Originally Posted by MaDalton (Post 18529876)

the thing is probably that you have no clue at all about the politics in my country - may it be germany or cz

while many people like to be informed about whats going on in the world, you and your opinions are completely US centered. which is too bad, cause sometimes it helps to look beyond your own nose :)

Originally Posted by Vendzilla (Post 18529913)

Our politics are pretty screwed up, and I know that what happens here effects the rest of the world. I do read about whats going on with the politics in Greece and Germany and a few others, it's hard to not hear about them and their problems. I try to not comment on it, because I don't live there and don't know all the history and I do know that what ever I hear on the news, that's the only information I'm getting and that it's incomplete , bias and not worth debating over with that little information about it.

Originally Posted by Jesus H Christ (Post 18529926)

You're a fool with a slanted position/opinion. In short, a gun hater.

Originally Posted by Relentless (Post 18529893)

Was your friend fined or punished in any way for allowing those guns to fall into the hands of a criminal? Where do you think criminals get guns? Very few if any criminals on the street committing violent crimes are capable of manufacturing their own guns. The pro-gun lobbyists are very fond of pointing out that the vast amount of gun related crimes are not committed by people who legally own guns. The fact is, most guns on the street were legally purchased originally... 'lost' intentionally or unintentionally and allowed to enter the black market where criminals have access to them.

One solution is to make owning any guns illegal. I am very much against that. People who responsibly own and secure their guns should be free to use them in any way allowable under the law. However, when someone decides to buy 25 guns and keep them in an unlocked showcase or has a firearm stolen out of their night table... they should be held to a very strict standard and punished severely for allowing their guns to find their way into the hands of criminals who would use them.



If you have any links to those events please post them. I'd be very curious to see what penalty was enforced against the National Guardsmen responsible for securing those guns who failed to do so and allowed them to become lost or stolen. I'd expect that they faced very significant penalties and an extremely rigorous investigation took place to identify any breach of security so that it would never happen again. I look forward to reading the news articles detailing these events that you are aware of...

Originally Posted by Relentless (Post 18529922)

I like your humility.

It is good to know that you are only 'all-knowing' with regard to the 307,006,550 people and 103671742065706.34375 square feet of property that comprises the United States. :2 cents:

Originally Posted by theking (Post 18529962)

Nothing was done to my friend...as he had not committed any crime and suffered damage to his home and lost his gun collection...which was insured so he did not suffer any real monetary loss...but would have preferred to have his collection over any monetary reimbursement. If you google you can find numerous cases of NG Armories being broken into. My favorite one is the guy that stole an M60 tank from a National Guard Armory and went on a rampage with it. BTW...if the weapons were secured per regulation...nothing would be done to a Guardsmen.

Originally Posted by Jesus H Christ (Post 18529987)

So for all to understand this. If an intruder came to my home and held me at gun point to open my secured gun safe, then took my firearm and committed a crime with it, I should be "punished severely" for it.

Originally Posted by Relentless (Post 18530006)

You should not be punished at all for the robbery. However, if a gun you CHOSE to own and FAILED to secure ends up being used to hurt others... you should share in the blame for those subsequent actions. Had you not CHOSEN to own a gun and FAILED to secure it, your neighbor would never have been shot by your gun.

Originally Posted by Relentless (Post 18529994)

In the specific instance of military enforcement, that's outside the civil courts in any case and the soldier following regulations should not be punished, though the regulations ought to be changed if they are faulty. In the case for a gun store owner or gun collector they ought to be responsible for the loss or theft of their weapons. If securing guns is too difficult, that's a good reason not to own them. Not a good reason to excuse people for losing them.

Originally Posted by 12clicks (Post 18530014)

wrong. here in America, you have a RIGHT to own a gun. Having someone steal it today is more punishable than when the right was enumerated. but the lunatic fringe will always make dopey arguments to the contrary.

Originally Posted by theking (Post 18530026)

The insurance company was the one that dictated to him the security measures he had to take to secure his collection and he had to comply or not be insured. He went beyond the measures they provided. Who ever did it was clearly aware that he had the collection as they by passed his home alarm system...cut a hole in the wall of his secured room and used torches to cut into his gun safes. He had three safes. Nothing is %100 secure including FT. Knox. Your suggestion is in fact a foolish one.

Originally Posted by Relentless (Post 18530045)

In this example, nobody got hurt as a result of the lost guns. Had your friend's gun collection been used to shoot up a school, rob banks, kill cops or harm the neighboring society in any way... his failure to secure those guns and decision to own them would have been a significant cause of danger to the other people in the equation. Even in this extreme example, he should have been fined and punished for failing to secure the guns he chose to own. The decision to own a gun and failure to secure it is what puts illegal guns on the streets.

Originally Posted by Relentless (Post 18529772)

If you put every person who had a gun stolen IN jail and took out every person convicted of selling dime bags of pot on a street corner the prison population would shrink immediately and forever. Best of all, you would have the actually dangerous people in prison instead of two-bit pot dealers.

Originally Posted by Relentless (Post 18529772)

If you put every person who had a gun stolen IN jail and took out every person convicted of selling dime bags of pot on a street corner the prison population would shrink immediately and forever. Best of all, you would have the actually dangerous people in prison instead of two-bit pot dealers. Gun owners who allow their guns to be lost or stolen ARE dangerous to society and so are people who allow drugs and alcohol to fuel their misconduct, people who properly use their guns or do drugs responsibly are not.

Originally Posted by Relentless (Post 18530033)

I am convinced you act ignorant by choice. If a person steals your gun they should absolutely be held accountable for doing so. If they misuse your gun they should be punished for doing so. If they kill someone they should be convicted of murder. All of that is already the case and remains unchanged by this discussion. However, the person who failed to secure a gun should be held to account for that failure as well. If they were, you would see less guns 'lost', less guns on the street, less gun related crimes and responsible gun owners would be able to own their guns and use them within the limits of the law. The 'anti-gun' lobby would no longer exist... and so would most gun related crime.

Originally Posted by mountainmiester (Post 18530470)

What is the most disconcerting thing about this survey is that it is worded to enlist bias opinions.

"Do you think there should or should not be a law that would ban the possession of handguns, except by the police and authorized persons?"

I am a 2nd amendment advocate and i agree with this. I don't think "unauthorized" people should have guns and most agree. Unauthorized means Convicted Felons, the Mentally Unstable and every other group currently listed as Unauthorized to have a hand gun.

The survey wording on this is misleading. If you look at the rest of the survey the truth comes out but who wants to get a little truth in the way of a good thread right? The differentiators on the Assault Gun shows a great image. Is that to mean that more people are ok with Assault Rifles than handguns?

Also below many say the gun laws are fine but need better enforcement. If you want to give up your handguns I commend you and wish you well. You have that right much like I have the right to defend my home and my family.

As well as what Rochard said about gun ownership being at an all time high so is the right to carry in most states. For the first time ever, 49 states have the right to carry with only Illinois withstanding. Ironically, gun control has worked well for Illinois where Chicago is among the leaders in Hand Gun Murders. (15th in the country of all cities over 100,000 in population)

Originally Posted by Relentless (Post 18530045)

In this example, nobody got hurt as a result of the lost guns. Had your friend's gun collection been used to shoot up a school, rob banks, kill cops or harm the neighboring society in any way... his failure to secure those guns and decision to own them would have been a significant cause of danger to the other people in the equation. Even in this extreme example, he should have been fined and punished for failing to secure the guns he chose to own. The decision to own a gun and failure to secure it is what puts illegal guns on the streets.

Originally Posted by Choker (Post 18532189)

Dude, we get it, your a broken record. No matter how many times you type out in detail your beliefs on this, NOBODY here is gonna agree with you. That fact alone should make you stop and realize that maybe something is wrong with your thinking?