Require trigger locks or safes for home with children?

you cannot demonstrate any logical reason for a 10 round limit. If you think NORMAL capacity magazines don't belong on our streets, then cops shouldn't have them either. I tire of the hypocrisy of politicians and their minions who are hiding their gun banning goals with incrementally limiting how many rounds honest citizens can have in their firearms.

 

He wants to ban them because he cannot own them in the Peoples Collective Paradise of New York. those moronic laws impact honest people at far more deleterious rates than criminals. Politicians who want to handicap honest citizens have to be seen as ENEMIES Of the PUBLIC and fluffers and enablers of CRIMINALS.

 

violently confiscating such items would lead to a justifiable rebellion. putting someone in jail for merely owning a magazine-I'd no bill any citizen charged with such a "crime" and would have a hard time being upset if said citizens were to fight back.

 

100% false

 

i am a fellow gun owner

 

Well, this is the internet, and people can be whatever they want on the internet.

 

i own 2 guns

a 10-22 and a Weatherby SA-08

 

Sure you do.

 

even Turtledude knows I own them.

will gladly post pics if you insist, when i get home

 

Fair enough. I'd advise you to get some damn training with them, that's for sure.

 

Funny how in another thread, the same person claimed not to need guns or have guns.

 

im very good with the 10/22.

fully took the thing apart, can get it all back together.

including the trigger assembly which is like a Swiss watch.

the SA-08 is even easier to get back together

 

You mean other than the fact that less of half of one percent of all accidental deaths in homes are firearm related?

 

Check out the Brimstone trigger upgrade.

 

I say no. I have a son who is shooting all the time when I am not home. I also do not feel the need to go home get a shotgun out of the safe so he can go to trap shooting practice.

 

NRA nothing, I oppose it. You definitely are in a lather about then NRA, they have nothing to do with the fact that I simply do not agree with your gun control ideas.

 

I do not need a law to tell me to educate, fed and seek medical treatment . Just how worthless are the people you hang out with that you think you need a law for that.

 

How many kids shoot another kid by accident?

How many kids shoot another kid on purpose?

 

Because I do not not like the idea and I do not want to put stupid trigger locks on my weapons.

 

Yes I am sure you can tell the guy who is robbing your house, that you need a timeout so you can go and get your weapon out of the safe.

 

The op having a mistruth in his post, say it isn't so.

 

The only one wrong in this discussion is yourself.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

We must also address the District’s requirement (as applied to respondent’s handgun) that firearms in the home be rendered and kept inoperable at all times. This makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. The District argues that we should interpret this element of the statute to contain an exception for self-defense. See Brief for Petitioners 56–57. But we think that is precluded by the unequivocal text, and by the presence of certain other enumerated exceptions: “Except for law enforcement personnel … , each registrant shall keep any firearm in his possession unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device unless such firearm is kept at his place of business, or while being used for lawful recreational purposes within the District of Columbia.” D. C. Code §7–2507.02. The nonexistence of a self-defense exception is also suggested by the D. C. Court of Appeals’ statement that the statute forbids residents to use firearms to stop intruders, see McIntosh v. Washington, 395 A. 2d 744, 755–756 (197.28

Apart from his challenge to the handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement respondent asked the District Court to enjoin petitioners from enforcing the separate licensing requirement “in such a manner as to forbid the carrying of a firearm within one’s home or possessed land without a license.” App. 59a. The Court of Appeals did not invalidate the licensing requirement, but held only that the District “may not prevent [a handgun] from being moved throughout one’s house.” 478 F. 3d, at 400. It then ordered the District Court to enter summary judgment “consistent with [respondent’s] prayer for relief.” Id., at 401. Before this Court petitioners have stated that “if the handgun ban is struck down and respondent registers a handgun, he could obtain a license, assuming he is not otherwise disqualified,” by which they apparently mean if he is not a felon and is not insane.

Further still.

In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment , as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.

We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns, see supra, at 54–55, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.

We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

It is so ordered.

Therefore it is the interpretation of yourself that is incorrect in this particular matter.

 

many Americans do

 

i know you're not talking about me

i have been very open about being a gun owner for years

 

Yes, many are willing to abdicate their responsibilities to the government...something the LW sells in their snake oil.