Right. The current policy/law does not in any way, shape, or form infringe upon their right to bear arms.

 

But the rule that guns and ammo be stored separately is over kill, no pun intended.

What if they banned families looking to adopt from having alcohol in the house?

 

Everybody good with not having beer in the house?

 

It's the same thing. You have to make a choice: Booze or Kids.

My point is that if the CPS is going to mandate that anything that could possibly cause an accidental death be locked up that would be seen as absurd. Just as absurd as requiring guns and ammo be stored separately.

I agree that storing an unloaded gun separately from the ammo is absurd. No argument there.

What if they banned families looking to adopt from having alcohol in the house?

 

Everybody good with not having beer in the house?

Nope. But if I really wanted to adopt a kid I'd have to make a choice.

Can you imagine the outrage if an adopted kid or foster kid who has issues takes pop's gun to school and something awful happens? In this day and age every step and measure is being made to avoid those types of situations and those measures extend beyond belief. IMO this is one of those measures.

 

What if the adopted or foster kid takes mom's box of kitchen matches to school and starts a fire and something awful happens? Where does it stop?

What if the adopted or foster kid takes mom's box of kitchen matches to school and starts a fire and something awful happens? Where does it stop?

 

If you are going to compare guns to matches, continuing this discussion with you is pointless.

What if the adopted or foster kid takes mom's box of kitchen matches to school and starts a fire and something awful happens? Where does it stop?

We haven't had kids doing that yet. I'd say once kids start doing that they'll go into reactive mode to fix it. Wouldn't you agree that a lot of the push for gun restrictions is due to gun violence taking place in schools?

If you are going to compare guns to matches, continuing this discussion with you is pointless.

 

How so?

 

I'll bet before the Boston bombing the thought of a pressure cooker being weaponized was seen as absurd by many.

 

Could a kid not take matches to a school, start a fire and cause tragedy? Would a child killed in that situation be any less dead then a kid killed by a gun?

But the rule that guns and ammo be stored separately is over kill, no pun intended.

 

It may be over the top, but it's a simple choice really. Comply with the rules/law that while an inconvenience, does not in any way infringe upon their rights to own guns, and adopt, or don't and no kids.

We haven't had kids doing that yet. I'd say once kids start doing that they'll go into reactive mode to fix it. Wouldn't you agree that a lot of the push for gun restrictions is due to gun violence taking place in schools?

 

From what I've read none of the restrictions that are being pushed for would have prevented most of the school incidents because the guns were legally obtained. Again, I have no issue with the gun owner being held accountable if the negligently store the weapon.

How so?

 

I'll bet before the Boston bombing the thought of a pressure cooker being weaponized was seen as absurd by many.

 

Could a kid not take matches to a school, start a fire and cause tragedy? Would a child killed in that situation be any less dead then a kid killed by a gun?

 

Show me some Match Violence data and how it's affecting our country currently, if you don't mind.

From what I've read none of the restrictions that are being pushed for would have prevented most of the school incidents because the guns were legally obtained. Again, I have no issue with the gun owner being held accountable if the negligently store the weapon.

 

I know that. I just seem to recall that gun advocates were saying that the last school shooting was hoax by the government to push through the banning and restricting of guns. After each school/public shootings it becomes a politicized argument about gun control. I know and have learned each time that gun control wouldn't have stopped those incidents but those incidents are what gun control advocates use to push their agenda forward.

I guess you and I have a different interpretation of discrimination. I make the choice to carry/have a gun, I didn't choose to be black...

 

So it's only discrimination if race is involved? :no:

So it's only discrimination if race is involved? :no:

 

The point is having a gun is a choice, not the color of one's skin.

So it's only discrimination if race is involved? :no:

 

The current law/policy does not in any way infringe upon a person's right to bear arms.

 

There is no discrimination.