Responsible Gun Owners...NOT!

[the obsrver]

We’ve been vacationing and on the road for the past 9 days. One of our overnight stops was near Nashville, TN and on the local news there was a report about guns stolen from vehicles. It shocked me that they reported last year in Nashville the average was 2 guns stolen from cars every day.

Leaving a gun in an unattended car is not what I consider to be responsible gun ownership. Cars are easily stolen and broken into to, and many times made easier because the owner failed to lock the car. You can take all the precautions you want but if your car is stolen, your gun is too.

If I'm going someplace where I won't be able to take my gun with me (Cardinal Baseball Games) then I don't take the gun. Simple as that.

As I understand it. TN had a huge problem with stolen guns from cars. They just recently went to the right to carry. Prior to that it was legal to carry in your car only (without a ccw), so........ everyone threw one in the glove box or wherever and it was easy pickings for the criminals.

 

[Recusant]

yes, it might be a constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.....

that does not mean however, that mandatory training or mandatory insurance cannot ever be amended to that "right"...whether on the federal level or state level.

look at the proposed laws now trying to pass, on all levels, regarding magazine capacity, or how many magazines one can own. look at the proposals for longer, MANDATORY back ground checks....

so yeah, we "have the right to keep and bear arms", but that does not mean many things can't be added to what we have a "constitutional right"......and it would not be "infringement" on our 2A rights.

What other amendment contained in the Bill of Rights has Congress proposed to add conditions or infringements? What would the 4th Amendment look like with such an addition: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized except (you can fill in the blank). After all of the riots across the country people would be in an outrage should CNN announce a proposed bill in Congress to alter the Founding Father's 4th Amendment intent. How would it go over if a federal court ruled that law enforcement didn't need probable cause to search houses in an area with civil unrest? Allowing Congress to restrict a constitutional right can lead to unforeseeable consequences. If you change the meaning one, then you can change the meaning of any of them. Just my humble opinion.

 

[somorris]

If leaving a gun in a locked car is irresponsible, why isn't leaving a gun in a locked house also irresponsible. Maybe all guns should be locked up at the police department, and if you plan to go hunting or shooting, you go there first and check your gun out. When one starts drawing lines, the lines can get more and more blurry and unintended consequences abound.

 

[the obsrver]

yes, it might be a constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.....

that does not mean however, that mandatory training or mandatory insurance cannot ever be amended to that "right"...whether on the federal level or state level.

look at the proposed laws now trying to pass, on all levels, regarding magazine capacity, or how many magazines one can own. look at the proposals for longer, MANDATORY back ground checks....

so yeah, we "have the right to keep and bear arms", but that does not mean many things can't be added to what we have a "constitutional right"......and it would not be "infringement" on our 2A rights.

Yikes.
The problem with these kinds of thoughts are they are not very well thought out.
While I agree that responsible should mean something, it is a subjective term. Are you responsible when you did not lock your house doors and someone comes in and steals your stuff?? Should that go against your home owners ins?
The second part and more directly related to your above comments is this.
If you can add things to a constitutional right, what about the 19th amendment? What about 15th amendment?
Is it ok to say that women and people of other than white races can only vote if ______________?
If we look at things logically, we had guns long before women and blacks could vote. So really the problems did not arise until those later amendments came to be. You could further support the argument by pointing out that the family unit as a whole did not suffer until all these liberation movements. What if they amended it so women and non whites have to pass an IQ test to vote? Would that not be good for America to only allow intelligent people to vote? You could also throw in that the US is the largest recipient in the world of immigrants from the most violent countries in the world. Why are we allowing them to vote?
I am just saying that there are other things to look at then gun rights. In your argument those are, if the constitution is changeable, then nobody can say a word when a state amends it so that only white people can vote. To deny rights or infringe on them is the same across the board, if it can be done with guns, it can be done with any right. Most likely easier after you disarm everyone.

 

[Old_Me]

What other amendment contained in the Bill of Rights has Congress proposed to add conditions or infringements? What would the 4th Amendment look like with such an addition: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized except (you can fill in the blank). After all of the riots across the country people would be in an outrage should CNN announce a proposed bill in Congress to alter the Founding Father's 4th Amendment intent. How would it go over if a federal court ruled that law enforcement didn't need probable cause to search houses in an area with civil unrest? Allowing Congress to restrict a constitutional right can lead to unforeseeable consequences. If you change the meaning one, then you can change the meaning of any of them. Just my humble opinion.

and this is the problem we face with the man in the big house right now. many politicians are gung-ho for being anti-gun, anti 2A..

we need to vote them out.

talks have already been taking place all over the country. this is another in the many reasons why we need groups like the NRA, GOA, etc.

 

[Old_Me]

If leaving a gun in a locked car is irresponsible, why isn't leaving a gun in a locked house also irresponsible. Maybe all guns should be locked up at the police department, and if you plan to go hunting or shooting, you go there first and check your gun out. When one starts drawing lines, the lines can get more and more blurry and unintended consequences abound.

quite the difference between something mobile (car, pick up truck, etc) and something stationary, like a home, where people typically live (yes, sadly way too many live in thier vehicles these days too). but your home is your "castle", where as your vehicle just is not, and more then likely to be broken into, as seen by thugs as "easy pickings" ..sorta the old..."smash and grab" type of crime, rather than say, casing out a home, for an entry, darkness, bushes, etc.

 

[BobM]

If leaving a gun in a locked car is irresponsible, why isn't leaving a gun in a locked house also irresponsible. Maybe all guns should be locked up at the police department, and if you plan to go hunting or shooting, you go there first and check your gun out. When one starts drawing lines, the lines can get more and more blurry and unintended consequences abound.

Very good points. Sometimes, very basically, and usually more often than not, is best to leave some things alone as originally intended and written. The more involved and complicated, generally the more the possible issues and failures.​

We see the effects of what now? PPP? PPPlanning? Once someone starts finigling/jiggling, with good intentions or not, with foundations of any basic structure, if not careful, sagging can occur and whole structure can collapse like dominoes and card houses. How many large corporations have recently seen the results of that?​

Many times, simply the best way to avoid collapse is to keep structures as simple as can be in the first place. - Which is what most good leaders do when aligning major populations. Ignore those basic people/principles/things and what happens? SHF? Adding too much of anything to something already established "whatever's" can create and usually does create confusion and likely more issues than attempting to solve. KISS?​

From results generally seen lately, the almighty, glorious "name seekers" may also end up having names they didn't intend? Something like disruptions, mud and nightmares may come to mind? Paid for by who? - By the way, the heaviest payment isn't money either.​

 

[Old_Me]

Yikes.
The problem with these kinds of thoughts are they are not very well thought out.
While I agree that responsible should mean something, it is a subjective term. Are you responsible when you did not lock your house doors and someone comes in and steals your stuff?? Should that go against your home owners ins?
The second part and more directly related to your above comments is this.
If you can add things to a constitutional right, what about the 19th amendment? What about 15th amendment?
Is it ok to say that women and people of other than white races can only vote if ______________?
If we look at things logically, we had guns long before women and blacks could vote. So really the problems did not arise until those later amendments came to be. You could further support the argument by pointing out that the family unit as a whole did not suffer until all these liberation movements. What if they amended it so women and non whites have to pass an IQ test to vote? Would that not be good for America to only allow intelligent people to vote? You could also throw in that the US is the largest recipient in the world of immigrants from the most violent countries in the world. Why are we allowing them to vote?
I am just saying that there are other things to look at then gun rights. In your argument those are, if the constitution is changeable, then nobody can say a word when a state amends it so that only white people can vote. To deny rights or infringe on them is the same across the board, if it can be done with guns, it can be done with any right. Most likely easier after you disarm everyone.

if anyone gives even the slightest listen to the man in the big house, he'd have every Amendment changed or things added to it...questions would arise if the congress and senate would even allow such thoughts. with certain people in charge of the country, we will never know what will pass, and what will fail.

as much as i say "vote out the anti-2A politicians", there are those that will vote out the politicians that SUPPORT the 2A...

slippery-slope, the next few years.....

 

[Oaktree45]

If leaving a gun in a locked car is irresponsible, why isn't leaving a gun in a locked house also irresponsible. Maybe all guns should be locked up at the police department, and if you plan to go hunting or shooting, you go there first and check your gun out. When one starts drawing lines, the lines can get more and more blurry and unintended consequences abound.

Difference between car and house? It’s very easy to see when a car is unoccupied. A house, not so much. Over 700,000 cars are stolen every year. House theft is pretty much unheard of. A car moves to different locations and is left on parking lots where it is easy for a criminal to be concealed while he breaks into the car or steals it. Parked in their driveway at night, many home owners forget to lock the car making it an easy target for an opportunistic criminal. Leaving a gun in an unoccupied car is irresponsible gun ownership…period!

 

[Old_Me]

Difference between car and house? It’s very easy to see when a car is unoccupied. A house, not so much. Over 700,000 cars are stolen every year. House theft is pretty much unheard of. A car moves to different locations and is left on parking lots where it is easy for a criminal to be concealed while he breaks into the car or steals it. Parked in their driveway at night, many home owners forget to lock the car making it an easy target for an opportunistic criminal. Leaving a gun in an unoccupied car is irresponsible gun ownership…period!

well....actually.........house theft IS happening...

Tiny homes becoming big targets for thieves

It’s become enough of an issue that online sites devoted to tiny living now contain sections on securing tiny houses — inside and out.

bangordailynews.com

sorry, the devil made me do it....

 

[Bassbob]

yes, it might be a constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.....

that does not mean however, that mandatory training or mandatory insurance cannot ever be amended to that "right"...whether on the federal level or state level.

look at the proposed laws now trying to pass, on all levels, regarding magazine capacity, or how many magazines one can own. look at the proposals for longer, MANDATORY back ground checks....

so yeah, we "have the right to keep and bear arms", but that does not mean many things can't be added to what we have a "constitutional right"......and it would not be "infringement" on our 2A rights.

It absolutely does. ALL gun control is an infringement. Laws, current and proposed, don't change the fact that we have allowed our government to infringe on our 2A rights. Can you imagine applying the logic behind gun laws to the 1st, 4th or 5th amendments?

Considering the fact that we have already, apparently willingly, given the government the power to decide who and under what parameters your 2nd amendment rights can be exercised, why would you ever consider giving them a hand? They dream up enough useless, silly BS without actual gun owners giving them more ideas.

Training and not leaving your gun in your car fall under the same umbrella to me. I make a point to train. Same as I make a point to be efficient with my deer rifle because I think it's the right thing to do not to wound deer or make them suffer when I harvest them. I also wouldn't leave a gun in my car unattended. There is absolutely no way in hell I would ever support some government law mandating either of those things. As I said, that's ridiculous.

 

[jumpinjoe]

Here's a point to ponder y'all .............. instead of going along with supposed "common sense" gun control of any kind to any degree, how about laws that punish people for the illegal and/or misuse of guns. I dunno, seems to make sense to me.

 

[jumpinjoe]

A second point I intended but missed is this ............... making gun ownership based on any prerequisite is indeed an infringement on that ownership, much like a poll tax which we all agree is taboo. There should be no infringement on gun ownership period, but there should be penalties for the misuse or lackadaisical/careless use of them.

Where leaving one in a car, locked or not is debatable in the larger sense, it makes a huge difference where that car is located or stored. Somewhere on a residential side street with little light in a bad section of town is one thing ..... locked up in my home garage is another.

This post is not to excuse anyone from their responsibility of control/access to their firearm under any circumstance. I'm just saying there must be thoughtful consideration to jumping to these type of conclusions because once a law/infringement is put in place, it's almost impossible to ever see it lifted.

I can't for the life of me see anyone agreeing to infringements on any other guaranteed amendment, why then would we cater to infringements on the 2nd. Think folks, think. If not for the citizenry being able to 'keep and bear' the same arms at the same time as Ol' King George's army had, there likely would never have been a United States of America where there is included a 2nd amendment.

Just a little something to ponder y'all !!!

 

[the obsrver]

Difference between car and house? It’s very easy to see when a car is unoccupied. A house, not so much. Over 700,000 cars are stolen every year. House theft is pretty much unheard of. A car moves to different locations and is left on parking lots where it is easy for a criminal to be concealed while he breaks into the car or steals it. Parked in their driveway at night, many home owners forget to lock the car making it an easy target for an opportunistic criminal. Leaving a gun in an unoccupied car is irresponsible gun ownership…period!

Well in 2017 there were almost a million and a half home burglaries.

Burglary

ucr.fbi.gov

So I guess then by your logic if you do not have a 10,000 pound safe in your house you are not responsible?
I am not for leaving a weapon in a car, but come on at what point do we not just say criminals are at fault? It's my dam property and I should be able to leave a gun on my front step if I like. Because someone would have to break the law to get it.
Face it people who break into places including cars are almost always involved in other crimes. They are criminals and it is their fault, not the property owners.

 

[BobM]

Here's a point to ponder y'all .............. instead of going along with supposed "common sense" gun control of any kind to any degree, how about laws that punish people for the illegal and/or misuse of guns. I dunno, seems to make sense to me.

There may be and apparently is misuse of firearms, but the legality of firearms is another thing? According to 2A, there is no such thing as an illegal firearm. We have the right to carry, have, use and own them. Every law applied to firearms is unconstitutional because simply put, all the laws written afterwards are an infringement.

 

[the obsrver]

There may be and apparently is misuse of firearms, but the legality of firearms is another thing? According to 2A, there is no such thing as an illegal firearm. We have the right to carry, have, use and own them. Every law applied to firearms is unconstitutional because simply put, all the laws written afterwards are an infringement.

BOOM Nailed it.

 

[BobM]

BOOM Nailed it.

Is a blessing and a curse.

 

[somorris]

Well in 2017 there were almost a million and a half home burglaries.

Burglary

ucr.fbi.gov

So I guess then by your logic if you do not have a 10,000 pound safe in your house you are not responsible?
I am not for leaving a weapon in a car, but come on at what point do we not just say criminals are at fault? It's my dam property and I should be able to leave a gun on my front step if I like. Because someone would have to break the law to get it.
Face it people who break into places including cars are almost always involved in other crimes. They are criminals and it is their fault, not the property owners.

There are quite a few employers (I think FedEx is one -- witness recent shootings in Indy) which forbid carrying in their facility. In a case like that, our state allows the gun to be locked in the car in the parking lot. If you refuse to leave a gun locked in your car (as some here have said), the alternative is to drive through neighborhoods that are maybe undersirable, break down somewhere with no way to protect yourself, get home to find somone has broken into your house and may still be there, etc., etc. To say someone is irresponsible who takes their gun to work then has to leave it locked in their car, is, in my opinion, irresponsible.

 

[Oaktree45]

The biggest difference between guns stolen from cars and guns stolen from homes is that guns stolen from unattended cars is 100% preventable at no cost to the owner. Every year thousands of guns fall into the hands of criminals because of this preventable act. Make up as many scenarios that you want but in my opinion it is incredibly irresponsible to leave a gun in an unattended car.

 

[Peglegjoe]

What other amendment contained in the Bill of Rights has Congress proposed to add conditions or infringements? What would the 4th Amendment look like with such an addition: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized except (you can fill in the blank). After all of the riots across the country people would be in an outrage should CNN announce a proposed bill in Congress to alter the Founding Father's 4th Amendment intent. How would it go over if a federal court ruled that law enforcement didn't need probable cause to search houses in an area with civil unrest? Allowing Congress to restrict a constitutional right can lead to unforeseeable consequences. If you change the meaning one, then you can change the meaning of any of them. Just my humble opinion.