OT: Ideas For Gun Owner Accountability

[scaredyclassic]

i was having a conversation witha live human who loves guns andwho mentioendwe need them to protect against oppressive govt Imetioned that yes, i too favored that,and that we also need to arm ourselves with bombs and other more aggressive weapons. he looked at me like I was nuts.

i dontsee why guns are good for figthing the govt is logical but keeping plenty of homemade explosives are bad is nutty

seems like if you like the former you’d love the latter.

personally i think they’re both mad as a hatter.

[mike92104]

[quote=squat300]driving has some social utility.

shooting a fucking gun in an open area has zero social utility.

therefore, the term guntard more aptly applies.

well, i suppose shooting int he open area does have some social utility if those were actually maneuvers designed to attack federal agents in the event that there is some sort of oppressive move to enslave the US population with drones.

I am being sarcastic.

those particularly guntards messed up my day.

somehow i think the NRA would say I was being a big baby.

when driving on the freeway, we also accept that there is risk, and that there will be a range of driving skills, and we can take some measures to protect ourselves from flaming assholes on the freeway, say by staying to the right, being observant, alert, allowing people to pass.

there is no social agreement that while out having an adventure on some rocks in open space that i am going to be subject to a gaggle of nitwits with weaponry shooting in unspecified directions in our general direction.

FUCKING GUNTARDS! that’s what id liek to ehar some pro-gun, NRA type say….that this is so unacceptable those tards should lose their privilege to ever touch a gun again.

from my perspective, admittedly biased, your equating the risk borne by driving with the risk of these guntards shooting irresponsible toward our vicinity is an example of…well…sorry, but guntardedness…[/quote]

Do you know what kind of guns they were shooting? It’s very possible they were being responsible, and you’re just not knowledgeable enough to see it.

[mike92104]

Duplicate

[mike92104]

[quote=Blogstar]I’d like to see everyone have to log in by computer or telephone anytime their gun is out of the house. Use plans and return time should be reported.Theywould log in to report when it was back at home. Anyone out with a gun, registered or not who hasn’t done this would be committing a crime.[/quote]

What on earth would that POSSIBLY accomplish?

“Oh Darn, I can’t go on that shooting spree I was planning today because I didn’t log out my gun”

WTF?

[scaredyclassic]

[quote=mike92104][quote=squat300]driving has some social utility.

shooting a fucking gun in an open area has zero social utility.

therefore, the term guntard more aptly applies.

well, i suppose shooting int he open area does have some social utility if those were actually maneuvers designed to attack federal agents in the event that there is some sort of oppressive move to enslave the US population with drones.

I am being sarcastic.

those particularly guntards messed up my day.

somehow i think the NRA would say I was being a big baby.

when driving on the freeway, we also accept that there is risk, and that there will be a range of driving skills, and we can take some measures to protect ourselves from flaming assholes on the freeway, say by staying to the right, being observant, alert, allowing people to pass.

there is no social agreement that while out having an adventure on some rocks in open space that i am going to be subject to a gaggle of nitwits with weaponry shooting in unspecified directions in our general direction.

FUCKING GUNTARDS! that’s what id liek to ehar some pro-gun, NRA type say….that this is so unacceptable those tards should lose their privilege to ever touch a gun again.

from my perspective, admittedly biased, your equating the risk borne by driving with the risk of these guntards shooting irresponsible toward our vicinity is an example of…well…sorry, but guntardedness…[/quote]

Do you know what kind of guns they were shooting? It’s very possible they were being responsible, and you’re just not knowledgeable enough to see it.[/quote]

If it were an air soft gun it woulda been irresponsible. They were messing around in combat fatigues. Douchebags!

[blahblahblah]

[quote=squat300]i was having a conversation witha live human who loves guns andwho mentioendwe need them to protect against oppressive govt Imetioned that yes, i too favored that,and that we also need to arm ourselves with bombs and other more aggressive weapons. he looked at me like I was nuts.

i dontsee why guns are good for figthing the govt is logical but keeping plenty of homemade explosives are bad is nutty

seems like if you like the former you’d love the latter.

personally i think they’re both mad as a hatter.[/quote]

Most 2nd amendment rulings have concluded that the intent is that a person be able to have the same sort of weapon carried by the police *and* that the weapon is operated by a single person *and* is used to defend themselves and their property. So that means no tanks or airplanes or h-bombs which will probably disappoint many.

Imagine if the Jews in Germany had been armed to match the police who came to round them up. The police would have quickly learned to ignore these kind of illegal orders and might have even turned on the nazis. Imagine if West Africans had had the same muskets as the slavers, the slave trade would have been impossible. This I believe is the intent of the 2nd amendment.

As an aside, didn’t some of the guys who wrote the bill of rights have slaves? They probably justified themselves by claiming that slaves weren’t human or some other such nonsense. People were assholes back then just like now.

[ucodegen]

[quote=squat300]It’s difficult to strangle or beat someone to death. Try it. You have to get really revved up.[/quote]No its not.. all it depends upon is knowing what you are doing. If you don’t know.. then it takes a long time and you may not be successful.
[quote=squat300]i dontsee why guns are good for figthing the govt is logical but keeping plenty of homemade explosives are bad is nutty

seems like if you like the former you’d love the latter.[/quote]I already covered this before. Bombs are indiscriminate.. guns are targeted. Bombs would be killing individuals from both sides.

NOTE: Bombs and shaped charges, breaching charges are different.

[scaredyclassic]

Uh if we are going to war w the Feds there are going to be collateral damage. Your pea shooter won’t mean shit against their armored vehicles. You need ieds and big explosives to fight your revolution. And you can’t be scared about killing a few hundred thousand innocents.

[Anonymous]

Seat belts #3 Liability.

I found this post because I Googled gun owner liability. I wondered if a gun owner could be sued if someone used their gun to murder someone.

Gun Lock Law: I think a law should be passed to ensure only the gun owner can shoot their gun using something they have or own. It could be a RFID chip, thumb print, PIN number, swipe card, and so on. The market place can work it out. People would by this type of gun if they thought they might lose their house if someone used their gun to shoot someone else. Pass law for new guns in 2020. Existing guns allowed until 2063 (50 years).

I know this sounds crazy because a handmade gun could be created so easily but then I remember seat belts. By law I have to wear my seat belt. As a result everyone is safer.

Don’t take away American’s right to own guns, just make them safer.

I like #1 & #2 for people with a concealed weapons permit. A test at the DMV every 5 years seems reasonable.

I like #4 because the money could go to help pay for the well trained security guard armed with an assault weapon at my kids school.

[ucodegen]

[quote=squat300]Uh if we are going to war w the Feds there are going to be collateral damage. Your pea shooter won’t mean shit against their armored vehicles. You need ieds and big explosives to fight your revolution. And you can’t be scared about killing a few hundred thousand innocents.[/quote]One word… Lahti. You don’t have to kill the tank. Just disable it. They have to get out when it no longer moves… This thing will destroy APCs. Remember that the GAU8 is 30mm… and it eats tanks for snacks.

[ucodegen]

[quote=ScottUSA]
Gun Lock Law: I think a law should be passed to ensure only the gun owner can shoot their gun using something they have or own. It could be a RFID chip, thumb print, PIN number, swipe card, and so on. The market place can work it out.[/quote]They tried it.. doesn’t work and was too problematic. Do you code it to all members of family, only one? The problem with RFID, Swipe Card is that in a home invasion, etc.. you have to find where you put those items(An there have been several documented examples of handguns being used to foil home invasions, one of them being quite recent and recorded across 911). RFID/swipe card can be hacked.. and the readers are fairly large. I have worked with thumbprint readers.. very problematic, particularly with Asians.

[quote=ScottUSA]I know this sounds crazy because a handmade gun could be created so easily but then I remember seat belts. By law I have to wear my seat belt. As a result everyone is safer.[/quote]It is crazy, because the Criminals will just pick up a black market manufactured gun.. Saturday Night Special II. You would have to have everyone patted down by police whenever the police feel like it to stop this.. do you want civil liberties to go that way? Is that an effective use of police effort?

[dumbrenter]

[quote=squat300]It’s difficult to strangle or beat someone to death. Try it. You have to get really revved up.

Shooting someone is almost as easy as picking your nose.[/quote]

You obviously never strangled, beat or shoot somebody.

[scaredyclassic]

It may be mentally taxing to kill by gunfire, but it lacks the physical intensity of a strangling or beating. People can often take a very good ummeling and not die.

[scaredyclassic]

[quote=ucodegen][quote=ScottUSA]
Gun Lock Law: I think a law should be passed to ensure only the gun owner can shoot their gun using something they have or own. It could be a RFID chip, thumb print, PIN number, swipe card, and so on. The market place can work it out.[/quote]They tried it.. doesn’t work and was too problematic. Do you code it to all members of family, only one? The problem with RFID, Swipe Card is that in a home invasion, etc.. you have to find where you put those items(An there have been several documented examples of handguns being used to foil home invasions, one of them being quite recent and recorded across 911). RFID/swipe card can be hacked.. and the readers are fairly large. I have worked with thumbprint readers.. very problematic, particularly with Asians.

[quote=ScottUSA]I know this sounds crazy because a handmade gun could be created so easily but then I remember seat belts. By law I have to wear my seat belt. As a result everyone is safer.[/quote]It is crazy, because the Criminals will just pick up a black market manufactured gun.. Saturday Night Special II. You would have to have everyone patted down by police whenever the police feel like it to stop this.. do you want civil liberties to go that way? Is that an effective use of police effort?[/quote]

No you wouldn’t. You would follow the constitution, search only when reasonable and put people in prison for long periods of time for gun possession in public. There would be a very strong incentive not to carry a gun. Or to shoot it out with the police to avoid the long sentence. If the penalty is 25 years in prison for gun possession, that’s a strong incentive to just carry a knife.

[ucodegen]

[quote=squat300]No you wouldn’t. You would follow the constitution, search only when reasonable and put people in prison for long periods of time for gun possession in public. There would be a very strong incentive not to carry a gun. Or to shoot it out with the police to avoid the long sentence. If the penalty is 25 years in prison for gun possession, that’s a strong incentive to just carry a knife.[/quote]Not supported by facts already in evidence. Already:

[Author]

Posts