Jump to content

The Answer To Gun Violence Issues?


FalconDrifter
 Share

Recommended Posts

While reading a story on CNN last night, I browsed the selection of comments made by users as I typically do, and I came across a post that intrigued me. The post talked about a new law that would not only preserve your 2nd amendment rights, but it would also force all gun owners to be responsible with their firearms. Enter the Gun Guardianship Act of 2013. Here is how it would work.

When a person goes to buy a new firearm, they are forced to sign a contract that says that they will be responsible, both criminally and financially, for that gun from purchase to melt down. You are basically going to "marry" your gun. IF you want to give your weapon to a family member, or sell it to purchase a new one, you will have to go through a legal process which will "divorce" you from your gun and give the new owner full responsibility. If you fail to properly secure your weapon, or if you sell it\give it away illegally, and that gun is used to commit a crime, you are 100% liable for any legal repercussions as a result of your negligence. If a gun shop or a guy at a gun show sells a gun to a criminal, and that criminal uses the gun to commit a crime, that person loses his business and is put in jail.

It is no different than owning a dangerous breed of dog (I own a Rottweiler so I know I have a responsibility to my community) or being a parent of a minor child.

I am not saying that I agree with it or disagree with it...All I am saying is that it's an interesting concept.

Thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 227
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Not really related to this proposal, but I just noticed that the NRA has found itself way out on the fringes right now:

Gallup Poll. Jan. 19-20, 2013. N=1,013 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 4.

"Next, suppose that on Election Day you could vote on key issues as well as candidates. Would you vote for or against a law that would [see below]?"

"Require criminal background checks for all gun sales"

Favor: 91%

Fox News Poll conducted by Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research ®. Jan. 15-17, 2013. N=1,008 registered voters nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.

"Requiring criminal background checks on all gun buyers, including those buying at gun shows and private sales"

Favor: 91%

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you're all about only making laws that everyone will follow?

No, it's well documented on this site that if it were up to me, I would revoke the 2nd Amendment and get rid of all the guns and make it a life in prison sentence if you are found with one.

I'm just saying that the proposal you suggested simply isn't going to fly. We (Americans) love our guns, and we want to love them on our own terms, not the Govts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meh. Good luck on keeping track of that. I was discussing with my Uncle last night that in theory I truly have every firearm I'd ever really need to keep on keepin' on. But that's not the point. I still like collecting. And Uncle Sham and his liberal minions cans suck my left nut. Ain't getting mine and I'll keep on collecting. Idiots doing dumb things and weeping libs will not change that. And if Uncle Sham really wants my guns he'll come get them. But he ought to be more concerned about my ammo first. It's not the guns I own, it's how long I can fire back. And before you unleash a tirade upon my head I'd like to let ya'll know this: Go ahead. I don't like most/any of you weaselly backstabbing biatches anyways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it's well documented on this site that if it were up to me, I would revoke the 2nd Amendment and get rid of all the guns and make it a life in prison sentence if you are found with one.

I'm just saying that the proposal you suggested simply isn't going to fly. We (Americans) love our guns, and we want to love them on our own terms, not the Govts.

Clearly Peyton is biased here. Here's a picture of Peyton browsing the internet at home:

deer-computer.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it's well documented on this site that if it were up to me, I would revoke the 2nd Amendment and get rid of all the guns and make it a life in prison sentence if you are found with one.

I'm just saying that the proposal you suggested simply isn't going to fly. We (Americans) love our guns, and we want to love them on our own terms, not the Govts.

The fact you vote republican has kept me up many nights....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marriage is between a man and a woman, not a man and a gun. God made Adam and Eve, Not Adam and Colt.

Seriously though, I think that is kind of how it works now in most places. That is the idea behind requiring bill of sales for private gun sales. Right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't hold people accountable for crimes they do not commit. Here's a simple scenario that should demonstrate to any reasonable human being that this law is unjust. A person is travelling for work and left his guns at his home. People are not allowed to fly with guns, so this is a very common occurrence. While he is gone, his home gets robbed (likely somebody he knows, so they know he is out of town). The robbers take his guns and then kill somebody with them.

The solution to this problem is not putting the law abiding citizen in prison. We have enough non-criminals in prison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't hold people accountable for crimes they do not commit. Here's a simple scenario that should demonstrate to any reasonable human being that this law is unjust. A person is travelling for work and left his guns at his home. People are not allowed to fly with guns, so this is a very common occurrence. While he is gone, his home gets robbed (likely somebody he knows, so they know he is out of town). The robbers take his guns and then kill somebody with them.

We have that exact same thing in place with cars. I hate to be the one to break it to you, but if your car gets stolen, you are responsible for any damage your car does. Growing up, my mom worked in insurance, and anytime there was a high speed chase with a stolen car, she would be in shambles thinking about what that person was going to be responsible for.

The solution to this problem is not putting the law abiding citizen in prison. We have enough non-criminals in prison.

Maybe we need to put everyone in prison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have that exact same thing in place with cars. I hate to be the one to break it to you, but if your car gets stolen, you are responsible for any damage your car does. Growing up, my mom worked in insurance, and anytime there was a high speed chase with a stolen car, she would be in shambles thinking about what that person was going to be responsible for.

Maybe we need to put everyone in prison.

You arent liable for damages done by your car simply because you own it. Maybe insurance companies try to screw you, but you aren't liable for someone else's crime. Edited by Flip Flop
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have that exact same thing in place with cars. I hate to be the one to break it to you, but if your car gets stolen, you are responsible for any damage your car does. Growing up, my mom worked in insurance, and anytime there was a high speed chase with a stolen car, she would be in shambles thinking about what that person was going to be responsible for.

Maybe we need to put everyone in prison.

That is not accurate. If your car is stolen, you are not "criminally" liable. You are only financially liable, which is part of the coverage you pay for with your insurance policy if you get the "comprehensive coverage". If somebody steals your car and runs over somebody, you would not get criminally charged with vehicular homicide. If somebody steals your car and gets in an accident, the other motorist can sue you (and your insurance company) for damages.

The law in this thread claims criminal liability for the gun owner. The law you are referring to actually does exist for gun owners (actually, it applies to any property ownership). If somebody steals your gun and commits a crime, you can get sued, and they will win if there was any neglect found on the gun owner's part. ****, if a burglar is walking across your roof and falls through due to an unmarked area with water damage, that burglar can sue you because of negligence resulting in his injury (which is extremely f'd up because the criminal had no right to be on your roof in the first place).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If my dog killed someone, I would be liable for damages. I own a Rottweiler. Rottweilers are dangerous. Why should it be any different for a gun owner? If I let my dog slip out of an open gate, and he kills a child, I will be sued and my dog will die. I didn't commit a crime, but I am still punished. If you fail to lock up your guns, and they are stolen\used in a crime, why shouldn't you be liable?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If my dog killed someone, I would be liable for damages. I own a Rottweiler. Rottweilers are dangerous. Why should it be any different for a gun owner? If I let my dog slip out of an open gate, and he kills a child, I will be sued and my dog will die. I didn't commit a crime, but I am still punished. If you fail to lock up your guns, and they are stolen\used in a crime, why shouldn't you be liable?

People already are, so stop it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...