Feinstein calls for banning more than 150 types of firearms, including pistols and shotguns.

Maybe he's just pointing the gun in the wrong direction.

 

I think he had this in mind



Perhaps we should spend more time on teaching kids how to dodge and weave in P.E.

 

OH NO! OUR DIABOLICAL LIBERAL SCHEME HAS BEEN DISINTERRED!

People with their damned guns. Protection in the home is one thing, but paranoia becomes another, and guns for weekends-at-the-gun-range recreation even another.

It's not even the 2nd Amendment that's being protected here. It's the right for the gun industry to continue raking in money hand over fist.

You're far more likely to wind up with your child killing him/herself when finding the gun than you are in preventing Rambo from getting in through the front door. In any case, don't get your panties into a twist. Ain't no one gonna get your revolver or Colt or whatever. A lot of Democrats love guns, too, and owe their jobs to the gun lobby, God love'em.

 

Unless that gun is in a locked or combo safe that the kids do not have access to open.

 

This is about whether any gun control measures, no matter how reasonable, will get through Congress.

I would prefer to require that every single gun owned by an individual is secured in a gun safe and that every gun customer has had an extensive background check. Neither of these regulations restricts the right of law abiding citizens to own guns, but neither will pass because of the complete intransigence of the gun nuts (not owners, not enthusiasts, the nuts).

 

Good, so let's require all gun owners have their weapons locked up and hold them responsible if their weapons end up killing people. That measure alone would have prevented Sandy Hook.

 

No, I pointed out the logical fallacy of trying to claim that a .44 Magnum will do as much damage as the AR-15 in the hands of a madman intent on a massacre. It is still a logical fallacy, unless you truly think you could get 30 rounds off with a revolver in the same time that you could do the same with a Bushmaster.

Nope, just putting the fallacy listed above in a sort of context where one could visualize it. I don't believe I could dodge six bullets, but I do believe I could close on an assailant trying to reload a revolver (even with a speed loader) much more easily than one with the ability to keep me pinned down with a 30 round magazine.

I'm not the one evading the logic here, y'all are.

 

If Obama expended half the energy he's used on gun control to actually creating jobs, we might be on a lot better path. Instead he's playing politics instead of actually working to improve jobs. Disgusting.

 

So if somebody breaks into my house and smashes my safe open with an ax the. Goes and shoots up an elementary school, I should go up on charges?

We agree on a good many things, but this assertion defies logic. Not to mention that it flies in the face of the requirement that there be intent to commit the crime in question.

 

You know of many safe manufacturers who make wooden safes? Seriously and axe?

 

If it takes an axe to smash open a safe, then it isn't a safe. Its a storage cabinet.

If someone goes through great length to get access to your secured firearms, then no, you shouldn't be held liable.
If you don't secure your firearms, then yes, you should be liable. And locking your house door isn't a justifiable means of security.

 

This I agree with. All guns should be locked up and secured.

 

If you own a "security" system that isn't secure enough to keep your guns out of the hands of someone who would go shoot up an elementary school, then you should go up on charges. As another poster posited, a "safe" that isn't ax proof isn't much of a safe, is it?

 

So your saying that If I'm out of town on a cruise and some guy commits at least two fellonies without me being anywhere around I should be charged?

Whatever dude.

You should "go up on charges" for going outside without a helmet.

 

For the record, the two shooters in Jonesboro in 1997 took the guns from the younger kid's grandfather's gun safe. The kid figured out where the key was kept.

 

Yes, you should be charged for criminal negligence if you leave a weapon of human destruction unsecured and fail to take reasonable steps to ensure it stays out of the wrong hands.

Absolutely.

 

In this case, the grandfather would have a good legal defense of having taken proper steps to secure his weapon.

One of the biggest problems today, especially in places like Chicago where gun crime is totally out of control, is that people can legally buy a gun, then turn around and sell it to a criminal in an alley and claim they lost it. Furthermore, the original gun dealer isn't even allowed to keep records of who he sold the gun to, so it is hard to trace the weapon back to the legal buyer anyway, thanks to NRA sponsored "regulations".

 

Wife: "Honey, someone is breaking in downstairs."

Hero: "I'll get the gun..."

 

FWIW, I own a desert eagle in .44Magnum and .50AE..(also an AR and a few other variants) It's semi-auto and can pop a magazine as fast as my AR. In close range, a .44Magnum will absolutely do more damage then an AR with someone that knows how to shoot. Long range is a different story but I've sighted my 44 in at 50yards and can hit bullseyes at that distance with my red dot mounted on the desert eagle. here are some pics of the setup before anyone calls BS.

 

AND? your more likely to get hit by lightning then get shot by a licensed gun owner.. However, If you get shot by a criminal.. make sure you tell them it's a gun free zone and that it's against the law.