I doubt you're advocating the ownership of a rifle sans ammunition

@Beemann
Ah, yes, *at one time* they did; I don't speak Swiss so I'm sorry I can't give the term, but they issued *pocket ammo" or "pouch ammo* (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQ1vEo1x9qE), until "an incident" ended the practice.
And no. Firearm sans munition is a liability at worst. That would be utterly stupid.

They issued ammo that they audited, prior to not giving it out at all (for everyone beyond basically spec ops tier)

They DID "audit" it as you put it; It came in a can, and THAT can had better be closed if your sergeant inspected it.

@Mandatory Carry my premise that mandatory carry will put firearms in the hands of negligent people is based on the fact that there are lots of negligent people in the US and you can't screen for every single one of them.

By mandating people own firearms they will be put in the hands of morons since morons are not exactly uncommon or diagnosable.

As for fire extinguishers: https://community.nfpa.org/community/nfpa-today/blog/2017/03/03/nfpa-1-where-are-portable-fire-extinguishers-required-firecodefridays

They are basically required in all buildings except single and dual family residences.

<How EXACTLY do you "ban fires"?>
The same way you ban gun violence. Are you familiar with the felony called arson?

I didn't say such bans are effective at preventing all incidents. But they inarguably exist.

Your argument re: libertarianism vs minarchism is irrelevant to me; I am talking about the right (not duty) to keep amd bear arms as enshrined in the Bill of Rights.

<12 of the original 13 states had mandated gun ownership>
Shifting the goalposts, I see. 'Ownership' =/= 'Carry'. We can have a debate about mandatory ownership or even mandatory militia service, if you like--but that is not what we are talking about now.

<Why are seatbelt laws in place?>
To reduce driving deaths, obviously. At which the evidence seems to indicate they are effective. Whether or not this is an infringement on personal liberty is up for debate; I'm inclined to argue it is not, because we do not have a Constititionally-protected right to drive a car on a public road; in fact such a privilege is only granted to those who demonstrate willingness and ability to follow the posted rules, which include the use of seat belts.

<Why can't I drive drunk?>
Because driving drunk is reckless endangerment. What a silly and irrelevant question.

<If you can't answer those yourself, then no amount if crayons will help.>

If you can't engage in a debate without devolving to name-calling and insults, then you're doing my job for me. So thanks.
--

<And here we come to goalpost-shifting ... It's on YOU to convince me I'm wrong.>


Your projection is showing. I am merely pointing out that as you are the one making the positive claim and advocating for a major change in Constitutional law, you are the one with the onus of justifying it. Mine is the default position and that doesn't change just because you say so.


<from all this I see you're the dirt for which elective exemptions were forced through>


Again with the insults. This is not helping your case. And did you miss the part where I said I carry a firearm by choice?


<all you've done is hide behind half-baked arguments that amount to "I DON'T WANT TO! That's fine... But you haven't tried to change my mind.>


I have argued that your analogy to fire extinguishers is poor and that your policy is an infringement on my liberty. Also, "I don't want to" is a perfectly valid response to someone trying to force bullshit on me and my fellow citizens. Again, the burden is wholly on you to demonstrate how your policy is just, necessary and effective.

"constitutional carry" seems like it would be nearly or just as effective in its results, without any of the hassle of enforcement. How do you consider mandatory carry superior?

during summer in Aus, on some days we have what are called "total fire ban days". basically, these are days when you are not allowed to start fires that are otherwise legal. eg. campfires, bbq's, incineration, ect.

it's to help prevent bushfires

@DJ_Anuz

@DJ_Anuz
So your premise is built on your assumptions; ... ¿Have you asked if your assumptions are correct?
Your source doesn't reflect state fire codes.

@uncephalized
Ok, so now all electical fires are arson. And lightning strikes... And vehicle breakdowns (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carr_Fire it's the first paragraph btw).
No (as in "none") gun control law has ever stopped a shooting; _I learned that lesson in 1999.
The amendment needs to be amended...
There are many who wish to see it repealed. Not I.
You're right ownership≠carry, since carrying a musket was (and is) impracticable. I point out that the law WAS there at the time- There was in fact a duty to keep and bear.
It's you who've tried to shift goalposts, you STILL haven't tried to change my mind (DJ has at least tried). All you've done is tacitly called me a liar. And btw, I did say why it would work, you were too busy replying to read.
There is actually no "right" to drive, that us a revockable priviledge (though revocation IS predicated on cause).
But let's go there; If it is a "right," then seatbelts aren't a legal requirement.
But they are... They are required SAFETY equipment.
Requiring fire extinguishers, seat belts, and many other things are infringements on liberties; This is one of the least of all (you don't get to take a fire extinguisher or seat belt off on your taxes joy).

"Dirt" was an autocorrect, it should have been "sort." Otherwise I haven't insulted you... Inspire of your insults. Crayons was hardly an isult; Flat out calling you a liar (not yet) would have been.

@C1PHER
Rights are abandoned all the time. Having all the rights in the world is of zero use... Yes, this has been tested as well I'm afraid.
Mandating sends a message to all but the MOST determined that there WIILL be a result- Oh, a mass shooter might even get one or two, but he WON'T get the third (https://dailyanarchist.com/2012/07/31/auditing-shooting-rampage-statistics/).

@Agent Smith
Growing up in Northern CA (I said NorCal, not San Fran), well aware of No Burn Days. (In fact, burn days are a certain time frame by year and day, and you gotta call first.)

Had to break it up. Sorry. 😔

💔don't break up with me

My heart couldn't take it

<Ok, so now all electrical fires are arson>

No, and accidental discharges aren't murder. Do you have a point, and can we get off this fire analogy? It really isn't useful.

<No ... gun control law has ever stopped a shooting>

Perhaps not; but this is completely irrelevant as I have already stated I am against gun control and for Consitutional carry, a right I myself exercise. Again, do you have a point?

<you STILL haven't tried to change my mind>

I am not under any obligation to debate on your terms. This forum does not belong to you. Given you are obsessed enough with this topic to run a YouTube channel with over 100 rant videos no one has watched, I seriously doubt your mind is changeable.

<All you've done is tacitly call me a liar>

Show me where. Or I *will* call you a liar, and it won't be tacit.

<you were too busy replying to read ... There is actually no "right" to drive>

That was my point and I stated it in plain English. You are projecting your own lack of reading comprehension onto me.

<"Dirt" was an autocorrect, it should have been "sort">

Noted. No worries.

<Otherwise I haven't insulted you... Inspire of your insults.>

I'll assume you meant 'in spite of'. Again I'll ask you to show me where I have insulted you, or I *will* call you a liar.

<Crayons was hardly an isult>

No, I'm sure that implying I need crayon illustrations to understand simple concepts was intended neither to insult my intelligence nor my maturity.

<Flat out calling you a liar (not yet) would have been>

I tremble in anticipation of your withering invective.

@Mandatory Carry it's not an assumption. It's a fact. If you make carry mandatory, then firearms WILL be put into the hands of morons. It's unavaoidable unless you have an overreaching nanny state that can simultaneously moniter the psychological and mental aptitudes of every citizen and screen morons from the mandatory carry laws.

@DJ_Anuz that seems to be exactly his plan.

Then what's the point of mandatory carry if the government is already that overreaching?

And @Mandatory Carry show me your sources that say fire extinguishers are required in state households. All the states I've lived in (7 of them) don't require them in private homes. In fact I've never lived in a home with a fire extinguisher.

Most states only mandate them in public accommodations.

@uncephalized
Fire extinguishers are mandatory home equipment. The precedent is set, whether you "like" it or not.
I said, *"change **MY** mind,"* it's *quite* clear you're incapable of seeing reason.
So. *"change **MY** mind"* or allow me yo stop wasting my time.

@DJ_Anuz
¿Do you have ANY basis for that statement? Millions of people drive everyday, yet there's only hundreds of accidents.
*"Overreaching nanny state."*
Ok. That's *ALMOST* an argument... And would be were it not addressed earlier; *'(B)y the time you complete high school, the graduate would either be qualified for a concealed carry permit or a mandatory exemption.'*
https://www.nfpa.org/Public-Education/Campaigns/Fire-Sprinkler-Initiative/Legislation-and-adoptions/Sprinkler-requirements (Oddly it's the same NFPA you cited earlier. They should get thier shit in one sock.)
I **DON'T** agree that sprinklers should be required in every home, it's exxecively burdomsome (as it is intended to be, mark my words), but all the states have requirements *of some sort." That dome if your homes didn't only means you were violating a fire code and getting away with it- Like 6Ø-ish% of the rest if the country (myself included at one point).
The burdon of have adequate self-denfensive capabilities v. the benefit (dying v. not) places the greater onus carrying.

<I said, "change MY mind,">

And? I said the same magic words. Are you now under a sorcerous compulsion to do my bidding?

<So. "change MY mind" or allow me yo stop wasting my time.>

You can do whatever you want. No need for permission from me.

---
TFW a debate on reverse-gun-control turns into an autistic argument about fire extinguisher laws...

@Mandatory Carry still waiting for evidence that I insulted you or tacitly called you a liar, btw.

Yall were talking about mandatory carry earlier and how to incentivise carrying without penalizing those that dont. The point made about a tax break for those that carry instead of a tax increase for those that dont is good. Like how insurance companies give you a discount for using a dashcam

Also as little as fire extinguishers matter in this discussion, are they really mandatory in location in the US? I know plenty of people that do not have fire extinguishers.

I have never heard of this supposed law requiring them in residences, nor could I find it when I looked, but Mr Mandatory seems adamant on the point.

Btw I agree @Just for youtube [NB1] about subsidizing citizens who carry. I'd allow them to write off periodic safety and marksmanship courses on their taxes.

Also first aid/responder training and that kind of thing.

I've never heard of such a requirement for non-businesses

I would suggest that perhaps a citation is needed on the legal requirement for fire extinguishers

Nuh uh bro, the burden of proof is on you to show that the law *doesn't* exist.

:^)

Snark aside, perhaps @Mandatory Carry would like to cite the legislation mandating fire extinguisher ownership

@Beemann
Already did;
https://www.nfpa.org/Public-Education/Campaigns/Fire-Sprinkler-Initiative/Legislation-and-adoptions/Sprinkler-requirements
I can't go through all 5Ø states and list thier code section, and is *STILL* irrelevant, no matter how uncephalized moves the goal posts;
*"Change **MY** mind"*
At least @DJ_Anuz has brought *some* argument (unfortunately for him, that argument was already at least 3 years old).
@Just for youtube [NB1]
*"That some of your home's didn't only means you were violating a fire code and getting away with it like 6Ø-ish% of the rest of the country myself included at one point)."*
*"Asked And Answered. Twice now."*
*"The point about a tax break for those that carry"*
Was what *I* said... About 3 years ago...
*"instead of a tax increase"*
¿Who said that? Oh right, someone who's not even here...
I know what I said, and strawmanning me isn't helpful.

Nor is reversing the goal posts. All I've seen so far is a bunch of "I don't like it" ism.
... Well **HELL, *I DONT "LIKE" IT EITHER.*** I also don't "like" seat belts and fire extinguishers, but they ARE real things.

BTW, how kind of you to to claim my idea as your own, @uncephalized. 😠😠😠😠

This source shows that only like 3 regions have mandated it, and only in new homes

¿Did you read it?

Yes
"States/regions *requiring* fire sprinklers in *new*, one- and two-family homes: CA, MD, Washington, D.C.   "
"States *prohibiting* statewide and new, local adoptions of fire sprinkler requirements in new, one- and two-family homes: AK, AL, AZ, CT, DE, GA, HI, ID, IN, KS, KY, LA, MA, MI, MN, MO, NH, NJ, NY, NC, ND, OH, PA, SC, TX, UT, VA, WV, WI "

I doubt you're going to sway people here by citing California laws as well

Not about to cite THAT state. I'd rather die first.
Tell me ONE state that does not have a residential fire extinguisher code.

According to your source, every state in the second quote prohibits sprinkler requirements

Prohibiting sprinklers, *THAT'S* a new one.

In fact there's multiple limitations here
1) it's for new homes, and is not retroactive
2) it's only enforced by 2 states and a city
3) one of those states is commiefornia

Prohibits requirements. Don't skim

*Tell me ONE state that does not have a residential fire extinguisher code.*

Jesus, ¿do I **REALLY** have to point it out?

So are we counting prohibition of a requirement as a code? That's shifting goalposts considerably

No, please, @Beemann, prove you're as smart as I think you are...

Read your own source and come back to me

¿Is a sprinkler a fire extinguisher?
Damn guys, I bread crumbed the SHIT out of that trail...
And STILL, nothing to even generally change my mind...

No

That's a code for new homes built

A sprinkler is meant to extinguish fires
And if you're not going to count it, you're still on the hook for a source

Like cars after 1965 are required to have seatbelts

I do not need extinguishers in my home

Cars *built* after 1965

@Just for youtube [NB1]
Great, ¿what magical state is this?

You're trying to do this 4D chess shit but it's not working. You're just looking foolish

California

Theres no sprinklers in my home

I have those red fire extinguishers but I dont know of any law that requires I own them

Or get them checked every year

Like there is at my place of employment

Their extinguishers are checked annually

By the fire dept

I haven't read everything yall said cause I'm at work but it sounds like only 2 states even require sprinklers in new homes?

And cali is one

But that's NEW homes

That's the building code

Yup

Like your NEW homes also require studs a certain number of inches apart and proper sewage systems

Like I said my house in the bay area has no sprinklers

They are not mandatory

wait i need to be a certain number of inches apart??

Damn right you do

-steps to the right- fixed 😛

this is what i get for moving to berkeley. stud regulation tsk tsk

Tsk tsk indeed

is it still 16inches on center for 4x2 studs? or has that changed?

😉

@Just for youtube [NB1]
I got a call into the State Fire Marshalls office (916.568.38ØØ), they were ways from the desk, awaiting a call back.

I just broke down and called because apparently "California residential fire extinguisher law" means OSHA to Google. 😠😠😠😠

Like I said

To my knowledge each household is not required to have a fire extinguisher

If they are, none of them are kept up to date

Either way

You cannot negligently discharge a fire extinguisher

It does not have the same amount of importance as a firearm

When your kid brings a fire extinguisher to school because he wants to be a fireman, everything is okay

When your kid brings a gun to school because he wants to be a police officer, all is not okay

I know too many people that can't even safely drive a car to think that everyone should be required to carry a firearm

I'll concede and give you the fact that every home is required to have an up to date fire extinguisher in California so you dont have to waste the fire department's time

They've got better things to do

Let's say they're required

@Mandatory Carry <BTW, how kind of you to claim my idea as your own>

Care to give me a hint as to what the fuck you are talking about?

What does uncephalized mean lol

Headless or with an unformed brain.

Great, me too

so when i dont get head, i can say im uncephailized huh

Hahaha sure bud.