TRIGGER LOCKS---why not?

I don't have a problem with trigger locks. They've been around for years. But I'll be daggumed if I'm going to let someone force them on me.

Like others have said, it's only one more step in the anti-gunners' incrementalistic agenda.

- Trigger locks have been around for years...
- Hmmm... People still being killed... Okay, why not force manufacturers to supply them with guns...
- Hmmm... People still being killed... As long as they're supplying them, let's mandate their use...
- Hmmm... People still being killed... Guess we oughta conduct a buy-back...
- Hmmm... People still being killed... Better start some confiscations...
- Hmmm... People still being killed... ¿Revolution? We can't have a revolution! This is the 21st Century!

------------------
Bulldawg: NRA, GOA, TSRA, Shiner Bock Connoisseur.
Bulldawg's Firearms Page
 
It's called incrementalism. Every little thing, no matter how small only whets the anti's appetite for more. They are like a pack of wolves that just drew fresh blood. Now if these emotion driven liberals would bargin in good faith, maybe there could be some give and take and reasonable progress made, a win-win situation. But people like Sara Brady and HCI want it all, even if it is just a little bit at a time.
 
Well, Carl - one can say the folks in the polls are ignorant but then you better come up with strategy for convincing them that you are correct. So far, I have not seen such arguments made to the general public.

The choir singing to themselves and a shrinking congregation is not a winning proposition.

What both sides miss in their oneside presentations of public opinion is that the majority of folks support gun ownership, the right of self-defense BUT support some laws that might include registration and gun locks.

It is not gunlocks and ban all guns.

The failure of the RKBA advocates is their inflexibility and complete lack of ability to mount a campaign that appeals to the political middle. We usually come off as ravers.

Luckily, the public isn't concerned with gun control that much as they have soured on new laws as a solution.

That doesn't mean that they don't think some of the suggestions out there are bad ideas.

You have to think outside of the box.

The response "incrementalism", "enough", etc.
is intellectual simplistic. It is based on
the premise that you can stop the incremental attacks. At best, in recent history, they have been just slowed down a touch.

There have been no real successes except for the CHL bills and the demonstration that they reduce crime. Each CHL bill has some compromises such that the GOA has had fits over them and tried to block them.

I suggest that we need to get more guns into the hands of the general public that will be used in a manner make these folks supports of the RKBA. The CHL laws do this. Hunting guns just don't.

Thus, I would easily take a law mandating gun locks be sold (not mandated to be used) for national CCW reciprocity and a law saying that states could not block guns purchases after a NICS check. Note in many states they can.

Now specifically answer why the gains of this would not clearly outweight the trigger lock being mandated to be sold with a gun?

More folks might get CHLS and millions of folks would now become legal guns owners.

And no slogans please.
 
Glenn,

Hmmm. No slogans please. You mean such as, “You have to think outside of
the box.” Okay.
wink.gif


BTW, I challenge your comment about “a shrinking congregation” of gun
owners and activists. I hear membership in fanatic lunatic organizations (eg
NRA, GOA, JPFO, SAF, etc.) is INcreasing. Some of us “intellectual
simplistic”(sic) people are trying to unite against the gun control movement.

As for singing to the choir, yes, Glenn, we do that. Of course we also are
singing to our federal and state Representatives and Senators, our city
councils and mayors, newspapers and magazines, and all over the internet.
Our singing is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore. It would be nice if you joined us.
---

You comment, “I would easily take a law mandating gun locks be sold (not
mandated to be used)...”. You challenge us to “... specifically answer why
the gains of this would not clearly outweight the trigger lock being mandated
to be sold with a gun?”

Your comments reveal a faith and reliance upon government which many of
us feel to be invalid. You advocate incrementalism against gun controllers
but do not address the incrementalism that they used to bring us to our
present subservience. Why would you expect less of them in the future than
what they have so successfully employed in the past?

So your answer is stated quite well earlier in this thread. Mandatory SALE of
gun locks would lead to mandatory USE of gun locks. Inspection,
investigation, punishments, and increased gun control quickly follow.

I could see a law permitting a registered owner to carry a registered handgun
only so long as the gun was “properly secured” with a gun lock on a gun case
secured from theft. (Incrementalism works both ways.
---

You go on to say, “... for national CCW reciprocity and a law saying that
states could not block guns purchases after a NICS check...”. I infer:

a. You have no problem begging the government for permission to buy a
firearm and feel that such supplications can not (or should not) be resisted.
b. We need have no fear of government registration of firearms and owners
because registration can not lead to further restrictions and/or confiscation.
c. Government rules are a fait accompli. As Schumer says, “Get over it!”
d. We’ll worry about NICS later. It is simplistic to worry about it now.
e. Some combination of the above.

Perhaps I’ve missed something here but I thought the Constitution and Bill of
Rights meant something.

Oh, right. I forgot. I’m just a fanatic lunatic.

------------------
Either you believe in the Second Amendment or you don't.
Stick it to 'em! RKBA!
 
I know this is a dead horse issue or at least should be.
Well once again the problem that I have with gun locks is that I am being forced to accept an inferior product.
I invested in a guality gun safe that short of a blow torch and a lot of time your not getting into it.
If you want to say its for the children then fine, I don't have any and my wife is not able to get pregnant.
If a child or anyone else were able to get through my safe then that lock isn't even going to annoy them.
What I consider very dangerous is that someone with children will store their firearm with this lock thinking it is the safest and responsible thing to do as a parent and in reality a child can remove these locks with a hammer/hacksaw if they so desired. Not to mention the criminals.
These locks in effect remove responsibility from the parents to teach their children not to touch and responsibility.
Hey I don't need to tell and teach little johnny because I have a lock, making it safe. That just gives me a warm and fuzzy.

My two cents
 
Trigger Locks...

Almost every ones home has locks on them, yet many are "compromised" by an intent person willing to ignore the note that a locked door presents. The result, you loose some of your property, file a claim with your insurance co., and all is well, right?

We're all required by law to have insurance on our motor vehicles. The autos have locks on the doors, and many people never use them. They also have locks on the steering, and the ignition system. Yet they're still stolen with total disregard for those locks.
I know, it's happened to me before.

Computers are touted to be secure, yet we hear all the time about this hacker, or that one, breaking into a top secret facility and doing who knows what with our most dangerous military information. I was under the impression that those systems were locked up, to prevent unauthorized usage..

Prisons have all kinds of locks on them, yet we hear about prison breaks from time to time. How can that be, if everything, and everyone, is locked up?

Now I'm being told that it would be really, really great if I would just lock up the one gun I have, so someone wouldn't misuse it.
I fail to see the rationale in that arguement. Especially in view of all the other transgressions that occur with things "locked up for safety".

We in this home have few, and simple rules.

You use a toothbrush, to keep from seeing the dentist.
You use the lights to see when it's dark.

You use the car to run errands, and trips, emergencies. Not run people over with it.

You use a knife to cut things, like bread, meat, a piece of string. Not stab people with it.

You use an egg in a cake mix, not throw it on someones car.

You use a gun for hunting, personal protection, and sometimes, sometimes to take out the garbage.
wink.gif


------------------
The most foolish mistake we could make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms; history shows that all conquerers who have allowed their subjected people to carry arms have prepared their own fall.
Adolf Hitler

[This message has been edited by Donny (edited April 22, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by Donny (edited April 22, 2000).]
 
GUYS, GUYS, Guys!

Conn has had MANDINIATORY TRIGGER LOCK LAW SINCE 1993.

We call it The BURGULAR PROTECTION
PROGRAM.

It works like this; If anyone gets a
hold of your unlocked gun..............

YOU ARE CRIMINALLY AND FINICALLY LIBLE FOR ALL DAMAGED DONE WITH YOUR FIREARM.

For all you rocket scientists out there,
this means you are arrested by the State of Conn and criminally prosecuted for up to 5 years in jail and up to 20,000.oo fine and/ or BOTH!

And then, YOU ARE CIVILLY LIABLE, and can be sued for MILLIONS by the party(S) injured by your firearm under the control of ANY unauthorized person.

Your life is no longer worth squat.

If you are not in jail for 5 years ,you are finically ruined and with your pay attached until the day you die. Your house and property sold to pay off judgement awards.

With Your pay attached you would have a better lifestyle being on wellfare and living in a flop house with drunkards and dope addicts. Then you could develop a taste for Ripple! (Cheap.89 bottle wine sold cira 1970)

THIS IS WHAT COMES OF A SOCIALIST TRIGGER LOCK LAW , MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT AND DO NOT COMPROMISE.

First the law and then the inprisonments ,fines and libilities, just like night follows day.

THIS IS NOT A HARMLESS LAW AND WILL RESULT IN GUN OWNERS NEEDLESS DEATHS WHEN CONFRONTED WITH HOME BREAK INS AND...... Where
is that damned key; Excuse me Mr Burgular;
I'm sure you don't mind waiting while I
(((BANG!, BANG! BANG!))) OHHHH! I guess you
couldn't wait for me to find the key,could you! THUMP! (Sound of dead body hitting floor!)
 
Here's my reason...

The trigger lock law is a tax on gun owners. Many people don't need a trigger lock to store their gun safely because they live alone, already own a large gun safe, etc. I don't care if the lock costs 27 cents. It's my money, and I want to know who these people are who feel it's okay for me to have to spend an extra $5 (or whatever it adds to the gun) for something that I don't need.

These people want me to spend my money so that they feel better. Well, ya know what, I'd feel a lot better if you'd stop getting tax credits for your kids. Maybe we can compromise. You give up your tax credit and I'll flush $5 down the toilet every time I purchase a gun.
 
C'mon trigger locks will save lives, I mean if the crack house in MI would have had trigger locks, a lil girl's life would have been saved according to the prez. A trigger lock will provent suicides because the owner wont be able to use it cause it has a lock. It will prevent someone from snapping one day and going into a store a shooting it up because it has a lock on it that they put on it. Kids wont be able to get to them cause the keys to the locks are left on the kitchen table, or are in a hiding spot that they didn't see or happen to find while they were left alone. We have to think a little before we give a lil, "Give a inch take a foot". Now I understand that not all parents are careless but a majority are, if they weren't we wouldn't be taking about this would we.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top