02-15-2013, 12:42 PM #21
02-15-2013, 12:59 PM #22
I see this leading to a lot of cases thrown out since no one defined the law in the first place. That means this legislation has no teeth and is a useless waste in the name of creating an illusion of safety.
In short, without clear definition, it's crap.
02-15-2013, 01:24 PM #23
so they are legalizing marijuana and trying to also pass this? maybe they smoked some before they came up with this one!
02-15-2013, 02:40 PM #24
02-15-2013, 02:45 PM #25
02-15-2013, 02:57 PM #26
02-15-2013, 02:57 PM #27
are you ok with leaving your wife and kids unprotected while you are away?
can you not keep an eye on your kids so they don't go into your closet?
how many children have you known? how many had parents who owned guns? how many shot themselves? I have known 100's of kids with parents who have owned guns, only known one to get shot. no parents were around, we were nine and playing cops and robbers, one of us grabbed his parents hand gun from the night stand and shot dave in the back, he lived.
gun safety at home is in the hands of the parents not the government, if you can't keep your kids safe at home, you have no business with kids.
02-15-2013, 02:59 PM #28
This is why they need to stop passing gun laws. The gov't is run a bunch of morons that are corrupt and spoiled brats. In fact that is why they want the bans anyway. Go as far to make Americans register there guns with the United Nations and you would have close to a million people locked and loaded ready to go down with a fight. This law is way out of bounds. When they even consider this kind of legislation then you know that is what they want. A civil war and a population that is more then willing to come crawling on their hands and knees to the gov't for everything, to be there saviors.
02-15-2013, 03:02 PM #29
and why does this debate always revert to playing the safety card? If you want safety stop driving a car. More people die doing that then in accidental gun shootings. Where in the constitution does it say you are guaranteed safety?
02-15-2013, 03:03 PM #30
Definition is a HUGE part of law. I agree that this TYPE of legislation is needed, but not this legislation. I can't believe you're actually against defining the crime. Why?
You and I can say what we think is reasonable or not and most would likely agree with us. But, there are some things I deem reasonable that are not legal. Because the law is defined as such, I can't do those things despite how I feel about it. If you leave the term "safely and securely" undefined, every single case will be thrown out as soon as one lawyer says, "What constitutes 'safe and secure'? No one knows. It was never defined."
In short, and as I said before, once any cases on this legislation hit the courts, they will be struck down each and every time. If you're in favour of legislation that can never be enforced to the point of punishment, then fine. I just have to wonder what the point is.
As I said, the germ of a good idea is in there somewhere, but this was poorly thought out and hastily put together. It's reactionary and that's as bad as doing nothing.