Thanks didn't think so. I have already posted a dozen or so. You made the claim I'm calling you. Put up or shut up.
Your like a rabid little terroir with a bone, you just won't let it go. Seeing how we have never conversed before to my knowledge, you know nothing about me yet you see fit to judge me with your measure. Don't bother, there will be no more.
how about trying to make us vote how you think we should vote? Your inability to do so should tell you a little bit about the difference between you, us, and the second amendment.
No, I am claiming no one can produce, well no one has yet, many claim to but nothing so far. Are you saying you can prove it?
Look at you, responding to information you cannot meaningfully counter with a strawman. Nice. 571 pages of such stories https://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/armed-citizen/submit-your-armed-citizen-story/ Because you were discussing accidents involving the deaths of children. Move the goalposts much? Because you were discussing accidents involving the deaths of children. Move the goalposts much? I see you understand the accidental deaths of children doesn't create a sound argument in your favor, so you need to change the subject. Thus, I accept your concession. Oh look - another strawman My rights are as I have stated, with the law to back me up.
As we already know, around 150 kids per year die from accidental gunshot. There are 350-360 million guns in the US -- this 150 represents the misuse of what % of that total?
That is not true. In my youth, I saw other children do really crazy things I myself would have never attempted, climb out on building ledges 10 stories up. Children die regularly and plentiful numbers in bicycle accidents and falls and drowning.
And we try to do things to prevent them. Helmets, road safety courses, swimming lessons, water safely, childproof fencing, safely secure weapons. Oh sorry, we don't do the last one.
You've been told enough times that, by now, you choose to not understand a state mandate of this violates our constitution.
US law experts: Would it be similar for gun owner liability for an accidental shooting with a weapon? https://www.legalmatch.com/law-libr...-drowning-in-a-swimming-pool.html?oldintake=1
You'll have to be specific, as negligence is determined though said specifics and varies from state to state.
https://www.americanrifleman.org/the-armed-citizen Yes, it's an NRA site.... that actually references documented news stories and the sources regarding them. Countless documented instances of armed self-defense.
It's an interesting commentary on our country when we demand the banning or redesign of toys that have parts that choke 6 infants - yet have a hissy fit about banning guns that have accidentally killed over 1200 children since 2003. I'm not against owning guns - but it is time we looked at design and storage requirements for gun owners, as well as liability insurance for keeping a gun in the house. And if the answer to ANY and all safety discussions about firearms is alway, "**** you - I want my way, and nobody can change that," then eventually, and history has shown this time after time - the more liberal stance on any issue tends to win the day. I'd like to hold on to my guns for hunting - and I've talked to many "liberals" who also own guns and don't want to see them all banned - but this "F-you" attitude by the NRA isn't going to win any middle-road Americans to their side.
Heller precludes any mandatory storage, and the 4th Amendment prevents effective enforcement. Homeowners insurance already covers accidents, and the insurance industry simply won't insure guns against homicide and suicide. When someone wants to unconstitutionally restrict your protected rights, the proper answer is "f you". Once they get those precedents in place showing that the 2nd Amdnemtn doesnt protect all guns, it doesn't protect any guns. The GCAs already want the ability to sue every gun manufacturer out of business. Once the realize that hunting rifles and shotguns kill more people each year than ARs do, your hunting guns aren't safe, either. Let the next school shooting be some guy with a scoped bolt action .30-06 and watch the cries go out against "sniper rifles".
Oh Bull ****. access to automatic weapons is already severely restricted. We have lived with those restrictions for decades and yet we have more CC permits and MORE guns in the States than we had before those -gasp - restrictions. There is going to come a time in the very near future when hand held weapons will be able to use smart bullets or be powerful enough to take out an entire police force. There will simply be more restrictions. It's hardly the end of the world. And if your first argument is, "Well, we need to be able to overthrow any legally elected government that may do something we don't like ..." I worry about your state of mind.
Apparently, locking a weapon up when not in use is against the 2nd amendment. Strange that. Actually it is the biggest cop out I have ever heard. Lol
We accept that neither the NFA 1934 nor the Hughes Amendment are actually Constitutional. The NFA 1934 was validated by a SCOTUS determined to placate FDR sufficiently that he wouldn't dilute their power by adding another 4 handpicked members to the Court, and the Hughes Amendment was a hand-wave passage of an last minute addition by a frustrated anti-gun Senator and acknowledged by a voice count that clearly went the other way. Not even plasma rifles in the 40 watt range will be so capable. That's not on my list at all.