Need more guns. Is it local?

[packsaddle]

scoutingagain, I think you have to take the delusional paranoia seriously, if for no other reason than what seems to be its prevalence.

I was just reading some of the statements by NY and CT governors on this topic and the thought occurred to me that perhaps religious leaders have something useful to add. But I'm not aware of anything from the Catholic Church or really, any of the other churches on this topic.

 

Does mainstream Christianity call for more guns? The Unitarians aren't Christian and anyway are from Outer Space so they don't count. But how about Buddhism, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, etc. Do any of these find doctrinal support for more guns? Just curious.

Oops, I just remembered Jimmy Swaggart suggesting that he could solve some kind of moral problem with a machine gun and sufficient ammo and, oh yeah, the Branch Davidians. But are those guys really 'mainstream' Christians? OK, I also just remembered...the minister down the street has an AR15 and seems to be a gun 'nutter'. So I guess the answer is 'yes', Christianity endorses more guns. It actually must BE what Jesus would do. I never would have guessed.

 

Beavah, forgive if this is from one of the parallel threads (hard to keep track) but I note that while I support your idea for requirement of liability insurance for gun owners (it makes sense from the standpoint of responsible ownership, if nothing else), that idea still suffers from the same weakness that gun 'bans' suffer from, namely, that crooks and crazies don't often pay much attention to laws.

[perdidochas]

Beavah,

 

The problem isn't with executive orders which are designed to enforce the laws and actions that Congress has approved. Those are necessary. The problem is with executive orders which explicitly deal with issues in a way counter to the way Congress has voted. The recent immigration executive orders are examples of that. The Congress rejected the DREAM act that the President brought forward. The President then went ahead and ordered very similar actions to those that Congress rejected.

[Beavah]

that idea still suffers from the same weakness that gun 'bans' suffer from, namely, that crooks and crazies don't often pay much attention to laws.

 

Well, insurance wasn't my idea. I read it in The Economist and through it out there to see what I could catch with that bait. Personally I think there are a number of flaws, but it's an OK thing to kick around.

 

We're able to work da insurance angle pretty well with cars, eh? That involves quite a bit more registration and tracking than currently available with firearms.

 

I think again that da issue is that there are multiple issues. No solution is goin' solve all da problems. Right now, we still see a lot of damage from guns used by or obtained from relatively ordinary, law-abiding citizens. If encouragin' them to be responsible reduces that damage substantially, that's a start.

 

If yeh think about da mom of the Sandy Hook shooter, a purchase restriction on ammunition or additional weapons based on having insurance in place may well have made her be more thoughtful. She wasn't goin' to have ready access to black market stuff. Instead of layin' in all those guns, perhaps she would have been content with a good handgun and spent da rest of da money on a bunker filled with canned food.

 

Bob

 

 

[packsaddle]

"...a bunker filled with canned food."

Smiling....I'm remembering our basement when I was growing up, filled with hundreds of jars of vegetables and fruit we canned all summer. I guess we just didn't see the need for so many firearms back then.

[OldGreyEagle]

I think I was like 10 when I first had dinner over at a friends house. His mother served corn as one of the vegetables. It was way different that any corn I had ever tasted. I asked about it and she said it was Green Giant brand and then asked what my brand my mother used. I said, we don't, we use whats in the garden and she freezes it. Same with tomatoe sauce, pickels and green beans. I guess they were preppers before the term was coined

[Twocubdad]

"We're able to work da insurance angle pretty well with cars, eh? That involves quite a bit more registration and tracking than currently available with firearms."

 

And that's my problem with this approach. I don't think we should use DMV as a model for ANYTHING! Look at the slippery slope we're free-falling down with health insurance, eh?

 

I have a problem with anything which requires wholesale government registration. The paranoid will claim it is a prelude to confiscation, but more likely is a prelude to taxation. (Somehow I seem to be getting a Jesse Jackson vibe here -- my apologies.) We are still talking about a constitutional right. I should be able to exercise that right free of prior restraint by the government. Frankly, it's no one's dang business how many guns I own, no more than what I write, how I practice my religion or with whom I choose to associate.

 

That's PRIOR restraint, mind you. That's doesn't mean there aren' back-side consequences if my exercise of those rights crosses the line of legality or irresponsibility. If my political meeting turns into a riot and destroys the neighbors property, I'm liable. If my religious practice results in someone's death, I may be prosecuted.

 

Beav, I did read your response to my question about liability. I muddied my example by making the shooter a minor. But my real question was why isn't the failure to secure a gun is a separate act and actionable. It should be. No, suing Adam Lamza's mother's estate won't solve anything now. But as I've posted before, if I know the old pistol in my desk drawer has the potential of costing me my house one day, I'm going to think twice about leaving it in the drawer. If this requires a little tweaking of the civil statutes, that's minimally invasive. For folks who are serious about gun ownership his shouldn't be more than what they are already doing. But if it locks up the millions of guns lying about the homes of casual or careless owners, it saves lives.

 

Slightly different topic related to gun registration, consider one unintended consequence "Ripped From Today's Headlines" as they say: the story of the Westchester Co., NY, newspaper which chose to publish a map showing the addresses of all gun owners. Gun permits are apparently public records in NY. Problem is, that includes the names and address of law enforcement officers. Not good. Of course it also provides a pretty good shopping list for folks looking to steal guns. DMV couldn't have done it any better.

 

 

[acco40]

More proof that humans are irrational. A surge in folks buying up guns thinking that will protect themselves and a refusal to go out and get a flu shot.

 

As Pogo (Walt Kelly) stated, "We have met the enemy and he is us."

[Beavah]

Yah, hmmm...

 

Registration is not prior restraint. Nor is taxation. A nearby town requires registration of bicycles, just because they've had a lot of problem with bike thieves and it helps 'em get a handle on it. That's not a prior restraint on bicycling.

 

I'm curious, TwoCubDad. Humor me a moment. Is it anyone's dang business how much dynamite you own? Should it be anyone's dang business that you store the dynamite you own safely and properly?

 

Dynamite used to be much more readily available with fewer restrictions, and it certainly is also a form of "arm" that yeh can bear.

 

We live in a country with other people, and sometimes other people don't want a fellow with a basement full of old, leaky, unsecured dynamite next door, even if it once was legal. Even though there are legitimate uses for dynamite, we Americans chose to regulate it because we learned that doing so helped keep everyone safer. One of the ways we learned that was when a fellow used his personal supply of dynamite to blow up an elementary school, eh? Da largest mass-murder of school children in da nation's history.

 

Can yeh imagine what would have happened over da years if we had not regulated dynamite? Da two kids at Columbine wanted very much to blow up da school, but they only had silly propane tanks which didn't work as explosives. Regulation worked over time, eh? Even though now it's harder to defend our homestead against a tank assault.

 

We can't keep sayin' no to everything. What we should want is a regime that allows plenty of freedom for hobbyists and other folks while also regulating appropriately and prudently so that we partially address some obvious risks. That's somethin' I think a significant majority of Americans would like to see.

 

Beavah

 

[Eagledad]

>>More proof that humans are irrational. A surge in folks buying up guns thinking that will protect themselves and a refusal to go out and get a flu shot.

[Beavah]

Did anyone else hear the rummor that fixed blade knives are on the banned list as well.

 

NOOOOOOO!!!

 

Yeh can take my chef's knife when yeh pry it from my cold, dead fingers!

 

Where do you guys get all this nutty stuff?

 

Next we're goin' to see da chain emails saying "President Obama adopts Boy Scouts of America Safety Plan: Federal Ban on all toy guns or any simulated firearm!" Followed by "Paintball markers and ammo sold out nationwide as Americans prepare for the results of the government takeover!" I bet da paintball and lasertag lobby is just dyin' to start that rumor to take advantage of da gullible!

 

Beavah

 

[packsaddle]

Beavah, c'mon. That has to be a joke. No one is wacko enough to believe something like that.

The rest of you guys need to stop baiting the furry guy.

[Callooh! Callay!1428010939]

"Nutty stuff?" There's a good bit of it in state laws and local ordinances that already outlaw or restrict carrying knives or even owning some knives.

 

A Fed imposed fixed blade knife ban sounds farfetched, but it does remind us of other authorities already "going there." Poseur-cons can employ satire to shield their smugular veins from knife-ban nannyism. But truth is stranger than fiction. For example, in Ft Lauderdale, one can carry a gun around a parade, but not a knife - unless they've changed that very recently.

 

[Brewmeister]

Dynamite is not very useful in an application to defend myself, family, or property from most types of threats. However, your average "assault weapon," even the maligned Bushmaster, is.

[Twocubdad]

You just like goading me into trying to debate Constitutional law because you know you're better at it than I am. But fools rush in so the short answer is there is no Constitutional right to bear explosives. More practically, if a gun goes off accidentally, maybe through some freak accident a neighbor gets shot, but I don't take out the while neighborhood. I don't get to operate a commercial propane station in my garage or bury plutonium in the backyard either.

 

But more on point, I'm not saying no to everything. In fact, I generally agree with the line of thought that we make folks responsible for their careless handling of firearms. But that process doesn't need to start by lining up the lemming.

 

Think libel law, not motor vehicle. We're free to say or write what we wish, including me calling you are a good-for-nothing, flat-tailed rodent. If you believe my rantings damage your reputation, you sue. Taking this analogy a step further, my mortgage company and TwoCubMom know what a loudmouth I am so they require that my homeowner's insurance include general liability coverage which includes libel. And if more than just a loudmouth, I'm a loudmouth who happens to publish a large newspaper, my insurance company is probably going to nail me for a hefty premium and perhaps even require things of me contractually which may be unconstitutional if required by the guvmint.

 

Private individuals doing what is in their own best interest which happily aligns with the public good. And the only action needed by the government was a small tweak of the civil code to include a libel statute.

 

Take all that and just shift it down one amendment.

 

[vol_scouter]

Twocub,

 

You are right, dynamite and other things are not guaranteed rights under the constitution. As to having to keep guns locked up, that is abridging rights. If my guns are locked, then they are of no benefit to me if someone breaks into my domicile. Why should I have to lock them up to keep them from being stolen? The thief commits a crime by entering my house and stealing - even if the house is unlocked it is still a crime. Beavah talks about gun owners mission creep, which is laughable and he can't be serious. The mission creep occurs on the left with the reaction of gun owners to pushing more and more to abridge our rights. If everyone wants to abridge the rights of the people, pass an amendment to the constitution. If the feelings are as strong as everyone says, it will easily pass.