Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: lazs2 on April 09, 2004, 09:03:41 AM
-
Bad enough that there is a "1 gun a month" law for purchase... I mean... wouldn't someone regestering 100 guns a month be a clue? but....
what is the point of the gun lock law? specificaly, the part about the gun lock has to have been purchased within 30 days of the firearms purchase? If you have a gun lock you can't use it on a firearm you purchase? you have to buy a new lock at 10-30 bucks?
Incrementalism? I think so... make so many regulations that soon honest people or people on fixed incomes just say the hell with it?
My guns are "kitchen table sales" (the ones I buy now legally) And I have a gun safe so am not affected by the law but not that many folks have gun safes.... I would reccomend them tho.
lazs
-
Can ya buy a used lock? If so, and you already have one, can you sell it to yourself?
Face it lazs, if you wanna shoot at cattle rustlers, yer gonna have to move to Texas.
-
There are no stupid laws, just stupid people who write laws.
-
Ah... the hidden cost of the cheap firearm purchase.
I think that law is particularly funny. It's forced many firearms companies to package locks with the guns. Now, I have 8 cable locks that I never use because of my gun safe. If I buy another rifle, I'll get yet another lock.
Sometimes I think it's incrementalism, other's I think it's just people being stupid. Though, to be honest, I don't know that there's much of a line between those two camps.
MiniD
-
so the people who most need an inexpensive firearm (the poor) are penalized?
No... you can't sell the lock back to yourself and there is no law that says that you ever have to use the lock again providing that you have a safe at home and locking case for transport.
lazs
-
Gunlock laws - the 30 day rule was a compromise. The proponents' intent was to have a gun lock for every gun so that kids wouldn't shoot themselves with their parents' gun(s). The opponents said they could police themselves and didn't need no stinking locks. The politicians tried to appease both parties and you ended up with a 30-day rule.
Let's face it. The greatest threat in America nowadays are babies running around in wheeled walkers packing Commie pistols.
-
That gun lock law could have prevented Colombine. It doesn't go far enough, IMHO.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
so the people who most need an inexpensive firearm (the poor) are penalized?
Wow... you really are a democrat.
MiniD
-
If I don't defend the right of babies to go armed with little commie guns in their walkers then who will?
airhead... exactly... gun locks stop no one but... if a teacher woulda had an unlocked concealed handgun then the thing woulda ended with fewer deaths... If the little goth darlings all suspect that about 10% of their teachers may be packing concealed the there probly will never be another columbine...
If you make sure that the little goth darlings will be the only wolfs in the sheep pen then you will get more columbines.
lazs
-
lazs, are you aware of just how many stroll-bys happen in daycare centers every day from babies in walkers using Communist guns?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
.. if a teacher woulda had an unlocked concealed handgun then the thing woulda ended with fewer deaths...
lazs
Well, i'm not sure who is more likely to snap :lol
-
Well, i'm not sure who is more likely to snap
sould lower the stress level for teachers. I wouldn't have pulled half the crap I did in highschool if I thought they could shoot me if I pushed them to close the the edge. :D
always remember- an armed society is a polite society.
-
On the contrary apathy, kids would push the teachers to shoot them.
-
Originally posted by hawker238
On the contrary apathy, kids would push the teachers to shoot them.
Sounds like win/win to me. :aok
-
Originally posted by hawker238
On the contrary apathy, kids would push the teachers to shoot them.
only once
-
yeah, but there's more kids than teachers. Assuming each teacher only shoots three or four of them out of a class of 20 then the teacher will be gone but 80% of them will still be alive.
Kids aren't stupid, ya know.
-
Yeah, but babies are. Babies are just dumb enough to wheel their walker into a classroom, brandish a Commie pistol, and force the teacher to shoot them. The baby might, maybe, might, be able to pop off a couple of caps before the teacher dropped them. Although I guess the baby really wouldn't drop since it was being supported by the walker, but at least the impact would send it spinning out into the hall where it might hurt an innocent bystander.
We must protect the innocent bystanders!
-
airhead.. I am well aware of the number of stroll bys with little commie guns but think that the number is well worth it.
mini... Democrat? no... I want less regulations on firearms so that more people can help themselves... I don't want to "give" anyone anything. I believe that is the difference.
columbine... teachers can have guns but kids can't... against the rules...
lazs
-
You weren't talking regulations you democrat you. You were talking cost and affordability.
Technically, its inflation, the steel mills, the machinist unions, trucking companies, gun companies and retail outlets that are driving the cost of weapons up and out of reach of the poor souls that needs them most. Not the $7 lock.
MiniD
-
not so... the best deals come from Bulgaria right now... I am not only no a democrat but a free trader.
lazs
-
Trigger locks are a good idea. Yeah, you pay extra. You also paid for the seatbelts in your car, another good idea.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Can ya buy a used lock? .
No, you have to register a lock. :)
-
How do you keep up with those laws. I've bought a shotgun five years ago, put it in a gun safe and forgot about it.
How would I know that the laws might have changed since?
BTW, if the gun is in a safe, do I still need a lock? From the discussion here, sounds like no.
-
Originally posted by Airhead
That gun lock law could have prevented Colombine. It doesn't go far enough, IMHO.
I'll bite.
According to the General Accounting Office mechanical gun locks, trigger locks etc.., only offer reliable protection to children under 7 years old. Gun locks are not that hard to remove if you want them off. I still use the saying "Locks only keep honest people out".
Besides, the 1995 Safe Schools Act that banned firearms within 1,000 ft of schools was in affect at Columbine. Why didn't this law stop the Columbine shooting? Honest people obey laws, criminals don't.
-
off topic... that made the sig
-
Originally posted by lazs2
if a teacher woulda had an unlocked concealed handgun then the thing woulda ended with fewer deaths... If the little goth darlings all suspect that about 10% of their teachers may be packing concealed the there probly will never be another columbine...
lazs
Pearl, Mississippi 1997
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a37208e5465a6.htm
The major media edited the fact that the assistant principle used his personal handgun to stop Luke Woodham. Firearms are used for good though the media and government would have you believe otherwise.
-
may be guys makeing laws have some quota of law, whitch they must produce every month, so they just took this crap :)
-
Mietla when I bought my P95 and P97 they stated that if I had a certified safe that I would not need the gun lock. I think for hand guns they should have some type of clip lock or something. Something that if in the event the weapon needed to be used you wouldn't have to fight with a dang gun lock. There has to be something someone can design that is more effecient than a wire gun lock IMO.
-
There is a governor or congressman somewhere thats making a fortune from his investment in the company that makes those locks that you are forced to have.
We have the same thing here with the stupid "hands free" cell phone law.
Just another way to fleece the public.
-
These gun laws are so that people dont go around shooting their eyes out.
:D
-
Originally posted by Blooz
We have the same thing here with the stupid "hands free" cell phone law.
Just another way to fleece the public.
My cell provider (AT&T) gave me a free hands-free headset. Yup, I sure got fleeced.
-
Rpm did everyone get a free hand free setup? If not your point is well, pointless.
Forcing people to buy locks is a waste of time, the kind of gun owner who is responsible already secures his firearms. The ones that are not will throw away the lock.
More stupid laws to make stupid people smart.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Rpm did everyone get a free hand free setup? If not your point is well, pointless.
Yes, they gave all their customers free headsets. Retail $9.99, actual cost about $0.25.
Like KBall said, locks only stop honest people. But, Trigger Locks are a reasonable, cheap and effecient deterent to unauthorized use of a weapon, especially to children. Gun Safes are a better, more expensive deterent.
I own handguns and have had 2 stolen during a break-in. There is nothing as disturbing as knowing someone out there is walking around with YOUR weapon. Luckily I got 1 of them back, but my Ruger .41 Mag Blackhawk is still out there. Neither had a Trigger Lock, but both were in a locked drawer in a locked closet. Now I own a Gun Safe. If I travel with a weapon, it has a Trigger Lock.
-
I agree RPM, but making people buy them does not make them use them.
Ruger black hawk .41? Nice gun to bad it got stolen. Ammo aint cheap for it though!
I own to many guns now. I really need a safe. The good ones are to heavy for someone who does not own their home though. :(
-
may be guys making laws have some quota of law, which they must produce every month, so they just took this crap
I've often thought there should be an exchange program with laws. when you make a new one you have to pick an old one to get rid of.
we had a similar program with one of my grandmothers when I was a child. after living through the depression and raising 11 kids (mostly on her own, after my grandfather died), she had gotten into the habit of hanging on to anything that was remotely useful. my mother and her sisters and brothers had to finally tell her that when they took her shopping for new clothes she had to give up an old one for every new one she received(she had some that where over 30 years old and hadn't been worn in almost that many years). it really keeps down the clutter, our legal system could sure use that.
-
LOL that would be a great idea Apathy. Never happen though.
Hell in Cali it is agaist the law to have a loaded gun in the car at all, it is also agaist the law to have it not locked up.
But there is a law that says you can keep a gun on you if you are on the way to hunt or fish, I think concealed. LOL, there were the last time I looked all kinds of really lame contradictory laws in Cali like that cause they never remove any from the books.
-
GTO, I agree that ownership will not automaticly cause usage. But, like seatbelts, over time that usage will increase. Is is a cure-all panacea? Not by a longshot, but it's a good step in the right direction. Personally, I think they should make all guns "handprint" smart.
-
rpm... you did not get a "free" hands free cell phone thingie... the company just raised rates or didn't lower em... they are not eating the cost.. Car manufacturers do not give away seatbelts or safety devices or smog devices it is all factored into the cost of the car..
lazs
-
I'd rather see the driver next to me eating and talking with one hand on the wheel rather than driving with his knees, talking on his cell, and eating.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Car manufacturers do not give away seatbelts or safety devices or smog devices it is all factored into the cost of the car..
lazs
And safety devices such as airbags and seatbelts save millions in health care costs, not to mention lives. Even the helmet law can be justified cause hospitals can't turn away critical care accident victims, and treating them raises my healthcare costs.
What you want, Lazs, is the freedom to do what you want, plus the safety net of having the Government fix you up when you fall down with scissors.
-
It's amazing what people will do while driving. We really need drive-by-wire cars so we can get computer driven cars.
-
Originally posted by Airhead
And safety devices such as airbags and seatbelts save millions in health care costs, not to mention lives. Even the helmet law can be justified cause hospitals can't turn away critical care accident victims, and treating them raises my healthcare costs.
What you want, Lazs, is the freedom to do what you want, plus the safety net of having the Government fix you up when you fall down with scissors.
I think what Laz wants is the government to leave him alone......
-
Originally posted by NUKE
I think what Laz wants is the government to leave him alone......
Hey, we ALL do. But as long as our health care system is required BY LAW to treat you if you're injured- at MY expense- then I have the right to tell what you can, and cannot, do.
-
Originally posted by Airhead
Hey, we ALL do. But as long as our health care system is required BY LAW to treat you if you're injured- at MY expense- then I have the right to tell what you can, and cannot, do.
so is it a law that people wear condoms?
-
Originally posted by NUKE
so is it a law that people wear condoms?
For many, it should have been for their parents.
-
Originally posted by Airhead
For many, it should have been for their parents.
funny, but doesn't sex count as a danger to our health and an increase to our insurance costs?
Why is there no law that requires condoms during sex? Maybe we should apply for a permit from the government to be able to sex without a condom.
edit: I'm a freaking genius, don't screw with me.
-
No simple answer to that Nuke, except, "Not Yet".
-
Originally posted by NUKE
funny, but doesn't sex count as a danger to our health and an increase to our insurance costs?
Why is there no law that requires condoms during sex? Maybe we should apply for a permit from the government to be able to sex without a condom.
edit: I'm a freaking genius, don't screw with me.
HA!!! Actually there IS a law requiring condoms... for HIV Positive males! In fact HIV positive prostitutes have been jailed for continuing to "work."
More "nannying" laws, huh?
-
Originally posted by Airhead
HA!!! Actually there IS a law requiring condoms... for HIV Positive males! In fact HIV positive prostitutes have been jailed for continuing to "work."
More "nannying" laws, huh?
really? Maybe the law is too lax? Why not require all people to use condoms during sex, unless government approved?
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
I really need a safe. The good ones are to heavy for someone who does not own their home though. :(
A good safe has to be anchored into a concrete floor, preferably incorporated into the design of a new house or the addition to an existing house. It must be hidden from sight of a casual observer. Thieves can just steal the whole safe and open it at their leisure if it's not anchored down.
Had a party one time at my house, and one of my intoxicated guests was working the combination of a small refrigerator I had that looked like a safe...had his ear up to the door and everything. You shoulda seen the look on his face when I said "excuse me" and opened the refrigerator to retrieve a beer. He was very confused, almost to the point that I was wondering if he was genuinely interested in opening that "safe."
Far as gun locks go, they are ineffective at preventing children from removing them, so they serve no purpose there. Imo, it's a law that is designed to help prosecute citizens who use firearms in self defense, that being a stepping stone toward a future requirement that firearms require locks on them at all times. So, even if you carry, you must first remove the lock if you need to use a firearm.
That's not practical, and everyone knows it. Probably won't be long before all new firearms have computer chips, with the user having a chip implanted (most extreme case) or more likely a ring or special watch with a chip that enables the weapon. Of course, pre-chip weapons still would have to use the trigger lock.
I believe that's where all this lock business is leading, though I hope I'm wrong. If it does get to that point, it will be in the future, but I believe the technology is in place right now for that.
Rpm371 interesting idea, of course, with a smart chip, I suppose those firearms could somehow be disabled at the whim of some central computer operator, or even possibly a hacker. A large EMP (electromagnetic pulse) could also disable. Not to mention the expense involved, so people without means couldn't afford firearms unless they were resolved to use trigger locks within the future (hypothetical) law. Something to think about. Dunno. Doesn't sound like a good idea to me for those reasons. Besides, I don't see how it could be done without permanent registration of some kind, which is currently not the law of the land. Firearms registration records must be destroyed by the Feds after a short period (the background check.)
Les
Sorry GTO, kinda used your quote to address Laz's thread topic and rpm's handprint idea.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
edit: I'm a freaking genius, don't screw with me.
:confused:
-
Originally posted by NUKE
really? Maybe the law is too lax? Why not require all people to use condoms during sex, unless government approved?
Why? As long as you aren't spreading diseases it's a non-issue.
Sheesh, man. What kind of a genius are you, anyway? :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Airhead
Why? As long as you aren't spreading diseases it's a non-issue.
Sheesh, man. What kind of a genius are you, anyway? :rolleyes:
ever hear of AIDS?
b.t.w. Im an evil, dunk type genuis
-
Originally posted by NUKE
ever hear of AIDS?
b.t.w. Im an evil, dunk type genuis
OK, here's how it is- The Government cannot be there to see if you're wearing a condom or not, so your proposed law would be unenforceable (without a complaintant). However, the Government is doing the next best thing- they are educating kids about the hazards of unsafe sex and distributing condoms to our children.
It all makes perfect sense Nuke.
Oh, and the only dunking you do is with a donut and a cup of coffee. You may be a genius but you ain't no basketball genius.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
funny, but doesn't sex count as a danger to our health and an increase to our insurance costs?
Why is there no law that requires condoms during sex? Maybe we should apply for a permit from the government to be able to sex without a condom.
I vote for a mandatory swallow law.
-
Originally posted by Airhead
In fact HIV positive prostitutes have been jailed for continuing to "work."
don;t they get the worker's comp? Injured on a job after all.
-
Originally posted by mietla
don;t they get the worker's comp? Injured on a job after all.
BINGO!! Mielta just nailed it. As long as I have to pay for others' accidents through higher health care costs and workers' compensation costs I have every right to legislate your safety.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
rpm... you did not get a "free" hands free cell phone thingie... the company just raised rates or didn't lower em... they are not eating the cost.. Car manufacturers do not give away seatbelts or safety devices or smog devices it is all factored into the cost of the car..
lazs
My point exactly Laz. The headset was given to me no charge. I'm sure AT&T wrote 100% of the retail value off their taxes, so it WAS paid for. Trigger Lock costs should be added into the cost of a new gun just like seatbelts or safety glass on a new car. Manditory safety equiptment.
I know the "Handprint" safety is a futuristic idea, altho the technology is out there now. How you would get it to work is another thing. I have seen safety devices that incorporated a ring the owner would wear. If you were not wearing the ring, the gun would not fire. James Bond kinda stuff.
Bottom line...
Trigger Lock = Good Idea
No Trigger Lock = Dumb Idea