Quote Originally Posted by Alpha View Post
The question is whether it CAN BE used for its intended purpose.
Sure, it COULD be used for its intended purpose ... well after its use is necessary. It would be like saying that you are allowed to own a car, but you must keep the car in the garage and the wheels in the basement, and every time you wish or need to use it, you must assemble it first ... sure, it CAN be used, so it's no problem, right?

I don't care if it makes it more difficult---I think guns are far too prevalent in America, but because you have a Constitutional right to bear and keep them, and unconstitional laws are by definition impermissible, my job is to suggest ways to get closer to my idea of an ideal America within the constraints of that particular document (that frankly needs to be re-written). If licensing is constitutional, a requirement to keep them in two rooms and in locked containers (which is my understanding of the law in New Zealand) probably is too. So I think it's a reasonable thing to suggest.
You may not care if it makes it more difficult, but the United States Supreme Court, ninety million American firearm owners, the majority of Americans, and the thousands upon thousands of people per year who defend themselves with a firearm care quite a bit. And they're more important.

Besides, your "ideal America" and an American's "ideal America" are, quite obviously, two vastly different subjects.

If a gun is to kept so that fit and able people are able to form a militia to fight a hypothetical, tyrannical government, then my suggestion is not unreasonable at all. Unless the government employs ninjas whom one cannot hear coming.
Nah, because it's not like registration has always been the first step towards confiscation, or that every tyrannical government in history has used firearm registration to disarm its citizens, or anything like that ...

Funny then that licensing is not unconstitutional. Can you tell me anything about court cases that have challenged the legality of licencing (or dis-assembly requirements)? (Serious question.)
Here's a decision from Maryland -- a very liberal state -- that states that requiring a license to own a handgun, or to carry a firearm outside of the home, is unConstitutional. Also, the McDonald v. Chicago case.

And as for laws requiring dis-assembly being unConstitutional, that was Heller v. Columbia (which you already knew, because you corrected me in this same post).

So you are right: dis-assembly is unconstitutional, but it was the wrong case. However licensing is not.
Licensing is unConstitutional, it just wasn't addressed in Heller v. Columbia. It was addressed in other cases (such as McDonald v. Chicago), and found unConstitutional.

Also, "completely defeats"? Really? A ban on all types of ammunition would "completely defeat" the purpose of ensuring the right to self-defense, but a licensing system does not. I agree, the idea of the government knowing who owns guns when the reason guns are allowed is for them to be able to be used against the government is counter-intuitive, but it still allows them to be used, so it cannot "completely defeat" the purpose.
Allowing somebody to have a means of self-defense, but placing strict and unrealistic requirements on how, when, where, and by whom this right can be exercised, is as good or bad as not recognizing the right at all. The Constitution doesn't state that the right to keep and bear arms should be partially respected, it demands that it must not be infringed.

So I'd say my point stands: a requirement to keep your guns in two rooms is not a violation (infringement, definition 1.) of an American's right to bear and keep arms, it is only an additional barrier, but not a substantive one (infringement, definition 2.).
Again, just because it's not a complete dissolution of the right does not at all mean that it is not an infringement upon that right. Putting barriers and restrictions on a right is exactly infringing upon it.

No, don't be silly, and stick to the subject at hand rather than resorting to logical absurdities.
Sorry, I didn't realize how absurd it was. I mean, expecting a property owner to be held liable for damage caused by the illegal use of his property after its theft? That's absurdly stupid.

This debate is about gun rights and gun responsibilities. I am suggesting that for guns, and for guns only, that there be introduced a particular responsibility for safe keeping.
... even if it's only for guns. Especially if it's only for guns.

What if a kid breaks into his dad's liquor cabinet, drinks, and does something stupid? Or takes a pack of cigarettes out of his mom's purse? Or steals a car? More people are killed by cars, tobacco use, and alcohol consumption every year than by firearms. By a very large amount. Why wouldn't the owner be liable for damage to health or property in those cases?

Oh -- it's because guns are scary.

I suggest this with tragedies like Sandy Hook in mind, where the gun used was not owned by the criminal. I am suggesting that perhaps if the mother of the murderer had had additional incentive to securely store her weapon, he would not have been able to use it in the tragedy.
Do you honestly think that somebody messed up enough to slaughter more than two dozen people, including his own mother, would have a moral problem getting a firearm from somewhere else? Like nothing bad would have happened if he could get ahold of one specific firearm?

By the way, I have to ask ... how exactly were his mother's firearms stored? And to what extent do you suggest they be secured?

This additional incentive would have been the knowledge that if the gun could be accessed and used by anybody who is not the licensed owner, any crimes committed with it would also be the responsibility of the owner, for they enabled its use through improper keeping.
Since firearms are used in defense exponentially more often than they are used in murders, given the choice between making a firearm more accessible for defense and making it more secure because you would want to make me liable for crimes committed with my firearm after it would be stolen, I would take the gamble and keep firearms readily available.

Here's an additional way to enact my suggestion, that sounds more effective (esp. as it does not require apparently-unconstitutional dis-assembly), but is currently a little way off from realisation: Smart Gun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I don't want my life in the hands of a battery-operated electronic device, thank you very much.

Now where's your suggestion for how to prevent a similar tragedy from happening (short of turning schools into military bases)?
Does posting a handful of guards turn something into a military base? Some public schools in America already have guards posted in them (including all schools attended by children of United States federal office holders). None of those schools have had mass shootings.

The owners of guns that are stolen because they can be shown to have been improperly/insecurely kept are responsible for any crimes committed with them. Is my suggestion, yes.
So you would make the owners less safe, because their firearm might be stolen by a criminal who would be breaking a law just to get access to it in the first place.

But they're not. They can still have burglar alarms, tazers, bats, knives, dogs, locks, safe rooms... guns (dis-assembled, registered).
Or, they can have the most cost-effective, easiest, most efficient form of defense ever invented, ready and available for their use against intruders. If you weren't too scared of it, at least.

Besides, you didn't answer the question. A taser is a one-shot deal; dogs and locks aren't reliable; safe rooms are extremely expensive and sometimes inaccessible; and melee weapons are only as good as the wielder. If the home of an elderly person, a small woman, or teenage child is broken into by bad people, what would be their best means of defense against the threat of rape or death?

What I don't accept is their need to live in fear of people that necessitates their ownership of a gun.
But you'd be fine with somebody living in enough fear to necessitate building of a safe room, installation of a burglar alarm, or training and care of a guard dog, apparently ...

I don't own a gun; the only people I know who do, are farmers, who only own pretty shit rifles; I feel very, very safe. If my neighbour had a gun, I would become very afraid of ever pissing him off, and would feel decidedly less safe.
Do you honestly -- I'm asking, honestly -- believe that (legal) firearm owners are inherently more violent?

I would ask you: why do you accept a Hobbesian society where we expect and tolerate everyone to be armed?
Because people are shit, that's why. We will never get rid of all crime, and we will never get rid of all those willing to become criminals -- all that's left is to deter it, and to allow the populace to defend against it if and when it happens to them. Securing the right of the people to keep and bear arms does both.

We are not at war. You should be angry that 'bad' people have guns in the first instance, and not advocate that we just ignore it and engage in an arms race.
Bad people have guns. I don't like it, but that won't change it. And neither will taking guns away from good people.