Skip to main content

View Diary: Abbreviated Pundit Round-up: Immigration, gun violence legislation and more (158 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  NY State already has laws that (0+ / 0-)

    require firearms to be locked up and for some to have a trigger lock.  We've had these laws for a while.  For some strange reason there were some complaints but there were no aggressive protests when the law was enacted and nobody was alleging a violation of their constitutional rights.


    The religious fanatics didn't buy the republican party because it was virtuous, they bought it because it was for sale

    by nupstateny on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 05:13:22 AM PST

    •  Practically speaking, gun safes and trigger locks (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Heart of the Rockies, nupstateny

      ... are unenforceable requirements. Nevertheless, they are very wise conditions of gun ownership.

      When Adam Lanza represents the Second Amendment to those gun crazies and they shout down the First Amendment rights of a grieving father, they are not civilized enough to enjoy either.

      2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

      by TRPChicago on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 06:03:18 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  which is one reason I advocate "safe rooms" (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        skohayes

        such as closets or other such rooms where gun safes can be kept and where there can be multiple layers of prevention to prevent unauthorized people from gaining access.  That being said, there are always ways to frustrate any security.  For example I remember some would be thieves who hitched their truck to the bars on a pawn shop's door but only managed to pull the bumper off their truck and another set of geniuses who cut a hole in the roof and tried to "fish" for guns in the racks with a noose (no noose is good noose?) but were unable to overcome that the guns were secured by a chain through their trigger guards  

        •  Adam Lanza or someone else so bent on getting... (0+ / 0-)

          ... a gun that he'll kill his mother will, I suggest, not be deterred by a second or third set of locks.

          Yes, locks will deter kids and many others, and gun safes and trigger locks should be required. But only as one measure. SCOTUS has held that you can't require the gun that's for self defense to be locked ... and therefore be less available.

          2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

          by TRPChicago on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 08:02:08 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  which is the reason for safe rooms which gives (0+ / 0-)

            you time to access your weapons.  In my case, the triple locks are on the door to the safe room, along with a door bar as a final line of defense.  Once in the safe room, there are the gun safes which are supposedly fireproof and lockpick proof.  Inside the safe, the guns are secured with a chain through the trigger guard; handguns are in their separate locked safes within the safe and have trigger locks. (the long gun safes are self fabricated)  I can afford to have this many levels of prevention because the safe room in theory affords me the time to access any weapons.

            The safe room itself is constructed so one wall is actually the roof and two walls are over a sheer stairwell.  The fourth wall is a single metal door with a metal frame attached to the studs (2"x8") with lag bolts.  The time the room gives me is the time to call the cops and let them deal with the situation  

            •  And safe rooms are an answer for gun control? (0+ / 0-)

              We require gun owners to have safe rooms?

              I well understand the concept of safe rooms, having seen them in nice homes in third world capitols, Nairobi comes immediately to mind. But these are, you're suggesting, necessary and appropriate in America? As an answer to violence against gun owners?

              2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

              by TRPChicago on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 12:48:08 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  each gun owner has to come to his own (0+ / 0-)

                conclusions.  I will defend myself in defense of my life or my family.  However I will retreat given the chance as I have no desire to kill another human being.  I will give up property simply because I can buy another TV (I buy one every 20 years whether I need it or not) and have little that would be more valuable than a human life.  

                So is a little extra architecture worth having to deal with the aftermath of killing another human (and despite what hollywood would have you believe, killing another human leaves a deep and indelible mark for years afterwards)?

                •  No dispute, here. Do what you need to do. (0+ / 0-)

                  But I'm not a gun owner. And I don't want to have to invest in a safe room. I want to stanch the flow of guns!

                  2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

                  by TRPChicago on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 07:05:03 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

      •  Mostly they're enforced after the (0+ / 0-)

        fact, after someone is seriously injured or killed and it's usually a child.


        The religious fanatics didn't buy the republican party because it was virtuous, they bought it because it was for sale

        by nupstateny on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 08:55:36 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site