We have a choice to make if we want to keep our guns

[Gunzilla]

NO WE DO NOT!!!!! We CANNOT gain by losing!!! We CANNOT "secure our 2nd Amendment Rights" by giving them up!!!

So, exactly where do you get to 'giving up our 2nd amendment' from ANYTHING I've stated? That is just ridiculous!!

Please tell me how we are LOSING if we are securing our weapons from those that would either steal or confiscate them?

We are NOT giving up anything, we are in fact making sure our weapons STAY our weapons....and not someone elses through theft.....or confiscation by a government that chooses to be parental by trying to protect us from ourselves.

Man, I can't believe how asinine some of the commentary is, you'd think the wolves were at the front door.....oh wait, they are... only some of you are grabbing another beer and heading for the couch.

So be it, do what ever you like.....but when they do make a new law restricting our gun rights to lever action .22s and single shot shot guns you'll look back at this thread and you'll ask yourself....What the hell happened?....and the answer will be that Joe Biden and Diane Feinstein acted while you got drunk.

 

[Gunzilla]

My $0.02 on this:

I believe that there should be some form of lock between a firearm and an unauthorized user. This could be a trigger lock, safe, lock on a door, lock on a house, etc. The difference is that I wouldn't mandate this by law, I would suggest it as a common sense measure.

Common sense? ....in case you haven't read some of the responses here there is a serious shortage of common sense when people think that a closet is somehow a secure place to store their weapons.

 

[ladder13]

Again, what are the anti's compromising/giving up?

 

[zip777]

Again, what are the anti's compromising/giving up?

Common sense.

 

[OK Hog Shooter]

I sold all of my guns so l could buy a safe. Now l can lock up my bats and knives! ...or is it knifes?

Blessings,
Hog

 

[zip777]

Don't forget to lock up your slingshot and tactical tomahawk!

 

[FirebirdV8]

I don't get how people can believe the goverment will stop at one law or ban just one more type of gun. The government will just keep encroaching on our gun rights until all guns are banned. The only compromise the antis are after is exploiting a tragedy to push their goals on everyone. Knee jerk reactions almost always end baddly. Lets not feed into the mass antigun hysteria caused by this tragedy and push some mentally unstable politician over the edge any further then they already are.

 

[CoMF]

Common sense? ....in case you haven't read some of the responses here there is a serious shortage of common sense when people think that a closet is somehow a secure place to store their weapons.

Just curious... Any suggestions on how the average firearm owner can afford a good quality safe with a reasonable UL burglary rating? Some of us are working class and living hand to mouth supporting our families. Or do you believe that firearm ownership is something only the wealthy should enjoy?

I broke my promise. Oh well.

 

[doc540]

Allowing an unstable person or criminal to have access to one's firearms is a violation of one of the fundamental rules of firearm safety.

That's one reason why I'm changing careers to deliver basic firearm safety and operation.

Think back on the instances where a minor child or criminal has gained access to an individual's firearms and the trouble it's caused for people like you and me.

 

[CoMF]

Allowing an unstable person or criminal to have access to one's firearms is a violation of one of the fundamental rules of firearm safety.

Think back on the instances where a minor child or criminal has gained access to an individual's firearms and the trouble it's caused for people like you and me.

That's why all of my firearms not under my immediate control are either kept in a locked container or secured with a cable or trigger lock, and kept in an "inconvenient" place (my lifestyle is such that I don't feel a need to keep a longarm readily accessible 24/7). If a burglar wants them that badly, they're not going to be uncovered easily and they're not going to be immediately usable after they're stolen.

I also made it clear to my stepston that he is NOT, under any circumstances, to touch any firearm without our knowledge or consent. I explained that if he wants to look at them, he's welcome to ask but that it will be supervised by his mother or myself.

Just because I can't afford a safe doesn't mean I'm criminally negligent, and I'll never stop trying to drive that point home. Of course, if anyone wants to donate to the "Help CoMF Buy a Graffunder Fund," then by all means send some money my way. Just a word of warning... They don't come cheap.

 

[ladder13]

Being rigid and uncompromising will eventually lead to having no 2nd amendment at all, it's our chance to secure these rights before our government revokes them.

Why don't you ask this Canadian what he thinks about compromise?

http://smith-wessonforum.com/2nd-amendment-forum/283725-what-odds-confiscation-2.html#post136875546

 

[Sebago Son]

Give That Man A Que-pee Doll.

... Man, I can't believe how asinine some of the commentary is....

Upon that, we agree.

Everything else you said, not so much....

 

[wheelgun28]

WOW, this is quite the thread!

Reminds me of some old war movie where the guys on the battlefield said they need to surrender in order to survive, it never seems to go so well for them.

I feel as if we are being pushed into the Bataan Peninsula right now and we should not let them control the argument nor the terms of. We all know what happened on the Bataan Peninsula...


I took a step in securing my stuff, in the hall that leads to the room where my stuff is I put up a sign "Gun Free Zone". This insures that no one will be able to cross the hall with guns. Rest assured that the power of the sign will work...

A few other points, people that support gun control do not want to put criminals in jail. If criminals fit in to one of the pet socio economic groups, they are victims not criminals its then unfair that they are jailed. Here in CT they are going to say that it racist that jails have certain criminals in them...


Another point that was told to me by an extremist type. Gun control is about social justice and payback to the non progressive class, scary to me...


Lastly I will admit that sometimes you need to drop back and punt to win the game. This should be the LAST resort, not the first, you dont win by showing weakness.

 

[Pointshoot]

This has been pointed out before. Please pardon me if you may have already read it. But, there is no 'gun problem'. Youre more likely to be struck by lightening than be involved in a mass shooting. 54 people every year are killed by lightening. An even greater number than that are struck, but survive. We don't run around trying to make new laws to 'protect us' from being struck by lightening, do we ? Peoples reaction is irrational, emotional. Unfortunately, too many on our side seem to be falling for this too. All sorts of proposals and 'compromises' are being made to prevent something rare, and extremely unlikely to occur. People are causht up in the "do something . . . anything" disease. --- Children are likely at greater danger from riding in the thousands of school buses without seat belts in this country, than from a school shooter.

This is being used as a means to attack our 2A rights. They operate in the fashion of the Fabian Socialists, incrementally a step at a time. First it'll be ban of high cap mags, then 'assault rifles' (the first AWB expired because it had absolutely no impact on violent crime), then registration of all private arms to close the 'loophole', . . . and over time high special taxes on guns and on ammo to fund 'victim programs', and finally a complete ban. That's what every regime wants - - - to take weapons out of the hands of their people. The 2A was put in the US Constitution's Bill of Rights for a reason.

In addition, there is a strong possibility at least, that an armed citizen with a concealed carry permit confronted the Oregon mall shooter causing him to run away and then commit suicide. The citizens action could have saved lives. That hasnt gotten a lot of media attention in most of the country, has it ? They don't want any focus on armed citizens preventing killings or other crimes. We should be talking about the Oregon event to as many people as possible.

Does any of this statement make sense to anyone ? Comments appreciated. Regards to brother 2A supporters, - - -

 

[Doc Nonverbal]

Pointshoot - you make some excellent points. We clearly need to establish "lightning free zones" to protect us! 8^ ) But as you indicated, it's not about logic, it's all about emotion and sensationalism.

Wheelgun28 - I would like to extend your idea a bit. I think we should encourage the anti-gunners to show their support for Obama's proposals by putting large "Gun Free Zone" posters in their front windows of their homes, or on their lawns.

 

[Pointshoot]

Pointshoot - you make some excellent points. We clearly need to establish "lightning free zones" to protect us! 8^ ) But as you indicated, it's not about logic, it's all about emotion and sensationalism.

Wheelgun28 - I would like to extend your idea a bit. I think we should encourage the anti-gunners to show their support for Obama's proposals by putting large "Gun Free Zone" posters in their front windows of their homes, or on their lawns.

Well said Doc, with a sense of humor that is definitely appreciated in these challenging times for our Liberty. Thank you

 

[dougb1946]

1) Our neighbors to the north have had a gun registry for years-it did not lead to confiscation-it also did not help eliminate any crime, but it did soak up excess money, so they are eliminating it. Our govt is broke already.

2) Our govts primary job is to create a budget-not really too controversial. Pay for what needs to be done, get money to cover these payments. They don't appear to function really well. Do you believe they can actually come up with a workable set of controls, when about a third of the population is screaming "don't do it". Step one is cut down on all the media reporting-have ICE visit Piers Morgan. Contact your state and federal elected types. Email is easy, keep it short, polite, and to the point. Remember, the most important job every elected official has is getting reelected. Let them know where your vote and financial support will go. I figure that if I can not shoot, I will have all that extra money to spend on supporting a politician I like.

 

[moe l.]

If you have a gun safe you need to secure it to the floor. Even the largest safes can be stolen and opened later. And count on some broad new gun laws coming down in 2013. They are claiming voters want it, just like we all want higher taxes....

 

[Pointshoot]

1) Our neighbors to the north have had a gun registry for years-it did not lead to confiscation-it also did not help eliminate any crime, but it did soak up excess money, so they are eliminating it. Our govt is broke already.

2) Our govts primary job is to create a budget-not really too controversial. Pay for what needs to be done, get money to cover these payments. They don't appear to function really well. Do you believe they can actually come up with a workable set of controls, when about a third of the population is screaming "don't do it". Step one is cut down on all the media reporting-have ICE visit Piers Morgan. Contact your state and federal elected types. Email is easy, keep it short, polite, and to the point. Remember, the most important job every elected official has is getting reelected. Let them know where your vote and financial support will go. I figure that if I can not shoot, I will have all that extra money to spend on supporting a politician I like.

Canadian laws didnt lead to obvious confiscation, but do you know how just about impossible it is for the average citizen to have a handgun up there ? You can confiscate in fact, if not by law, through regulation and taxation.

You make some very good points. Piers Morgan is a tool.

 

[Gunzilla]

WOW, this is quite the thread!

Reminds me of some old war movie where the guys on the battlefield said they need to surrender in order to survive, it never seems to go so well for them.

That's funny....what some of the responses reminds me of is a little child being told not to touch the hot burner on the kitchen stove top, but he does so....over and over and over again.....never learning a thing in the process.

Don't consider my suggestion 'surrendering' (it's not even close) it's more like doing a flanking maneuver to attack the gun grabbers from the rear with a plan to prevent guns from getting into the wrong hands......and not to keep them from ours....as they would prefer.

The big difference between them and me is I want unsecured guns, and guns not being carried daily, locked up so the bad guys (and your kids) can't get them if, and when, your away from home.....THEY want ALL guns locked up so we can't get to ANY of them, at any time....for any reason.

The amount of gun crime done with stolen weapons is immeasurable because not all of it is reported.

About 500 children are killed each year (about 17,000 are injured) with unsecured or stolen guns, and almost all of them could have been avoided. It's clear to me by some of the responses that some of you are not parents (neither am I)..... and some of the ones that are shouldn't be.

NOBODY here is talking about giving our gun rights away....especially me......so some of you need to take a chill pill, and another to increase your level of personal responsibility for your weapons security.....or some left-wing gun-grabbing loon will.

Buying and using a gun safe will not hurt you....or your kids....and will, in fact, increase the safety, and reduce crime, in your community...and increase our chances of keeping our guns....as our guns and not someone elses.

 

[ladder13]

1-That's funny....what some of the responses reminds me of is a little child being told not to touch the hot burner on the kitchen stove top, but he does so....over and over and over again.....never learning a thing in the process.

2-The big difference between them and me is I want unsecured guns......locked up

3-It's clear to me by some of the responses that some of you are not parents (neither am I)..... and some of the ones that are shouldn't be.

1- We're just plain ol' dumb, I get it.
2- EVERY gun owner I know has a safe.
3- Looking to create a master race?

Your whole premise is BOGUS. You assume if everyone would just get a safe, the looney left will just stop all their efforts to disarm us. You have no proof of this whatsoever. In FACT, they rarely mention anything about a safe, the main focus being so-called "assault weapons" and "large capacity magazines" or clips for the really misinformed. Seems to me they're not going to "allow" you to keep your AR, safe or not.

 

[wheelgun28]

I'd guess that they would start complaining that safes are dangerous. A child could get injured on one or locked inside of one or some other total BS.


Let start here!
I say we start banning 5 gallon bucket, why does anyone need 5 gallons? Children die every year from them. They have no place in our society, Europe and Japan dont have these problems. Buckets will need to be serial numbered, have model numbers and not have decorative establishments.

Buckets need to be limited to ten quarts, only the government can have larger ones.


CPSC Warns: Pools Are Not the Only Drowning Danger at Home for Kids


Now as far as locking up guns, thats ok but forcing people to buy something is a non starter for me. If you make someone responsible for their possessions you might get more traction but it does little to help.

Oh, I forgot, we already have some safe storage laws, as well as an assault weapons ban. They worked so well...

 

[PA Reb]

Please do not take anything that I am about to say to imply that my heart does not ache over this tragedy. I have two kids and I cannot fathom what the parents are going through. However, this does not mean that all of a sudden my rational ability is going out the window and my emotions will guide my decision making. This should apply to all of us and to all policy makers.

Let us take a deep breath and remember that the Constitution does not grant us any rights. End of story, period. The Bill of Right should more aptly be called the Bill of Limiting Federal Government powers. The ten amendments that comprise the bill of rights enumerate 10 specific rights that the federal government will not have any power over. End of story, period. The fact that the federal government regulates anything related to guns is a complete abomination of the Constitution. The frames of the constitution were very clear as to the meaning and the intent of the 2nd amendment. It has zero to do with crime and 100% to do with the fear of the federal government becoming tyrannical. This is very well documented in the Federalist and the anti-federalist papers. Why in the world does the federal government want to ban rifles when they only account for about 3% of all murders? The ultimate goal of the federal government is the complete disarmament of the citizenry. End of story, period.


Andrew

You sir are a wise man !

 

[Magster]

We have multiple laws on the books right now. No more, no compromise!

 

[Pointshoot]

AndrewB70 - excellent post

The Anti-Federalists who wanted the Billl of Rights, also recognized that they did not grant those rights. These are natural rights that are God given and essential to every free human being. The danger of a pure 'democracy' is that two wolves and a sheep can vote on what to have for dinner. (In our society we seem to have lots of people, who soak up the propaganda thrown at them on t.v. and other mainstream media. They are easily manipulated by sensationalism and emotionalism.) In our Constitutional Republic, people have these essential rights as part of their being. They cannot be legislated away.

But such rights must be defended by the citizenry. As Benjamen Franklin replied when asked what we have in America - - "A Republic, if you can keep it."

 

[Geronimo Jim]

"The ultimate goal of the federal government is the complete disarmament of the citizenry. End of story, period."

This is why we should not give one inch. We need to take the offense.
Gun laws are NOT enforced! Drive that home and it will stick.

 

[Pointshoot]

1- We're just plain ol' dumb, I get it.
2- EVERY gun owner I know has a safe.
3- Looking to create a master race?

Your whole premise is BOGUS. You assume if everyone would just get a safe, the looney left will just stop all their efforts to disarm us. You have no proof of this whatsoever. In FACT, they rarely mention anything about a safe, the main focus being so-called "assault weapons" and "large capacity magazines" or clips for the really misinformed. Seems to me they're not going to "allow" you to keep your AR, safe or not.

+ 1 I must agree with your reply to his statements.

An 'Ad Hominem Attack' is an attack of the person rather than their evidence or argument. It is a shabby & weak tactic. The poster who you replied to used this tactic several tiimes - saying that those that disagree are somehow childish or not fit to be parents, etc.

When aware of such tactics they completely lose any influence.

P.S. - as for the magic 'gun safe solution'. What if some nut job on prescription psychiatric drugs decides to jump you from behind, put a knife to the throat of you or your wife, and forces you to open the gun safe ? Not such a wonderful 'solution' afterall, is it ? (Now if your reply is "that's not likely to happen." My response is "Thats the whole point - - like being srtuck by lightening, mass shootings are extremely rare and unlikely to impact most of us. We don't need new laws to protect us from lightening either." Please don't reply that we need a new law against knives or sharp objects of all kinds.)

 

[mkk41]

I already have several safes.

I am considering , planning actually , a concrete block wall and steel door & jamb gun vault in my basement.

 

[Doc Nonverbal]

About 500 children are killed each year (about 17,000 are injured) with unsecured or stolen guns, and almost all of them could have been avoided. It's clear to me by some of the responses that some of you are not parents (neither am I)..... and some of the ones that are shouldn't be.

Just a friendly note to check your references on this. The American Academy of Pediatrics is fond of posting that firearm accidents are one of the primarily ways kids get hurt/injured, but if you read their reference material, you'll see how misleading these statistics really are.

For example, one study defines a "child" as anyone under 20 years of age. In another one I read a few years back, they defined African American "children" as anyone under 33 years of age. Digging a little deeper, you'll find that they're counting gang shootings as "children".

I work for a very large health insurance company. A few years ago I pulled Emergency Room utilization records from claims and looked at the E-codes in the diagnosis fields 1-9. E-codes tell you how accidents occur and are quite specific. I reviewed three years of data with 4.5 million members per year. Want to take a wild guess at how many firearm-related accidents I found? (Notes: I didn't count suicides as accidents and I classified newborns to 12 years of age as children, 13-17 as adolescents and 18+ as adults; I focused on 0-17 year olds).

I found one firearm accident. It occurred with a BB gun. That was it.

The way kids are really hurt, at least from what I saw in the claims, was falling down stairs, falling out of bed, etc. Firearms constituted one of the lowest, if not the lowest, categories of accidents for kids.

I'm going to try to replicate this study next year. I'm hoping that I'll be able to publish the results.

 

[CoMF]

That's funny....what some of the responses reminds me of is a little child being told not to touch the hot burner on the kitchen stove top, but he does so....over and over and over again.....never learning a thing in the process.

It's clear to me by some of the responses that some of you are not parents (neither am I)..... and some of the ones that are shouldn't be.

......so some of you need to take a chill pill, and another to increase your level of personal responsibility for your weapons security.....

Comments like these are rude, abrasive, do little to promote civil discourse and will not win over any "converts" to your position. They also happen to be barred by the this forum's Terms of Service:

DIVERSITY
This is a public board viewable by people of all ages, genders, and demographic groups. We expect you to conduct yourself in a mature, courteous manner. Treat others as you wish to be treated.

HARASSMENT
Harassment occurs when a member insults, attacks, and denigrates another member at any time. We have zero tolerance for taking an argument about any topic to a personal level.

Like you, irresponsible firearm owners irk me to no end, but I can also get my points across without resorting to condescendsion or righteous indignation.

Buying and using a gun safe will not hurt you....or your kids....and will, in fact, increase the safety, and reduce crime, in your community...and increase our chances of keeping our guns....as our guns and not someone elses.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Not being able to afford a safe does not mean someone is criminally negligent. Safes are not cheap, especially ones which have an actual UL burglary rating and are more than just a locked cabinet. What you are endorsing is not much different from requiring firearm owners to carry liability insurance and will achieve the same end result, which is to say that it will make firearms ownership a "rich man's hobby." There are still plenty of reasonable measures that owners without safes can take to ensure that the likelihood of the very things you rail against will be greatly lessened.