Originally posted by Vulcan
Maverick:
lazs introduced the knife, chainsaw comparison. Do you choose to exclude these counter-comparisons only because it suits your point of view.
Why is it irrelevant. So far the pro-gun quarter seem to think a "mans home is his castle" and the government should not be interested in what goes on in his castle. I am merely comparing two devices, both of which have no other purpose to function as a weapon. Once again you see to want to dismiss comparisons when it doesn't suit your point of view.
Why is it irrelevant? The pro-gun group here are fervently arguing againts these laws. My question is if they believe that guns should be stored safely and properly in the light of their opinion that that is their business and not the governments. I want to know who decides what is appropriate.
Let me ask you this then. Are there people who do not store guns safely and properly who are not convicted criminals?
My points of view have been nothing but civil. Perhaps you are confused over who has posted what. Cogent argument? You mean like saying "my home is my castle" or the "police can pry my gun from my cold dead fingers". Once again, I find more hypocracy.
One of these days I'll learn how to do the post within a quoted post yet but not today or this week.
Vulcan,
I said that the first three statements were irrelevent as they did not relate to the article which was the confiscation of previously registered firearms for the reason of "improper storage". I didn't see the post from anyone else mentioning chainsaws etc. as I long since stopped reading all posts in a gun thread here. Sorry.
I just went back and saw the post from Laz you were referring to. He is mostly correct. There is no "requirement" to store items that he mentioned absent any negative or "bad action" regarding them. He is totally inacurate about being able to drive drunk on his own property. There are 3 laws regarding driving on private property (in AZ. ) that you can be arrested for, vehicular manslaughter, reckless driving and DUI. I still feel the points you tried to make comparing them is irrelevent. They are disimilar objects. To claim they could be misused is also not an arguement. It is possible to misuse almost anything.
Please note I said your fourth statement WAS relevent. I also pointed out it was basicly null in information for the reason that no one, including you, has provided the criteria of what constitutes "proper security" of the firearms that the article was talking about. I would like to know what the criteria are. Who makes the decision regarding "proper storage / security"? At what level is it made and is it possible to contest it using due process. The article "suggests" there was NO recourse and the weapons (not all of which were firearms, I wonder what the other "weapons" were) were destroyed.
As to the castle bit you brought up, please note I didn't discuss it. FWIW the concept that a "man's home is his castle" does have legal status. It may not have the same meaning that you wish to put on it. In Arizona (I cannot and will not speak of all American jurisdictions) it is a recognized point of law. It is the "last place of retreat" for a homeowner / dweller (you don't have to own the "castle"). A person who lives there cannot be forced to retreat from their home by criminal action. In plain language you are legally allowed to defend yourself in your home from criminal assault.
The "castle" concept does not mean the government does not have influence there. Example, you can still be prosecuted for illegal acts you commit in your "castle". There has never been any exemption for a person's "castle". I do not recall anyone you castigate as a "gun nut" saying that their home was in fact proof agianst government interest. If you have a post here saying that please provide it.
Your fissionable point is still irrelevent. I do not recall anyone, save yourself, indicating a desire or concern about fissionable storage. Devices classed as destructive are regulated and for the most part prohibited. Improper storage of even chemical explosives falls under this category. Of course the government in the person of Congress (acting as the representatives of their constituants) has enacted laws regarding this subject. There is your authority point, but you should have known that.
I am certain there are people who do not store their firearms in what you would consider proper storage. I am still waiting for a definition of what you consider (Australia as well for that matter) constitutes safe storage. The next question is, are they liable for that situation? Short answer, in the US, they are, both criminally and civily IF something bad happens as a direct result of the item getting out of the owners control. Not before. The article at the beginning of the thread indicated that punitive actions were taken and property destroyed without any "bad actions" having occured.
Now we are back to the same questions I posed and you did not answer. What constitutes proper storage, who decides and what are the recourses for the owner? You mentioned a similar question about who decides. You already have an answer in your own post. Those you call "pro gun" indicate it is a private situation that does not involve the government. Do you have a different proposal?
Are you suggesting that absent any criminal activity on the part of the owner and no "bad actions", that the government should intervene here? I ask you this, who decides where the government starts or stops intervening? How many ways or subjects should the goverment intervene in?
You claim there is hypocracy but fail to illustrate it. It cannot be defended if you do not point out what you claim is hypocracy. Until you do so that claim is mere "noise" and not either an arguement or proof.
The final point is the lack of a cogent arguement from you on this subject. You fail to state a position other than to criticise what others say as far as I have seen. You question but provide no counter arguement. In short, what is your position(s) regarding the points of the original article?
