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

You still haven't gotten around the requirement of intent for criminal liability to attach.

This also ignores the fact that many people legally carry their pistols via a CHL. If person X is legally carrying, and gets clocked in the head from behind for the purpose of taking their wallet, and they also take his legal gun...it seems odd AT BEST that person X is held responsible for what the felon does post felony.

 

I really didn't know what a weapon of human destruction was so I did an image search. No firearms showed up but this did....



Always put your chicken in the safe before you leave home.

 

^^^
lol I was thinking of a spoon... but that'll work.

what are your thoughts of Fast and Furious?

 

So now we are arguing against common sense.

Leaving aside any legal issues it should be common sense to secure things like firearms where others can't get to them.

 

I lock my firearms just because.. however if I live by myself, I'm not sure how it's anyone's business. Breaking into my home is still a crime. If that's the case.. parent's should be "required" to lockup their car keys and prescription bottles since they are dangerous to "children" too.

 

Common sense would say that my stuff is secure in my house. Is your stuff secure in your house?

Common sense would say that a law abiding citizen should not be responsible for the actions of a criminal.

 

Who cares...it won't pass.

Can we get back to the debt this country faces. Think that would be the most pressing matter.

 

It's really not, and won't be in the foreseeable future.

 

Have you heard of these things called "child proof" caps? Drug companies started making them because of potential liability of children taking prescription drugs. Also many cars now have child safety locks for the same thing. A lot of things are done already.

 

If someone is negligent about securing dangerous objects they should be held accountable.

 

Wrong! A common reason why people break into homes is for guns. Leaving guns behind a door that can be opened with one kick is not responsible. Too many gun deaths result from owners leaving them to be found.

 

people don't break into homes for pills or prescription drugs? Probably more so than guns. Let me call N.O.R.A.D maybe they'll let me keep my firearms there.. and you'll feel safer? How about the dumb ass breaking into my house?

 

really now? teens don't know how to open pill bottles and can't drive cars? If a child can reach the gas.. they can start the car and pull it in gear. If they steal the keys.. they have no need to worry about child safety locks. Happens all the time.

 

Yes, child proof locks aren't capable of stopping 100% of accidents with children and autos. That doesn't mean that they weren't put in place to cut down on the dangers and risks of children and autos.

caps on the pill bottles weren't designed to keep out teens, but actual children. Again they 100% but they do help.

The same would be true with some gun regulations. They won't stop 100% of the problems but they can help.

 

New laws are not the answer, personal responsiblility is.

The entire premise of this discussion is that a criminal breaks into a home, steals a gun, and kills somebody with it. There are people on this forum that thing the gun owner is at fault and that there should be a law that makes it so. This kind of thinking is the problem not the answer.

We have an entire generation that would rather spend time figuring out how many different ways we can place blame on anyone and anything other than the person that is obviously responsible. Personal responsibility...

It used to be that "don't kill" and "don't steal" were enough but now we think it makes sense to say "but if he had his guns locked in an impenatrable fortress I would have never stolen them and killed people, this is his fault". The sane answer is no, it is your fault, you are a thief and a murderer and you have to take responsibilty for YOUR actions. The answer is not to punish the inocent for the actions of the guilty. What laws like this actually do is to punish one of the victims for the actions of the guilty.

What's funny is there will be people that will argue against this idea, never acknowledging that the one common denominator in a crime is the criminal and if you remove that common denominator you have no crime.

 

No, new laws are the answer because the old laws are full of holes.

 

I can see both sides of the argument.

I will say, however, that as I gun owner I would feel a lot better about outlawing lots of these weapons if there was some way to make sure that NO ONE (ahem...criminals) owns them, which I don't see as a real possibility.

I will let you all get back to arguing :grin:

 

Murder is illegal.

I don't see any holes?

 

Yet people are still murdered. Should probably do away with that ineffective law.