BF2S Forums Gun politics, firearms ownership, and US 2nd amendment discussion

As a gun owner, I think there are enough advantages to owning a gun safe to justify its cost.

1) Helps keep your guns in better condition by reducing dust contact.
2) Helps keep your guns out of sight so obnoxious house guests (friends and family alike) won't pester you for handling or demonstrations.
3) Helps keep your guns out of irresponsible or criminal hands.
4) Can hold a lot of your other gun paraphernalia, things like bows or long blades, or important documents.
5) That warm fuzzy feeling you get when you know your shit's all accounted for.

I believe buying a safe should be the least of precautions a prospective gun owner should be required to take. I would also go a step further and push for automated home security systems.

SuperJail Warden wrote:

How quickly can you get to your guns if your house were to be attacked by ninjas or a burglar?

if you actually cared a lot about security, invest in other measures. fireproof glass and thick doors should suffice.

and how many fucking enemies do you have if you need to have your gun always at the ready.

SuperJail Warden wrote:

How quickly can you get to your guns if your house were to be attacked by ninjas or a burglar?

Jay wrote:

I live in reality. I'm also pretty much disgusted by prohibitionists using child safety every time they want to push through unpopular ideas by playing on stupid people's emotions with insignificant statistics like this.

Who is talking about prohibition? Just sensible controls, like background checks for anyone who buys a gun.

And fyi, gun safes are equivalent to poll taxes. You're limiting legal  gun ownership to only people who can afford expensive approved safes, installed under building permit,  inspected etc.

Gun safes are a) Expensive and b) need a building permit and inspection, are you stoned?
In the UK and Australia, with the tightest rules in the Western world, I've needed neither.

Ken wrote:

What I want is for people who demonstrate that they cannot responsibly own a gun to not be able to own a gun.

Jay wrote:

How can one demonstrate the ability to be responsible with a gun?

If someone demonstrates they are not responsible with guns it seems obvious to not let them have guns, that was the argument, not reversing the onus.

Jay wrote:

Eliminate straw purchases? Good luck. Black market beckons.

People break the law? OK! Lets remove all laws!

Jay wrote:

Insurance, other than liability, should be optional.

What do you think is being discussed, rapture insurance?

Your asinine reductio ad absurdum arguments are asinine and absurd.

Removing loopholes, like allowing people to buy guns without background checks, is so very obvious, as is requiring people to store guns securely and safely when they're not in use so toddlers and criminals can't access them.

Jay wrote:

Besides, fuck off and worry about the ten million undocumented illegal weapons in your own country.

They're mostly in the hands of criminals, not mentally ill teenagers, they aren't therefore a big problem.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2015-10-16 04:26:48)

Dilbert_X wrote:

Jay wrote:

I live in reality. I'm also pretty much disgusted by prohibitionists using child safety every time they want to push through unpopular ideas by playing on stupid people's emotions with insignificant statistics like this.

Who is talking about prohibition? Just sensible controls, like background checks for anyone who buys a gun.

And fyi, gun safes are equivalent to poll taxes. You're limiting legal  gun ownership to only people who can afford expensive approved safes, installed under building permit,  inspected etc.

Gun safes are a) Expensive and b) need a building permit and inspection, are you stoned?
In the UK and Australia, with the tightest rules in the Western world, I've needed neither.

Ken wrote:

What I want is for people who demonstrate that they cannot responsibly own a gun to not be able to own a gun.

Jay wrote:

How can one demonstrate the ability to be responsible with a gun?

If someone demonstrates they are not responsible with guns it seems obvious to not let them have guns, that was the argument, not reversing the onus.

Jay wrote:

Eliminate straw purchases? Good luck. Black market beckons.

People break the law? OK! Lets remove all laws!

Jay wrote:

Insurance, other than liability, should be optional.

What do you think is being discussed, rapture insurance?

Your asinine reductio ad absurdum arguments are asinine and absurd.

Removing loopholes, like allowing people to buy guns without background checks, is so very obvious, as is requiring people to store guns securely and safely when they're not in use so toddlers and criminals can't access them.

Jay wrote:

Besides, fuck off and worry about the ten million undocumented illegal weapons in your own country.

They're mostly in the hands of criminals, not mentally ill teenagers, they aren't therefore a big problem.

Literally none of the proposals pushed forward by the anti-gun crowd would stop mass shootings. None. They would cut down on legal gun ownership and create many new criminals. These are the same people boohooing non-violent drug offenses leading to prison.

I get the desire to feel safe, but both sides of the debate want the same thing. Some people live in absolute terror of guns, others live in absolute terror of not having one. They're both irrational.

At the end of the day, the 2nd amendment makes gun ownership a natural right (like voting when you become an adult), not a privilege. You can't be preemptively stripped of your rights or face onerous burdens to exercise your right. Want to change that? Pass a new constitutional amendment.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Various proposals would have some impact, without significantly impacting the rights of the sensible, law-abiding gun owner.
How does having a background check impact anyone's rights? They're required by Federal law IIRC, how does closing a few dumb loopholes impact on anything?

And the people who don't actually have that right?

Children, criminals, the mentally ill, doesn't it make sense to make sure they can't exercise a right they don't have?

Most of the "loopholes" don't exist. The only "loophole" is from private sales i.e. me buying a gun from my cousin. "Sensible legislation" would mean that my cousin would have to go to a licensed gun dealer and pay him to perform a background check on me and do all the paperwork to transfer ownership. I'm not saying this is unreasonable, but it is a largely unnecessary expense that doesn't decrease crime. None of the mass shooters would've been thwarted.

Jay wrote:

At the end of the day, the 2nd amendment makes gun ownership a natural right (like voting when you become an adult), not a privilege. You can't be preemptively stripped of your rights or face onerous burdens to exercise your right. Want to change that? Pass a new constitutional amendment.[/url]

I didn't watch your video because I am at work.  However the Supreme Court (through precedent, I want to say the first ruling was back in the 1910's) has ruled many times the right to enact legislation that limits the ability to own a gun and the types of firepower available to the public. So actually you're wrong. 

The whole "2nd Amendment makes gun ownership a natural right" is kind of silly.  If (and that's a big if) the authors of the constitution were worried about protecting the citizens against a corrupt or overpowering state and to counteract that allowed the citizens the "right to bear arms", then why can't we buy tanks? RPGs? Attack Helicopters?  After all, a bunch of coots in Idaho popping rounds off their AR15 at the oppressive government aren't going to stop an APC, tank, drone, etc.  It's a farce, and it's a really weak argument.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

The whole "2nd Amendment makes gun ownership a natural right" is kind of silly.  If (and that's a big if) the authors of the constitution were worried about protecting the citizens against a corrupt or overpowering state and to counteract that allowed the citizens the "right to bear arms", then why can't we buy tanks? RPGs? Attack Helicopters?  After all, a bunch of coots in Idaho popping rounds off their AR15 at the oppressive government aren't going to stop an APC, tank, drone, etc.  It's a farce, and it's a really weak argument.

There's that, the 2nd amendment has been so thoroughly emasculated it might as well not exist.

As it is, it has not been used to 'fight tyranny', but to allow crazy people to shoot children and America's better Presidents.

The biggest defense against tyranny isn't semi-automatic .308 rifles. A well educated, informed, citizenry who respect their fellow Americans is.

Last edited by SuperJail Warden (2015-10-16 17:21:28)

An avowed former gang member in Chicago has been charged with felony child endangerment after his 6-year-old son shot and killed his 3-year-old brother with a gun that was kept loaded on top of a refrigerator, authorities say. Michael Santiago, 25, was at work when the shooting occurred on Saturday night at his home in the Humboldt Park neighborhood; the childrens' grandfather was at the home at the time. From the Chicago Tribune:

"The gun was purchased off the street. It was kept loaded, and it was wrapped in pajama pants on top of the refrigerator," Assistant State's Attorney Joseph DiBella said. "The defendant previously showed the 6-year-old where the gun was kept, and in a videotape statement the defendant said he kept the gun for protection because he was a former gang member who snitched on a gang member in a murder trial."
"About a week prior to the shooting, he showed his older son where he kept the gun. ... (Santiago) took the gun from on top of the refrigerator, unwrapped the pajama pants and explained to the 6-year-old that the gun was only to be used by adults," DiBella said.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/ … tiago.html


That must be every parents nightmare! As a future parent, it makes me nervous thinking about the fragility of my future child.

SuperJail Warden wrote:

That must be every parents nightmare! As a future parent, it makes me nervous thinking about the fragility of my future child.

If you were a patriot you'd be more concerned with whether your toddler has ready access to an AR15 in case the British invade.

Adams_BJ wrote:

amazing that lawn darts get banned after one death but guns dont

fuck lawn darts, they're unbalanced. unlike my Ruger, that has a nice heft and feel to it . . .