Why not mandate trigger locks and locked gun cases?

Everything changes, being conservative you don't like that but it's the central point of modern life.

 

Let me know when the 2nd is repealed.

 

Or reinterpreted, and most of what I have suggested as being acceptable (stringent licensing with annual mental health evaluations) is legal under Heller in my humble and non-lawyer opinion

 

LMAO, "You think" You Sir, think incorrectly, if that were the case you would see truck loads of guns, illegals and criminals be paraded before the MSM showing how your campaign to rid the U.S. of illegal firearm was working!

But that's enough of fantasy, none of that is happening and children are dying as we post because all the attention is focused on suburbia with the "Oh So Concerned" leftist

 

How many times has the SCotUS reversed itself?
How many times has it done so in such a way that it removed or reduced the constitutional rights of the people?
When you have the answers to these questions, you'll understand that this will not happen either.

As you indicate, your opinion here is anything but learned.

 

When the Constitution was written, frontiersmen need to keep their Kentucky rifles ready to repel hostiles and marauders that roamed the land. Please note the Bill of Rights was written in 1791 after the American Revolution.
"Fresh in their minds was the memory of the British violation of civil rights before and during the Revolution. They demanded a "bill of rights" that would spell out the immunities of individual citizens. Several state conventions in their formal ratification of the Constitution asked for such amendments; others ratified the Constitution with the understanding that the amendments would be offered."

 

Why bother? The leftist don't even focus on pockets of known abuse of well defined laws concerning illegal possession of illegal firearms? Just so you don't forget, those criminals thugs the left ignore in our gun infested ghettos, they don't really subscribe to current laws concerning firearm registration So your plan address's WHO, Me? I have already submitted to several background check with the last four thru ICE, so, you want to what, have us lawful do it again just for leftist redundancy!

OK, I'd more then happy to IF it help realize ridiculousness

 

The USA is not Nazi Germany. Laws are not immediately enforced with total perfection when first passed. Also, as I said and as should be obvious to anyone it's just about impossible to enforce any laws against illegal guns when so many legal guns exist. No doubt your next post will be to state one or another variant of the idea that since the law can be broken at all we should not have any law. I really feel little tolerance for utter absurdity today so please spare us that one

 

Well it's been GROWING in numbers for better then a half century, how much longer you estimate the children being shot in the ghettos will go on?

"I said and as should be obvious to anyone it's just about impossible to enforce any laws against illegal guns when so many legal guns exist".

So now it's Impossible to enforce, because there are to many guns, So with that you want to enact redundant laws, that only effect law abiding people because that will somehow keep a illegal firearm out of the hands of the criminals the current laws haven't immediately been enforced.

Well holy WTF Batman, now that you put it like that, GOOD JOB(??) I think

 

As i understand the matter the SCOTUS cannot reverse itself, though it can so in a de facto manner through reinterpretation as it did in Brown vs Board of Education "overturning' Plessy vs Ferguson

Prohibiting guns entirely would enhance all our rights, through reinforcing our right to stay alive, basic to all the rest.

 

NO laws effect law-abiding citizens. Laws enable us to arrest and incarcerate those who BREAK them, that is, criminals. If you do not break the law you will be unaffected by it. I asked you not to bring up this totally absurd idea but I guess it just obsesses gunnies, or you misunderstand the entire concept of law that thoroughly. Laws do not enforce themselves and people do break them, that is the warp and weft of a large part of all governmental functions, that is, law enforcement. Please forgive my imitation of Captain Obvious but I really don't understand why gunnies don't seem to get this.

 

Sorry, I see a big difference in leaving the keys to my gun safe where they can be had versus leaving the keys to my car where they can be had. If the father knows he would be equally responsible for what his son does with the father's gun, the father might consider a gun safe with a combination lock and not a gun safe with a key. it's all a matter of how much risk the father wants to take. There's been a lot of different ideas on what to do to cut down on the mass shootings. One thing I can say for sure about my idea, as harsh as it seems, is it would cut down on mass shootings.

 

And therein lay the problem All of your silly ideas only address the legal, responsible and innocent gun enthusiast while all these decades the leftist have all but ignored the criminals and their blatant disregard for laws, restrictions and rules associated with firearm ownership.

You make this case with this post, BUT, I'll bet dollars to doughnuts you will fall right back to posting ridiculous ONE SIDED ideas that in no way have ever stopped a criminal from willingly taking up arms, murdering, selling or buying what you and the others put to law!

Laws are only for the lawful, it's really just that simple! My suggestion to you and all your fellow concerned leftist is strike up protest to remove weapons and STOP thousands of murders within the Ghettos, sanctuaries/cities/states! But I promise it will fall on deaf ear because your crap of a party will not win another election if they harass their base

 

How about stopping the use of Amphetamines, Adderall, Atomoxetine, Ritalin like candy for active kids and giving them more Physical training?

 

They are the most common, because they are the most affordable, and are considered as an acceptable measure of secure storage in every single state in the united states. They are also the ones most easily tampered with and defeated, and possess the biggest glaring flaw to the security provided by them; they can be access by anyone with the key. Unless there is only one key in existence, and it is possessed by yourself at all times throughout the day, there is nothing more than can be done beyond the safe.

And if the combination is written down on a piece of paper because it cannot be remembered by yourself, is it your fault if the combination is eventually discovered and used by someone other than yourself to gain access?

What are you even talking about?

There is no evidence that such a claim is factually valid or correct.

Except such is a legal standard that simply cannot be had. It is a long established, long understood matter of settled law that once something is no longer in the possession of the one who owns it, the legal owner cannot be held responsible for whatever is done with their legal property; especially if the property was taken from them in an act of theft, thus rendering them a victim of crime in the process.

 

Because he was never arrested, because law enforcement officers refused to do their job.

Explain, what more can be done when law enforcement will simply refuse to do its job, and not arrest someone when they are engaged in domestic violence, making terrorist threats, cruelty to animals, or threatening family members with a firearm?

Everyone speaks about so-called "more thorough background checks" but absolutely on one elaborates on just what such means in practical, technical terms. More thorough than what exactly? What will be considered as a disqualifying offense under the proposal that is not already?

 

We are not discussing situational awareness to avoid wandering into a bad situation that can easily be avoided. What is being discussed is defensive tools that are used when the bad situation has already been entered into, or has otherwise found and set upon you through the actions of an outside party.

Try again. Name the best available self defense tool in existence, for when everything has gone wrong and there is no avoidance to be had. Do not claim that one should "never" need a firearm if they are properly alert and aware, because real life does not work as such. Things will always go wrong, one way or another.

 

What is the point of discussing the merits of what is a physical impossibility? Explain such. Why discuss something that can never come to pass?

One may as well make plans for what they would do if they should ever come across a talking unicorn, as it has the same likelihood of coming to pass.

In may cases, the lives of those children are protected by those who have firearms.

Then what is being proposed by yourself, as a perceived alternative to a firearm, is being both dependent upon government like a child is to their parents, and living in a state of perpetual fear to the point of never setting foot outside of the home.

Reported for the numerous, numerous offenses that have been committed in the space of just a few short paragraphs.

 

Such firearms existed in the cited time frame as well. It was the M1 Carbine. And unlike the AR-15, the M1 Carbine was a true military rifle, with a bayonet lug, some with folding stocks, and they had the ability to accept a detachable magazine with a thirty round capacity. They were even available through the mail without any background checks, or paperwork beyond the order form.

 

Does your firearm provide an avenue for gaining access to the psychologically fragile, and bullying them to the point they choose to commit suicide, rather than read one more unkind statement directed against them?

 

The united state supreme court, however, did. And what they said was the use of trigger locks, among other methods of rendering a firearm disabled for the purpose of self defense, cannot be mandated by law. If an individual decides that they will not use such a device, the government has no authority under the united states constitution to punish them for their noncompliance.

 

What amounts to "securing the keys" in this case?

Cite the evidence of such. If it were indeed the case then he would be facing federal firearms charges right now.

 

O.K., for every man that has to write down his combination number there might be a couple of men still capable of memorizing their number. That's better than taking no safety measures at all.