The Second Amendment is for everyone — it’s time we armed the children

[Katashi_itto]

If there’s anything to take away from the tragic death of a woman at an Idaho Walmart store at the hands of her own two-year-old son, it’s that the Second Amendment has been criminally neglected when it comes to an entire segment of our population.

Chemical research scientist Veronica Rutledge paid with her life when she took her toddler son and three nieces to the Hayden, Idaho Walmart on Tuesday for some shopping with the gift cards the children had received for Christmas. A gun rights advocate, Rutledge was carrying a handgun in a special conceal-carry purse that her husband had given her as a gift. The purse contained a zippered compartment for her firearm, which was loaded. When Rutledge turned away for a moment, her toddler son got into her purse, opened the zipper, pulled out the gun, and then shot his mother in the head, killing her instantly.

While young Rutledge had found a way to express his Second Amendment rights by retrieving the handgun, his mother ceded her own rights by not having a backup weapon holstered on her person so she could return fire.

When is America going to learn its lesson that an armed society is a polite society?

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/01/the-second-amendment-is-for-everyone-its-time-we-armed-the-children/

[Nuclear Unicorn]

1. So, when people talk about voting rights and marriage rights they obviously mean

they want those rights extended to 2 year olds.

[Katashi_itto]

2. Wow...that's a real leap there...

[Nuclear Unicorn]

6. So is the OP article.

[Katashi_itto]

10. Lol...your challenged when it comes to satire aren't you.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

14. That's not satire. It's an attempt to impose an argument no one is making.

[Katashi_itto]

17. Lol...doubling down..to funny

[Nuclear Unicorn]

22. Please point out where advocates of the RKBA want gun ownership for minor children.

[Katashi_itto]

37. Lololol...

#t=44

[daleanime]

74. Classic!

[mikeysnot]

80. Nailed it!

They are like a three ring circus of stupid here when it comes to their "gunzzzzz" or any discussion for tighter gun control, or the fact that guns kill and do not save lives, but take them...

[Nuclear Unicorn]

117. Yes, guns kill. Killing rapists is a good thing and guns are good at it.

I trust you don't have any complaints about this fact.

[mikeysnot]

142. And just how many rapists were killed by guns in 2014?

during a rape attempt?


When the cost to society far outweigh the benefits you should really start reconsidering what you believe...

[Nuclear Unicorn]

144. "And just how many rapists were killed by guns in 2014?"

Not enough.

When the cost to society far outweigh the benefits you should really start reconsidering what you believe...

Depending on the statistical model there are 500,000 to 3 million defensive gun uses annually.

Society will not be improved by adding 500,000 to 3 million victims each year.

But since you're so obviously concerned about numbers what plans do you have for the 4,300 deaths caused each year by under-aged drinking? That's the equivalent of 4.3 Sandy Hooks each week. Does that cost to society outweigh the need for alcohol or does the need for alcohol outweigh not only those deaths but the DUIs, domestic violence, sexual assaults, disease and accidents?

You care about those numbers, right? You're not just someone pretending to care about death and mayhem to push a personal agenda, are you?

[mikeysnot]

146. No I care more about facts of which

you provided none. opinions are not facts....

"Not enough" really, so you have fantasy as opinions, masquerading as facts.

Then you segued into underage drinking, DV, SA and dui's...

one trick pony.

Big introduction, little show.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

147. You questioned how many rapists were stopped by an armed victim.

That implies a certain threshold has to be reached to validate self-defense. That's ridiculous. Those who defend themselves have every right to do so, no quota required.

As for the analogy to alcohol: You reject it because it makes glaring the hypocrisy of gun control. There is no argument that is offered to justify gun control that could not be applied to alcohol. However, there is one difference. Unlike alcohol self-defense is a human right -- no quota required.

[mikeysnot]

148. "That implies a certain threshold "

Where do you get your bullshit from? NO, I did not state there was a threshold, that is another strawman, I asked you to back up your opinion with facts, then you provided more opinion and deflection.

"Those who defend themselves have every right to do so, no quota required. "

Another strawman, I did not state there had to be a quota.... I asked you to provide evidence that rapists are stopped by guns.

You provided none. Again.

FYI.... Opinions are not facts.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

149. "NO, I did not state there was a threshold..."

I didn't say you said it. I said it is implied. You even quoted me where I said it is implied.

Since you brought it up how about you explain what you meant when you questioned how many times guns had been used for self-defense.

[mikeysnot]

150. Obviously you are here to waste peoples time...

I have to explain to you? WTF?

You made a ridiculous claim of 500,00 to 3 million and I asked you to show me one...

and you came back with rapists.

When you get back from gun tooters fantasy island let us know.

have a nice day

[hack89]

151. Didn't read the CDC report that said that guns are used for self-defense often and effectively?

Earlier this year, President Obama ordered the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to assess the existing research on gun violence and recommend future studies. That report, prepared by the Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council, is now complete. Its findings won’t entirely please the Obama administration or the NRA, but all of us should consider them. Here’s a list of the 10 most salient or surprising takeaways.

7. Guns are used for self-defense often and effectively. “Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year … in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008,” says the report. The three million figure is probably high, “based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys.” But a much lower estimate of 108,000 also seems fishy, “because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.” Furthermore, “Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was 'used' by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2013/06/handguns_suicides_mass_shootings_deaths_and_self_defense_findings_from_a.ht

[mikeysnot]

162. Did you even read what you posted?

Some of the best arguments for tighter gun control come from the gun nuts themselves.

Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses

And this kicker!

The three million figure is probably high,

And this take away...

based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses

Thanks for posting this joke, now I know where you get your "facts" from....

[hack89]

164. So the CDC has a pro gun agenda

And is fudging the numbers?

[mikeysnot]

167. Face palm again...

[Nuclear Unicorn]

152. Like these stats haven't been posted a hundred times already on DU

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_gun_use

[mikeysnot]

161. Keyword here is... wait for it!

Estimates!

Pulled from the Bureau of their Butts.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

166. Those are peer reviewed studies.

You only discount them because they do not support your narrative. It is a peculiar frame of mind that is upset by the idea of good people not being victims of criminals and sees the only acceptable state of affairs is yet more people being helpless victims.

[mikeysnot]

169. Show me were they are peer reviewded

and who or what entities reviewed them.

[beevul]

155. "You made a ridiculous claim..."

That posters claim is backed up.

On the other hand, yours:

"the fact that guns kill and do not save lives"

Is obviously false on its face.

Many many lives have been saves with a firearm.

Hees a list of DGUs for your and everyone elses perusal:

http://www.reddit.com/r/dgu/


Its a BIG list mikey.

[mikeysnot]

158. Not as big as the GUN VICTIMS LIST!

Once again the best evidence for gun control comes from the gun nuts themselves.

Sorry, but needing a gun to protect yourself against another with a gun just proves my point not yours...

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/breaking-news/os-race-trac-shooting-kirkman-road-20150107-story.html

Multiple shots were fired after two men pulled out guns. Several bullets went through the Expedition's windshield.

This ones a real winner!

He was convicted of lesser charges of simple assault and reckless endangerment for firing two shots from his .22 pistol out his window as the new couple stood outside his home, an action for which Kelley's public defender invoked the state's Castle Doctrine.

http://www.yorkdispatch.com/breaking/ci_27277419/york-jury-acquits-castle-doctrine-defendant-attempted-homicide

These are not examples of guns protecting! I would be laughing if this insanity wasn't so fucking sad.

Epic Fail for you,

[mikeysnot]

157. It is a swarm ^^^^^

on a pile of their own bullshit.

[tradewinds]

40. Sorry you folks own that, too.

[Recursion]

44. None of those children own those guns

Again, epic fail

[tradewinds]

46. You do not know that.

[former9thward]

72. I know that.

Legally, they are not old enough to "own" property. And the laws prohibit the ownership of guns for someone shown in those pictures. They can't buy and sell them.

[Recursion]

122. Yes, I do, because I actually know the gun laws in the US

They cannot be the legal owners of those guns

[CreekDog]

124. Whomever owns those guns probably shouldn't be legal owners of guns

If that's how they are allowing them to be used.

[Recursion]

125. What's wrong with how the guns are being used?

I see one kid being shown how to handle a pistol, one kid learning a proper prone shooting posture, and three kids holding rifles safely (I assume an adult is taking the picture in the last two).

Guns aren't poisonous or radioactive, you know. It's actually OK for kids to learn to use them safely.

[CreekDog]

127. Guns are not props either

Guns are for killing, not for show. And they're not for children.

[meathead]

128. I watched enough

Hogan's Heros and Rat Patrol to know guns can in fact be props. The Black Panthers made a lot of hay using guns as props too....

[AgingAmerican]

64. They also believe

That pets should be armed.



No, seriously, it's in the article too!!

[mikeysnot]

79. That's what she does!

It's all she got.... for her to divert attention and misdirect the conversation....

[Nuclear Unicorn]

116. It's not diversion or misdirection to point out the fact the OP is a straw man.

Perhaps you can point out where RKBA advocates are petitioning to expand gun ownership to children.

[mikeysnot]

143. Projection...

accuse OP of straw man and then sling one at me....

[Nuclear Unicorn]

145. You obviously have no idea what those terms mean.

I didn't accuse you of making an argument. The OP made the argument. I noted the fact that the OP is based on an argument no one is making. That is a fact. No one is saying children should be allowed to own guns. That is what makes it a strawman argument.

If you want to defend the OP -- as it seems your intent to do -- then you, like the poster, should demonstrate that pro-RKBA seek to have ownership expanded to children. If you cannot then the point that the OP is a strawman remains.

However, since such a thing cannot be demonstrated, because no one is making that argument, the OP is yet another fallacy for a political movement bereft of facts.

[mikeysnot]

159. are you an ostrich?

Because your head must be in the sand...

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1600&bih=756&q=children+with+guns&oq=children+with+guns&gs_l=img.3..0l2j0i5l7j0i24.1123.4069.0.4811.18.14.0.4.4.0.115.726.11j1.12.0.msedr...0...1ac.1.60.img..2.16.745.xwA8bQDcAmE

Yes, you put the OP words in my mouth. So yes, you did.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

160. The OP is claiming, through failed satire, that RKBA advocates would expand gun ownership

to children. Your link shows children with guns. That is not ownership. You're misrepresenting the terms of the debate and I suspect deliberately so.


My husband and I have taken my SIL shooting, that's nowhere near the same as advocating she be allowed to own guns. The OP is a straw man argument and your link does nothing to support it.

[mikeysnot]

163. Now your just moving the goal posts...

again.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

165. No, that is the goalpost. RKBA advocates have no desire to expand gun ownership rights to children.

If the OP centers on an argument no one is making that argument is fallacious. Please feel free to demonstrate RKBA'ers advocating for childhood gun ownership.

[mikeysnot]

168. The keyword you use is ownership?

Purposely misleading... I provided plenty of evidence of childhood possession and easy access to guns.... how many more dead toddlers do you need to read about.

So yes, using the word "ownership" you are moving the goalposts. You do realize you have an anarchy symbol for your avitar....

[Nuclear Unicorn]

170. So, in your mind if X number of deaths occur from a thing you want that thing banned?

Per your criteria --

I provided plenty of evidence of childhood possession and easy access to guns.... how many more dead toddlers do you need to read about.

[mikeysnot]

174. Just admit it...

You fear any gun control measures because deep down you realize you would lose ownership of your guns.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

175. We know you're a gun grabber. What is left to discern is WHY.

It isn't about safety. You want control over others.

[mikeysnot]

176. That was just about as pathetic

as your other posts.... keep it up!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

177. Do you actually have an arguable assertion to make or do you just run off at the fingertips?

[mikeysnot]

179. I'm still waiting to hear yours?

Like that rapes are prevented by guns, you sure ran away from that real quickly.... but at least you didn't call me a name this time...

baby steps.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

180. The OP is about grabbers making a straw man argument that pro-RKBA want to arm children.

If anything it is incumbent upon grabbers to prove THEIR argument or admit they're just making things up.

As for DGUs, I provided evidence in support of DGUs and all you did is go "La-la-la-la! I accept nothing that contradicts my prejudices!!!1!" If you want to reject a point in evidence you have to show through additional evidence why the original points do not hold up under scrutiny.

[mikeysnot]

181. Are you saying that gun nuts

do not want to arm children? Really, all those picks I posted in that google link? Really??????

BTW you DID NOT PROVIDE ANYTHING THAT EVEN RESEMBLES PROOF OF DGU! NOT ONcE!

You are the one going lllllalalalallalalalalalalallal.

Reality catch it.

[tradewinds]

7. Please point to the portion of the 2nd Am. that restricts, or allows restrictions based on age.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

12. Point to the portion of the 14A that restricts marriage rights by age.

[tradewinds]

31. Ain't there.

Nor is your imagined age restriction for being armed and stupid.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

53. So, then it is your contention that becaue the 2A has no age restriction it is bad?

[tradewinds]

59. Why would you even ask such a thing.

Why do you feel you have the right to impose such a restriction that is not in the 2nd Am, while fighting ,gun and bullit ,any other restrictions??

[Nuclear Unicorn]

65. For the same reason I support marriage age restrictions.

And age restrictions for military service, entering legally binding contracts, drinking, pot smoking, driving, truancy, mandatory adult supervision, etc.

Some of those are rights, some are merely laws.

However, you have yet to explain why you support marriage equality (assuming you do) yet do not support marriage without age restriction based on what you claim the law intends.

If your intent is claim an age restriction allows other restriction on the RKBA thus opening the door to the whole gamut of gun grabbing fantasies then it's hard to imagine how marriage could not likewise be similarly restricted, thus undercutting marriage equality.

Your own argument fails you.

[Recursion]

16. Err... the word "militia"

I assume you're being sarcastic? The idea of age limits is inherent there.

[tradewinds]

21. Given that, how doyou expand the right to private ownership??

Seems the word "militia" is not so inherent as you, or I would wish. Do you just ignore the words "well regulated"?? or are those words "inherent" , as well?

[Recursion]

23. Me? Through the 9th Amendment

The Supreme Court disagrees and expands it directly through the second. There's little practical difference.

Do you just ignore the words "well regulated"

Nope.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

24. Seeing as the militia must provide its own arms the right of the people

shall not be infringed so as to provide an open market from which the militia acquires its arms.

[tradewinds]

26. What is the age restriction outlined in 2nd Am.?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

29. The same as the age restriction for marriage in the 14A.

[tradewinds]

32. So, you fully support arming 1 and 2 year old children?

If not, how do you justify such arbitrary restrictions?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

55. So, you fully support marriage for 1 and 2 year old children?

If not, how do you justify such arbitrary restrictions?

[tradewinds]

60. No, I do not.

But, silly, you can't argue both points. That makes you a hypocrite.

Either we can pass laws restricting firearms, or we can't. Silly-assed gunners often want to play both sides of this question.

[NutmegYankee]

84. I take it you support restrictions on the Right to Choice then?

And since you like restrictions on rights, I'm sure your OK with Voter ID laws too right?

[tradewinds]

85. Silly, you seem to take as a given that there is such a thing as "gun rights" that areanywhere near

to being on the same level as the right to vote or control ones own body. They are not. Not even close.
So your silly analogy crashes and burns along with most points brought up by gunners.

[NutmegYankee]

88. So in other words, you're being hypocritical.

Not unexpected.

[tradewinds]

91. Not a bit.

Asa I said, "gun" rights are nowhere near the status of voting rights or the right to ones own body. No matter how much you wish they were.

Nope, again, FAIL!

[NutmegYankee]

93. Prove it.

[tradewinds]

95. The proof is on its face.

[NutmegYankee]

97. I.E. You got nothing.

[tradewinds]

99. I have everything.

[NutmegYankee]

101. Oh WOW! Emoticons! So Convincing!

[tradewinds]

103. Duck!!

[hack89]

129. So the enumerated rights in the Bill of Rights are not really rights?

so where in the Constitution does it say that some rights are more important than others?

[tradewinds]

132. Go play with your guns.

Play hard.

[hack89]

137. You are pretty immature for a Constitutional scholar

what a shame.

Wayne thanks you for making his work easier.

[benz380]

172. Please quit while you're behind. You've obviously lost this debate. Emoticons can't save you. n/t

[NutmegYankee]

68. Like several of the rights, adulthood.

[tradewinds]

82. point to the specific clause of the second am..

don't just make shit up.

[NutmegYankee]

83. Snark. I'll tell you what - Answer why Children can't vote

And answer why they have to have a guardian in all legal matters, whereas adults are just covered by Amendments 5-8. Or why children can be disciplined for speech and writing where an adult cannot.

[tradewinds]

86. The age of voting is clearly outlined in the constitution.

Not so with your supposed gun rights.

[NutmegYankee]

87. It's in an Amendment, just like the right to bear arms.

[tradewinds]

89. Show me the 2nd am. age restrictions.

[NutmegYankee]

90. LOL. Do you really think you're getting anywhere with this?

Seriously?

[tradewinds]

92. Seems to have riled you.

The hypocrisy of the gunner is endless.

[NutmegYankee]

94. Humored me perhaps.

This isn't my first tango with a right-winger. And it won't be my last.

[tradewinds]

96. How dare you acuse ME of being a "right winger" .

That is against the TOS. Shame on you.

[NutmegYankee]

98. A little too close to home?

[tradewinds]

100. Advocating???

Surely you kid.

[NutmegYankee]

102. No.

[tradewinds]

105. ..

https://www.universalclass.com/i/course/reading-comprehension-101.htm

[NutmegYankee]

107. Yawn.

Seen that one before.

[tradewinds]

108. Maybe you should take the class.

[NutmegYankee]

109. How about some creativity in your insults?

Maybe some originality? I mean, that's one is really old and tired.

[tradewinds]

110. There may be a reason you see that one alot.

Just sayin.............

[NutmegYankee]

111. I asked for originality, and you just give me retreads.

Tsk Tsk.

[tradewinds]

112. Seems more than you can handle.

It would be unfair (and unkind) to ask more of you.

[NutmegYankee]

114. You're going to give up now?

[tradewinds]

115. Give up??

give what up??

[beevul]

156. Elvis has left the building...with a pizza.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=319576

[GGJohn]

126. Truth hurt? eom.

[Paladin]

47. Yeah, as if the "militia" portion of the 2nd is still operative, anymore.

Fat Tony Scalia killed off the militia aspect of the 2nd for the pro-gun movement. And you're trying to resurrect it, now?

Hey, it's like the Second Amendment Absolutists have been screaming for years: being armed is a RIGHT. And since when have rights been denied to 2-year-olds?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

57. The militia is still in effect. The NG is the organized militia.

The unorganized militia is comprised of all able bodied males 18 to 45 and all able bodied females 18 to 45 with prior military service.

[tradewinds]

62. So youi have no problem with restricting guns to members of the NG??

OK let's start there. Common ground at last!!!!!

[NutmegYankee]

66. The 2nd doesn't restrict ownership to a militia. It's a "right of the people" just like the 4th.

In order to call up the population to form militias, they had to know firearms and have them. Colonial militias provided their own arms. Our founding fathers were deeply skeptical of standing armies since most European countries used them to occupy and control peoples.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

67. You didn't read past the post title, did you?

The rest of my post notes the unorganized militia is comprised of all able-bodied males 18 to 45 and all able bodied females 18 to 45 with prior military service.

[hack89]

69. Go read Heller.

surely you are familiar with the role of the Judiciary in interpreting the Constitution? Please tell me you understand how our system of laws works. Please.

[Scootaloo]

104. Not familiar with the name Johnathon Swift, are you?

[aikoaiko]

3. So clever.

This avoidable tragic event is a wonderful opportunity for the anti-gun crowd.

You can almost hear the author of the piece yucking it up.

[Lurks Often]

4. Not this stupid nonsense again

The only people saying "arm the children" are gun control extremists in some pathetic attempt to advance their agenda, not realizing how idiotic it makes them look and sound.

[tradewinds]

8. Cite the portion of the 2nd Am that restricts gun ownership by age.

[Recursion]

15. "militia"

I mean, that's actually pretty obvious.

[tradewinds]

18. Nope. Fail.

[Recursion]

20. Yep.

Militia, particularly "well-regulated militia".

Sorry, your question was just kind of silly, and I answered it pretty simply.

[tradewinds]

25. Don't you wish!!!

The gunners would take exception to your interpretation.

Tell me again how age restrictions are "inherent" to the phrase "militia", or even "well regulated militia".

[Recursion]

27. Because "militias" have always, and I mean ALWAYS, had age limits

Literally, since the invention of the militia, they have been limited by age.

Seriously, you're just embarrassing yourself.

[tradewinds]

34. Cite the portion of the 2nd Am that supports your claim.

I am not embarrassed. If you want to defend gun rights, you must own this as well. You can't just impose "common sense" unless you agree that I can impose my own common sense. Is gun ownership a right, or not?

[Recursion]

36. For the last time: THE WORD "MILITIA"

Militias are defined by statute. They have always had age limits. Our militia as defined by law is limited to persons between 18 and 45.

[tradewinds]

38. And for the last time, I reject your argument.

Seems you are just fine with imposing restrictions as long as you like them. Can't have it both ways!! Either we can pass gun restrictions via law, or we can't. You guys are just plain funny.

[Recursion]

39. There's nothing to "reject". You asked where it comes from, I answered.

This isn't a question of opinion.

[tradewinds]

42. You response carriies no wieght of law.

try again, this time with gusto!!

[hack89]

71. Yet age limits on gun owership are the law

and have survived judicial scrutiny. You truly have no clue how the legislative and judicial branches interact to interpret the Constitution.

[earthside]

56. "Militia"?

That word and any significant meaning it had on the interpretation of the Second Amendment has been written out and deemed irrelevant by the Supreme Court, legislators and politicians.

[Recursion]

123. No. Have you actually read Miller, Heller, and McDonald?

They all reason from the basis of the militia. In Heller, Scalia even mentions age limits specifically, along with background checks, as perfectly permissable regulations.

[Scootaloo]

106. Hardly

Militias all over the world recruit children. We can't let the United States have a kindegarten gap!

[jeff47]

28. There's no requirement that a "militia" only have over-18 adults.

In fact, there's plenty of stories of "child soldiers".

Additionally, tying the 2nd amendment to the "militia" would seem to indicate that one must be a member of the militia to own a gun.

[Recursion]

33. True, but Congress gets to define the militia, and has put age limits there

Additionally, tying the 2nd amendment to the "militia" would seem to indicate that one must be a member of the militia to own a gun.

Well, strictly, that's true: the 2nd only guarantees males between 18 and 45 the right to own a gun (under current law). That's why I lean towards the 9th as the more important amendment here.

[Lurks Often]

41. Like every other Amendment the Federal & State government

has choosen to place limits on who can own and buy firearms, in this case 18 for rifles and shotguns and 21 for handguns at the Federal level.

[tradewinds]

45. So, further restrictions are OK, too.

Like magazine limits, number of guns owned, limit handguns, types of ammo?? We can go ahead and pass those laws, as well??How about huge taxes on guns and ammo? how about banning certain guns altogether? Gunners will not be happy with your assertion that limits can be placed with mere laws.

[Lurks Often]

50. The gun control extremists haven't had much luck with that

and many of the laws they do manage to pass don't hold up to judicial scrutiny.

The gun control extremists have been losing the past 20 years in Congress, the courts and the state legislatures, you can tell by the increasingly shrill whining coming from them.

[hack89]

51. Even Scalia says the 2A allows strict regulations

Read Heller. AWBs, UBCs, registration and mag limits are all perfectly constitutional

[hack89]

70. You can't be this ignorant of the role the judiciary plays in interpreting the Constitution.

you have to be pulling our legs. For your sake I certainly hope so.

[hack89]

118. Are you familiar with the concept of case law?

Or are you just trolling?

[SomethingFishy]

119. Funny, to me they look quite a bit less idiotic

than the dead woman.

And considering that 2 firearms instructors have been killed by children with automatic weapons at gun shows recently, can you explain why claiming that people want to arm children is "idiotic"?

[Lurks Often]

121. Those were two horrible, tragic incidents, but also extremely rare.

But the only people who trot out the "wanting to arm children" are the vultures who use tragedies such as this as another attempt to push their failed political gun control agenda.

[RiverLover]

5. Dark comedy. They nailed it.

Our society is already so screwed up, it may not be that far off.

A 9 yr old killed her instructor with an Uzi not too long ago.

[world wide wally]

9. Why wasn't that child trained in the proper use of firearms? There are already laws on the books

that could have prevented this if they had been enforced
Guns don't kill people. People kill people.


Have I used up all the cliched arguments yet?

[Fred Sanders]

13. Training on weapons should be mandatory starting at age two, which would prevent such tragedies.

Maybe a toddler open carry purse, the NRA should get right on the marketing.

[randys1]

58. One thing I have heard on this forum from gun folks that is true, sadly, is their point

that if we want to win elections to prevent the complete destruction of all life on the planet, which is the goal of the republican party (not to prevent it but to make it happen), we need gun folks.

[Fred Sanders]

11. Forget about your keys...frustrating, forget about your gun....dead. No weapon is harmless.

[L0oniX]

19. *

[riqster]

30. Biting satire.

[Katashi_itto]

49. +10000!

[Yo_Mama]

35. Children are always in a special category when it comes to legal rights.

They have the right to marry and vote and freely travel and so forth, but not at age 2.

So I find this a rather stupid headline, although I realize it's not yours.

[Katashi_itto]

75. Personally I think at age 2, kids should get rocket launchers. But not marry or vote.

[GGJohn]

78. 2 year old kids can have a rocket launcher,

a rocket launcher is nothing more than a fiberglass tube.

[Katashi_itto]

133. (Speaks Slowly) A fiberglass tube with a rocket inside. See, thats what makes it a rocket launcher.

[GGJohn]

134. (Speaks even slower).

No, the rocket inside is not what makes it a rocket launcher, a rubber band can be a rocket launcher, a cardboard tube can be a rocket launcher, so your assertion that any 2 year old can have a rocket launcher is perfectly legal and true.

[Katashi_itto]

135. Lol awww trying to make a funny

[GGJohn]

136. Well, that wasn't my intention,

but glad I succeeded.
Have a great weekend.

[Katashi_itto]

138. "trying" is the term you missed

[GGJohn]

139. I didn't miss it,

I choose to ignore it and make light of the convo.

[Katashi_itto]

141. Same here I don't give much credence

to gun humpers. So it's cool.

[onehandle]

43. Heh...

That brought them out. They're so easy.

[tradewinds]

48. Seems the mere smell of gun oil brings them out.

did not one of these dooffuses have a hissy fit about that woman not having the "proper" purse before it came out that she indeed, did have the gunners special?

That was priceless.

[GGJohn]

52. Doffuses?

Nice way to describe your fellow DU members.
Welcome to DU, enjoy your stay.

[tradewinds]

73. Oh,was that your thread??

well........

[GGJohn]

76. As I said,

enjoy your stay.

[hack89]

54. Isn't that he purpose of flame bait? nt

[aikoaiko]

113. Yep , tragic gun deaths bring out the frolicking anti gun folk

[Takket]

61. this actually makes a good point....

If you are carrying a gun in public, you should be required to actually have it on your person. it should be illegal to carry a gun in a purse or anything else that is carried loose. The gun should be holstered to your body so it cannot be stolen or taken by a child if you set down your purse for a moment.

[GGJohn]

63. Excellent point. eom

[Logical]

77. I agree but no way the NRA would let that happen! nt

[gladium et scutum]

120. At last

a breath of sanity

[randome]

153. It's not that difficult to take someone's gun out of their holster.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font][hr]

[Takket]

154. It's a lot harder than taking it out of a purse someone isn't even paying attention to.

[sarisataka]

81. This thread is fun

[PowerToThePeople]

130. k&r

The gun humpers in this thread are going nutz. That is enough for a big k&r from me. And, I though it was pretty funny too, gave me a smile. Thanks.

Ban all guns!!!

[Lint Head]

131. This thread deserves an award. It's hilarious.

Children. Death. Guns. Killing. Never thought I'd ever see that subject matter as comedy gold.

[ileus]

140. Didn't someone post a video where they wanted kids to take stolen firearm to school?

[Stellar]

171. Second Amendment Rights people are trying to make Liam Neeson pay

for speaking against their 2nd amendment rights. What about his right for freedom of speech?

Neeson criticized gun culture -- and the high levels of ownership in the U.S. -- in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo killings in France, while on a press tour in Dubai last week.
"There's too many f---ing guns out there," he told Dubai-based Gulf News.

http://money.cnn.com/2015/01/19/news/liam-neeson-gun-control-boycott/index.html?section=money_news_international

Now, I've got to go to his movie to support his right to say it, and I hate those kind of movies.

[Sancho]

173. People Control, Not Gun Control

This is my generic response to gun threads where people are shot and killed by the dumb or criminal possession of guns. For the record, I grew up in the South and on military bases. I was taught about firearms as a child, and I grew up hunting, was a member of the NRA, and I still own guns. In the 70’s, I dropped out of the NRA because they become more radical and less interested in safety and training. Some personal experiences where people I know were involved in shootings caused me to realize that anyone could obtain and posses a gun no matter how illogical it was for them to have a gun. Also, easy access to more powerful guns, guns in the hands of children, and guns that weren’t secured are out of control in our society. As such, here’s what I now think ought to be the requirements to possess a gun. I’m not debating the legal language, I just think it’s the reasonable way to stop the shootings. Notice, none of this restricts the type of guns sold. This is aimed at the people who shoot others, because it’s clear that they should never have had a gun.

1.) Anyone in possession of a gun (whether they own it or not) should have a regularly renewed license. If you want to call it a permit, certificate, or something else that's fine.
2.) To get a license, you should have a background check, and be examined by a professional for emotional and mental stability appropriate for gun possession. It might be appropriate to require that examination to be accompanied by references from family, friends, employers, etc. This check is not to subject you to a mental health diagnosis, just check on your superficial and apparent gun-worthyness.
3.) To get the license, you should be required to take a safety course and pass a test appropriate to the type of gun you want to use.
4.) To get a license, you should be over 21. Under 21, you could only use a gun under direct supervision of a licensed person and after obtaining a learner’s license. Your license might be restricted if you have children or criminals or other unsafe people living in your home. (If you want to argue 18 or 25 or some other age, fine. 21 makes sense to me.)
5.) If you possess a gun, you would have to carry a liability insurance policy specifically for gun ownership - and likely you would have to provide proof of appropriate storage, security, and whatever statistical reasons that emerge that would drive the costs and ability to get insurance.
6.) You could not purchase a gun or ammunition without a license, and purchases would have a waiting period.
7.) If you possess a gun without a license, you go to jail, the gun is impounded, and a judge will have to let you go (just like a DUI).
8.) No one should carry an unsecured gun (except in a locked case, unloaded) when outside of home. Guns should be secure when transporting to a shooting event without demonstrating a special need. Their license should indicate training and special circumstances beyond recreational shooting (security guard, etc.).
9.) If you buy, sell, give away, or inherit a gun, your license information should be recorded.
10.) If you accidentally discharge your gun, commit a crime, get referred by a mental health professional, are served a restraining order, etc., you should lose your license and guns until reinstated by a serious relicensing process.

Most of you know that a license is no big deal. Besides a driver’s license you need a license to fish, rent scuba equipment, operate a boat, or many other activities. I realize these differ by state, but that is not a reason to let anyone without a bit of sense pack a semiautomatic weapon in public, on the roads, and in schools. I think we need to make it much harder for some people to have guns.

[mw]

178. You can have my gun when you pry it from the fingers of my cold, dead child. nt