2nd amemdment

[PyRo]

The point being is that he had a 8 year old kid in the house and the gun wasnt secured to prevent unauthorized use.

Where in the article does it say that?

[grEnAlEins]

Or like the man that wanted to make a hole in the wall with his gun and ended up killing his wife in the other room if my memory serves me well.

Here is what you need to understand though, the gun is not at fault. The man was stupid. If it was not this it would have been something else. Stupid people have a funny way of making bad/tragic things happen. Would you cry to ban sledgehammers if this retard used it to accidentally knock a wall down atop his wife? People who are stupid will be stupid and cause accidents without regard to the inanimate objects they are allowed to possess.

That said I feel bad for the guy. What a horrible situation to have happen...

[michbich]

Here is what you need to understand though, the gun is not at fault. The man was stupid. If it was not this it would have been something else. Stupid people have a funny way of making bad/tragic things happen. Would you cry to ban sledgehammers if this retard used it to accidentally knock a wall down atop his wife? People who are stupid will be stupid and cause accidents without regard to the inanimate objects they are allowed to possess.

That said I feel bad for the guy. What a horrible situation to have happen...

I understand what i wrote. I wasn't blaming the gun. The user is completly at fault.

[grEnAlEins]

I understand what i wrote. I wasn't blaming the gun. The user is completly at fault.

My mistake. I thought you were implying that was apparently not implied. I apologize

[michbich]

On a relative note. Last summer, the gf brought her 2 brothers at my parent's cottage for vacation. Of coarse, at 9 and 11 years old they wanted to try my paintball markers. I decided that I could let the older hold it and shoot a little with supervision. So i air one up with no paint. Sure enough he turns arround and starts charging and shooting straigt at me. No paint mind you, but still...I could have just as well put a pod by automatism. The rest of the week, the only thing they shot were supersoakers and they had just as much fun.

Having said that, letting a 8yr even hold a firearm is completly out of the question in my book.

[Coralis]

Where in the article does it say that?

Probably the part where the 8 year kid shot two people (its kinda inferred)

[grEnAlEins]

Having said that, letting a 8yr even hold a firearm is completly out of the question in my book.

I would say that it depends on the individuals involved and how it is done. There is a proper and improper way to to allow this sort of thing and a proper and improper method of supervision. Some kids can handle it and some cannot, some adults can adequately supervise the situation and some cannot. It also depends on the firearm, not that there should be a limit, but it should be a heavy consideration on the part of the parties responsible. I see no problem if it is done properly. I turned out alright

[maxama10]

I just want to add one of my favorite arguments of those for gun control. That the founding fathers were mistaken and didn't mean to put that comma in there before "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms".






Not that anyone was arguing it, I just wanted to bring it up.

With that being said, the marijuana thing...

I used to tend to think it should be illegal, banned, horrible, the rest... I now tend to feel (and I don't smoke) that it should be legal but heavily regulated. Either to the point of or more than Alcohol.


Its more of a non-issue for me though than anything...



As far as children go, I think it depends. I myself at eight was very responsible with firearms, that was probably due to the fact that I grew up around them and had gun safety ingrained into my mind.

just my .02

[grEnAlEins]

Probably the part where the 8 year kid shot two people (its kinda inferred)

But you still made a leap there. Maybe the firearm was kept in a safe with a key lock and junior found the key while snooping through father's sock drawer. You cannot assume something just because you think it is the only explanation. Besides it not lending itself to the facts, it makes you look the fool.

[grEnAlEins]

the founding fathers were mistaken and didn't mean to put that comma in there before "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms".

Ya know, I can see that. I did not fully understand the concept of the comma the first time it was explained to me (in early elementary school). Those little buggers can be mighty tricky

/joking for those who cannot read humor into the internets

[michbich]

The point being is that he had a 8 year old kid in the house and the gun wasnt secured to prevent unauthorized use.

Like grEnAlEins said, it's a leap to a conclusion. But i'm still on your side even if we don't have the full story. One can "assume" that it wasn't secured, wether in a safe or not. The kid still found a way to get his hands on the firearm, and for that reason i concider that the firearm wasn't secured correctly to prevent unauthorized use.

[Coralis]

But you still made a leap there. Maybe the firearm was kept in a safe with a key lock and junior found the key while snooping through father's sock drawer. You cannot assume something just because you think it is the only explanation. Besides it not lending itself to the facts, it makes you look the fool.

I made no leap if the gun was able to be accessed by the 8 year old kid , it was not properly secured period to assume otherwise is naive at best and foolish at worst. Like I said I know I'm in the minority but the right to own firearms also comes responsibilities to ensure the safe operation and storage of said firearms.

[grEnAlEins]

The kid still found a way to get his hands on the firearm, and for that reason i concider that the firearm wasn't secured correctly to prevent unauthorized use.

That is ridiculous. Kids can get into everything and anything.

Also have you not heard of the Constitutional right to privacy that we have hear. It states that government cannot regulate my behavior or mannerism in the sanctity of my home. Who are you to dictate or mandate what happens in someone else's private home? Also, who is anyone to determine the extent or validity of my Constitutional right?

Flip it around. What if I was given this sort of control over your right to free speech in the same way that you advocate control over my right to keep and bear arms without infringement. Try it for a day. For a full 24 hours I dictate the word that you are allowed to use, just like someone has decided what firearms I am allowed to use. I decide when and where you can speak, just like someone decided when and where my rights apply. I decide when your words threaten the public good, order, and a collective right. I now even dictate how you are allowed to speak/worship/write, even in your own home. Controlling, limiting, and infringing upon a right does not sound quite so great now, does it? You need to look at the reciprocal of what you are saying. What if what you advocate applied to you and what you hold dear? An infringement one one right is an infringement on all rights.

Our Bill of Rights is not negotiable. Not a single part, not ever.

[Coralis]

Hypothetical situation alert So lets see you leave your handgun on the table and little Gren picks it up and carries it to school and shoots one of his playmates you don't think you should be held liable for that or hell next time you're feeling too lazy to go to the store to pick up a six pack why not just toss the kid the keys

[grEnAlEins]

I made no leap if the gun was able to be accessed by the 8 year old kid , it was not properly secured period to assume otherwise is naive at best and foolish at worst. Like I said I know I'm in the minority but the right to own firearms also comes responsibilities to ensure the safe operation and storage of said firearms.

See above post. Who are you to dictate what is "proper?" That is very subjective.

Also that is a fallacy. Do you petitio principii much? You cannot beg the question and claim logic. That is foolish at best.