Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Without a link it is hard to determine whether it was stupidity or arrogance.
Either way, who cares?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight
This is a perfect example of why more guns is a bad solution.
No it isn't, nice try to turn a molehill into a mountain. If she had gotten on the plane with a gun what would have happened? Absolutely nothing, the same thing that happened the countless other times people brought guns on plans before they were banned.
If you own a firearm then you better be darn sure you secure it otherwise you are not responsible enough to own one. Is this clear enough for you
You didn't answer the question. If the weapon was in his luggage, which was in his home, it is secured, and you have ZERO business dictating to him where in his home he keeps it. Unless, of course, you think you're ENTITLED to enter his home anytime you please.
You didn't answer the question. If the weapon was in his luggage, which was in his home, you have ZERO business dictating to him how he stores it. Unless, of course, you seem to think you're ENTITLED to enter his home anytime you please.
Not me, but how about a burglar. Sorry, you have a firearm then you should be responsible for keeping it away from others. Why in the world would you have an issue with this. We have heard so many times where kids get a hold of guns not secured and either shoot themselves or others by accident.
Not me, but how about a burglar. Sorry, you have a firearm then you should be responsible for keeping it away from others. Why in the world would you have an issue with this. We have heard so many times where kids get a hold of guns not secured and either shoot themselves or others by accident.
The burglar could get the firearm regardless. That isn't a legitimate answer.
No kids were mentioned in the person's post. That's a red herring.
Not me, but how about a burglar. Sorry, you have a firearm then you should be responsible for keeping it away from others. Why in the world would you have an issue with this. We have heard so many times where kids get a hold of guns not secured and either shoot themselves or others by accident.
That is what happens when you protect your kids from firearms. They think they are toys when discovered.
At 6 years old, I shot my uncles 357. I didn't want to shoot another hand gun, until I was 45. Thing scared me, and jumped out of my hand, and hurt my wrist. 40, years later, still a kick, but manageable.
Let a kid shoot a 12 gauge shotgun, or a 30.06. They will respect that thing, leaning in the corner of the room, or behind the door.
The burglar could get the firearm regardless. That isn't a legitimate answer.
No kids were mentioned in the person's post. That's a red herring.
So what I gather from you is that you don't believe in securing your firearms. Let's just leave them anywhere and your ok with that. And what does it matter if kids were mentioned or not? If they are not secured then they could get into the wrong hands. It's unbelievable that you are arguing about this. I have no problem with guns but secure them!!!
So what I gather from you is that you don't believe in securing your firearms. Let's just leave them anywhere and your ok with that. And what does it matter if kids were mentioned or not? If they are not secured then they could get into the wrong hands. It's unbelievable that you are arguing about this. I have no problem with guns but secure them!!!
I believe that people like you have no business dictating how firearms can be lawfully stored in one's home. If the weapon is in the home, it is secured. The Supreme Court also concurs.
See District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
Heller argued it was his right to possess a firearm in his home.
The Court upheld Heller's contention, and further found that the requirement that lawful firearms be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock made it impossible for citizens to effectively use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense, and therefore violated the Second Amendment right.
That is what happens when you protect your kids from firearms. They think they are toys when discovered.
At 6 years old, I shot my uncles 357. I didn't want to shoot another hand gun, until I was 45. Thing scared me, and jumped out of my hand, and hurt my wrist. 40, years later, still a kick, but manageable.
Let a kid shoot a 12 gauge shotgun, or a 30.06. They will respect that thing, leaning in the corner of the room, or behind the door.
Growing up in a city we didn't have much means for guns. My dad had many though because of his profession. I fired a gun once but the kickback and noise was awful lol
I believe that people like you have no business dictating how firearms can be lawfully stored in one's home. If the weapon is in the home, it is secured. The Supreme Court also concurs.
See District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
The Court found that the the requirement that lawful firearms be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock made it impossible for citizens to effectively use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense, and therefore violated the Second Amendment right.
No it is not but whatever. It's just common sense to me. Again, how many times do we have to hear of young kids killing because they found an unsecured gun in their home. You only think about your rights instead of the innocent victims. Makes no sense to me. I think we should value life more
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.