So, Frank, I see you are going to take my responses out of context. This is unusual for you.
In multiple posts, I have said I am all for safes; that I use a safe; that I have lockboxes when I travel; and that I like to have my home defense gun on my person. I have further recommended such actions as good policy - but NOT as mandatory policy.
I have also pointed out that some people who may have real need of a gun may not be able to afford a serious securing system, and that I do not think this should disqualify poor people from firearm ownership - but it could if people try to make safe ownership a requirement for gun ownership.
You then said I should push for legislation supporting my views, at which point I said where I live, and where I have lived, there is not a legal requirement for locking systems.
So, now that we have some context, if we really disagree does that mean you are for mandatory ownership of security systems as a prerequisite for gun ownership? Or are you and I actually on the same page?