[Nate4641]

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

You are more likely to die in a car accident in the next 5 years, than to witness a Nazi-Germany style transformation here, I think many would agree with that.

You are also more likely to die in a car accident in the next 30 years than to bear first hand witness to a mass shooting in your lifetime.

[MiddleAgedAl]

Originally Posted by MP0WER

Unlucky for you, my brother and his wife are both confined to wheelchairs and they have been mugged, 3 times for my brother. This last time was inside a lowes bathroom in a very nice part of town. Someone had seen them frequent this lowes while ringing the bell for the salvation army at christmas time. They waited for my brother to go into the bathroom and when he was in there the stole the basket on the front of his chair which contained his cell phone, wallet, radio, etc.. So yeah, these things happen.

Unlucky for me? More like, unlucky for your brother and his wife. I'm sorry to hear this happened; I know others in a chair, and they dont make it sound like they are often targeted, despite their increased vulnerability. I know a guy who's not in a chair and has been beaten and robbed more then I've heard the chair bound folks talk about it.

Maybe it is apples and oranges, maybe it's crazy to suggest that if people in other places can live an entire life without buying guns out of fear that their own government is coming to get them, then maybe I should be able to aspire to sleep that soundly too.

Perhaps the following statement will sound odd: I can't quickly think of a better way to word it: if others in modern civilized democracies get to enjoy a certain level of freedom (freedom of fear from being shot, freedom of fear the gov will harm me), then why cant I have that too ? What happened to "greatest country in the world" and all that? Doesn't anyone at all the idea I'm trying to convey here??

As far as I can tell, these people elsewhere dont endure absolute misery or anything in most other aspects of their life to enjoy such freedoms. OK, they cant as easily carry a gun with them to the grocery store, but they dont seem to feel they need one while buying eggs. They can (and do) buy guns for hunting in places like Canada and Australia, so I'm not advocating a total ban, clearly a total ban isnt needed to get to a much safer place.

Of course we'll never get to 100% safety. Some comments people make about the fact there are still some shootings in these other places, so therefore even moderate gun control is a total waste of time, is an argument I dont get. That's like saying having 100 preventable deaths is not better than having 1000 preventable deaths. Of course zero preventable deaths is better, but we all agree that will never happen.

[MiddleAgedAl]

Originally Posted by Nate4641

You are also more likely to die in a car accident in the next 30 years than to bear first hand witness to a mass shooting in your lifetime.

Yes. And you are FAR more likely to personally experience the many profound benefits of the horseless carriage on a regular, even daily basis, than you are to personally experience (of even witness) the benefits of using a gun to ward off a tyrranical government, or even shoot back at a wacko in a theatre.

That's why people can own cars all over the world (despite the risks), but people all over the world are not having a fit if you tell them you can't own a gun that holds more than 7 rounds of ammo.

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

Unlucky for me? More like, unlucky for your brother and his wife. I'm sorry to hear this happened; I know others in a chair, and they dont make it sound like they are often targeted, despite their increased vulnerability. I know a guy who's not in a chair and has been beaten and robbed more then I've heard the chair bound folks talk about it.

Maybe it is apples and oranges, maybe it's crazy to suggest that if people in other places can live an entire life without buying guns out of fear that their own government is coming to get them, then maybe I should be able to aspire to sleep that soundly too.

Perhaps the following statement will sound odd: I can't quickly think of a better way to word it: if others in modern civilized democracies get to enjoy a certain level of freedom (freedom of fear from being shot, freedom of fear the gov will harm me), then why cant I have that too ? What happened to "greatest country in the world" and all that? Doesn't anyone at all the idea I'm trying to convey here??

As far as I can tell, these people elsewhere dont endure absolute misery or anything in most other aspects of their life to enjoy such freedoms. OK, they cant as easily carry a gun with them to the grocery store, but they dont seem to feel they need one while buying eggs. They can (and do) buy guns for hunting in places like Canada and Australia, so I'm not advocating a total ban, clearly a total ban isnt needed to get to a much safer place.

Of course we'll never get to 100% safety. Some comments people make about the fact there are still some shootings in these other places, so therefore even moderate gun control is a total waste of time, is an argument I dont get. That's like saying having 100 preventable deaths is not better than having 1000 preventable deaths. Of course zero preventable deaths is better, but we all agree that will never happen.

No disrespect was meant by unlucky for you, i just meant choosing that example was unlucky. My brother is as resilient as they come so no worries.

I've read several of your pre-election posts and from what i've seen, you seem to be a sharp guy. It's wonderful that you can argue your view point without resorting to name calling as well.

Because you're a sharp guy, i'm assuming that you don't really believe that someone posing an argument about the 2nd amendment being related to stripping a tyrannical government from power means they live in fear that the government is coming to get them, right?

Do you live in fear of being shot? I most certainly don't. For a short time when i was younger i did, but i channeled that fear into preparedness and that fear is no more.

I was the victim of a random gang initiation shooting. Luckily after recognizing the situation, some skilled driving only left my car with holes in it and not any in me or my passengers. But i learned that day, people, were at random, attempting to get a reaction from someone by offending them while at a stop light. Once that reaction was gained it was the new gang member's duty to walk up to the driver of that vehicle and shoot the driver. For this he would be admitted into the gang. The gang members in the car gave us the finger. My 2 passengers were Irish and were more than willing to get out and fight all 5 of these guys, so they gave them the finger back. That was go time as all 5 gang members got out of the car. Long story short the light turned green at the very best time it could have and a chase ensued. After a few miles and 3 blown red lights they realized they weren't going to catch us as i headed towards open road. It was then when they leaned out the window and open fire. For about 6 months i wouldn't park in a parking lot that had a black Galant parked in it. i wouldn't pass a black Galant on the road and i was about as paranoid as one could be when sitting at a red light. Then i turned 21, got a pistol, learned how to use it. What ever is responsible, being proficient with a pistol or time passing, i no longer have any fear of being shot.

In part, what made this country great was it's constitution, guaranteeing people the freedom to pursue what ever it is that makes them happy. Frivolous laws and regulations taking the freedom of many because of a few is what happened to this country.

Decent example...
When i was in JR High i couldn't wait to get into high school because you were allowed to leave campus for lunch. The year before high school a student was hit by a car when crossing the street for lunch. At first it seemed like a logical decision to do a way with free lunch. (really it was called free lunch) Then while in high school i learned that the year before wasn't the first kid to get hit by a car crossing the street. I probably would have been more pissed about this if it weren't so funny. 3 years prior to me getting to high school another kid was hit. This guy was just j-walking while talking with someone already across the street. Well, the kid who was hit the year before i arrived was the 1st kids brother! To top it off he also was j-walking and on a dare attempted to jump over the hood of a car while crossing the road. Free lunch forever suspended because of two RELATED idiots. Ask any kid at high school today about free lunch and they will have no idea that they were missing out on something. Why would they be upset about a lost freedom they never had? But for 3 to 5 years students were pissed off and in defiance many were skipping out and leaving school illegally at lunch time.

With regards to guns however; if i recall correctly, gun ownership has decreased from the 50's. Prior to that decade the majority of house holds in this country had a firearm with in it. So you tell me what happened? I don't think that guns and law abiding gun owners have done anything to detract from the greatest country on earth.

[ZJP]

Originally Posted by Nate4641

Whats the policy going to be for New Yorkers to reload their own ammo?

Most online sellers have stopped shipping to NY although some are still honoring orders that were placed before the new laws went into effect.

To answer your question, reloading equipment falls into the same category as ammunition and therefore will be prohibited to sell to NY residents.

[carve]

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

In fact, I would suggest that is irrational or illogical to always fall back on the "but the constitution says x, and that cannot be questioned, it shall remain completely relevant for all enternity". I'm not saying flippantly discard it, but I am saying it makes sense to pause and ask "does this still make sense today; and if not, then why continue to cling to it blindly?" That's not treason, it's refusing to mindlessly become an unquestioning slave to dogma.

Nobody is saying that. We're saying that if you want to have gun control, it should be done the legal way: by amending the constitution. And even THEN I'd think it's a bad idea.

[MiddleAgedAl]

Originally Posted by MP0WER

Because you're a sharp guy, i'm assuming that you don't really believe that someone posing an argument about the 2nd amendment being related to stripping a tyrannical government from power means they live in fear that the government is coming to get them, right?

Well, I dont think YOU live that way, but based on some the wording of some posts, for certain others, honestly I really have to wonder. Some truly do remind me of doomsday preppers, who really believe the shit will certainly hit the fan in their lifetime, and I'm the nutjob if I cant see it.

I try and ask "well, why dont folks in other places, who legitimately have damn good reason to be more concerned than you based on recent past (not 200 years ago), why arent they in a panic", and you get no real answer to what I think is a fair question.

I dunno man, if most other people I asked couldnt see a monster, but I could, my first reaction would NOT be, "they are all wrong", or, "or I dont care why they dont see it, I'm still gonna prepare to fend it off". Instead my first gut reaction would be, "hmmm... maybe there is no monster". Have you ever heard the one about the proud mother exclaiming: "everyone is marching out of step except my Johnny" Yeah, I think maybe, just maybe, theres some of that going on.

Your high school story is interesting; (I guess they were right when they said there is no Free Lunch! ha ha)
Anyway, I grasp that some kids didnt know that they were missing. As a result, was their High School life that much worse? Was the cost of the additional safety too much? Or, were they able to have happy, fulfilled high school lives anyway? Flying commercial is a huge pain in the ass now. Would I argue that the safety stuff should all be rolled back to 1995? Nope.

People are OK with limits on the 1st amendment. Nobody is going around saying, "well first you tell me I cant yell fire in a crowded theater, and before you know it, I wont be able to criticize the POTUS in public."

You apply it to the 2nd amendment, and suddenly the argument which sounds crazy in the first case, becomes fine in the second case.

Originally Posted by MP0WER

Do you live in fear of being shot? I most certainly don't. For a short time when i was younger i did, but i channeled that fear into preparedness and that fear is no more.

I dont live in fear of being shot, so it's harder for me to understand the "I need to protect myself" argument. I've never been shot at, either, so that could change my tune. I hope I dont find out... I do get the recreational user tho, but I still think there's a place for stronger regulations. Adam Lanza's mother was a responsible recreational gun owner too, who legally got her guns and would probably have easily passed any mental health or background test you gave her. She probably wouldnt have hurt a fly.

In a controlled range, it would be safer to relax some things, and folks could then get to shoot full auto Uzi's or whatever they want. Fine with me, as long as the uzi doesnt end up in a closet, where a kid could find it when they break into your house while you are in Hawaii. But then, people would scream that keeping it at a gun club doesnt help them defend against gov tyranny, so you're back to zero.

If I did worry that much, instead of arming myself, I'd probably take the position of "if this is what it takes to have 'freedom', that aint free at all, and I'm outta here". Got a co-worker who left South Africa because of that very thing; when it gets the point where you must arm your vehicle against carjackings, starting over elsewhere seems like a better option.

[carve]

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

People are OK with limits on the 1st amendment. Nobody is going around saying, "well first you tell me I cant yell fire in a crowded theater, and before you know it, I wont be able to criticize the POTUS in public."

You apply it to the 2nd amendment, and suddenly the argument which sounds crazy in the first case, becomes fine in the second case.

That's a poor analogy. Yelling "Fire" in the theatre has the malicious intent of causing chaos and harm to others. A gun analogy would be to start pointing it at people just to scare them and watch them run, and I believe that's already illegal.

Me owning a gun does nothing to others except providing the means to defende liberty should it ever become necessary.

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

Well, I dont think YOU live that way, but based on some the wording of some posts, for certain others, honestly I really have to wonder. Some truly do remind me of doomsday preppers, who really believe the shit will certainly hit the fan in their lifetime, and I'm the nutjob if I cant see it.

I try and ask "well, why dont folks in other places, who legitimately have damn good reason to be more concerned than you based on recent past (not 200 years ago), why arent they in a panic", and you get no real answer to what I think is a fair question.

I dunno man, if most other people I asked couldnt see a monster, but I could, my first reaction would NOT be, "they are all wrong", or, "or I dont care why they dont see it, I'm still gonna prepare to fend it off". Instead my first gut reaction would be, "hmmm... maybe there is no monster". Have you ever heard the one about the proud mother exclaiming: "everyone is marching out of step except my Johnny" Yeah, I think maybe, just maybe, theres some of that going on.

Your high school story is interesting; (I guess they were right when they said there is no Free Lunch! ha ha)
Anyway, I grasp that some kids didnt know that they were missing. As a result, was their High School life that much worse? Was the cost of the additional safety too much? Or, were they able to have happy, fulfilled high school lives anyway? Flying commercial is a huge pain in the ass now. Would I argue that the safety stuff should all be rolled back to 1995? Nope.

People are OK with limits on the 1st amendment. Nobody is going around saying, "well first you tell me I cant yell fire in a crowded theater, and before you know it, I wont be able to criticize the POTUS in public."

You apply it to the 2nd amendment, and suddenly the argument which sounds crazy in the first case, becomes fine in the second case.




I dont live in fear of being shot, so it's harder for me to understand the "I need to protect myself" argument. I've never been shot at, either, so that could change my tune. I hope I dont find out... I do get the recreational user tho, but I still think there's a place for stronger regulations. Adam Lanza's mother was a responsible recreational gun owner too, who legally got her guns and would probably have easily passed any mental health or background test you gave her. She probably wouldnt have hurt a fly.

In a controlled range, it would be safer to relax some things, and folks could then get to shoot full auto Uzi's or whatever they want. Fine with me, as long as the uzi doesnt end up in a closet, where a kid could find it when they break into your house while you are in Hawaii. But then, people would scream that keeping it at a gun club doesnt help them defend against gov tyranny, so you're back to zero.

If I did worry that much, instead of arming myself, I'd probably take the position of "if this is what it takes to have 'freedom', that aint free at all, and I'm outta here". Got a co-worker who left South Africa because of that very thing; when it gets the point where you must arm your vehicle against carjackings, starting over elsewhere seems like a better option.

I can understand how it may look to non gun owners. I'm sure me having procured 17,000 rounds of ammo in the past 3 months may make me look like a nut job to some. But 1. it's not going to be cheaper 3 months from now and 2. i want to make sure i have ammo for my recreational shooting without paying through the nose for it or worse not being able to get it at all. I don't think they view you as a nut job for not seeing it but rather naive for not acknowledging the possibility.

They are not in a panic because they are the high schoolers who came to high school 25 years after they did away with free lunch period. Unless i'm misunderstanding your question, then my answer is, once you're disarmed, what is there to panic about? At that point what ever happens, happens. We are in a "panic" because we fear the 2nd amendment being stripped from the constitution. We still have free lunch period and recognize that the people causing the panic only represent .00004% of the gun owning population. And recognize that they are related in some way shape or form. Mass shooting are done by crazies and most other shootings are done in inner cities where gun laws are most strict. Not by the 99.99996% of gun owners.

There is a lot of fictitious monster sightings on both sides of the issue. In my opinion more so on the gun control side. Pro gun controllers are on an emotional witch hunt right now. 4 of the most recent shootings occurred with an AR. Those gun deaths make up a fraction of the over all gun death toll. By far most gun deaths occur with hand guns which seem to have skated by, with exception of magazine size. Which proved useless the last time they were limited. The pro gunners use the 2nd amendment as a basis for their argument to not limit their gun rights. We'll sight the unconstitutional passing of laws and EOs side stepping the constitution as an example of how the government is dead set on ruling the populous with an iron fist. Clearly, the answer lies somewhere in the middle. But when knee jerk, emotional reactions are put into the law books, and will not solve or help the issues at hand, pro gunners are going to be well bent out of shape about it. I don't think flying coach is any safer than it was 13 years ago. If it is, it's not because of the lines we stand it or the lack of water we're allowed through security.

No, the high schoolers probably don't miss out on anything. But because my brother never could walk on his own or drive a car or play football he doesn't know what he's missing either. Sad just the same. Keep taking liberties that don't mean that much and before long they will all be gone and we'll have a nation of beat down conformist who don't think freely and simply do as they are expected.

There is logic based on the legal repercussions of yelling fire in a crowed theater. The law maker can explain to us with reason why there needs to be repercussions for crying wolf when it can hurt other people. The same can't be said about laws infringing upon the 2nd amendment. There is little logic behind new NY gun laws... unless the goal is to eventually rid NY residents of their right to own firearms.

Adams mother was NOT a responsible gun owner. If she were, her son with a well documented history of mental illness would not have had access to those weapons. I am married, to a woman who knows how to handle each of my firearms. We do not have children. All the same, i just spent thousands on a safe to encase my weapons in an effort to ensure they don't make it out on to the black market by way of theft. Well, that and they are doubling in value right now.

[MiddleAgedAl]

Originally Posted by carve

Me owning a gun does nothing to others except providing the means to defende liberty should it ever become necessary.

The fact remains, Adam Lanza's mother could have uttered that exact sentence 1 year ago, and nobody would have disputed it. At that time, few would have branded her an irresponsible gun owner.

In your case, perhaps there is no unbalanced person who could possibly get your guns, even if they broke into your house when you are not there. Fair enough.

But is that true for every gun owner who could utter that sentence today ? Probably not. If I wanted to keep my guns and stop the current legislation, I'd work on an argument which does not deny that fact, but acknowledges it and provides an answer to that concern.

Even the mental background checks on gun and ammo buyers being discussed would not have made any difference at Sandy Hook. They'd have to be far more intrusive, to cover anyone in your life who could possibly get at the gun.

Last time I got car insurance, I was asked who else has access to driving the car.

Perhaps the NRA would enjoy a more sympathetic ear from non-gun owners if they threw that on the table, and said, we'd support these more intrusive checks for immediate family, etc.

[MiddleAgedAl]

Originally Posted by MP0WER

They are not in a panic because they are the high schoolers who came to high school 25 years after they did away with free lunch period.

Sorry, not sure I buy that explanation.

In Australia, things tightened up a lot after their gun buybacks and rule changes in 1996 and 2003. Plenty of people are alive today who can remember life before 1995, when it was easier to own a gun. They can still vividly remember what is was like to have a "free lunch". There was no equivalent protest when their rights were "trampled".

[Mr Tonka]

To put things into perspective a little bit....

Number of gun homicides per year since mid 80's roughly 13,000

Number of mass shooting homicides per year since mid 80's roughly 16 - only .001% of gun homicides are a result of mass shootings.

That means only about .0005% of gun homicides are committed with an AR.

This is why gun owners are going apeshit over these new laws and proposed changes. There is no AR killing spree trend! Law makers proposing a ban on hand guns at least makes sense if they're really aiming to reduce gun violence. But that's not happening.

Granted this year was a bad year, but it is a spike, not a trend. In 2010 there were 1/4 of the mass shootings that took place in 2009. In 2002 not a single mass shooting took place, but there were large spikes in 1999 and in 2007. Largely because of 2 incidents.

In 2012 there were 500 firearm homicides in Chicago, the same amount of homicides from ALL mass shootings that took place over the last 30 years.

Others have said it before.... if you want to remove gun violence from America, remove America's drug problem.

[Templar]

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

Well, I dont think YOU live that way, but based on some the wording of some posts, for certain others, honestly I really have to wonder. Some truly do remind me of doomsday preppers, who really believe the shit will certainly hit the fan in their lifetime, and I'm the nutjob if I cant see it.

I try and ask "well, why dont folks in other places, who legitimately have damn good reason to be more concerned than you based on recent past (not 200 years ago), why arent they in a panic", and you get no real answer to what I think is a fair question.

I dunno man, if most other people I asked couldnt see a monster, but I could, my first reaction would NOT be, "they are all wrong", or, "or I dont care why they dont see it, I'm still gonna prepare to fend it off". Instead my first gut reaction would be, "hmmm... maybe there is no monster". Have you ever heard the one about the proud mother exclaiming: "everyone is marching out of step except my Johnny" Yeah, I think maybe, just maybe, theres some of that going on.

Your high school story is interesting; (I guess they were right when they said there is no Free Lunch! ha ha)
Anyway, I grasp that some kids didnt know that they were missing. As a result, was their High School life that much worse? Was the cost of the additional safety too much? Or, were they able to have happy, fulfilled high school lives anyway? Flying commercial is a huge pain in the ass now. Would I argue that the safety stuff should all be rolled back to 1995? Nope.

People are OK with limits on the 1st amendment. Nobody is going around saying, "well first you tell me I cant yell fire in a crowded theater, and before you know it, I wont be able to criticize the POTUS in public."

You apply it to the 2nd amendment, and suddenly the argument which sounds crazy in the first case, becomes fine in the second case.

I dont live in fear of being shot, so it's harder for me to understand the "I need to protect myself" argument. I've never been shot at, either, so that could change my tune. I hope I dont find out... I do get the recreational user tho, but I still think there's a place for stronger regulations. Adam Lanza's mother was a responsible recreational gun owner too, who legally got her guns and would probably have easily passed any mental health or background test you gave her. She probably wouldnt have hurt a fly.

In a controlled range, it would be safer to relax some things, and folks could then get to shoot full auto Uzi's or whatever they want. Fine with me, as long as the uzi doesnt end up in a closet, where a kid could find it when they break into your house while you are in Hawaii. But then, people would scream that keeping it at a gun club doesnt help them defend against gov tyranny, so you're back to zero.

If I did worry that much, instead of arming myself, I'd probably take the position of "if this is what it takes to have 'freedom', that aint free at all, and I'm outta here". Got a co-worker who left South Africa because of that very thing; when it gets the point where you must arm your vehicle against carjackings, starting over elsewhere seems like a better option.

You really show how much you actually know if you think his mother was a responsible firearm owner. You lost a lot of credibility with that statement.

[Mr Tonka]

Ive posted this before, but i feel it's worth posting agin. I believe the stats in this interactive map likely holds true for most large cities.

Baltimore Homicide Map

You can sort by several different categories and see what happens when you sort by gender, race, age and method.

[Litos]

lol - right on cue: http://news.yahoo.com/yall-come-texa...223149333.html


SAN ANTONIO (Reuters) - Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott has a message for New York gun owners: Come to Texas, and bring your guns with you.

"Texas is better than New York, and New York just gave us another excuse to say that," Abbott, a Republican, said on Thursday, after ads extolling Texas appeared on several media websites.

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat, signed sweeping gun-control legislation earlier this week expanding the state's ban on assault weapons and putting limits on ammunition capacity in the wake of last month's school shootings in Connecticut.

Abbott, a possible candidate for governor of Texas in next year's election, used campaign money to buy ads on websites of news organizations in New York City and Albany.

One ad says in classic Western script: "WANTED: Law abiding New York gun owners seeking lower taxes and greater opportunities."

Clicking on the ad leads to a Facebook page touting the virtues of Texas, including the fact that the state has no income tax so "you'll be able to keep more of what you earn and use that extra money to buy more ammo."

Abbott told Reuters the ads are a "way to tweak our liberal friends up in the Northeast."

"It is tongue in cheek, but there is a deeper message here," he said. "Texas really does stand as the last bastion of ultimate freedom in this country. Over the last decade, more than 4 million people moved to this state, and one reason is freedom and one reason is economic opportunity."

Abbott has said he will file a federal lawsuit to throw out any nationwide gun restrictions implemented by Congress.

A Cuomo spokesman did not immediately respond to an emailed request for comment.

[Nate4641]

I have hated pretty much every Texan I have ever met personally, but I am honestly starting to consider the idea of moving there when I retire.

[Nate4641]

OH, look what I found

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...v=oyb3gBaqlwk#!

[ragingclue]

Originally Posted by Nate4641

I have hated pretty much every Texan I have ever met personally, but I am honestly starting to consider the idea of moving there when I retire.

Haha yeah you and me both.

[bolinp78]

Originally Posted by Nate4641

I have hated pretty much every Texan I have ever met personally, but I am honestly starting to consider the idea of moving there when I retire.

We're all a bunch of assholes, don't bother.

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

But is that true for every gun owner who could utter that sentence today ? Probably not. If I wanted to keep my guns and stop the current legislation, I'd work on an argument which does not deny that fact, but acknowledges it and provides an answer to that concern.

Even the mental background checks on gun and ammo buyers being discussed would not have made any difference at Sandy Hook. They'd have to be far more intrusive, to cover anyone in your life who could possibly get at the gun.

Last time I got car insurance, I was asked who else has access to driving the car.

Perhaps the NRA would enjoy a more sympathetic ear from non-gun owners if they threw that on the table, and said, we'd support these more intrusive checks for immediate family, etc.

The NRA takes a stance by the literal words of the amendment. In some respect i can understand that some things may not be relevant now as it was then and some things may be relevant now as it wasn't then.

For instance, when the amendment was written everyone in the household was trained to use a rifle effectively at a very early age. They were taught to respect all adults and elders. They were taught that disobeying their parents or elders came with strict consequences. And there were not nearly as many mentally ill people as there are now.

Today, the early training and teaching of children happen much less frequently. In addition, we now have emo people and many more mentally unstable people in the world.

This is something that the NRA and gun owners alike should put some focus on. In this respect, simply allowing any citizen the right to bare arms doesn't make sense. Citizens who are convicted of violent crimes are disallowed this right. People who are under 21 years of age are disallowed this right. I don't see why the mentally ill can't be disallowed this right as well. Just as the insurance companies have a right to know how many people are in your house hold (because they MIGHT drive that car) knowing who lives with you when you get a back ground check IS something that should be check up on.

However, just because i have a child with a mental illness doesn't mean i can't have guns. it just means there will be some extra precautions i must take in order to do so. in addition i should be made aware that should my mentally ill child use my firearm in a crime that i will be charged as an accessory to that crime.

Things do get sticky when say a woman who want's to own a gun is married to a person who was convicted of a violent crime. I suppose the same would apply if she were married to a mentally ill person. After all it's not like people who aren't allowed to OWN guns aren't allowed to shoot them in a lawful manner.

[MisterSkiMask]

I think one good thing would be harsh penalties for the registered owner of any gun used in a crime. If the guy who pulled the trigger got murder 1 maybe the registered owner get murder 2.

This would encourage gun owners to properly store their firearms, report a stolen firearm, and properly transfer a sold firearm.

[MiddleAgedAl]

Originally Posted by MisterSkiMask

I think one good thing would be harsh penalties for the registered owner of any gun used in a crime. If the guy who pulled the trigger got murder 1 maybe the registered owner get murder 2.

This would encourage gun owners to properly store their firearms, report a stolen firearm, and properly transfer a sold firearm.

That idea sounds like a good start.

As far as I can tell, they way it is today, Adam Lanza's mother actually did nothing illegal herself. If you could magically bring her back to life, could you then charge her with anything? Obviously you could charge him if he was alive, but her? Accessory to murder wont stick in most places today since usually you must prove the accused had actual knowledge that a crime was going to be committed. A taxi driver who unknowingly drops a killer off at his victims house cannot be charged with accessory to murder. His mother bought the guns and ammo legally, she used them in a legal manner.

That's the thing. People say I've lost credibility by saying she was a responsible gun owner, but the point I was trying to make is that if the regulations are so damn relaxed that the way she enabled this horrible event does not constitute a crime on her part, then how can anyone argue that a tightening of said regulations about this is a crazy knee-jerk reaction? To me, clinging to that position in light of what happened creates a loss of credibility.