School attack in Canadaland.Follow

A cellphone that fires a round at anyone that selfies with that stupid duck face. I think I found my happy thought.

Mom shot by son

Much like accidentally leaving a cup of coffee on the roof of your car as you climb in. A cup of coffee that can kill you in a split second.

You seem to have failed to understand my counter point. If people want to do this, they are free to do so. That's what "freedom" is about. My issue is when you move to mandating that people use these things.

I'll also point out that a camera in the home would accomplish all of those things as well, and not require any form of handgun regulation be passed for the home user to install and use (again, if he wishes). So I'm not really getting the point here.

Huh? Are we thinking of the same legislation? FOPA was a significant decrease in federal restrictions on gun ownership. The only restrictions it added was regarding machinegun sales.



Not in FOPA though. Well, except for the requirements when transferring a firearm through a state with more restrictive rules. Which, um... acts to allow something that would otherwise be illegal under state law. So, not a restriction at all.

I was also specifically responding to things like biometric locks on the gun itself. Hence my point about being in control of where and when I may fire my weapon. I don't want to have even the tiniest chance that I need to fire my gun to defend myself, and it fails because of a safety feature some idiot mandated.

Various states and cities have requirements regarding storage and transfer of firearms, but those are not under FOPA, and IMO in many cases probably should not be constitutional. In my own home, I should be free to store my own firearms however I wish. It's my responsibility to manage things inside my own home. And my responsibility if I fail to do so and this results in someone else being harmed. This is no different than how I store cleaning supplies, or whether I choose to put plugs on my outlets, etc.

It's not a bad idea to idiot/child-proof your home. But it should not be mandated by law.



Again though, FOPA does not do that for firearms in the home, only those being transported, and then only in states where the firearm would otherwise be illegal to posses at all. I'm not doubting that NY may have more restrictive rules, but that's NY. I'll also point out that the DC handgun ban was on the books for 3 decades, but was eventually ruled unconstitutional. So there mere fact that a law is on the books does not mean it is not now unconstitutional, and may at some point be ruled unconstitutional.




No, I didn't. You seem to have a problem distinguishing between "should not be" and "is not". I'm talking about what regulations should not be applied to firearms. That some state or city somewhere may have passed just such a regulation does not in any way invalidate my argument. By your logic, since slavery was legal, no one should have ever argued that it should not be, much less that it might violate the constitutional rights of those suffering it. That's a really dumb line of thought.



I'm sorry. I'm reasonably certain that the constitution very clearly states that "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". That would seem to suggest that things designed specifically to infringe the right to keep and bear arms are (or should be) in violation of the constitution. It's not a fringe idea to say that if the intent of a law is to make it more difficult to merely own and use a firearm in general, that law probably shouldn't pass constitutional muster. Laws that say you can't buy a basic weapon are unconstitutional. Law that require that you store them in your home in a manner that makes them significantly harder to use in the case of home defense are (or should be) unconstitutional.

What you can do is pass laws regarding the use of firearms. Specifically in ways that pose a direct danger to others. So yeah, I have no issues with things like background checks and reasonable safety course requirements for open or concealed carry permits. And I don't have a problem with restrictions on firearms that by their nature cannot be used in a "safe" manner for personal or home defense (so no machine guns isn't a problem, nor restrictions on things like tanks, grenades, bombs, and atomic weapons). But I do have an issue with laws that simply make it more expensive or difficult to own an otherwise "normal" firearm. And I have an issue with laws that simply make it unreasonably difficult to use said "normal" firearm for personal/home defense. Because those laws are very clearly not about public safety at all, but to limit the total number of firearms in society as a whole. And that runs afoul of the 2nd amendment IMO.

Edited, Mar 17th 2016 3:51pm by gbaji

It's pretty telling that even you recognize how dumb your strawman was. So what you are saying is that handguns should have remained banned because it was a decision made by unelected judges? Or are you arguing that changes to the constitution can only be made if they have "your" personal approval?

Not restricting the buyer means than any existing firearms are not affected, but sales of new firearms have different restrictions.

This deters criminals from using any guns that were lawfully purchased, and thus LEOs can spend their time cracking down on illegal sale/manufacture, and with bio-metrics lawful gun owners would not have their guns stolen or "borrowed" to facilitate crime, which is where >half the guns used in crimes. (Only 3-5% of guns used in crimes were bought by the gun owner at a store legally)