You'd have to prove it to your neighbors if they claimed you were endangering them. Actually it goes the other way. They would have to prove you were endangering them in order to take any actions against you. If they made such claims and had enough evidence to get a trial, you'd then have to prove your storage was safe.....or nuke the court.

i'm kind of an outsider on this - but i'm curious - i don't think i read or maybe didn't understand - how would spexxvet protect his family if presented with the situation given of a threatening intruder? i know you all gave examples of "poison & guns" purchasing them without the intent to do harm unless provoked - the same could be said about "swords". we have couple that we purchased as christmas gifts - only because my son thought they were "cool". as stated before we don't have any guns so - what if I used that? not that i would even remember having it. would i just "point & stick" - no pun intended. just wondering.

So you don't have to prove you're handling it properly.

How are they supposed to know whether you're endangering them until it's too late?

The Cellar Cookie AI is long fabled in song and story.

The burden of proof rests squarely on the shoulders of those who are making accusations of impropriety or especially those making accusations of endangerment.

I'd imagine if they started losing hair for no apparent reason and found that there was radiation coming from a house, they'd probably be able to figure it out.

Yes, I'm pleasantly familiar with the fabled cellar cookie ai. I was dazzled by the synchronicity of this cookie in this thread.

I'm having a hard time following how you drew that conclusion from this thread. Would you take me step by step through your thought process?

Like I said. Too late.

Spex says that's proof positive you bought that sword with intent of stabbing someone.

First, you hypocritically presume to know my intentions, now you presume to speak for me. Just shut the fuck up, you dumb cocksucker.

I'm certainly free, nay compelled, to spread the gospel of Spex.
Just call me the dickhead's disciple.

I agree with some of this and disagree with others.

First of all, it is stupid for people to think they know how to control other people's lives or tell people how to live "the right way", because there isn't a single way. That goes for both ways. Some societies can function perfectly with guns and some can function perfectly without guns.

Yes, a lot of talk on gun control is about controlling other people but a lot of it is also safety. We should be able to protect yourself but you can't just own something because you can. I can't own a nuke because 50 million other lives should not be put in danger because I am on a power trip and are pathetically attempting to justify it by saying I should be able to own it because I can.

I am very strongly against total gun control but there are limits. You have every right (as much as I hate saying someone has rights) to protect yourself but there is a limit. Owning a rocket launcher has nothing to do with protection unless you are planning on protecting yourself against an armored vehicle which is ludicrous. You don't need an automatic weapon to protect yourself, you just need a pistol or a rifle and a few good shots.

When it comes to personal items that are made to kill another animal, you should only use what you need. To go above that level is a display of power, which is just as bad as gun control.




You are missing the point. I am not scared of guns and I don't want some banned and regulated because I don't like them. A TV program can not kill someone, a radio station can not kill someone, a film can not kill someone, a gun can kill someone. Take drunk driving for example. You can say, if you don't like drunk driving then don't do it, but by you drinking and driving you are putting everyone else's life in danger. Some people can handle drinking and driving and some can't, which is why we have a law. Some people can handle guns in a safe manner and some can't, that is why we have regulations.

Driving is not a protected right, gun ownership is. Many things can kill, chainsaws, knives, baseball bats... The regulations you are talking about for guns are already in place. In may area, far too many.
If regular citizens don't need automatic weapons, neither do the police. You made an excellent argument there... however I am getting my class 3 license.

Chainsaws, knives, and baseball bats can kill, but just because something has the potential to kill doesn't mean that it has to be banned. If an item proves to be used in many killings whether intentional or unintentional, looking into regulations and banning may be necessary for that particular society to function more efficiently. If only one person died from drunk driving a year it wouldn't have been banned even if it posed the same threat to other drivers. If there was only one gun death a year, there would be no talk about it.

Intentions also have a part in it. Chainsaws, knives, and baseball bats are made for other purposes other than killing.

So are guns.