View Single Post
Old 01-26-2013, 17:32   #11
Senior Member
PhotoFeller's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Midwest and SW Florida
Posts: 3,664
Blog Entries: 2
Originally Posted by TDC20 View Post
I'm glad that you're so willing to follow "common sense." The problem is not those who are willing, but those who force it upon the population by decree.

So, the first law requires that all guns must be secured under lock and key. Then, someone breaks into that locked closet and commits a crime with one of those guns. Next, the state declares that guns must be secured in a state-approved safe. Some people won't be able to afford a state-approved safe, and everyone knows that safes, while a deterrent, are not impossible to break into. So when that fails, the state declares that all guns must be kept at a state-approved gun club. Until eventually, the state declares that it's common sense to just be rid of all guns.

That's pretty close to how it went down in England. For every one of these "common sense" ideas that the state gets to incrementally encroach upon your 2A rights, what do you get in exchange? What's that? Nothing? That's right. You, Mr. Reasonable, Mr. Responsible, Mr. Common Sense, you give up your rights one little bit at a time. And if you refuse, you're labeled a psychotic, mouth-breathing, gunnut, red-neck moron.

I am not against securing firearms by any means. I have a very expensive safe that will keep the meth addicts away from my guns, but it probably won't stop a professional. I don't leave guns around and unsecured when children are present, and neither should anyone else. These are good practices that everyone should follow, but by letting the state decree this or that, and subtly label it as "common sense", we head down the slippery slope to eventually losing our 2A rights, under the banner of "common sense."
Please don't take my words to mean that written law should require everyone to have a gun safe or other means of preventing unauthorized access to personal firearms. I am saying gun owners should be held accountable for blatant neglect in keeping guns away from people who steal them and misuse them in a violent crime.

If you want to store your Glock in a cigar box on your truck's front seat, thats ok. If you choose to display rifles and shotguns in an open rack in your den, thats good too. Nothing would be illegal about your chosen storage method.

If someone takes your gun easily because there was NO attempt to secure it, and commits murder or suicide, there should be legal consequences. Application of the law could be avoided by locking the Glock in your glove box when you leave the vehicle or adding a chain locking device to the gun rack. The absence of a deterrent to theft would only become a crime (1) when theft occurred and (2) when the stolen firearm is used in a violent crime.

The Newtown incident, based on my understanding of the circumstances, might have been avoided if the mother's guns had not been readily available to her mentally ill son. Her carelessness, in my humble opinion, translates to reckless negligence.

I know this position is fraught with problems and might be seen as a concession to gun grabbers. Somehow, however, citizenship should require reasonable responsibility and accountability with guns, dynamite, poisons, and a few other items that are potentially deadly if misused by criminals, the mentally ill and children. This theory is about nothing more than accountability.

Last edited by PhotoFeller; 01-26-2013 at 17:36..
PhotoFeller is offline   Reply With Quote