BoatBanter.com - Speaking of guns and horses

iBoaterer wrote:
In article 1542809174406399845.814004bmckeenospam-
, says...

iBoaterer wrote:
In article 748366794406340743.994699bmckeenospam-
, says...

"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 11/16/2013 5:19 PM, John H wrote:
On Sat, 16 Nov 2013 16:52:07 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 11/16/2013 12:16 PM, HankÂ© wrote:

On 11/16/2013 12:03 PM, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...

I was just reading that a selectman in a town here in MA (Shrewsbury)
has raised an issue regarding gun ownership. He feels that local police
departments should have the authority to visit registered gun owners'
homes and inspect for required safe storage of the guns. His point is
that laws exist that require locks and/or safes for guns but there are
no means of enforcing these laws.

Hmmmmm....

I pondered that one for a little bit then, because of the discussions
here about horses, I realized something.

A permit is required to have horses permanently on your property ... at
least in our town and many others.

The permit is issued yearly based on an inspection of the stables, barn,
and grounds by the animal control inspector. She checks to ensure
sanitary and safe conditions for both the horse(s) and that may visit in
the barn area.

Is that any different than home inspections for the safe storage of
firearms?

I don't know.

What are you going to do when they want to inspect your toilets to
ensure that you are using
low flow models. What are you going to do when you they want to
inspect your light fixtures
to ensure that you are using the light bulb they demand that you use.

The issues is when do you stand up for your rights?

There are so many deadbeats voting now that the vision of states and
individual rights is only a fading memory.

The people I get a kick out of are the ones demanding their "rights"
yet have never contributed or done anything to protect or defend those
rights. They just want them.

Here's an example:

We have a person here who *demands* his right to bear arms who:

a. Never served in the military or other public service organization
like the Peace Corps, etc., to support that right (other than be
hatched here.)

b. Doesn't own a firearm.

c. Doesn't even have a permit to own a firearm.

Yet, the same person complained that I was jeopardizing his "rights"
because I indicated I'd have no problem with a cop inspecting how I
stored my firearms to ensure compliance with state and local laws.

That cracked me up. I have no problem with those who never served in
the military or other national service of some kind. That's up to them
and there's nothing wrong with it. But don't tell me I am putting their
"rights" in jeopardy simply because I choose to accept reasonable gun
laws intended to promote public safety. I earned my right to decide that.

I'm not sure to whom you're referring, 'cause I don't know who
does/doesn't own a firearm. Maybe
I've not been paying close enough attention.

But, one's 'rights' under the Constitution should have no bearing
whatsoever on the service they
have or haven't rendered to this country. I have no problem with you
letting whomever you want into
your house for whatever reason. I *would* have a problem with an
uninvited, warrantless search of my
house by the cops or anyone else. And I would have a big problem with
some city council passing a
law which made warrantless searches without cause possible.

John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!

First of all, it wasn't you complaining that my acceptance of a safety
inspection put *your* rights at risk. It was Scott.

Second, the guy who is promoting the concept of home inspections isn't
advocating a restriction on the right to bear arms protected by the
Second Amendment. He's basically saying that in order to get a permit
to own and store a firearm, you agree to allow an inspection of how you
store them. If you don't agree ... no permit.

That's why I don't have a problem with it, even if it eventually gets
enacted into law. To get a permit as it is in this state, we already
must submit to a background check, be fingerprinted and every purchase or
sale of a gun by us is kept ... ergo "Registry". I have no problem
with any of that either. Maybe if I were of a criminal mind I would.

I have a large problem with the requirement that you have to have a permit
to own a firearm! As long as you can pass a background check, to make sure
you are not psycho or a felon, that should be it. Including buying out of
state. It is a computerized check now, so across state lines should not be
a problem. Same problem with the so called Assault Weapon Bans. They ban
rifles because they look nasty. Are not military grade, nor full
automatic, nor 3 round burst. They are Semi autos, same as have been
produced for over a hundred years.

Do you feel the same about the requirement to have a license to drive?
Should anyone be able to keep dangerous chemicals such as Ricin?

Is it illegal to possess Ricin?
Or just to use it? And where is driving
licenses a protected in the Constitution right? And Driver licenses and
associated are a source of revenue for the states. Plus you need an ID.
DMV for a license, or state issued ID.

All of that above has NOTHING to do with this thread. You and Scotty
just change with the wind! Ricin and many, many other chemicals are
illegal to possess without the proper permits, like gun ownership. There
are lots of things not covered in the Constitution, dumbass. As a matter
of fact, your right to vote for president isn't covered in the
Constitution.

The president was not for the populace to elect, Dumbass. Was up to the
states to appoint the electors. Was and still is up to the state on how
they get their members to the Electoral College. You realize that the
states elector does not have to actually vote for the one he is appointed
to vote for. California, the elector is only required to vote for their
person for the first two votes. Congress was for the people to choose.