Updated by popular demand from the original tongue-in-cheek post which read like this:
In accordance with newly enacted legislation, the gun owner will
permanently forfeit his right to own guns, spend 10 days in jail and
report to a probation officer for 10 years, submitting to regular and
random home inspections, to ensure compliance. The new law signed by
the governor earlier this week is called the "one strike you're out gun
law." Supporters are optimistic that this year alone thousands of lives
and millions of dollars will be saved.
What I'd like to clarify is exactly to whom this sanction should apply. The simple answer is anyone who does anything wrong with a gun.
1. dropped gun
2. negligent discharge
3. improperly stored weapon in the hands of a child
4. improperly stored weapon stolen
5. brandishing
6. lost gun
7. bringing a gun to the airport because you forgot you had it
Obviously, each of these can have a wide range of consequences and should not all result in the same exact punishment. A judge would have discretion concerning the appropriate jail time, fines, etc., but the forfeiture of gun rights is not up for bargain.
What popular demand? Who's bargaining?
ReplyDeleteYou're right in one respect: This isn't even on the table. We're not doing it. Got anything else?
WOW! I thought I was a pretty tough. You would have half the country in jail and forfiet half their rights by the end of the week. Not to mention you would have more than half the armed forces kicked out because you know how many privates lose thier weapon? a good number. Another thing, how would a police officer know it was improperly stored? I guess if you are going to violate one right you might as well violate them all. of course you would say the fourth amendment "is not unlimited and can be restricted".
ReplyDeleteYou don't sound tough at all.
DeleteI don't think "more than half the armed forces" lose their guns.
One way the failure to safely store a gun can be determined is by investigating the scene of a gun mishap. It's not that hard, really.
In the above scheme, no rights would be violated. People would be held accountable for their behavior, that's all.
Wait, in another post you claim that over half of current gun owners are unfit. So do you exclude "armed forces" from that demographic? It's hard to keep up with all of your guesses and made up stats.
DeleteSorry it's so hard for you to keep up. Usually on this blog we're talking about civilian gun ownership. I believe that was the case when I said 50% probably need to be disarmed.
DeleteAh, because, of course, the government is the only element in society that has a right to own guns--that's your position, right?
DeletePLEASE come to my house and try to take away my guns, you little pencil-necked chickenshit coward. Not many other events would quite make my day so perfectly.
DeleteKarl, Be proud. Guys like you are the reason gun-rights fanatics are known as Neanderthals and numbskulls.
DeleteI'm curious as to what MikeB would classify as a improperly stored weapon?
ReplyDeleteOur friend Robert Farago says the gun should be on your person or in a safe.
DeleteI like that.
Just to make sure I understand this correctly; If I don't have my guns in a safe and someone breaks into my home and steals my guns, I'm at fault?
DeleteYes, absolutely. In fact you should be guilty of a crime in that case. You would have enabled a thief to get a gun which could have serious consequences.
DeleteYou don't like the personal responsibility that goes with gun ownership do you?
Gee, let's start indicting rape victims for immodesty, then.
DeleteProper gun storage is the responsibility of the gun owner. It has nothing to do with rape.
DeleteProper vaginal security is the responsibility of the vagina owner. The rapist's culpability is secondary.
ReplyDeleteI suppose I should use another example involving property instead of anatomy. If your computer is infected with a virus and becomes part of a botnet, you have failed to properly secure your computer and should not be permitted to own one. If your car is stolen and used to commit a crime, you have failed to properly secure your car and should not be permitted to own one. If your painkillers are stolen and sold illegally, you have failed to properly secure your drugs and should not be permitted to own them. Do these make sense?
DeleteAll your comparisons suck because guns are weapons and weapons have no peer.
DeleteThe fact is that you're still blaming the victim of crime for "allowing it to happen." Your frothy hatred of guns allows you to single out gun owners for truly despotic punishments that would be absurd to apply to any other victim of crime. What a joke.
DeleteYou think people should lose their 2nd and 4th amendment rights for dropping a gun? I have been in the military for 6 years and I have seen hundreds of people drop their weapon. The whole list is dumb but that rule is a special kind of stupid.
ReplyDelete