(03-28-2023 01:18 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  (6) regulate firearm storage to prevent accidents.

Regulate THIS you little mental freak that thinks he's Elvis....

Oh you can't see what I'm pointing at can you?

(03-28-2023 12:52 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 12:23 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 12:04 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 09:41 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  I haven't proposed anything that infringes on the second amendment. Nothing about a gun storage law infringes on your right to buy or own a gun.

The second amendment is perhaps the most clearly and concisely written. When you understand the common use and meaning of words when it was written it is 100% crystal clear. The govt has no say in ownership of firearms by private citizens. Over the last 200 years that notion has been discarded on countless occasions, each more restrictive then before.

My opinion aside, the Supreme Court ruled that DC's requirements for weapons to be disassembled or bound with a trigger lock to be a violation of the second amendment. As usual, you are 100% incorrect that "nothing about gun storage law infringes on your right to buy or own a gun."

A lot of people on here seem to have a hard time understanding the difference between inconvenience and infringement.

Requiring gun owners to do a little more to protect guns they are choosing to own is not infringement on their right to own it.

Tell that to the Supreme Court. The "inconvenience" of a trigger lock, some other storage lock, or disassembly renders the firearm useless and does in fact infringe upon the second amendment.

I'm not saying taking reasonable precautions is a bad idea. My firearms are either out of reach of littles or concealed where only I can reach them.

You cannot infringe upon a law-abiding citizen's second amendment right for any reason, least of which should be the criminal acts of others.

None of these ideas are infringing on a law-abiding citizen's right to own a gun.

In wake of Nashville shooting, Twitter cracks down on 'Trans Day of Vengeance'

(03-28-2023 12:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 12:23 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 12:04 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 09:41 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  I haven't proposed anything that infringes on the second amendment. Nothing about a gun storage law infringes on your right to buy or own a gun.

The second amendment is perhaps the most clearly and concisely written. When you understand the common use and meaning of words when it was written it is 100% crystal clear. The govt has no say in ownership of firearms by private citizens. Over the last 200 years that notion has been discarded on countless occasions, each more restrictive then before.

My opinion aside, the Supreme Court ruled that DC's requirements for weapons to be disassembled or bound with a trigger lock to be a violation of the second amendment. As usual, you are 100% incorrect that "nothing about gun storage law infringes on your right to buy or own a gun."

A lot of people on here seem to have a hard time understanding the difference between inconvenience and infringement.

Requiring gun owners to do a little more to protect guns they are choosing to own is not infringement on their right to own it.

The funny thing about guns is you hope to never use them if you are sane, but when you need one the necessity is immediate. So, the law negates the reason for ownership. And unfortunately only the honest, responsible, law abiding citizens are impinged by its observance. The criminal will have a weapon, it will not have a trigger lock, it will not be boxed, the magazine will not be stored separately, and it will be pointed at you.

No gun in a safe will protect you during a home invasion, nor is it safe from the criminals who will have a gun at your head, or your child's, or your spouse's forcing you to use the combination to open the safe so that both valuables and firearms may be stolen.

Common sense says if you can't have a gun immediately available for defense, then you have no need to own one. And this is where the disingenuous nature of the left rears its ugly head and is exposed. They want all people to be subservient to the only people who have arms, law enforcement and criminals. That makes everyone compliant with their tyranny and BS.

Been waiting for someone to make that Point, Thank You.

(03-28-2023 12:31 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 12:29 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 12:25 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 12:21 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 12:20 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  You've obviously never heard of abortion.

False equivalency.

How so? Both instances involve innocent lives.

That’s just your opinion that a fetus that can’t survive outside the womb is a life unto itself. Stop conflating the two issues.

What about the fetus that's far enough along that can survive outside the womb? It's not a conflation but rather a stark example of the left's hypocrisy and selective outrage.

Late-term ELECTIVE abortion (not when mother's life is in danger) has been proven over & over again to be an issue that the majority of people just aren't that dyed-in-the-wool about.

You can of course pull a tweet or a quote from someone that is hard-line, but the vast majority support abortion rights before viability. To even try to compare mass shootings to that is absolutely conflating the two topics.

Seems like the Trans domestic terror group has declared war...Who knows if the Biden admin will supply them with weapons to use like what is done overseas (okay being a little seditious here, but given the outright disdain they have for America, you never know).

(03-28-2023 02:42 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 01:18 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  (6) regulate firearm storage to prevent accidents.

Regulate THIS you little mental freak that thinks he's Elvis....

Oh you can't see what I'm pointing at can you?

Sorry, I don’t have a microscope

(03-28-2023 12:31 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 12:26 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 12:05 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 10:15 AM)b2b Wrote:  Make no mistake. They're glad this happened to Christians.

I cannot believe they would be happy that innocent children were killed.

They’re not; it’s just the gleeful overexuberance of them finding out this person was trans.

This issue doesn’t change, and is no more or less horrific whether a shooter is trans, straight, white, black, conservative or liberal, atheist or christian.

The shooter was mentally ill, that's all that matters. Not their race, creed, or religious leaning. Typical leftist aren't you? Everything is about race and religion to you people. Racist bigots all of you.

The OP quoted was actually trying to say that people are glad that these people died because they're Christians. He is the one trying to make everything about religion, not me.

Pay closer attention next time.

It's kinda funny to hear these loons talk about "responsible gun ownership". All you need to do is invest in trigger locks, gun safes, and automobile safes that are mounted in your car. The same folks that talk about "equity" for the disenfranchised tell you that you need to spend hundreds if not thousands of dollars to "properly" own a gun.

(03-28-2023 11:52 AM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 10:53 AM)450bench Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 10:16 AM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 10:02 AM)Claw Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 10:01 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  No, because you stored you firearm in a safe manner.

It doesn't matter if it your gun is on the kitchen table. You are NOT RESPONSIBLE for someone else breaking the law.

Would you say it's irresponsible gun ownership to leave your gun in your car without having a locked gun safe to put it in? I would.

Nope.
It’s in my LOCKED CAR.

If you do not have a gun safe in your car, you shouldn't leave your gun in your car. Period.

That’s your opinion. It’s in my locked car. It’s a crime to steal. If the liberal judges across this nation would be tough on crime FOR ONCE and ENFORCE LAWS TO THE FULLEST EXTENT, some of these crimes would dissipate.

(03-28-2023 12:34 PM)b2b Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 12:29 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 12:25 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 12:21 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 12:20 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  You've obviously never heard of abortion.

False equivalency.

How so? Both instances involve innocent lives.

That’s just your opinion that a fetus that can’t survive outside the womb is a life unto itself. Stop conflating the two issues.

So they're better off dead? You people are sick in the head. Btw, a 9 month old can't survive outside the womb without help. A good friend of mine just had a child at 23 weeks.

Congrats to your friend. You're still attempting to conflate two issues that have zero to do with each other.

(03-28-2023 02:56 PM)hburg Wrote:  Seems like the Trans domestic terror group has declared war...Who knows if the Biden admin will supply them with weapons to use like what is done overseas (okay being a little seditious here, but given the outright disdain they have for America, you never know).

Don't forgot the dudette that wanted to assassinate Kavanagh. I'm sure it's free on bond by now.

(03-28-2023 02:54 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 12:31 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 12:29 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 12:25 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 12:21 PM)mlb Wrote:  False equivalency.

How so? Both instances involve innocent lives.

That’s just your opinion that a fetus that can’t survive outside the womb is a life unto itself. Stop conflating the two issues.

What about the fetus that's far enough along that can survive outside the womb? It's not a conflation but rather a stark example of the left's hypocrisy and selective outrage.

Late-term ELECTIVE abortion (not when mother's life is in danger) has been proven over & over again to be an issue that the majority of people just aren't that dyed-in-the-wool about.

You can of course pull a tweet or a quote from someone that is hard-line, but the vast majority support abortion rights before viability. To even try to compare mass shootings to that is absolutely conflating the two topics.

https://www.frc.org/updatearticle/202202...s-abortion

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/...ar-AAXo7hr

Guess most democrats in Washington are hard line. These are the same people who come for constitutional rights whenever one of these shootings occur so it really isn't conflating the issues. Selective outrage and outright hypocrisy.

(03-28-2023 12:47 PM)Claw Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 12:23 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 12:04 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 09:41 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  I haven't proposed anything that infringes on the second amendment. Nothing about a gun storage law infringes on your right to buy or own a gun.

The second amendment is perhaps the most clearly and concisely written. When you understand the common use and meaning of words when it was written it is 100% crystal clear. The govt has no say in ownership of firearms by private citizens. Over the last 200 years that notion has been discarded on countless occasions, each more restrictive then before.

My opinion aside, the Supreme Court ruled that DC's requirements for weapons to be disassembled or bound with a trigger lock to be a violation of the second amendment. As usual, you are 100% incorrect that "nothing about gun storage law infringes on your right to buy or own a gun."

A lot of people on here seem to have a hard time understanding the difference between inconvenience and infringement.

Requiring gun owners to do a little more to protect guns they are choosing to own is not infringement on their right to own it.

Any requirement like you are envisioning is a defacto tax. You can have a gun, but, you have to have to buy a lock box, a trigger lock, a car safe, and so on. It's just another tax, and if you pass that kind of law, you can bet your ass the spouses of Democratic lawmakers will own the companies selling the "approved" devices.

So what? Call it whatever you want to call it - in some of the saner states you have to take training before you can get a gun license - you also actually have to have a permit - all of those things cost money - are those defacto taxes too?

Even waiting periods are "inconveniences" to gun ownership - none of this is infringing on your right to own a gun.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/nashville-sch...der-police

Guns were legally purchased.. Buuuuut:

Nashville school shooter Audrey Hale, a 28-year-old transgender artist and former student, legally purchased the arsenal used in the attack behind the family's back despite serious emotional issues that required a doctor's attention, according to authorities.

(03-28-2023 03:01 PM)oruvoice Wrote:  It's kinda funny to hear these loons talk about "responsible gun ownership". All you need to do is invest in trigger locks, gun safes, and automobile safes that are mounted in your car. The same folks that talk about "equity" for the disenfranchised tell you that you need to spend hundreds if not thousands of dollars to "properly" own a gun.

No one is forcing you to own a gun - you're choosing to. That is your right.

If you choose to do that, you need to be able to handle it responsibly when you're taking it out in public (and at home).

Thousands of dollars is laughable - you can get reputable safes for under $100.00 all day long. If you're spending that much on gun stuff, maybe you're just blowing your money....which again, is your right.

(03-28-2023 03:13 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 03:01 PM)oruvoice Wrote:  It's kinda funny to hear these loons talk about "responsible gun ownership". All you need to do is invest in trigger locks, gun safes, and automobile safes that are mounted in your car. The same folks that talk about "equity" for the disenfranchised tell you that you need to spend hundreds if not thousands of dollars to "properly" own a gun.

No one is forcing you to own a gun - you're choosing to. That is your right.

If you choose to do that, you need to be able to handle it responsibly when you're taking it out in public (and at home).

Thousands of dollars is laughable - you can get reputable safes for under $100.00 all day long. If you're spending that much on gun stuff, maybe you're just blowing your money....which again, is your right.

Which means I'll choose how I secure it.. Not some idjit in DC or a message board.

(03-28-2023 12:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 12:23 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 12:04 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 09:41 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  I haven't proposed anything that infringes on the second amendment. Nothing about a gun storage law infringes on your right to buy or own a gun.

The second amendment is perhaps the most clearly and concisely written. When you understand the common use and meaning of words when it was written it is 100% crystal clear. The govt has no say in ownership of firearms by private citizens. Over the last 200 years that notion has been discarded on countless occasions, each more restrictive then before.

My opinion aside, the Supreme Court ruled that DC's requirements for weapons to be disassembled or bound with a trigger lock to be a violation of the second amendment. As usual, you are 100% incorrect that "nothing about gun storage law infringes on your right to buy or own a gun."

A lot of people on here seem to have a hard time understanding the difference between inconvenience and infringement.

Requiring gun owners to do a little more to protect guns they are choosing to own is not infringement on their right to own it.

The funny thing about guns is you hope to never use them if you are sane, but when you need one the necessity is immediate. So, the law negates the reason for ownership. And unfortunately only the honest, responsible, law abiding citizens are impinged by its observance. The criminal will have a weapon, it will not have a trigger lock, it will not be boxed, the magazine will not be stored separately, and it will be pointed at you.

No gun in a safe will protect you during a home invasion, nor is it safe from the criminals who will have a gun at your head, or your child's, or your spouse's forcing you to use the combination to open the safe so that both valuables and firearms may be stolen.

Common sense says if you can't have a gun immediately available for defense, then you have no need to own one. And this is where the disingenuous nature of the left rears its ugly head and is exposed. They want all people to be subservient to the only people who have arms, law enforcement and criminals. That makes everyone compliant with their tyranny and BS.

If you are talking about a standard combination safe?...I tend to agree.

I have 2 biometric safes in my home. One in the bedroom and one in the living area. I bought both on Amazon for 99 bucks a piece. Both myself and wife can access multiple firearms in less than a second of putting a finger on lighted button. I highly recommend these things. Very cheap investment for both safety and security.
I can't really think of a situation that could occur in which I would not have time enough to protect myself using them given I have a home security system also. It's possible...but highly unlikely. This is not meant to be argumentative. Just pointing out there really are options now to consider.

(03-28-2023 03:15 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 12:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 12:23 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 12:04 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 09:41 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  I haven't proposed anything that infringes on the second amendment. Nothing about a gun storage law infringes on your right to buy or own a gun.

The second amendment is perhaps the most clearly and concisely written. When you understand the common use and meaning of words when it was written it is 100% crystal clear. The govt has no say in ownership of firearms by private citizens. Over the last 200 years that notion has been discarded on countless occasions, each more restrictive then before.

My opinion aside, the Supreme Court ruled that DC's requirements for weapons to be disassembled or bound with a trigger lock to be a violation of the second amendment. As usual, you are 100% incorrect that "nothing about gun storage law infringes on your right to buy or own a gun."

A lot of people on here seem to have a hard time understanding the difference between inconvenience and infringement.

Requiring gun owners to do a little more to protect guns they are choosing to own is not infringement on their right to own it.

The funny thing about guns is you hope to never use them if you are sane, but when you need one the necessity is immediate. So, the law negates the reason for ownership. And unfortunately only the honest, responsible, law abiding citizens are impinged by its observance. The criminal will have a weapon, it will not have a trigger lock, it will not be boxed, the magazine will not be stored separately, and it will be pointed at you.

No gun in a safe will protect you during a home invasion, nor is it safe from the criminals who will have a gun at your head, or your child's, or your spouse's forcing you to use the combination to open the safe so that both valuables and firearms may be stolen.

Common sense says if you can't have a gun immediately available for defense, then you have no need to own one. And this is where the disingenuous nature of the left rears its ugly head and is exposed. They want all people to be subservient to the only people who have arms, law enforcement and criminals. That makes everyone compliant with their tyranny and BS.

If you are talking about a standard combination safe?...I tend to agree.

I have 2 biometric safes in my home. One in the bedroom and one in the living area. I bought both on Amazon for 99 bucks a piece. Both myself and wife can access multiple firearms in less than a second of putting a finger on lighted button. I highly recommend these things. Very cheap investment for both safety and security.
I can't really think of a situation that could occur in which I would not have time enough to protect myself using them given I have a home security system also. It's possible...but highly unlikely. This is not meant to be argumentative. Just pointing out there really are options now to consider.

I haven't tried biometric safes, but haven't had any problems with the 4 digit quick access gun vaults with 4 buttons aligned with your fingers. They are very fast to access.