Now I have to carry Liability Insurance for my weapons

[mrsleeve]

My house is locked, or my truck when I have to leave a carry weapon in it to go into the post office. Is that not secure???

I mean its secure enough to store controlled substances prescribe by a doctor, money, valuable antiques, kids, pets, and all kinds of other things is this not considered secure enough for a fire arm. All those things require a cretin level of responsibility, to be kept out of the hands of nefarious individuals.

I mean someone steals your car, and kills or hurts someone with it, are you or your insurance company held financially responsible for that persons actions with your property they stole from you??? NO

More feel good arguments, that do absolutely nothing to stop or impede crime but do hamper and infringe on legal owners rights and ability to keep and bare arms.

Yup this this bill in mass will solve crime


AS to the nuke argument. I have gone though this many time already but I will just keep it short. The spirit and intent of the 2a was for the people to be able to keep any arm that a modern military individual rifle man would have access to on the battle field, and could maintain safely. A nuke is not deployed by an individual rifle man now is it nor maintained safely? And FYI Eastman Kodak had a private Nuke reactor in a basement in Rochester for a long as time.

[nrubenstein]

My house is locked, or my truck when I have to leave a carry weapon in it to go into the post office. Is that not secure???

I mean its secure enough to store controlled substances prescribe by a doctor, money, valuable antiques, kids, pets, and all kinds of other things is this not considered secure enough for a fire arm. All those things require a cretin level of responsibility, to be kept out of the hands of nefarious individuals.

I mean someone steals your car, and kills or hurts someone with it, are you or your insurance company held financially responsible for that persons actions with your property they stole from you??? NO

More feel good arguments, that do absolutely nothing to stop or impede crime but do hamper and infringe on legal owners rights and ability to keep and bare arms.

Yup this this bill in mass will solve crime


AS to the nuke argument. I have gone though this many time already but I will just keep it short. The spirit and intent of the 2a was for the people to be able to keep any arm that a modern military individual rifle man would have access to on the battle field, and could maintain safely. A nuke is not deployed by an individual rifle man now is it nor maintained safely? And FYI Eastman Kodak had a private Nuke reactor in a basement in Rochester for a long as time.

Actually, if you are sufficiently negligent, you can be held liable for that.

And no, I do not consider a locked house secure. A locked house does no more than lightly discourage theft, and you well know it. Outside of whatever it is that your paranoia feels the need to keep on hand for personal protection, weapons should be stored properly. And if you aren't home, then nothing needs to be unsecured.

As to spirit and intent, well, that's not written. As soon as you bring spirit and intent in, you are conceding that limits do apply. YOUR definition of the spirit and intent is NOT A WRITTEN RIGHT.

And, uh, there are quite a few other private entities that own nuclear reactors. How is that in any way relevant to this discussion?

[mrsleeve]

Actually, if you are sufficiently negligent, you can be held liable for that.

little thing called doctrine of proximate cause, (bold and color for important parts)
proximate cause n. a happening which results in an event, particularly injury due to negligence or an intentional wrongful act. In order to prevail (win) in a lawsuit for damages due to negligence or some other wrong, it is essential to claim (plead) proximate cause in the complaint and to prove in trial that the negligent act of the defendant was the proximate cause (and not some other reason) of the damages to the plaintiff (person filing the lawsuit). Sometimes there is an intervening cause which comes between the original negligence of the defendant and the injured plaintiff, which will either reduce the amount of responsibility or, if this intervening cause is the substantial reason for the injury, then the defendant will not be liable at all. In criminal law, the defendant's act must have been the proximate cause of the death of a victim to prove murder or manslaughter.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Proximate+Cause

In the case your implying the act of stealing the car and the recklessness or negligence involved in hitting or injuring another victim would supersede the car owner's negligence in leaving the car unsecured The same doctrine would apply to a thief that would then use a stolen firearm in a crime. Now if someone (like a kid) gets a hold of it and accidentally shoot them selves you might have case for for holding the original owner at fault to a certain degree, though it would be an uphill battle. The state of MA is trying to establish a legal precedent and justification for going after people that had property stolen from them and hold them liable. In a way to discourage ownership of a firearms

And no, I do not consider a locked house secure. A locked house does no more than lightly discourage theft, and you well know it. Outside of whatever it is that your paranoia feels the need to keep on hand for personal protection, weapons should be stored properly. And if you aren't home, then nothing needs to be unsecured.

Your definition of stored properly and mine differ. youtube cheap gun safe, so are you going to go so far as to mandate what kind of safe I must keep in my home, and how it be installed. When the cheap ones form all the big outdoor stores and farm fleet places can be defeated in about 30 seconds with little more than a couple of pry bars. Trigger locks that have been mandated with every retail sale, HAHAHA lol yeah those are also very easily defeated as well especially when walked off with.

So should we secure all our prescriptions, knives, and everything else that could be sold or used in a criminal act in the same way??

As to spirit and intent, well, that's not written. As soon as you bring spirit and intent in, you are conceding that limits do apply. YOUR definition of the spirit and intent is NOT A WRITTEN RIGHT.

Ummm lets see here. The intent and spirit is drawn from the "well regulated militia". being you should be well versed in arms that are equal to anything that would be encountered on the battle field that an individual rifle man would carry. In other word you dont show up with a musket when you would be facing AK47s. or other modern weapons appropriate to your time in history.

A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government. George Washington

I can quote the men who founded this country all day and continue to show you their intent spirit behind the 2A.

And, uh, there are quite a few other private entities that own nuclear reactors. How is that in any way relevant to this discussion?

as a point that Kodak forgot all about it, and was rediscovered in the basement during bankruptcy proceeding. Most "private reactors" are power generation. and that only a MEGA corporation would have the means and ability to safely harbor nuke like tech weapons or other wise. Not really individual citizen kinda cabbage outlay. That said your right kinda a poor point of argument in hind sight.

[Grand525]

"Based on future clinical mutation diagnosis, you have to be apprehended immediately with or without probable cause, and prohibited from having a child or adopt any living creature. Unless you pay extra premium just for being alive."

How is that sound?

Hate it, love it or don't care about it? Sooner or later they will get it all.

[e30e]

Well reason 996 for not owning a gun.

[iamsam]

Why should you not have to carry liability insurance? If, through your negligence or actions, the gun is used to do harm, why shouldn't you be insured for that?

in short, because you ought not to be liable for that. If someone steals your gun because you made it easy to steal, then you are absolutely liable for allowing the thief to steal and possess the gun. HOWEVER, if the thief then goes and kills 35 people with it, I would say the thief/shooter is much more liable for killing 35 people than you are. i.e. the FULL liability for the 35 deaths shouldn't fall squarely on your shoulders, just because you left your Glock under your car seat and someone broke in and found it. Surely the person to blame for 35 deaths is the person who actually KILLED the 35 people.

Think of the automotive analogy. If you are at fault in a collision, you are liable. If someone steals your car for any reason, or if someone even borrows your car, and they are at fault in a collision, you are not liable at all.

[Wiglaf]

I'm all for doing things that actually make sense but I don't see the benefit of this insurance idea. It seems like a racket. :/

[mar1t1me]

Owning a Firearm is a RIGHT

Given that the Bill of Rights was originally only intended to protect white men, and implicitly excluded Native Americans, women and those groups considered to be "black", but now we don't see it that way, does it not follow that rights are not absolute? The Second Amendment was written at a time when it was absolutely impossible for a man with a musket to fire more than 3 or 4 rounds per minute. Technology has changed that. Where should the line be drawn? If I am so inclined, should I be able to possess an anti-aircraft installation? Own a working, armed tank? A jeep mounted M-60 with unlimited ammo? Live grenades? Plant mines in my front yard?

That, coupled with a culture rife with violent imagery, the likes of which did not exist at the time the Bill of Rights was written, say to me that we need some limits, and some proactive attempts to address violent imagery that dehumanizes.

Witness the 15 year old who murdered his family in cold blood recently. Had there not been weapons easily available in his home, would he have killed his entire family? This kid was said to love violent, first-person shooter video games..."heavily involved" was the term used.....so it was all too easy to shoot mom as she slept, then show dead mom's head to a younger sibling before killing him. the cops said he was "disconnected".....

Food for thought.....

Without seriously addressing mental health in this country, throwing the doors open to wider gun ownership is a recipe for bad things.....

[iamsam]

^^ sheesh, I didn't hear about that, but that is utterly twisted, even more so than the Conn shooting.

I would support a ban of video games, but such a ban would be useless, since it is so easy to pirate games.

And to answer one of your questions, yes that 15 year old would have killed his whole family if we wanted to without guns. Do you really think the availability of guns is solely responsible for this kid's behavior? No, this kid was very mentally wrong, and guns had nothing to do with it.

[z31maniac]

I would support a ban of video games, but such a ban would be useless, since it is so easy to pirate games.

So, I've been playing Grand Theft Auto for years.........why am I not out stealing cars, robbing banks and murdering hookers to get my money back?

Mental health is the real issue.

[z31maniac]

And to answer one of your questions, yes that 15 year old would have killed his whole family if we wanted to without guns. Do you really think the availability of guns is solely responsible for this kid's behavior? No, this kid was very mentally wrong, and guns had nothing to do with it.

17 year old kid just beat his mother to death. He used a shotgun.

Yes, had a shotgun. Didn't shoot her, beat her to death with it.

Again, it's not guns. It's mental health.

[mrsleeve]

Given that the Bill of Rights was originally only intended to protect white men, and implicitly excluded Native Americans, women and those groups considered to be "black", but now we don't see it that way, does it not follow that rights are not absolute? The Second Amendment was written at a time when it was absolutely impossible for a man with a musket to fire more than 3 or 4 rounds per minute. Technology has changed that. Where should the line be drawn? If I am so inclined, should I be able to possess an anti-aircraft installation? Own a working, armed tank? A jeep mounted M-60 with unlimited ammo? Live grenades? Plant mines in my front yard?

Umm lest see here, the Constitution was and is an anti-slavery document, for many reasons (economic mostly) it could not out right ban slavery. Honest Abe credits the authors of the Constitution for the abolishment of slavery, through the death by a 1000 cuts. Even Fredrick Douglas held this opinion.

the 2a was written at a time when the most powerful army in the world outfitted its men with weapons they could only load and fire 3-4 time a minuet. Many of the Colonials had BETTER weapons in the form of Kentucky long RIFLES (Which the crown banned importation of in 1774 IIRC) So your point is just what then, that because times have changed and technology is better the purpose and the protections in the bill of rights are no longer needed???

Political power grows form the barrel of a gun- Mao If only the govt has arms or several limits the arms in the hands of civilians then that leads no where good. Arms lying peacefully in our homes and safes are the ultimate check and balance of govt power, remove them and look to history for where it leads.

OH you mean woman's suffrage dont you?? Well women could vote if they were land owners. Many western states allowed it before the passage of the 19th amendment in 1920. That would be the constitutional amendment process doing what it should do an the Constitution working just fine. A little fun fact in the late 1700's Very few places int he world allowed women to vote, it was the late 1890's before many place started to grant limited woman's suffrage and the UK held off until 1928 ti grant full suffrage to women.

As far as the rest of the rant. Yeah we can own most that shit here, its just very very very EXPENSIVE and requires a Enema from the ATF and willingness to compromise and partial waiving of your 4th rights. This all assumes you live in a state that is friendly to NFA items


Nice try by the way.

That, coupled with a culture rife with violent imagery, the likes of which did not exist at the time the Bill of Rights was written, say to me that we need some limits, and some proactive attempts to address violent imagery that dehumanizes.

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=violent+revolutionary+war+art&FORM=HDRSC2

Ok if you say so. No violent imagery at all from that time period........................


I do agree that while I do enjoy a good guy movie and the occasional violent video game. It does seem to be getting a little bit out of hand. How to fix this one I have no clue, but better parenting would be a MUCH better start.

Witness the 15 year old who murdered his family in cold blood recently. Had there not been weapons easily available in his home, would he have killed his entire family? This kid was said to love violent, first-person shooter video games..."heavily involved" was the term used.....so it was all too easy to shoot mom as she slept, then show dead mom's head to a younger sibling before killing him. the cops said he was "disconnected".....

Food for thought.....

Without seriously addressing mental health in this country, throwing the doors open to wider gun ownership is a recipe for bad things.....

Well NM was a sad thing. But not uncommon. in 1998 in MI there was a kid that stole something like 15k from grandpa to buy a 71 Hemi Charger when they found out he kill both his grandparents to keep them from ratting him outl. The cops said he was "disconnected" as well. We were asked if we saw anything, because we building a high school across the street form the home where the murders happened

My point is this is not really new and has been happening for a while, 99% of the time until recently anyway these are not national news.

The rest of us 100+ million gun owners should be punished for the acts of the very very very fractionally small minority?? Part of the cost of freedom sadly is taking the good with the bad

[herbivor]

[nrubenstein]

in short, because you ought not to be liable for that. If someone steals your gun because you made it easy to steal, then you are absolutely liable for allowing the thief to steal and possess the gun. HOWEVER, if the thief then goes and kills 35 people with it, I would say the thief/shooter is much more liable for killing 35 people than you are. i.e. the FULL liability for the 35 deaths shouldn't fall squarely on your shoulders, just because you left your Glock under your car seat and someone broke in and found it. Surely the person to blame for 35 deaths is the person who actually KILLED the 35 people.

Think of the automotive analogy. If you are at fault in a collision, you are liable. If someone steals your car for any reason, or if someone even borrows your car, and they are at fault in a collision, you are not liable at all.

Since when did I say that you have full liability for that? Having liability does not mean having full liability.

However, failure to secure firearms should be criminalized in my opinion.

[nrubenstein]

little thing called doctrine of proximate cause, (bold and color for important parts)
proximate cause n. a happening which results in an event, particularly injury due to negligence or an intentional wrongful act. In order to prevail (win) in a lawsuit for damages due to negligence or some other wrong, it is essential to claim (plead) proximate cause in the complaint and to prove in trial that the negligent act of the defendant was the proximate cause (and not some other reason) of the damages to the plaintiff (person filing the lawsuit). Sometimes there is an intervening cause which comes between the original negligence of the defendant and the injured plaintiff, which will either reduce the amount of responsibility or, if this intervening cause is the substantial reason for the injury, then the defendant will not be liable at all. In criminal law, the defendant's act must have been the proximate cause of the death of a victim to prove murder or manslaughter.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Proximate+Cause

In the case your implying the act of stealing the car and the recklessness or negligence involved in hitting or injuring another victim would supersede the car owner's negligence in leaving the car unsecured The same doctrine would apply to a thief that would then use a stolen firearm in a crime. Now if someone (like a kid) gets a hold of it and accidentally shoot them selves you might have case for for holding the original owner at fault to a certain degree, though it would be an uphill battle. The state of MA is trying to establish a legal precedent and justification for going after people that had property stolen from them and hold them liable. In a way to discourage ownership of a firearms


Your definition of stored properly and mine differ. youtube cheap gun safe, so are you going to go so far as to mandate what kind of safe I must keep in my home, and how it be installed. When the cheap ones form all the big outdoor stores and farm fleet places can be defeated in about 30 seconds with little more than a couple of pry bars. Trigger locks that have been mandated with every retail sale, HAHAHA lol yeah those are also very easily defeated as well especially when walked off with.

So should we secure all our prescriptions, knives, and everything else that could be sold or used in a criminal act in the same way??



Ummm lets see here. The intent and spirit is drawn from the "well regulated militia". being you should be well versed in arms that are equal to anything that would be encountered on the battle field that an individual rifle man would carry. In other word you dont show up with a musket when you would be facing AK47s. or other modern weapons appropriate to your time in history.

A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government. George Washington

I can quote the men who founded this country all day and continue to show you their intent spirit behind the 2A.




as a point that Kodak forgot all about it, and was rediscovered in the basement during bankruptcy proceeding. Most "private reactors" are power generation. and that only a MEGA corporation would have the means and ability to safely harbor nuke like tech weapons or other wise. Not really individual citizen kinda cabbage outlay. That said your right kinda a poor point of argument in hind sight.

My look at the constitution suggests that the point of the second amendment was to offset the power of the militia. The constitutional militia is the military, NOT private citizens. The intent was to provide them with the firepower to oppose the military.

If we want to go by the spirit there, that would suggest that individual citizens are entitled to anything that military has. After all, they can hardly "well-regulate" the military without equivalent arms. (And training - which is what makes the whole notion so utterly laughable today.)

Edit: And I'm not even going to bother responding to your utterly ridiculous and stupid and irrelevant argument about murder or manslaughter. It has absolutely no relation to anything I've said.