Lock up your f'n guns!

[Dauvis]

No, you think accountability is the implementation of rules. You said so yourself. You set it up so that freedom (having the pool) and accountability (required to be secured from children) were contradictory. You created accountability on the part of the homeowner by the existence of rules.

I might not have been clear on my original post. The accountability is the consequences of not properly securing the pool if a young child drowns in it. At least that was what I was intending to write.

In the absence of those rules, what responsibility does the homeowner have for that child? Is it his child? Is the child there with permission? How can the homeowner be responsible for someone when that person isn't supposed to be there? Your example is nothing less than the thief suing the homeowner because the former was bit by the latter's dog when the former was attempting to burgle the joint. I have no responsibility, and therefore, no accountability, for what happens to people not invited to my property.

I am using a situation based on the doctrine of attractive nuisance. The home owner would most likely not be guardian of the child as the child in this scenario is trespassing. The doctrine only applies for young children. The home owner would not (in a sane world) be responsible for a burglar that gets injured.

I think you need to provide an example because I can't see liberty being at risk if the state is kept out of the equation. What powers do my neighbors have to infringe on my liberties? The only risk comes from the state. I didn't invite them in. Did you?

I agree that infringement only happens when the state is involved. The most invasive example that I can think of would be political correctness. Think about the chilling effects on liberties that has done.

 

[BIGnTall83]

I couldn't agree more. Also be sure to check out his carry condition butterscotch video... http://youtu.be/8pU2IOTEZlU

LMAO As soon as my LTCH comes this will be my carry method of choice!

 

[actaeon277]

...

I agree that infringement only happens when the state is involved. The most invasive example that I can think of would be political correctness. Think about the chilling effects on liberties that has done.

The state IS getting involved, because of the requirement to isolate the pool.
The pool owner is NOT responsible because a parent either didn't keep track of their kid or didn't teach them to stay off OTHER'S property.
Because the law says we have to isolate the pool does not make it our responsiblity.

malum in se = Wrong in itself = Something considered a universal wrong or evil, regardless of the system of laws in effect.

malum prohibitum = Prohibited wrong = Something wrong or illegal by virtue of it being expressly prohibited, that might not otherwise be so.

We are talking about malum in se. To have a pool without a fence, is not wrong in itself.

You are talking about malum prohibitum. It is wrong, because the law says it is. Not because the act is wrong.

My pool is fenced it. Gates have latches that are too high for children.
Yet I used to constantly come home to the neighbor's 2 kids running around in my back yard. They would use a chair to jump the fence, or a pole to try to unlatch the gate.
The fence was useless. And so was the parent's instilling the sense of ownership on their anklebiters.

 

[Bunnykid68]

I might not have been clear on my original post. The accountability is the consequences of not properly securing the pool if a young child drowns in it. At least that was what I was intending to write.

What defines properly secured pool? A fence? A taller fence? A fence without gates? If gates must they be locked?

What measures should one HAVE to take for others not to infringe upon ones rights?

 

[Oresti]

Ok, another note: Even if you have a gun locked with a cable lock in your house, I dont think thats good enough. A criminal or other person can still take your gun cut the lock off and now they have a gun. You must protect it when not within your care or on your person in a secured safe. In my opinion, I dont see responsible gun ownership any other way.
Ok you want to protect your house at night with your gun, fine take it with you to bed. You get up in the morning and discover everything is ok, now lock that bad boy up or put it in your holster and take it with you.

You would freak if you came to my house. I went to work this morning and left 4 9mm's on top of the fridge (two loaded). A 30-06 leaning against the end of the couch. Two AR's, two Browning shotguns, and two 10/22's leaning against the wall in my office. Oh yeah, I left the door to my gun safe open.

 

[Oresti]

And im sure this will touch a nerve too, but do you really need a gun everywhere in your house? That's paranoia to me. I dont know what the statistic would be, but I would be willing to bet you are more likely to have an accidental shooting or theft that way.

My parents used to wear their seat belts only when we went on vacation. They would never wear one during day to day driving. I guess they knew ahead of time when they might be involved in an accident. You must be psychic like they were.

 

[Dauvis]

The state IS getting involved, because of the requirement to isolate the pool.
The pool owner is NOT responsible because a parent either didn't keep track of their kid or didn't teach them to stay off OTHER'S property.
Because the law says we have to isolate the pool does not make it our responsiblity.

malum in se = Wrong in itself = Something considered a universal wrong or evil, regardless of the system of laws in effect.

malum prohibitum = Prohibited wrong = Something wrong or illegal by virtue of it being expressly prohibited, that might not otherwise be so.

We are talking about malum in se. To have a pool without a fence, is not wrong in itself.

You are talking about malum prohibitum. It is wrong, because the law says it is. Not because the act is wrong.

My pool is fenced it. Gates have latches that are too high for children.
Yet I used to constantly come home to the neighbor's 2 kids running around in my back yard. They would use a chair to jump the fence, or a pole to try to unlatch the gate.
The fence was useless. And so was the parent's instilling the sense of ownership on their anklebiters.

What defines properly secured pool? A fence? A taller fence? A fence without gates? If gates must they be locked?

What measures should one HAVE to take for others not to infringe upon ones rights?

This is really starting to go off on a tangent to the point I was trying to make. My point is that there are expectations and responsibilities on us (irregardless of whether or not the state mandates it) that can create a chilling effect on liberty.

Now back to guns. Is there or isn't there an expectation that gun owners keep their fire arms secured? To be honest, I thought the general consensus was that is the expectation. As to what "secured" means, I think it should be left to the individual as each person's circumstances and needs are going to be different.

 

[Streck-Fu]

Lock up your guns.
Lock up your car keys.
Lock up your pools.
Lock up your gates.
Lock up your liquor.
Lock up your scissors.
Lock up your sharp pens.
Lock up your........

 

[Lerious]

He makes a lot of good videos condition butterscotch is the best carry method! haha

 

[88GT]

I might not have been clear on my original post. The accountability is the consequences of not properly securing the pool if a young child drowns in it. At least that was what I was intending to write.

I understood your point. I just disagree on where the line is drawn. Accountability is a product of responsibility. One cannot be accountable for a consequence if one is not responsible for a consequence. And I am not responsible for the drowning of a trespassing child who entered my property and my pool without my knowledge or consent. Just like I am not responsible for the criminal's use of my firearm that he obtained illegally.

I am using a situation based on the doctrine of attractive nuisance. The home owner would most likely not be guardian of the child as the child in this scenario is trespassing. The doctrine only applies for young children. The home owner would not (in a sane world) be responsible for a burglar that gets injured.

I'm not sure what age has to do with it.

 

[88GT]

This is really starting to go off on a tangent to the point I was trying to make. My point is that there are expectations and responsibilities on us (irregardless of whether or not the state mandates it) that can create a chilling effect on liberty.

I don't know about you, but I don't worry what my neighbors think. And they can keep their expectations to themselves. Unless and until such expectations are codified into law, I'm not gonna worry about them.

Frankly, it's the submission to those expectations that creates this kind of crap in the first place. A well placed "STFU and MYOB" is needed far more than a bunch of expectations and rules governing safe behavior.

 

[gunslinger762]

lol, thats right, livin the life of no boundaries and no consequences. No worries at all mate!

 

[gunslinger762]

Please tell me where you live and how long you will be gone.

 

[88GT]

Please tell me where you live and how long you will be gone.

Oh, were you foolishly operating under the asinine assumption that I don't secure my guns?

 

[actaeon277]

Please tell me where you live and how long you will be gone.

She has merely stated her opinion about people requiring actions that "they" deem necessary for "other" people.
She did not say she did or did not secure them.
And, having read her post for the last year, I would worry more about going up to her house and wondering what the red dot is in the middle of your chest.
Guns can be secured by many means.

 

[gyeakle]

Good videos