5 Yr Old Boy Shoots 2 Year Old Sister, With His Own Gun

[Thomas Jefferson]

Ruger. Your a gun nut.

 

 

 

If it's good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me.

[Matt Bawden]

This thread is quite odd. I don't care about the rights of Americans to have guns, that's their own choice and issue. Can we all agree that, irrespective of your position on the right to bear arms, giving a five year a gun is seriously messed up?

I've said that, it seems to make no real impression on these squabbling clowns, with the exception of MDO who does agree and have issue with a 5 year old being given a rifle/gun and especially when that child is left unattended with a loaded firearm in the house.

[The Bastard]

 

Have you got any similarly fluffy quotes from Michael Ryan, Thomas Hamilton and Raoul 'Moaty' Moat ?

[Lonan3]

Can someone please direct me to a country that, having had a reasonably long history (i.e. over a century) of democratic government, fell to a dictatorship either wholly or partly as a result of gun control?

 

I'll take that as a 'no,' then, shall I?

[Ruger]

Matt everyone has agreed with that, Insurgent dog owner just stated the obvious for us all.

 

TB, That's an odd request but I could look for you?. I like quotes from histories great men.

 

 

Can someone please direct me to a country that, having had a reasonably long history (i.e. over a century) of democratic government, fell to a dictatorship either wholly or partly as a result of gun control?

 

I'll take that as a 'no,' then, shall I?

 

That's a two way street, I'm still waiting for an answer to a question that I asked twice back in about page 8 (not sure which page exactly now). But yes it would be nice to get back somewhere on topic...

[Matt Bawden]

 

 

Can someone please direct me to a country that, having had a reasonably long history (i.e. over a century) of democratic government, fell to a dictatorship either wholly or partly as a result of gun control?

I'll take that as a 'no,' then, shall I?

It's only been 2 1/2 hours since you asked

[Ruger]

Question. In the face of 262MILLION victims of Democide in the 20th century alone ( with the trend apparently set to continue into this one). Why should Americans give up the part of their constitution that protects them from becoming another figure in that?.

 

There we are, asked originally on page 6, 3 days ago.

 

Third time lucky?.

[Thomas Jefferson]

 

 

This thread is quite odd. I don't care about the rights of Americans to have guns, that's their own choice and issue. Can we all agree that, irrespective of your position on the right to bear arms, giving a five year a gun is seriously messed up?

I've said that, it seems to make no real impression on these squabbling clowns, with the exception of MDO who does agree and have issue with a 5 year old being given a rifle/gun and especially when that child is left unattended with a loaded firearm in the house.

We're not the ones calling for the American people's inalienable right(s) to be revoked. That would be you, dumbass!

[MilitantDogOwner]

 

 

What part of " the Right of the people" don't you understand.

 

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the spineless cowards to keep and bear arms shall be infringed"

 

I read it differently. But the way you read it...free guns for everyone!!!!

 

Fixed, that appears to be how you read it.

 

Point 1: Arms does not specifically mean firearms. Those who choose to read it as saying firearms.

 

Point 2: So everybody, regardless of ability or stability should be armed?

[MilitantDogOwner]

 

Question. In the face of 262MILLION victims of Democide in the 20th century alone ( with the trend apparently set to continue into this one). Why should Americans give up the part of their constitution that protects them from becoming another figure in that?.

 

There we are, asked originally on page 6, 3 days ago.

 

Third time lucky?.

 

Oh so I take you are still going with you non-peer reviewed, and generally disregarded 262m.....now...please explain how many of those were killed as a result of gun control.

[Lonan3]

 

Question. In the face of 262MILLION victims of Democide in the 20th century alone ( with the trend apparently set to continue into this one). Why should Americans give up the part of their constitution that protects them from becoming another figure in that?.

 

There we are, asked originally on page 6, 3 days ago.

 

Third time lucky?.

 

That's a nice, big, dramatic number/estimate/wild guess. How many of them were living in a country that, having had a reasonably long history (i.e. over a century) of democratic government, fell to a dictatorship either wholly or partly as a result of gun control?

Because, unless a reasonably large percentage were, your/the NRA's whole argument that weapons are needed to protect against a possible/probable dictatorship in the USA, falls flat.

[Ruger]

 

 

 

What part of " the Right of the people" don't you understand.

 

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the spineless cowards to keep and bear arms shall be infringed"

 

I read it differently. But the way you read it...free guns for everyone!!!!

 

Fixed, that appears to be how you read it.

 

Point 1: Arms does not specifically mean firearms. Those who choose to read it as saying firearms.

 

Point 2: So everybody, regardless of ability or stability should be armed?

 

Point 1, has been done to death including through the US Supreme courts. The founding fathers made It clear the intention of the 2A, the records of the discussions they had can be looked up. There is no enshrined Right to bear spoons, knives, and general table cutlery if that's what you mean.

 

Point 2, not sure where we've suggested that.

[Matt Bawden]

 

 

 

 

This thread is quite odd. I don't care about the rights of Americans to have guns, that's their own choice and issue. Can we all agree that, irrespective of your position on the right to bear arms, giving a five year a gun is seriously messed up?

I've said that, it seems to make no real impression on these squabbling clowns, with the exception of MDO who does agree and have issue with a 5 year old being given a rifle/gun and especially when that child is left unattended with a loaded firearm in the house.

We're not the ones calling for the American people's inalienable right(s) to be revoked. That would be you, dumbass!

Calm down twisty knickers, I've not called for anything, I just think that not having a registration, mental assessment and competency test for a firearm is crackers. Having said that what they do in their own country is up to them to decide.

 

On another note for someone who claims to be an intellectual superpower you fail yourself every time when you hurl insults especially in frustration, my four year old son can hold better debate and control of his emotions than you.

[Ruger]

 

 

Question. In the face of 262MILLION victims of Democide in the 20th century alone ( with the trend apparently set to continue into this one). Why should Americans give up the part of their constitution that protects them from becoming another figure in that?.

 

There we are, asked originally on page 6, 3 days ago.

 

Third time lucky?.

 

That's a nice, big, dramatic number/estimate/wild guess. How many of them were living in a country that, having had a reasonably long history (i.e. over a century) of democratic government, fell to a dictatorship either wholly or partly as a result of gun control?

Because, unless a reasonably large percentage were, your/the NRA's whole argument that weapons are needed to protect against a possible/probable dictatorship in the USA, falls flat.

So your not going to explain...

 

Best estimate, by that of a professor, actually. No dramatized numbers or wild guesses.

 

What on earth does any of that have to do with the question, and purpose of the Amendment?. What does, dictatorship have to do with it?.

 

So presumably the answer I'm getting then is that, 'It should be ditched because you can't prove its needed'. Which works the other way round, it shouldn't be ditched because you can't prove it won't be needed.

 

There was never any specific set of circumstances or chain of events to look out for except predicted efforts by the Federal government to undermine the Constitution, which is happening and has concerns greatly raised.

 

Again, from your Ivory tower, if you can't convince me then good luck convincing a yank to whom it concerns. Americans can only afford to make a mistake over this once.

 

At the end of the day, even Obama ( at least officially) acknowledges the purpose of the Amendment and doesn't believe it should be repealed, he just wants to chew away at it (Infringe). That's all we're likely to see happening in the foreseeable future.

[MilitantDogOwner]

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/01/28/strong-majority-of-americans-nra-members-back-gun-control

 

"A strong majority of gun owners and non gun owners support stronger restrictions on firearms, according to a national survey conducted by Johns Hopkins University.

A sizable 89 percent of all respondents, and 75 percent of those identified as NRA members, support universal background checks for gun sales. Similar surveys by Pew Research Center and Gallup have also found background checks to be by far the most popular gun control proposal"

 

"About 70 percent of respondents supported bans on military-style semiautomatic weapons and high capacity ammunition magazines, slightly less than the more than 80 percent who backed measures restricting those who could buy guns, such as people with histories of domestic violence or serious juvenile crimes"

 

The reason the majority didn't get what they want, the majority don't have as well funded lobby groups as the pro-gun nuts.