[Boom Master]

It cannot be justified to let this continue without background checks and training of the owners. Criminal penalties for a person allowing access to a weapon used accidently or intentionally by another. Responsible gun owners HAVE to be responsible. You can't leave a weapon lying around for a 4 year old to pick up. It is just STUPID and irresponsible. Heck, he will just get sued and figure his home owners will pay the settlement. That doesn't change the fact that someone died that shouldn't have.

The body count continues to mount and more and more Americans are sick of it. If you do not REGULATE yourselves, it will be done TO YOU.

I suggest you not play all or nothing on this issue. Demand REASONABLE gun controls for responsible and reasonable gun owners. The argument that that criminals and NUT HEADS have a right to buy guns along with YOU does not hold water any more.

[Blake360]

Originally Posted by Boom Master

Criminal penalties for a person allowing access to a weapon used accidently or intentionally by another. Responsible gun owners HAVE to be responsible.

So how about whenever you let someone drive your car and they crash into someone, we get to throw you in prison.

[barrel roll]

Originally Posted by Blake360

So how about whenever you let someone drive your car and they crash into someone, we get to throw you in prison.

That doesn't match up. Try this:

How about if someone steals your car, you get charged with a crime.

[barrel roll]

Originally Posted by Boom Master

It cannot be justified to let this continue without background checks and training of the owners. Criminal penalties for a person allowing access to a weapon used accidently or intentionally by another. Responsible gun owners HAVE to be responsible. You can't leave a weapon lying around for a 4 year old to pick up. It is just STUPID and irresponsible. Heck, he will just get sued and figure his home owners will pay the settlement. That doesn't change the fact that someone died that shouldn't have.

The body count continues to mount and more and more Americans are sick of it. If you do not REGULATE yourselves, it will be done TO YOU.

I suggest you not play all or nothing on this issue. Demand REASONABLE gun controls for responsible and reasonable gun owners. The argument that that criminals and NUT HEADS have a right to buy guns along with YOU does not hold water any more.

I demand you shut up. Quit trying to tell me what to do. We already have a **** ton of gun laws, work on enforcing those before you try to create new ones.

[Blake360]

Originally Posted by barrel roll

That doesn't match up. Try this:

How about if someone steals your car, you get charged with a crime.

That's right, and in case someone tries to say a car isn't a weapon, I have some bad news for you:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/weapon

Notice you see nothing about what the intent of the object is supposed to be, so this confirms anything can be a weapon.

[PBOldTimer]

Originally Posted by barrel roll

I demand you shut up. Quit trying to tell me what to do. We already have a **** ton of gun laws, work on enforcing those before you try to create new ones.

[Iamamartianchurch]

Originally Posted by barrel roll

I demand you shut up. Quit trying to tell me what to do. We already have a **** ton of gun laws, work on enforcing those before you try to create new ones.

.

[EvanActon]

Originally Posted by Boom Master

It cannot be justified to let this continue without background checks and training of the owners. Criminal penalties for a person allowing access to a weapon used accidently or intentionally by another. Responsible gun owners HAVE to be responsible. You can't leave a weapon lying around for a 4 year old to pick up. It is just STUPID and irresponsible. Heck, he will just get sued and figure his home owners will pay the settlement. That doesn't change the fact that someone died that shouldn't have.

The body count continues to mount and more and more Americans are sick of it. If you do not REGULATE yourselves, it will be done TO YOU.

I suggest you not play all or nothing on this issue. Demand REASONABLE gun controls for responsible and reasonable gun owners. The argument that that criminals and NUT HEADS have a right to buy guns along with YOU does not hold water any more.

A. How do you regulate somebody leaving a gun out for a 4 year old

B. I'm tired of Americans not. Being able to protect themselves. " if you don't regulate it will be done to you? You a communist?

C. What's reasonable gun laws? My dads diabetic, he acts loopy when his sugar is low, does that mean he can't own a gun?

[PBOldTimer]

Originally Posted by EvanActon

What's reasonable gun laws? My dads diabetic, he acts loopy when his sugar is low, does that mean he can't own a gun?

Don't ya know... diabetics ain't allowed to enjoy the Bill of Rights unless they have Boom Master's personal seal of approval!

[Drex17]

Originally Posted by Boom Master

It cannot be justified to let this continue without background checks and training of the owners. Criminal penalties for a person allowing access to a weapon used accidently or intentionally by another. Responsible gun owners HAVE to be responsible. You can't leave a weapon lying around for a 4 year old to pick up. It is just STUPID and irresponsible. Heck, he will just get sued and figure his home owners will pay the settlement. That doesn't change the fact that someone died that shouldn't have.

The body count continues to mount and more and more Americans are sick of it. If you do not REGULATE yourselves, it will be done TO YOU.

I suggest you not play all or nothing on this issue. Demand REASONABLE gun controls for responsible and reasonable gun owners. The argument that that criminals and NUT HEADS have a right to buy guns along with YOU does not hold water any more.

1. what does ANY of that have to do with assault weapons?

2. you talk of the body count, how many have been killed by "assault weapons" in the last year?

3. Get over it.

[licence_to_kill]

Originally Posted by barrel roll

I demand you shut up. Quit trying to tell me what to do. We already have a **** ton of gun laws, work on enforcing those before you try to create new ones.

I don't think this is a very sensible position to take because I don't think a middle approach would work. Either we have a society where firearms are more or less ubiquitous or we completely do away with them like in other OECD nations.

[The Ralpst]

Originally Posted by barrel roll

I demand you shut up. Quit trying to tell me what to do. We already have a **** ton of gun laws, work on enforcing those before you try to create new ones.

Our existing gun laws are so ineffectual that they do virtually nothing, even if fully enforced. You know this (or at least you should). The number of laws means nothing, only the effectiveness. It's the same brainless argument that gets made about how many pages are in a law. It's a silly distraction from real problems.

[barrel roll]

Virtually nothing? Yea... no.


And the number of laws means quite a bit. The larger the number, the more ineffectual the government (bad laws) the more criminal the citizenry.

Originally Posted by Lao Tzu

The more laws and order are made prominent, the more thieves and robbers there will be.

The argument about pages in a law means quite a bit as well. If bill has 1000 pages, but review for said bill is only X days, it is not possible to review the bill in it's entirety and those voting on it are derelict in their duties as representatives of the citizens of a state, or of a state.

[Boom Master]

QUOTE]I demand you shut up. Quit trying to tell me what to do. We already have a **** ton of gun laws, work on enforcing those before you try to create new ones.[/quote]

Our existing gun laws are so ineffectual that they do virtually nothing, even if fully enforced. You know this (or at least you should). The number of laws means nothing, only the effectiveness. It's the same brainless argument that gets made about how many pages are in a law. It's a silly distraction from real problems.

Your entitled to the second amendment. I'm entitled to the first. No I won't shut up and neither will the majority of Americans on this issue of gun regulation.

See! We agree on some things. We have common ground on this issue. The ATF does not periodically go into every licensed gun store and spot check IF THEY ARE DOING THE BACKGROUND CHECKS. I worked at a Sporting Goods store and a customer filed a complaint about his gun being missing/stolen by the store. The went back ONE YEAR and found 200+ purchases without completing the background checks and other legally required paperwork. Sold guns to 7 felons. If the GOP can't deregulate legislation, they un appropriate the funding for the regulatory agencies. ATF doesn't have the staff nor a mandate to periodically check for compliance. By the way, there was not fine or penalty imposed by ATF. Not even a slap on the wrist. Business as usual.

If you are going to pass a law, you need to enforce it. That includes spending the taxpayers dollars to fund it. A price I would gladly pay. I would even pay your share as well on this issue. What is a few dollars a year to save A life. I'm Pro Life. Are you?

So how about whenever you let someone drive your car and they crash into someone, we get to throw you in prison.

If you let someone borrow your car that is drunk. You can be charged with a criminal act.

How about if someone steals your car, you get charged with a crime.

There have been civil suits where the owner left his keys in the car unlocked and it was stolen. The car crashed into someone else's car during the chase. Yes, they were held accountable for their irresponsible behavior.

A. How do you regulate somebody leaving a gun out for a 4 year old

B. I'm tired of Americans not. Being able to protect themselves. " if you don't regulate it will be done to you? You a communist?

C. What's reasonable gun laws? My dads diabetic, he acts loopy when his sugar is low, does that mean he can't own a gun?

A. Involuntary manslaughter. An irresponsible act that resulted in a death. The lawyers are lining up begging to let them sue the gun owner. An easy settlement. I'm suggesting criminalizing that kind of irresponsible behavior that results in a death or injury. Just like driving drunk. Make gun owners MORE AWARE of their responsibilities as a gun owner. I don't think too many people here would agree that leaving a loaded gun where a 4 year old could get it is being responsible or even using common sense. The reason we have so many laws is people don't have common sense. There has to be consequences for those that do not have common sense AND do not follow the law. Simple as that.

B. Your right to protect yourself has been affirmed over and over again by the supreme court. It is not an issue. Nobody is taking away our guns. I have a small arsenal of my own. Behind a lock. Communist? Close, I'm a Independent that generally does not vote for what the GOP candidates stand for but sometimes, I support GOP legislation. I'm working for the middle of the road approach on the abortion issue as well.

C. If you don't have enough common sense not to handle a weapon when you are mentally impaired from drug sugar, senility, mental illness etc. then yes, If your Dad gets paranoid with low blood sugar, or angry and irritable with low blood sugar, and engages in inappropriate behavior with a weapon, then there should be consequences for the guns misuse and his right taken away if he committed a felony. It would be hard to pass laws covering every possible scenario to have someones gun ownership taken away due to medical conditions BUT they do exist. A patient that drives to the Doctors office and the Doctor knows they are driving with an uncontrolled seizure disorder can initiate proceedings to have their drivers license revoked. Ditto, the senile drivers. Families can initiate proceedings to get drivers license revoked. I rarely happens but it can....

There should be laws and consequences for irresponsible gun owners. Just like irresponsible drivers, pilots, priests, etc. No one should be immune from consequences.. It does not dimmish their right to own a gun until they use it inappropriately.

Responsible, law abiding people should not be affected whatsoever.

1. what does ANY of that have to do with assault weapons?

2. you talk of the body count, how many have been killed by "assault weapons" in the last year?

3. Get over it.

1. Another assault weapon rampage this week. Random killing. Not 'protecting himself'. Just a murderer. "The carnage continues"

2. Too many but I would love to know. Got a source. We know about quite a few murders with them. How many were used in home protection? Get both stats.

3. No I won't forget and neither will the majority of Americans. Especially the families and friends of the people gunned down this last week for no reason.

The gun lobby position is no longer holding water and they will lose the fight on regulation. Not gun ownership and being a law abiding citizen. Just regulation since the Carnage continues.

You have to concede the point that some people should not be given drivers licenses. Some people should not be given guns either. Figuring out how to identify those people is problematic but without a doubt there SHOULD BE agreement on some of the parameters. That is the discussion I would like to have here.. Under what circumstances should a person be denied the right of gun ownership?

[corporationpaintball]

Such a tragedy, but it's a failure by many different systems within our country when something like this happens not just gun control.

[barrel roll]

Originally Posted by Boom Master

... The ATF does not periodically go into every licensed gun store and spot check IF THEY ARE DOING THE BACKGROUND CHECKS. I worked at a Sporting Goods store and a customer filed a complaint about his gun being missing/stolen by the store. The went back ONE YEAR and found 200+ purchases without completing the background checks and other legally required paperwork. Sold guns to 7 felons. If the GOP can't deregulate legislation, they un appropriate the funding for the regulatory agencies. ATF doesn't have the staff nor a mandate to periodically check for compliance. Tell me the state or federal law that requires spot checks. For that matter, your anecdotal evidence only shows that the business you worked at was breaking the law and when the government agency came to investigate they found a history of that business breaking the law. I can give anecdotal evidence of a friend with an FFL and a case full of AK-47s having his property searched by GBI and ATF on a regular/routine basis for a 9 month period.

If you are going to pass a law, you need to enforce it. That includes spending the taxpayers dollars to fund it. A price I would gladly pay. I would even pay your share as well on this issue. What is a few dollars a year to save A life.



If you let someone borrow your car that is drunk. You can be charged with a criminal act.
Borrow.


There have been civil suits where the owner left his keys in the car unlocked and it was stolen. The car crashed into someone else's car during the chase. Yes, they were held accountable for their irresponsible behavior.
That asinine ruling, that a person is responsible for their stolen property, is along the same lines of a burglar falling in your house and suing you. It should be evidence that the courts are seriously flawed.


A. Involuntary manslaughter. An irresponsible act that resulted in a death. The lawyers are lining up begging to let them sue the gun owner. An easy settlement. I'm suggesting criminalizing that kind of irresponsible behavior that results in a death or injury. Just like driving drunk. Make gun owners MORE AWARE of their responsibilities as a gun owner. I don't think too many people here would agree that leaving a loaded gun where a 4 year old could get it is being responsible or even using common sense. The reason we have so many laws is people don't have common sense. There has to be consequences for those that do not have common sense AND do not follow the law. Simple as that.

The reason we have to many laws is because our law makers suck. This child did not live at that house. You better hide all your guns, that Justin Case kid might be coming over!

B. Your right to protect yourself has been affirmed over and over again by the supreme court. It is not an issue. Nobody is taking away our guns. I have a small arsenal of my own. Behind a lock. Communist? Close, I'm a Independent that generally does not vote for what the GOP candidates stand for but sometimes, I support GOP legislation. I'm working for the middle of the road approach on the abortion issue as well.

The right to protect ones self is a state issue. You are proposing general government level legislation. You are confusing and confused.

C. If you don't have enough common sense not to handle a weapon when you are mentally impaired from drug sugar, senility, mental illness etc. then yes, If your Dad gets paranoid with low blood sugar, or angry and irritable with low blood sugar, and engages in inappropriate behavior with a weapon, then there should be consequences for the guns misuse and his right taken away if he committed a felony. It would be hard to pass laws covering every possible scenario to have someones gun ownership taken away due to medical conditions BUT they do exist. A patient that drives to the Doctors office and the Doctor knows they are driving with an uncontrolled seizure disorder can initiate proceedings to have their drivers license revoked. Ditto, the senile drivers. Families can initiate proceedings to get drivers license revoked. I rarely happens but it can....

There should be laws and consequences for irresponsible gun owners. Just like irresponsible drivers, pilots, priests, etc. No one should be immune from consequences.. It does not dimmish their right to own a gun until they use it inappropriately.

Responsible, law abiding people should not be affected whatsoever.



1. Another assault weapon rampage this week. Random killing. Not 'protecting himself'. Just a murderer. "The carnage continues"

2. I would love to know. Got a source. We know about quite a few murders with them. How many were used in home protection? Get both stats.

3. No I won't forget and neither will the majority of Americans. Especially the families and friends of the people gunned down this last week for no reason.

The gun lobby position is no longer holding water and they will lose the fight on regulation. Not gun ownership and being a law abiding citizen. Just regulation since the Carnage continues.

You have to concede the point that some people should not be given drivers licenses. Some people should not be given guns either. Figuring out how to identify those people is problematic but without a doubt there SHOULD BE agreement on some of the parameters. That is the discussion I would like to have here.. Under what circumstances should a person be denied the right of gun ownership?

Who should be allowed to have small arms is a state level decision. You, in whatever state you live in, should have no bearing on what I do. And vice versa.

You want to create more crap-law. Awesome. Just what we need.

[Murph1329]

Originally Posted by barrel roll

That doesn't match up. Try this:

How about if someone steals your car, you get charged with a crime.

you know....if we would just outlaw all cars then we could end carjackings and DUI related deaths. If it can save just one life.....


Anyways OP while I do not agree with you 100% thanks for not sounding too much like the typical gun grabbing radical liberal.

It cannot be justified to let this continue without background checks and training of the owners.

We don't need to change the background checks we already have. What we do need to fix is the ability for the background check to have access to the information it needs.
I'm 100% against training of owners. If owning a gun wasn't in the bill of rights then I would be all for training BUT that's not the case. So, you are talking about adding a training class, that I'll probably have to pay for, to partake in an individual right stated in the constitution. This line of thinking got us the poll tax and it's a dangerous precedent to set.

[barrel roll]

*attempting to switch sides, to exercise these debate skills and remove emotion from my arguments as much as possible*

If you own a firearm, you can afford a training course.

*Switching again*

Firearms can potentially be extremely inexpensive. Hi Point pistols(not a brand I own) can be purchased for the same price as a good pair of Merrell hiking shoes (or Jordans, if that is your thing). The ammunition for those pistols is also relatively cheap. A burden of additional fees (on top of the processing fee you may pay at a dealer) would place this tool of defense out of the reach of people that don't make that much to begin with.

Wouldn't it be funny if you could purchase small arms with an EBT card? I'd laugh.

[Pump Revolution]

Originally Posted by Boom Master

It cannot be justified to let this continue without background checks and training of the owners. Criminal penalties for a person allowing access to a weapon used accidently or intentionally by another. Responsible gun owners HAVE to be responsible. You can't leave a weapon lying around for a 4 year old to pick up. It is just STUPID and irresponsible. Heck, he will just get sued and figure his home owners will pay the settlement. That doesn't change the fact that someone died that shouldn't have.

The body count continues to mount and more and more Americans are sick of it. If you do not REGULATE yourselves, it will be done TO YOU.

I suggest you not play all or nothing on this issue. Demand REASONABLE gun controls for responsible and reasonable gun owners. The argument that that criminals and NUT HEADS have a right to buy guns along with YOU does not hold water any more.

Did you ride on the short bus when you were a kid?

[Boom Master]

There have been civil suits where the owner left his keys in the car unlocked and it was stolen. The car crashed into someone else's car during the chase. Yes, they were held accountable for their irresponsible behavior.
That asinine ruling, that a person is responsible for their stolen property, is along the same lines of a burglar falling in your house and suing you. It should be evidence that the courts are seriously flawed.

That is what the defense lawyer argued. The jury felt they contributed to the death and thus were liable for damages. You have a problem with the jury? The Civil Law? The court? It isn't a perfect system but Got a better system? Whoever has the most guns wins?

The right to protect ones self is a state issue. You are proposing general government level legislation. You are confusing and confused.

No, not at all. We agree on this. Like it or not the Supreme Court clearly states that is up to the states to regulate gun sales. States and citys that pass restrictive laws have been challenged in Federal Courts regarding the constitutionally of the local and state laws. The supreme court has frequently upheld that the laws were too restrictive and unconstitutional. Aren't we on the same page here?

if we would just outlaw all cars then we could end carjackings and DUI related deaths.

Silly argument. Of course not, but numerous laws require you use a car responsibly and lawfully. There are consequences for driving drunk, speeding, illegal parking. Leaving the keys in your car and unlocked is stupid and irresponsible. Happens hundreds of times a day at your local convenience store. Leave the kid in the car with the air conditioner on (being responsible leaving the air on??) while you get your donut and coffee. Fine until somebody steals your car with your kid in it. Division of Family services might have an issue about that..

I'm 100% against training of owners.

OK. JUSTIFY that.
You take your argument to the ridiculous extreme than pilots or automobile drivers don't need training to use their equipment properly. How does the second amendment support that you shouldn't be trained to use your equipment properly and legally. JUSTIFY your statement. I challenge you to make a coherent argument to support it. I listening and willing to listen.

We don't need to change the background checks we already have. What we do need to fix is the ability for the background check to have access to the information it needs.

I agree but unless everyone gets a background check to purchase a gun, the system is subverted defeated, and useless.. Potential buyers that know they will not be pass the background check does not go to a gun store to purchase their weapons. Simple as that. We need to plug the hole. Not plugging it is not about the second amendment but rather simple economics for gun sales.

Short bus? Don't get it. Just not hip I guess.

[barrel roll]

Originally Posted by Boom Master

That is what the defense lawyer argued. The jury felt they contributed to the death and thus were liable for damages. You have a problem with the jury? The Civil Law? The court? It isn't a perfect system but Got a better system? Whoever has the most guns wins?



No, not at all. We agree on this. Like it or not the Supreme Court clearly states that is up to the states to regulate gun sales. States and citys that pass restrictive laws have been challenged in Federal Courts regarding the constitutionally of the local and state laws. The supreme court has frequently upheld that the laws were too restrictive and unconstitutional. Aren't we on the same page here?

No, I believe the 2nd amendment prevents the general government from interfering, but intentionally leaves the state with the power and authority to regulate arms within it's borders. I think the incorporation of the amendments is wrong, and would make Hamilton proud.

OK. JUSTIFY that.
You take your argument to the ridiculous extreme than pilots or automobile drivers don't need training to use their equipment properly. How does the second amendment support that you shouldn't be trained to use your equipment properly and legally. JUSTIFY your statement. I challenge you to make a coherent argument to support it. I listening and willing to listen.

Not my argument, but driving on public roads is not a right. It is a privilege.

I agree but unless everyone gets a background check to purchase a gun, the system is subverted defeated, and useless.. Potential buyers that know they will not be pass the background check does not go to a gun store to purchase their weapons. Simple as that. We need to plug the hole. Not plugging it is not about the second amendment but rather simple economics for gun sales.

So... potential buyer that cannot legally own a firearm, purchases firearm illegally. Your simple plug is square, while the hole is round.

Short bus? Don't get it. Just not hip I guess.

The short buss comment harkens back to the days where the children with learning disabilities would ride a separate bus to school.