It wasn't a machine gun though. You don't need $20k to get a semi-auto rifle.
The home owner is not a fault here, the kids broke in to his home, stole his firearms and used them against the police.
Today's mass shooting in the US
- Thread starter Rroff
- Start date
The home owner is not a fault here, the kids broke in to his home, stole his firearms and used them against the police.
The weapons should have been stored securely to prevent theft and/or their immediate use.
Immediate use is the purpose of the Second Amendment.
While I would not dispute that James Madison had that in mind when he proposed the Second Amendment, which would give more power to State militias, the forerunners of todays National Guard, I thought that I’d run it by my friend, a New York attorney who works in the Kings County Attorney’s Office in Brooklyn.
She said that there is no Federal CAP, (child access prevention), law, but some individual States have CAP laws.
In Massachusetts, all firearms are required to be stored using a locking device, and allowing a child unsupervised access to a handgun can result in a $5000 fine and/or 2.5 years in prison.
On the other hand, Utah only imposes criminal liability when a minor is directly provided a gun by an adult.
The National Guard is not a militia, it's an army. I say this because I suspect you're going along the route of suggesting only the National Guard should have the right to bear arms, or even a militia, but the Second Amendment clearly mentions the right of the people.
And yes, Mass has some stupid firearm laws.
And yes, Mass has some stupid firearm laws.
Last edited:
By burglars?
Even better, give violent domestic abusers their guns back!
Obviously not, but I guess the home owner doesn't want to keep putting things away and getting them back out when they return.
Commissario
How does requiring guns that are not actively in use be secured, or at least kept out of the way of children impact the right to own or bear arms?
There is a difference between safely storing and using your weapons, and not being able to own them.
You don't need dozens of guns laying around the house where kids (or indeed burglars) can just pick them up for "home defence", so safely securing them when say you're not at home shouldn't be an issue, especially if you're that worried about criminals having guns...
IIRC it's not even a legal requirement to report your guns have been stolen or "gone missing" in many states which is not a great thing.
I remember about 3 years ago seeing one of the NRA spokesidiots who had been proudly telling everyone who would listen that "guns are safe around kids if you teach them they're not a toy" (by teaching them it's fun to
I don't leave knives, or even just things like cleaning materials around where my niece (and before that nephews) could get them, and I find it hard to understand the idea of people who will leave guns lying around, or argue about the idea that maybe it's a good idea to put weapons you're not actively using/in a position to monitor out of the way of children?
If just because if you're foolish enough to leave guns lying around your house and someone does break in, they're now able to access those same weapons,
Commissario
It's not exactly hard though, it's not onours and it's a lot easier than actually arming the guns that were around when the Founders wrote the constitution or when the second amendment was added....
And if they're not going to be bothered with that, how likely are they to be bothered with any of the commonly accepted "safe" gun practices the NRA used to espouse?
You're likely to be right, and it's that irresponsible and careless attitude towards firearms ownership in the US that will ensure these types of incidents remain a regular occurrence.
Reading about it, he asked for it back and was given it. Shocking.
The Second Amendment is about defence, it's difficult to defend yourself if the firearm in question is locked in a safe.
You seem to be describing an event in which kids either live or have been invited into your house, that's entirely different. Firearm ownership takes on a different role when there are kids that live inside the house.
Every gun owner should have to join a militia and register their guns. After all its right there in the amendment. I'd love to see them try and argue over the wording when they argue over its ambiguous meaning all the time. Well regulated implies structure and rules.
That is incorrect. A militia is given as an example of a need for the people to bear arms, it clearly states it's the right of the people. Go read the Federalist Papers, it will give you an insight into the founding fathers. Also the Second Amendment doesn't say the people have to register firearms.
“A well regulated union, being necessary to increase working conditions, the right of the people to keep and use megaphones, shall not be infringed."
Who gets the megaphones? Do you have to be in a union to use a megaphone?
“Well regulated historians, being necessary to document history, the right of the people to keep and use pencils, shall not be infringed."
Pencils are only for historians? The people aren't allowed them?
Yes the constitution can be vague, including the Second Amendment, but that part is pretty clear, the people have the right.
Last edited:
Permabanned
- Joined
- 5 Apr 2006
- Posts
- 7,704
I still don't understand why America hasn't amended it's commandments tbh? Why aren't they putting more restrictions on firearms owned by the general public?
Is it a money thing? The same way they don't outright ban tobacco?
Is it a money thing? The same way they don't outright ban tobacco?
You’re right, the National Guard is NOT a militia, and if it appeared that that was the construct that I put on them, my bad, I worded it wrongly and I apologise.
I’m emphatically not going down the route of suggesting that only the NG have the right to bear arms.
You’re bang on with the ‘right of the people’, the second amendment says, “A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of the state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
However, living in the era of muskets and rifles, the Founding Fathers probably never perceived the invention of “spray and pray” weapons like the MAC 10.
It's called freedom.
The reason you don't understand, like most in the UK is because the British people are happier to be subjugated in comparison to those in the US. In the UK there is Section 5 of the Public Order Act, and Section 127 of the Communications Act which restricts free speech, and the people are happy with that, but in the US they want to free speech. The UK provides less freedom regarding searches and seizures, and the right to remain silent, etc.
Of course freedom comes with consequences though...
You might find yourself being offended as a result of someone else's free speech.
You might find yourself getting shot as the result of someone else's right to bear arms.
You might die from the tobacco that you're free to smoke.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 5 Apr 2006
- Posts
- 7,704
No you WILL die from tobacco if something else doesn't get you first.