Some facts about guns in the US

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by James R, Dec 17, 2012.

  1. Truck Captain Stumpy The Right Honourable Reverend Truck Captain Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,263
    I don't know where you live, but in the united states, via the second amendment, it is considered a right.
    you had better hope this does NOT happen, because when it does, likely the rest of the rights you enjoy will follow close behind
    ONE MAJOR reason the founding fathers included the 2nd amendment and the RIGHT to keep and bear arms was to protect the citizens from tyranny, and IMHO, given the rest of the statements within the Declaration of independence and Constitution, it is the DUTY of able bodied citizens, per the site http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/...ource Center Site/Publications/PDFs/M-654.pdf , which is a GOVERNMENT site, to throw off the government and the mantle of oppression that violates freedom, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that the Constitution guarantee's and REPLACE the government that abuses them. see the following quote from the declaration:
    Now, I am not saying that we should all rise as one today and throw off the current regime and establish a democratic government, just that we should all remember that we ALSO have DUTIES as citizens under the constitution!
    And you honestly think sharing your opinion in such a manner is objective and logical?
    For what it's worth, your opinion against
    is a little confusing, because you DO know that without those guns and people that are willing to stand up for the RIGHTS guaranteed under the Constitution, like the soldiers who serve in the military, then you would not have the freedom to post your opinion like above, nor the RIGHT to verbally express yourself?

    what have YOU done to guarantee that all people are given the ability to exercise the rights granted to them under the constitution?
     
    Last edited: Jul 19, 2014
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,420
    yes thanks to the NRA and people like you who ignore history. no it won't. we didn't have the right to a gun for the first 3 quarters of our countries existence and we gained in rights.
    your parnoia isnot enough of a reason to put people's lives at risk. and the second amendment has nothing to do with protections of tyranny. its about national security.
    one of which is to understand which you,ice, and the rest of pro gun horde should.
    only going off of what they say. should i not take them at their word?
    the military has done alot for my rights. you and and crazy friends with guns in woods not so much. the gun nuts have been the first to cheer as rights have been taken away. the only right they care about is their fraudalent right to a gun. they ignore the rest.

    well for starters I don't threaten to shoot people who disagree with me like gun nuts. I think I vote I promote free media and free speech the true gaurdians against tyranny.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,420
    how about my right not to threatened by a pyschopath with a gun?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Truck Captain Stumpy The Right Honourable Reverend Truck Captain Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,263
    it IS a big deal. She had a SAFE, safety classes... etc, she did the RIGHT things, but he was able to accesss the firearms. This is NO DIFFERENT than a CRIMINAL BREAKING INTO HER HOME and stealing her firearms from her safe and committing a crime! She is obsolved of responsibility because the CRIMINAL is the one who acted against the law and caused the situation.
    You must not have a great deal of responsiblity around your home if you think that, just because a parent has firearms, a child will eventually go off and kill someone, which is inferred by your post.
    AS LONG AS THERE ARE GUN FREE ZONES ESTABLISHING A ZONE WHERE PEOPLE CANNOT PROTECT THEMSELVES AND THERE IS NO ON SITE ARMED LAW ENFORCEMENT, then we will need to get used to it OR CHANGE IT! Don't put words in my mouth. I say enough that makes others angry (as your reply proves).
    IF you don't like the 2nd amendment, given your current right to freedom of movement, you absolutely have the right to leave... please feel free
    No, I am NOT. The CORE PROBLEM (THIS is the KEY WORDS HERE... the CORE PROBLEM!) is NOT THE GUN ISSUE, it is the PEOPLE WHO COMMIT THE CRIMES.
    No... again, you are not being logical. The reason she gave LESSONS was to promote SAFETY and make a safer shooter. The CRIME that was committed was because of a CRIMINAL, making a DECISION to do something illegal.
    Do you honestly think that if he NEVER had any training on weapons but still wanted to commit the crime that he would even CONSIDER NOT DOING IT because he didn't have a certificate from NRA proving he was a safe shooter? Really?
    Now THAT is totally illogical!
    No, they DON'T, not legally, and not in reality. do you make the assumption strictly based upon your fear and hatred of guns and the people willing to own them for protection? Lets take another object for a minute.
    YOUR TOOTHBRUSH
    YOU are saying it is community property. So, per your above comments, it is perfectly OK for your kids/spouse/room-mate/other person living in your home to clean the toilet with it regardless of your beliefs or thoughts on the subject.
    THAT is pretty much the basic gist of your comment. Now... if you TRULY believe this, then FINE: there is nothing more to discuss about that issue... BUT... if you raise even ONE objection, then you must admit that you are WRONG about the gun/home issue. It is NO different.
    personal conjecture not based upon empirical data. Unless you were a personal friend, you are making assumptions here that are founded in YOUR fear and hatred, not reality.
    this is based upon your experience as a psychologist? psychiatrist? profession?
    You should calm down... you will cause unnecesarry stress and create a situation where you could have a myocardial infarction...
    it is your PERSONAL OPINION ONLY... and just as valid as any other person, psychotic or fanatic!

    People who live in glass houses should not throw stones. PERSPECTIVE is everything
    utilising a firearm should be a last resort, and is taught in Concealed carry license classes I've taught/been to. and also in the military and as an investigator.
    So your alternative is to create a society of targets where people are not allowed to defend themselves? Your black and white views are part of the problem with attempting to have a logical discourse and communicate with opposite viewpoints. It is neither logical nor sane, IMHO.
    passed the classes a few decades ago. you are missing the point...
    first off... I would LOVE to see you go to South Miami, or L.A., or Chicago, and stand in front of a plethora of gangbangers and start feeding them this soliloquey.

    You are also very incredibly wrong. As I stated before... it is an EQUALIZER: an 80 year old grandmother weighing in at 100 lbs is given the ABILITY to DEFEND HERSELF and her family against a 250 pound PLUS criminal.

    personal conjecture... it is YOU who is missing the point. That is why i chose hyperbole. Not to brag, but I have two 4 year degree's (Physical Science with a specialty in Fire Science and Investigation, and Business Management with a specialty in Emergency Services Management) the moniker Truck Captain is not some attempt to feel special: I am a retired SOLDIER as well as Truck Captain and I have been called Truck Captain Stumpy (in the MILITARY as well as in civilian life) for almost 3 decades.

    Perhaps you should consider calming down and reading for comprehension?
    Wait... WAIT... WHAT????

    protecting our children is WRONG in your eyes? HAving an armed cop on site to protect kids is WRONG and NAZI LIKE?

    I just wasted a LOT of time replying to you. This conversation will not go anywhere else with your skewed perspective... consider this my LAST reply to you.
    You are not capable of intellectual discourse, nor of sane replies. This is an obvious attempt to troll and cause disruption, IMO

    I don't need another flame war NOR do I need to argue in circles with a troll... I get enough of that elsewhere

    good bye
     
  8. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,574
    In fact it is. The Second Amendment specifies an individual right to own weapons. The Supreme Court has stated this on several occasions, most recently in Heller.
    Nope. All have upheld the Second Amendment, and affirmed that the US government cannot prohibit the ownership of personal weapons.
    1840 Aymette v. The State - made it illegal to ban concealed personal weapons in Tennessee.
     
  9. Truck Captain Stumpy The Right Honourable Reverend Truck Captain Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,263
    and how do you figure this?
    People have always owned guns in american history. From the old west and Mountain Men to the farmers and more. Where do you get that we didn't have that right in the first 3 quarters of our countries existence? From crica 1492 on or from 1776 on?
    The United States didn't exist before our declaration of independence, and we've been an armed populace since the war started in 1776 (which we had ARMED MILITIA taken from the PUBLIC) ... so your comment is not factual as written.
    for starters, it is not MY paranoia, it was the FOUNDING FATHERS. I quoted to you from the Declaration of Independance and Constitution, AND those quotes (and that link) come directly from the U.S. GOVERNMENT.

    It was not my personal bias, conjecture, speculation, or anything specific to me... it was a direct quote from the government website which contains the Constitution and its rights/responsibilities.
    Perhaps you should have read it?
    and I reiterate: RE-READ the Declaration of Independance and the Constitution. The 2nd amendment is about keeping the PUBLIC armed for not only the ability to draw upon the citizens for armed militia but also for the reasons I quoted above directly from the Declaration... to INSURE that we have the ability to guard ourselves from a government of tyranny.

    Again... try READING the document... that is why I linked it.
    this makes NO sense, even when read with my quote, as you obviously intended it.

    Perhaps you could elicudate?
    them? I have no idea. I don't know them.
    Me? I try to always keep my word as well as present my word as a standard to which you can count upon.
    But that does not mean that all gun owners will be "violent fucks with guns" which will "go on a murder spree".
    I am a RETIRED SOLDIER Injured in the line of duty, "dude". I am not just ANY crazy person in the woods.
    You don't know me.
    and I will state now that you are not only WRONG, but this is a delusional conjecture that is not based upon evidence in reality.
    I DISPISE people who violate the rights of others
    I used to put punks like that in JAIL, and I would STILL be doing it if I was able to go back to work.
    I STILL live by the oath I took to protect and defend the constitution, INCLUDING YOUR RIGHT to spew unfounded conjecture on a public site.
    are you trying to infer that I AM threatening people who disagree with me?
    Perhaps you should read up more on WWII and the consequences of DISARMING the public... They were FATAL in some areas, and the freedom of speech went just as soon as the public was disarmed... all in the name of national security and the war effort.
     
  10. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,574
    Or your right to not have a psychopath scream obscenities in your face? Or the right to not have a religious fanatic kill you with a suicide vest? Or the right to not have a drunk driver kill you and your family? You have two choices:

    1) Ban guns, free speech, freedom of religion and private ownership of cars
    2) Pass laws that ban violence and assault

    Which do you prefer?
     
  11. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,959
    The Not So Obviously Obvious?

    You seem to be overlooking the obvious middle ground: Perhaps the phrase "responsible gun owner" could have some actual meaning?

    Okay, I admit, it's not so obvious, since that solution is one that "responsible gun owners" won't accept.

    Consider your first point; of the five things "banned", four cannot be, so you're talking about constitutional amendment. I would think at some point that actual responsible gun ownership would be an option on the table, as it would seem the easier solution.

    And think about cars for a moment. As much as "responsible gun owners" would like us to believe they are not smart enough to comprehend the difference between devices designed, to the one, for writing or, to the other, killing. No matter what comparison they make, be it pencils or cars or eggs, we must always accommodate them by pretending there is no difference. True, not a one of them can explain just how I kill anyone a quarter mile away with a pencil or egg, but even in the case of the car there is still a difference. And it's a lot harder to kill someone with your car, say, "It was just an accident", and not even be charged with a crime.

    Meanwhile, we've got the NRA arguing to keep guns in the hands of violent criminals and alleged "responsible gun owners" supporting the effort because you just can't let the people you hate make progress. You know, compared to other people's lives? It's just a matter of priorities.

    Indeed, there comes a point where it's almost as if gun owners are rubbing it in. At least, as I look at the simplistic answers offered in support of gun rights, the arguments do nothing to reinforce any faith in the idea of the "responsible gun owner".

    I mean, really, what are we supposed to think of a discussion in which one wishes to parse issues of rights based on philosophical considerations of a toothbrush? Notice the mixing of mere customary respect and the idea of law. To the one, the answer is yes, they can clean the toilet with the toothbrush regardless of your thoughts on the issue. This is a legal assessment. To the other, one has legal authority over the children, and both spouses have agreed to live together in mutual respect; even by the most absurd notions of mutual respect our historical record includes, it is hard to see how using another's toothbrush to clean a toilet qualifies.

    However, the day someone toothbrushes twenty children to death in a school in under five minutes, I am certain a "responsible gun owner" will remind us that we need to ban toothbrushes before we get around to "banning guns".

    To the one, yeah, we get it. Don't hurt the "responsible gun owners". Focus on getting guns out of the hands of "dangerous people". Too bad every route to doing that just happens to overburden the "responsbile gun owners". Funny how that works, huh?

    It's kind of like rape prevention advice for women. Common sense applies to other people, not oneself. Just as common sense rape prevention that applies to the greatest proportion of rapes and puts any man on the potential suspect list apparently isn't common sense by definition, neither, we find out, is the sort of mandatory responsible gun ownership that might oblige "responsible gun owners" to greater legal exposure for their mistakes.

    These days, I find more talk about banning guns from the "responsible gun owners". It's a great way to brush aside more important discussions.
     
  12. Truck Captain Stumpy The Right Honourable Reverend Truck Captain Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,263
    It DOES have actual meaning, and it is spelled out among the myriad laws that essentially show that intentional (1st degree) homicide is illegal etc., JUST LIKE the same laws are also there for cars.

    IF you were to accidentally kill someone with your car, you are STILL liable for the death and responsible for the vehiclular damage... just like a gun.
    You are mistaking analogy for the inability to comprehend tool use. It is you who cannot comprehend what was said (at least by me) at this point.

    I will elucidate the pencil/car/gun analogy.

    The GUN is a TOOL, just like the Car, Pencil and a spoon. In order to utilise a tool, you must intentionally pick it up and use it. There is no power in a tool that is not wielded by a PERSON. A car MUST have a driver (excepting KITT from Knightrider, the fictional fully automated intelligent car), the spoon must have someone to feed the mouth... you see where I am going, I hope. So a tool is only as useful as its user, and is only as dangerous as its user as well.

    This means that the danger and intent that people often assign to GUNS is wrongfully assigned, as it should be to the user. It is meant as a humorous but cogent reminder of the lack of ability of inanimate objects to function without a user present.
    for starters, a pencil or an egg is not intended for long distance use, however, technically speaking, you CAN kill someone will a pencil from a much larger distance if you were to use the pencil as a means to write an order to eliminate someone and send said message to a hit man/Army/Aircraft for execution of said order.

    But I digress... you are being facetious and irrelevant with your comment. You ASSUME that accidental death due to a car is not punishable. It is. For instance: You are driving down the road. You see where the maximum safe speed for a curve is listed at 35mph (or even kph- doesn't matter. you choose) and you know that your vehicle can effectively maneuver through the curve at 50 moh/kph because you have safely done it in the past. You cannot slow to 35 mph/kph quickly enough (lets say this curve is getting off of the freeway/autobahn). You enter the curve at 40 mph/kph and a freak accident occurs: your tire seal (the bead with the rim) disengages and you have am instant decompression of the steer tire, drivers side. Not likely at all, so this is considered a freak accident. You hit someone and they die. You are the operator of that vehicle, and thus are responsible for that death, regardless of the circumstances of the death. You WILL be required BY AMERICAN LAW (as well as other countries) to pay for the death. You may not serve time in jail for the death, but you WILL pay for it.

    There is NO DIFFERENCE between existing gun laws and accidental vehicle deaths. You WILL PAY for the death, but you may not serve time in prison/jail.

    BUT THAT IS NOT ALL... you must also insure that your INTENT was not to commit said homicide. In a vehicle, if your tire was to decompress because of poor maintenance or you KNOW of a bubble of expansion and drove anyway, that makes the INTENT different: YOU WILL BE CHARGED WITH A CRIME IN THAT CASE. If your vehicle fails due to a mechanical difficulty/failure that you had to have been aware of, then you are culpable and a crime has been committed. Just like DUI/DWI (Driving Under the Influence/ Drivine While Intoxicated) you may not have been in the right mind to specifically INTEND to kill someone, however, your cause of inebriation (or in the case of mechanical failure, your cause of accident) was KNOWN and the INTENT was to become inebriated (or in the case of the mechanical failure: the cause was KNOWN and you FAILED to fix it, therefore you are every bit as culpable of a death afterwards).

    You should already be aware of this under American Law (ignorance of the law is no excuse) as it is spelled out fairly clearly in the DOT and FED laws regarding use/responsibilities of operating a vehicle. WHEN THERE IS A DEATH IN A VEHICLE ACCIDENT, people investigate it, and if they can prove there was a failure that had to be known (most dangerous failures don't just suddenly happen: there are usually warning signs that are visible/audible/knowable even to non-mechanics) then the operator of that vehicle WILL be responsible under the law and charged with a crime!
    This is NOT ONLY PERSONAL CONJECTURE, this is BLATANTLY FALLACIOUS. (IOW- a known LIE)

    THE NRA does NOT support arming criminals or Felons, or even the mentally insane. Please take the time out to look at thier information as well as web page before making claims like this. They have a set of rules and laws that they PUBLISH and are OPEN TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC.

    JUST BECAUSE YOU ARE FEARFUL and PARANOID does NOT give you the right to publish libelous comments in a public forum on a public access site. You DO realise that you are also culpable for your actions here as well, right?
    again, I refer you to the NRA web site. You have obviously NOT done any research on this subject, and as such your claims lack validity. You are making a personal conjecture based upon your fear, not any laws, rules, etc... It is YOUR responsibility as the person making the claim to provide proof of claim, and your claims are invalidated with a basic knowledge of the US laws and NRA rules. IOW - You are making another fallacious claim. There are etiquette rules for gun owners AS WELL AS LAWS that MUST be abided by.
    again, you missed the point of the post: EVEN WITH A SPOUSE and with CHILDREN, there is such thing as PERSONAL PROPERTY and COMMUNITY PROPERTY.

    The mother in the case mentioned took all the right precautions for a gun owner: a safe. classes on safety, etc etc etc... (read the link I left). The poster I spoke to about toothbrushes made a fallacious claim that ALL PROPERTY in a house was community. This is legally as well as morally untrue.

    Parents DO have a responsibility for children's actions. True. BUT A CRIMINAL WILL CIRCUMVENT THE RULES AND LAWS REGARDLESS OF INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY OR GUARDING. There is NO WAY to circumvent a criminal that is intent on committing a crime and willing to take any risk for said crime. NONE. The criminal in question would gain access to the safe regardless of the knowledge of the combination/key/whatever because that is the end goal.

    YOu also mention another VERY IMPORTANT ITEM: MUTUAL RESPECT. A criminal has NONE. The criminal in question was not thinking of respecting his mother when he took her weapons and killed her. Your spouse/children mutually respect YOUR toothbrush, and it is considered YOURS... to which anything they do with it (like clean a toilet) is their responsibility and you can punish them afterwords (by whatever means you use) failure to punnish means that you are creating a future person who fails to respect others property as well as fails to recognize personal respect. It also means that the other person fails to recognize personal responsibility and the responsibilities under the law/culture.

    My point was not a LEGAL assessment. it was pointing out the fallacy of the belief system/structure of thought that the previous user/poster was utilising regarding the personal property vs. shared community property in a household.
    strawman as well as ridiculous. If there is an armed COP at the school, that toothbrush will not do much harm, will it? in certain schools that provide protection for their children, like where I live, ANY ATTACKER will have to deal with armed force.

    ALSO- with the right frame of mind and little training, a toothbrush can be made into a very effective weapon for killing. (SEE: PRISON/JAIL shanks that can be made from a toothbrush)
    Actually, YOU DON'T GET IT.

    There are VERY EFFECTIVE LAWS ALREADY IN PLACE THAT ARE NOT BEING ENFORCED. Like I said... do a little research. Go talk to cops and have them look up the actual numbers or go online to DOJ and NIH and find out some REAL numbers: HOW MANY FELONS were prevented from purchasing weapons by the background check? HOW MANY OF THOSE FELONS WERE PROSECUTED? start there and research further... you will be surprised at how many FELONS go free after committing FELONIES.

    WHY? part of it is the man hours researching, locating and capturing said felon. The time/effort is not worth the utilisation of man hours when it is easier to just let it go and then use the attempt later when the felon is captured. WHY IS THAT? because taxpayers (like you) do NOT want to pay to keep MORE cops on the street for security (which is WHY you need self-protection, by the way)

    It all boils down to money. People don't want to pay for more cops (or even professional firefighters in most cases) so they don't let laws get passed promoting more money and taxes supporting more cops (or professional firefighters, or higher pay for emergency services, nurses, etc)
    first of all, your links are to THIS SITE and comment threads. This is NOT a viable means for logically making the claims you are making, only for showing that there are people in this site that you don't agree with.

    Second, I cannot speak for ANYONE ELSE on this site. I may say something they agree with, but that does NOT make ME responsible for THEIR words.

    lastly, Common Sense applies to EACH PERSON INDIVIDUALLY. You MAY be mistaking personal responsibility with common sense, as I do not really understand the point you are trying to make in that paragraph.

    Feel free to elucidate whenever.
    This I actually AGREE with. There are FAR too many people wanting to talk about GUNS instead of the CORE ISSUES/CORE PROBLEMS surrounding the whole gun situation, which really is VIOLENCE, and the PEOPLE WHO COMMIT VIOLENCE. (which, by definition, are criminals UNLESS they are attempting to defend oneself)
     
    Last edited: Jul 20, 2014
  13. Truck Captain Stumpy The Right Honourable Reverend Truck Captain Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,263
    TO PROVE this point, one only has to look at the Penal system. In a JAIL or PRISON, which is GUARDED, 24/7/365 by armed guards as well as other prison guards, there is STILL a problem with drugs getting into the prison system and jail system. There is also a problem with gangs/mobs bosses etc still being able to perform duties from inside, like request a hit, or talk about business... even with all their mail opened and searched, all their visitors searched and being guarded.

    A criminal intent on committing a crime WILL FIND A WAY.
     
  14. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,959
    On History and Context

    As I have said many times, every "responsible gun owner" is a "responsible gun owner" until he or she isn't.

    Right. If I negligently kill a seven year-old child because I didn't follow basic safety protocols while carrying a firearm without proper license, how is it that I wouldn't be charged? I guarantee you that if I ran down my child with a car while driving without a license, at night, without headlights, there would be no question of what I was charged with.

    But, hey, if I do it with a gun? No charges.

    The number of times "responsible gun owners" plead that they didn't know there was a round in the chamber? Hey, they were "responsible gun owners" right up until the moment someone died.

    This is what needs to stop, and apparently mandatory responsibility with a gun is a constitutional violation because it bans guns, or something like that. But what we do know is that, at least within our Sciforums community, firearms advocates resist even these basic needs for mere political sentiment.

    And I mention this community because it also arises in a context relevant to your responses.

    To wit, this. There's a longer discussion behind the point you responded to; Bill, for instance, regardless of whether or not he agrees, ought to be able to recall the bit about holding up a store with fried eggs.

    As to your elucidation, the problem is that your analogy only works one way. That is to say, when you send me an SMS from your handgun while waiting at a red light as you ride your rifle to work, the whole gun as a tool analogy will have better standing.

    And it is true that the problem is the operator of any given device. But therein we also encounter a problem; as I have noted before, the firearms discussion pressed close enough to me that it became an issue of political conscience when I was a teenager, twenty-five years ago after Stockton.

    The debate has long centered on the question of what is banning guns versus keeping the guns out of the wrong hands while not burdening the "responsible gun owners". And what the last quarter century has shown is that, for firearms advocates generally—as characterized according to political argument and societal outcomes—will not permit society to keep guns out of the wrong hands if that means the so-called, self-proclaimed "responsible gun owners".

    What about when the opposite of that is used as a legal defense?

    Kochems said he considered the charge, a misdemeanor punishable by up to five years in prison, because Loughrey's gun was loaded when he put it in his truck moments before the gun fired on Dec. 8, killing his son, Craig. The boy had been buckling himself into his safety seat in his father's truck when the handgun, which was placed on the truck's console, fired as Joseph Loughrey got into the front seat, police said.

    Loughrey had removed the magazine from the pistol but didn't realize there was still a round in the chamber when he tried to sell the 9mm pistol at Twig's Reloading Den in East Lackawannock Township, about 60 miles northwest of Pittsburgh, police said. When the sale didn't go through, Loughrey brought the gun back to the truck, where it accidentally fired.

    Kochems said in a statement that the evidence "shows that Mr. Loughery recognized that he could not carry a loaded firearm in his vehicle and believed he unloaded the firearm at home before taking it to the dealer to attempt to sell it and another weapon." Only people with a license to carry a concealed weapon may keep a loaded gun in their vehicle, said the statement, first reported Wednesday by The Herald newspaper of Sharon, Pa.

    Kochems said his investigation determined that Loughrey stored the gun at home in a locked location, separate from the magazine, from which Loughrey unloaded the bullets before taking the gun with him to sell that day. Loughrey had stored the gun that way since he last shot it over the summer.

    Loughrey "only owned the weapon for the past two years and rarely practiced with it," Kochems said Tuesday in the statement. "He had failed to clear the chamber of the cartridge that caused his son's death the last time he had fired the pistol and did not do so when he picked it up months later and took it to sell."

    Kochems said he still could have filed the unlicensed firearm charge because of Loughrey's "lack of understanding, practice and/or training" about how he should have properly stored the firearm, but he decided not to because Loughrey "had a mistaken but good faith belief that he had properly secured and stored the firearm unloaded in his home and his belief was the proximate cause of the death of his son and not that he was carrying the firearm in his vehicle."


    (Mandak)

    Yes, responsible gun ownership.

    Funny thing is that if I dig through the archives enough, I can find among the myriad gun-issue discussions at this site a former Marine aruging as a firearms advocate telling us that guns just can't accidentally fire by themselves.

    Except, as we have repeatedly found out over the years, when a gun firing itself becomes a legal defense.

    All he had to do was check the chamber. You know, like a responsible gun owner should.

    Please show me an automotive analogy, where negligence counts as a good faith defense against even being charged with a crime. Show me where abandonment of basic safety protocols in an automobile is an excuse to not charge someone if they kill another person with their car while operating without those protocols. Please.

    I recognize that many firearms advocates see no difference between an object that could kill a person (car, pencil, fried eggs ... why not add trees and airplane lavs to the list?) and an object designed for the specific purpose of killing. So even setting that issue aside, the whole gun-as-tool analogy still suffers a logical problem demanding resolution.

    Again, there is a larger backstory to the pencil and egg thing, however, setting that aside, as well as the pedantic observation that one would use a pen to sign such an order (file under, "We know what you mean", or, more formally, the Principle of Charity in Philosophical Discourse), I do, in fact, wonder at your preferred gun of choice when signing anything. A handgun? Assault rifle? Maybe go with an MP-5 for a nice compromise? Or how about a Mossberg shotgun? That'll leave a mark, for certain.

    Methinks something got lost in your translation.

    Right. So if I kill a seven year-old while speeding around in my car at night without headlights, the prosecutor is going to cut me a good faith break and not charge me because I thought I was being safe? How does the car analogy work in the Pennsylvania example quoted above?

    You know how many drunk drivers wouldn't be serving for homicide charges under that principle?

    I see. So let me get this straight: A responsible gun owner makes an argument, claiming reasonable knowledge by association of what other gun owners believe, and for me to grant that argument any weight on the table is "personal conjecture" and "a known lie"?

    Well, fine. That's what we get for trusting a self-proclaimed responsible gun owner, then?

    In reviewing the outlook expressed by our "responsible" gun owning neighbor, please note the issue he responded to:

    The National Rifle Association is fighting proposed federal legislation that would prohibit those convicted of stalking and of domestic violence against dating partners from buying guns, according to a letter obtained by The Huffington Post.

    (Bassett)

    I think your point there would be better served to start with marital community property, and examine the statutory record from there, such as adult children living in the household.

    And I also think there is a problem with the idea that Mrs. Lanza "took all the right precautions". She knew her son had mental health problems. She knew of his rising capacity for violence. Her response to this observation in terms of securing the firearms was, apparently, insufficient.

    Can you shank twenty kids to death in five minutes with a toothbrush?

    Recalling the history of the War Against Drugs, and the concomitant militarization of police departments, it's hard to see how your historical argument works. Furthermore, the privatization of prisons has gone over miserably, and the tough-on-crime politics of the Southern Strategy have simultaneously stepped up enforcement while trimming the fat in the form of stripping away any hope of our prison industry being corrective or rehabilitative.

    And although it is, perhaps, a separate component of the larger issue of firearms in society, it's worth noting that some police departments consider a concealed-carry permit a strike against a suspect. That is to say, it's the difference between a knock and announce search and the sort of no-knock raid that so often ends up with a dead suspect. Something about self-protection and the number of cops goes here, I suppose.

    Well, there is a larger discussion taking place than just what you say; to wit, Billvon, whether or not he agrees with my outlook, generally knows what I'm taliking about. There is a context there that you are excluding.

    Worry about burning that bridge once you've actually crossed it.

    Like I said, there's more going on in this discussion than you are accounting for. For instance, one of those links refers to our neighbor making an argument about sexual violence; it's a long, sticky mess in this community, but essentially it boils down to people trying to be useful by giving useless advice. That is, in addition to presuming the intended audience (i.e., women) stupid as bricks, the advice applies to a slender minority of reported rapes. The obvious solution addressing over seventy percent of reported rapes, however, is not, by definition, common sense. And while there is an issue of the difference between the empirically obvious or conventional wisdom defining common sense, one of the things about what some of us deride as Infinite Prevention Advocacy is that it's only known boundary is any rape prevention advice that includes the advocate among suspected potential rapists women are supposed to be able to identify. The neurotic implication, at the very least, is clear. Whether there is another explanation for this particularly acute expression of observably human behavior remains unanswered and, unfortunately, largely unaddressed.

    The other link points toward a recent thread about "no accidents" with firearms. You will note that "responsible gun owners" are uncomfortable with any specific legal obligation to that responsibility.

    This instinctive boundary needs to be addressed, demarcated, and crossed before any political discourse can become useful, otherwise the inherent conflict of passions and interests within a society paralyze that discussion.

    And part of that is the question of responsibility. There are many aspects to that, whether it's something simple like being certain the gun is unloaded, or how it is that guns end up in the toy box, or a person who carries a firearm as part of his profession leaves loaded guns easily accessible to children, and so on.

    Questions of violence are generational, and one of the hard things about changing attitudes toward violence on a societal level is that one must first penetrate the discourse in order to transform the core issues into something that facilitates actual, useful discourse.
    ____________________

    Notes:

    Mandak, Joe. "Joseph Loughrey, Dad Who Accidentally Shot Son, Craig, Outside Gun Shop, Won't Be Charged: DA". Associated Press. January 16, 2013. HuffingtonPost.com. July 20, 2014. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/...ad-shoots-son-outside-gun-shop_n_2489451.html

    Bassett, Laura. "NRA Fights For Convicted Stalkers' Gun Rights". The Huffington Post. June 25, 2014. HuffingtonPost.com. July 20, 2014. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/25/nra-stalkers-_n_5530097.html

    Balko, Radley. Overkill: The Rise of Paramilitary Police Raids in America. Washington: Cato Institute, 2006. Cato.org. July 20, 2014. http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/balko_whitepaper_2006.pdf
     
  15. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    Not to nitpick... but I'm not so sure this case is necessarily applicable here. Yes, the father SHOULD have known better - firearms safety 101 - clear the chamber whenever you are not actively firing the gun. However, it was his own son that was killed as a result of his negligence... should he be punished further? I'm not so sure... I mean, that's a pretty damn hefty blow in itself - he just accidentally killed his own boy. I dare say, there is no punishment the government could met out that would be worse than what he is already feeling.

    If it had been someone else's child? Again... I'm not sure what further punishment could be met out. Mandatory re-training in firearms safety? Being banned from owning/handling a firearm? Perhaps. Jail time? I dunno...

    You compared his actions to someone driving a car without headlights, at night, and running over a child. That would be cause for Vehicular Manslaughter, plus I would think criminal negligence for driving without headlights; driving without headlights isn't an "honest mistake" though, it's a choice. From that article though:

    Assuming the article is about an even even two or three months old, that still means it's been several MONTHS since he last shot the gun. It sat at home, locked up, without the magazine in it, for months. Now, again, gun safety 101 - when he went to bring the gun to the dealer to sell, he SHOULD have checked and cleared the chamber. As the judge said though:

    The man didn't make a choice to endanger his child - it was a misplaced belief that he had, when he last fired it several months ago, already secured the firearm.

    Now... do we punish him for that mistaken belief? That... that is a difficult question. Even more difficult - would any charges that COULD be levied against him actually be more punishment than knowing he had, by his own mistake, killed his own son?

    I dare say the poor fool has suffered enough.


    Now, none of this is to say that I don't feel stricter regulations on firearms sales and safety are required. Personally, I would LOVE to see it come to pass where firearms have something like, say, a biometric scanner in them so that, unless the person who owns the gun is the one holding it, it will not fire. The practicality of something like that... well, I don't know. I do, however, believe it is ENTIRELY too easy for people to break into someones home, steal a firearm, and use it to commit further crimes. Perhaps as part of the firearms sale process, a person should be required to provide photo evidence that they actually have a gun safe? Such as a picture of them standing beside it? I dunno...
     
  16. Truck Captain Stumpy The Right Honourable Reverend Truck Captain Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,263
    Your argument is with the locals, the sheriff investigator, prosecutor and not with me regarding that... I would have prosecuted.
    this is a situational argument. it is only valid with the situation. EVERY GUN OWNER is taught that a gun is loaded. always. period. Just as I teach my grandchildren that there is NO SUCH THING as an unloaded gun, so too does the military and the NRA.
    Your argument is invalid to all users, only to those users to whose this excuse.

    AND remember that people USED to have the SAME problem with cars, right? "Officer, I didn't KNOW it was in gear... it jumpes when I turned the key..."
    and again, itis illegal to kill someone unless defending your life, your family etc... FROM YOUR ARTICLE LINK
    JUST LIKE I SAID
    there ARE laws.. right now you have a problem with Kochems, NOT ME, or OTHER GUN USERS.
    being absolved from the law and legal ramifications, yes.
    and AGAIN, no it is NOT.
    AND AGAIN, I refer you back to your OWN ARTICLE LINKED: you have a serious beef with Kochems, NOT GUN OWNERS, NOR OTHER LAW ABIDING CITIZENS
    and I will say it again, I do not speak for Bill, nor does ANYONE ELSE speak for me without my approval or consent. and I have NO PROBLEMS telling others that i do or do not agree with something.
    and again, I say that you do NOT understand the analogy. Would you say also: "when you send me an SMS from your screwdriver while waiting at a red light as you ride your hammer to work, the whole construction tool as a tool analogy will have better standing"?? NO, because it is ridiculous.
    So then why add said ridiculous argument to the situation?

    A gun is a metal/wood/other fabricated tool that is used by an individual to a purpose.
    A hammer is a metal/wood/other fabricated tool that is used by an individual to a purpose.
    A screwdriver is a Metal/plastic/other fabricated tool that is used by an individual to a purpose.
    A car is a metal/fabric/plastics fabricated tool that is used by an individual to a purpose.

    Thus, IF A TOOL, be it gun, screwdriver, car, hammer, knife, rubber mallet, duct tape, or otherwise, were left TO ITS OWN DEVICES AND VOLITION then it would be an INANIMATE FABRICATED TOOL that is incapable of harm regardless of intent of any users nearby.

    The CORE ISSUE is the USER, and SAID USERS INTENT. This is the point that the tool analogy is referring to. I should also point out that certain tools are KNOWN to be deadly and easily accessible to any person. Even CARS, though licensed, taxed and regulated, are easily available. They account for more deaths. But they are not on the BANNING block... WHY?
    convenience. image. purpose.
    PEOPLE need cars to get around (according to them), to get jobs, etc... they feel cars are tied to their image (many people do). They are purpose designed. They are also DEADLY in the wrong hands, or in the hands of the inexperienced, or in the hands of the mentally ill...
    and yet we let inexperienced drivers GET EXPERIENCE in our roads, and mentally ill people are licensed as well...

    People want to bad guns out of FEAR and the UNKNOWN, and those fears are fed upon my the willing, able and motivated, be it criminal or gun ban groups. If you were to listen to and regularly see Colion Noir's video's, you would see a person that was from an anti-gun background who chose education over ignorance, and became a gun supporter.
    the WHOLE problem is the issue of the operator, NOT THE TOOL... which is what I keep trying to say!

    If you have a negative past with firearms, then I am sorry. My wife was also negatively affected by guns in her past. She has lived with it for years. She also chose education over ignorance. (I choose the word ignorance with regard to this discussion because you seem as though you are educated, however you are incredibly UNEDUCATED as to firearms and their use, etc)
    you seem confused and you are not correct, either.
    THE LAW ABIDING CITIZENS and the members of NRA, every one I have EVER met, have all been ADVOCATES of keeping the firearms out of the hands of criminals and the insane... it is the ANTI-Gun group that makes claims like you have just made.

    The PRO-Gun groups want LAW ABIDING CITIZENS to be able to OWN FIREARMS whenever they choose, and to PROTECT THEIR LIVES AND FAMILIES. The PROBLEM arises when Anti-Gun groups start talking about restrictive laws that HAVE PROVEN INEFFECTIVE against CRIMINALS and so on... (See: Chicago, L.A., South Miami, New York, Washington DC, for evidence of INCREDIBLY STRICT firearms regulations that are ineffective)
    now WHY is it ineffective? it really is simple in those areas I mentioned: BECAUSE THE ONLY PEOPLE ABIDING BY THE LAWS ARE THE LAW ABIDING CITIZENS... NOT THE CRIMINALS. The Criminal has NO problems violating the law for personal gain... hence the term "criminal". The ONLY way you will make a DIFFERENCE is to do something ABOUT THE CRIMINAL, not the gun!
    see FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL LAWS for details about prosecution
    NO, that was NOT RESPONSIBLE OWNERSHIP... it was ALSO not responsible legal guardianship for written laws, nor of the rights of the deceased.

    you have a problem with the prosecutors, NOT WITH GUN OWNERS WHO ABIDE BY THE LAW AND TAKE RESPONSIBILITY
    Semper Fi. Marines are smart. They are RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNERS who are taught correctly.

    and he is VERY CORRECT. GUNS CANNOT FIRE of their own volition. they do NOT have a will of their own... like ANY OTHER TOOL.
    and AGAIN, I totally agree with that! HE SHOULD HAVE CHECKED, because there is NO SUCH THING as an unloaded weapon until it is cleared by YOU, locked and made safe EVERY TIME you touch it, and in such a manner as to show that said weapon CANNOT POSSIBLY BE FIRED. (In the military the slide must be locked back, magazine ejected and chamber cleared/open for visible inspection... and STILL the weapon was always treated as if LOADED and ready to fire!)
    FIREARMS 101
    I investigated a vehicular death where the car was parked. The owner was inside it, there was another person outside the vehicle. They were arguing. The owner tried to start the vehicle and claimed that she did not know it was in gear. The car jumped and pinned the other person to a wall, crushing the pelvis and severing the femoral artery, causing trauma and massive bleeding. The person died within minutes. The judge decided NOT to punish the woman despite my proof that the two people were constantly at each others throats and there was a history of attempted aggressive behavior on the part of the woman driver. The judge found sympathy, whereas I pushed for prosecution. The judge saw an accident that anyone could do, I saw a malicious intent driven attack... perhaps she didn't MEAN for it to kill the other person, but it did. This should have been manslaughter, but it was dismissed as an accident.

    SAID WOMAN was tried and convicted of vehicular homicide two years later for killing another person who she fought with regularly.

    Sometimes the system sucks... sometimes it works. Fecal matter happens.
    not true. The gun is specifically designed to kill, just like the KNIFE, and the BOW, and the CROSSBOW, and the SWORD, and the BLOWGUN, and more... but it was also designed as a tool to make eating easier... like all of the said above.

    Where I live, a person without a gun is food for wild animals. We have bear, mountain lion, wild boar, feral dog packs, coyote packs, and more. Taking a walk in the woods is taking your life into your own hands... LITERALLY (with or without a gun). My guns are primarily used for putting meat on my table (I don't make enough money on my military retirement to buy expensive stuff like fresh meats etc unless I go get food stamps, which I refuse to do) I use a black powder rifle, and I make my own powder and ball with local resources. and NO ONE bothers me at all. ever.
    I usually use a S&W model 10-9 snub nose adapted to take special bullet pens, which I carry in my ammo pouch (and I am not being sarcastic, either)
    Again, you miss the actual point... but OK. I have seen people die much worse, slower deaths from mundane common objects more often than I have treated gun deaths/wounds etc.
    perhaps something did... but l see where you make assumptions about guns as though other typical accidental deaths by other means similar would not be punished... and they ARE, given the correct investigator, prosecutor and judge.
    see my explanation earlier... there HAVE been PLENTY of vehicular homicide (as well as DUI/DWI deaths) that were excused by the good-ol-boy system, the prominance of the person, the money of the person, goodness or upstanding citizen awards by the offender, or otherwise... it's not like there isn't plenty of evidence of THAT... even STILL!

    one of my neighbors was just arrested for DWI after killing the other neighbors dog and barely missing him in the process... he is back driving again after 4 months... this was his 5th DWI in the last 7 years. He was let off because "he was a disabled vet, and he is a narc for the cops"
    Did you VERIFY his claims with the NRA?
    YOU ARE MAKING AN ASSUMPTION THAT THIS PERSON SPEAKS FOR THE NRA (OR ALL GUN OWNERS)... unless you specifically see their endorsement and seal, and they accept it as being in their image and what they believe... it is NOT from the NRA. and no one speaks for me.

    I would have checked with the NRA about the validity of his claims.

    Case in point: On another site I was told that modern astrophysicists do not know about plasma physics, and referenced the article and study use of MHD as proof of comment. I contacted the study author as well as the school supporting the study. MHD includes some plasma physics, and is a viable alternative to large structural models for plasma's. The plasma physics were ALSO modeled in the study and mentioned. The astrophysicist in question also pointed out that ALL ASTROPHYSICISTS MUST LEARN plasma physics in order to do the job and get the degree. IOW - just because person A makes a claim that seems logical (or something that the NRA or another person/institution appear to support) DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE SAID PERSON IS A SPOKESPERSON OR IN ANY WAY SPEAKING FOR THE INSTITUTION.

    this boils down to you having a beef with someone else (AGAIN) and NOT with the NRA, or even me.
    I will suggest to you to start here: http://membership.nrahq.org/about-us.asp and if you have more questions, contact the NRA site and get the TRUTH directly from the SOURCE
    for starters: Huffington post.
    and again... GO TO THE SOURCE AND FIND OUT THE TRUTH BEHIND THE NRA and their fight.
    there are STILL divisions of property, ownership and this is supported by LAW and moral/cultural values.
    like I said... a criminal will find a way regardless... MOST teens, especially teen males, go through an aggressive and violent stage (and likely she was also told this by her professionals dealing with the son)
    SHe might have been told that he would "outgrow" the problems, as many Dr.'s do still today (even with disease I know for a FACT they will not outgrow... but that is another argument)

    She took the right precautions. Safe. locks. secured guns. It was the criminal son who decided to ignore the laws and moral/cultural teachings and become a violent killer.
    INTENT. USE. PERSON SPECIFIC... like I said.
    Don't believe me? see the prison system for proof! Surrounded by ARMED and unarmed security/cops 24/7/365 and there are STILL drugs inside, homicide, violence, etc... DAILY.
    Could I personally physically do it? yes. Will I do it? no. I happen to like kids. (albeit fried or slow cooked - this is hyperbole with a dash of sarcasm)

    I could also shank adults lethally. I was trained to do so.
    But that is NOT the point. INTENT is the point. Just because I am CAPABLE, does not meant THAT I WILL.
    I hate to bust your bubble, but ALL police departments, Fire departments etc are already para-military organizations. In set up, execution and control. So what is your point with the propaganda leaflet? No matter WHERE you go, cops are para-military. Even Britain, where the basic Bobby is unarmed...
    perhaps private prisons in your state have failed, but in MY state, they actually support themselves completely, from making and selling goods (and services) to growing their own food. The only thing they DONT pay for is their building (initially).

    And our prisons are NOT rehabilitative AT ALL... never have been. Not likely to be, either. Right now they are learning institutions on how to be better criminals. that is it.
    that is a sad reflection of the leadership of the law enforcement agency. Your cops likely would enter MY house guns blazing, whereas the cops in my area enlist me for use in tracking, taking down criminals, investigation or security.

    Sorry you live where you do. I would ask where it is (to remember to stay away from there), but I don't want you to publish personal info on the web.
    I can only include or comment on conversations that I am aware of. and I am not aware of your conversations.
    Sorry to see that people can be so stupid while trying to be helpful. I've never supported sexual assault/rape in any way, and I've regularly taught self defense classes to women to protect from it
    rape is not just a specific human trait... there are instances in the animal kingdom. just sayin'
    please do not confuse the posters you see here with responsible gun owners. this is not a true representative group. I am a responsible gun owner. And I FULLY SUPPORT the laws and responsible gun ownership. What i DO NOT support is ignorance and blatant stupidity...
    this is 100% true. I fully support any attempts to change the attitudes towards violence. That would necessitate changing media and known outlets that utilize violence to sell, like news organizations. Good luck with that... given the changes in censorship from the 70's to today... it is NOT likely to change anytime soon, much to the disappointment of a great majority of peaceful people.
     
  17. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,946
    It's worth pointing out that very few of the rights you list are unqualified or absolute. And some are more there as an ideal than a practical reality you can rely on.

    The fact is, we do give up our right to privacy all the time, usually in return for a service of some kind. We give it up to governments and to businesses - even to individuals. The right to free speech is not absolute, but is subject to reasonable restrictions and laws. Freedom of religion is a nice idea, but in the US experience it has to be constantly fought for. Rights to possessions and property are not absolute either, and many types of property are heavily regulated by various laws. The fight for the right to a fair trial has been going on in the English-speaking world since the 9th century, yet it is still not guaranteed in practice. In the US today, for example, if you're black and/or poor you're far more likely to go to jail than a white, rich person (for the same crime). As for equal protection under the law, that too is more theoretical than actual. The right to vote? Not if you're one of those convicted black guys, or if you happen to share the same name as one of them.

    The point is, of course, not that these rights aren't valuable or important. The point is that no right is absolute. In fact, it is right and proper to limit the scope of these rights in certain situations. And yet, when it comes to guns, some people - the radical few, if you like - insist on unqualified rights.
     
  18. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,574
    Agreed, and that's what both sides often miss.

    For example, District of Columbia vs Heller is often cited by both sides in the debate, but for very different reasons. It held that a state/district could not ban guns - but could regulate them to some degree. The basic finding was that "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home." An important secondary finding was that "The Second Amendment right is not a right to keep and carry any weapon in any manner and for any purpose. The Court has upheld gun control legislation including prohibitions on concealed weapons and possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, and laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

    Agreed, and some people also support removal of that right. Fortunately both are in the minority.
     
  19. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,420
    the history of the courts rulings.
    that people owned guns doesn't mean their was a right to own a gun. or are we to assume cause people owned slaves there was a right to own slaves?
    so reading to instilled your own personal beliefs upon it and ignored what was written. that you believe it protects individual gun ownership is because of your biases. there is no personal right to a personal gun in there. it anmendment about national security nothing more nothing less
    makes perfect sense if one doesn't assume your automaticly right.
    than i suggest you do some sole searching cause such violent rhetoric is very common among the pro gun people.
    your right your trained to kill most aren't.
    I'm not wrong. I've seen the pro gun people cheer free speech zones, arizona's papers law, and other assualts on frredom. that's great you like other rights's and strive to protect them. you are not the norm.
    No that was a reference to sculptor and his threat.
    had the japanese been armed nothing would have changed the body count would have been higher. and nice reference to hitler but your mistaken hitler expanded gun rights over the old weimar republic.





    I'm ok with gun ownership but the simple fact remains owning a weapon shouldn't be a right but a privilage of those who are responsible the obligations it holds.
     
  20. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,420
    why don't you cite a court case from before heller? is it because they disagree with you?
     
  21. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,574
    Because Heller is relevant, recent and sufficient to show the decision of the US Supreme Court.

    Feel free to post any case you like.
     
  22. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,420
    So the 200+ years of precdent over turned is what exactly?
     
  23. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,574
    There was no precedent. The US Supreme Court has never upheld a comprehensive gun ban.
     

Share This Page