????

If there's a real & foreseeable risk that keys could be taken & used to perpetrate death or injury, then I'd say there is culpability in tort if appropriate precautions aren't taken.

 

[Apex]

So, if you leave your keys in the car or not under lock you should be held responsible if there is an accident involving your car???????

Can you show that leaving the keys in a parked car that is not running poses any significant risk? Also, do you think the parents who leave their firearms laying around loaded where their kids find them and either accidentally kill themselves or others should not be held accountable?

 

[Skwim]

It's hard to keep the discussion from heading towards penises,. . . ..

Only because the origin of gun lust is relevant. It helps explain the infatuation for firearms, and indicates where treatment for the malady be best focused.

Is it sexist that they don't mention vaginas? Women like guns too.

Ah, as I pointed out several posts ago.

"Females with penis envy also covet guns. The rest are only manipulating guys by feigning an interest in them."​

 

[Revoltingest]

Only because the origin of gun lust is relevant. It helps explain the infatuation for firearms, and indicates where treatment for the malady be best focused.


Ah, as I pointed out several posts ago.

"Females with penis envy also covet guns. The rest are only manipulating guys by feigning an interest in them."​

Perhaps those who dislike guns feel emasculated when they compare themselves to gun owners.
Does the anti-gun crowd suffer a kind of penis envy....thinking that they themselves are lacking,
compared to gun tote'n hyper-endowed alpha males (& females)?

Psychology is wonderful.
It's so easily bent to any purpose.

 

[Skwim]

Perhaps those who dislike guns feel emasculated when they compare themselves to gun owners.

Wouldn't know. I don't dislike guns at all, just like I don't dislike Burt Reynolds: I can take 'em or leave 'em.

Does the anti-gun crowd suffer a kind of penis envy....thinking that they themselves are lacking compared to gun tote'n hyper-endowed alpha males (& females)? ,

Hmm........................................................................................................... Nope. All of the penis envy crowd compensate with firearms.

 

[Revoltingest]

Wouldn't know. I don't dislike guns at all, just like I don't dislike Burt Reynolds: I can take 'em or leave 'em.

I've seen that glint in your eye when his pic is posted!

Hmm........................................................................................................... Nope. All of the penis envy crowd compensate with firearms.

Thou doth protest too much.
Just tell yourself, "Size doesn't matter.....size doesn't matter.".

 

[Skwim]

I've seen that glint in your eye when his pic is posted!

That's only when I can take 'em.

Thou doth protest too much.
Just tell yourself, "Size doesn't matter.....size doesn't matter.".

Tell that to the gun nuts. They're the ones who need the help. Heck, even the NRA even recognizes it.

.​

 

[Revoltingest]

That's only when I can take 'em.


Tell that to the gun nuts. They're the ones who need the help. Heck, even the NRA even recognizes it.

.​

We each pick a side.

You identify more with.....

While I'm more in tune with....

You can try to make it about penis size with pop psychology, but such ad hominem arguments betray philosophical weakness.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My personal opinion is that safes should only be mandatory if a minor resides in the household.

Many homes where no minor resides have minors frequently. Grandparents, aunts/uncles, etc.

And should you choose to keep them in the open, assuming no minors live with you, you then become liable should they be used in an accident. I would see that as a good compromise.

... except that even if you're liable, you can't pay more in damages than you have.

This leads back to something I suggested at the start of the thread: mandatory liability insurance for firearm owners. It would provide a "deep pocket" to compensate victims if something does happen.

... and it acts as a bit of a self-regulating process: if a gun owner wants to leave their gun out loaded with no trigger lock, they should expect to pay a premium that reflects this extra risk.

 

[Skwim]

We each pick a side.

You identify more with.....

While I'm more in tune with....

You can try to make it about penis size with pop psychology, but such ad hominem arguments betray philosophical weakness.

No "trying" about it. In fact, the NRA has even constituted a 12 step program within its organization for those who need help in coping. Kind of an AA for the underdeveloped.

.​

 

[Revoltingest]

Many homes where no minor resides have minors frequently. Grandparents, aunts/uncles, etc.


... except that even if you're liable, you can't pay more in damages than you have.

This leads back to something I suggested at the start of the thread: mandatory liability insurance for firearm owners. It would provide a "deep pocket" to compensate victims if something does happen.

... and it acts as a bit of a self-regulating process: if a gun owner wants to leave their gun out loaded with no trigger lock, they should expect to pay a premium that reflects this extra risk.

Hmmmm.....I propose enlarging the scope of liability insurance.
Everyone should have a policy to pay for losses they cause....
- The defendant's cost of a frivolous lawsuit.
- The full cost of auto accidents. (In MI, it's limited by statute.)
- Embezzlement. (In most cases, it's not considered a crime.)
People pose many dangers.
They should insure for this.

 

[Revoltingest]

No "trying" about it. In fact, the NRA has even constituted a 12 step program within its organization for those who need help in coping. Kind of an AA for the underdeveloped.

.​

You sure give our penises a lot of thought & attention.
However much you long to see & touch them, you'll find most off limits.
But if pursue your lust you really must......
I recommend buying a special someone dinner first, & then asking nicely.