And the madness continues

Witnesses report that the gun toting toddler became angry when the two other toddlers would not believe him when he said "I'm a cop you idiot".
 
a suburb of Detroit, where a woman, named locally as Samantha Eubanks, took in children but was reportedly not a registered daycare provider.
...
the loaded gun used in the shooting was found in a nightstand at the house.
Click to expand...

A babysitter then and a highly irresponsible one at that?

Good luck to her when it comes to explaining why she wasn't watching them and why a gun was so easily accessible.
 
Realistically they're not getting rid of guns or the second amendment any time soon so complaints about that still existing are rather naive/misplaced - guns are a reality now in America and will be for the foreseeable future. What they could do however is have some stricter laws regarding the sale and storage of firearms.

stopper said:
"you must pay a tax to watch TV" is much worse
Click to expand...

LOL what? While the TV license is a farce I'm not sure trying to compare that with toddlers getting easy access to guns and shooting each other is really in any way a reasonable comparisons.
 
Must admit that I didn't expect the old "but the TV license is much worse than shooting children" argument to be deployed to such devastating effect.
 
The number of people who suffer death from tv licencing letter papercuts must be oooohhhh... millions. I'm surprised we even still exist as a country with a body count that high....

But yeah,
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Click to expand...
means pretty much anyone can have a gun. Can't understand why the 'well regulated militia' bit seems pretty well ignored.

I still find the people who scream "You can't change the second amendment!" endlessly entertaining. Shall we take a look at the word amendment? They're often the kind of person who introduces you to their wife and sister, and there's one woman standing there.

But while the NRA have such lobbying power, nothing will change. hell, with Trump in command they may well find the rules relaxed. Strange thing is, the NRA started as a sporting organisation who were in favour of gun control and proper training and safety. Sadly it was when Harlon Carter got power in the mid 70's that they really started to change, and now with Wayne LaPierre... Ugh....
 
Monkeynut said:
They should just be made to put their guns away properly.
Click to expand...

If a gun is held at home to defend against an intruder, it's useless unless it's quickly available and usable. So if guns have to be made difficult to access and use, the only purposes for them are target shooting, killing animals, murdering people and militia. So if a country allows for the possibility of having a gun for defence, it makes little sense for that country to require that the guns be made difficult to access and use. The law in the USA isn't stupid. It's based on a different premise, namely that civilians should be allowed guns to defend themselves and each other. Disagreeing with that premise can be a solid argument. Thinking that it's not worth the inevitable cost can be a solid argument. Dismissing it as stupid isn't a solid argument. There's a spectrum of gun control and no point on it is simply stupid.
 
Flibster said:
[..]
But yeah, means pretty much anyone can have a gun. Can't understand why the 'well regulated militia' bit seems pretty well ignored.
Click to expand...

Because it's debatable how each part of the sentence relates to the others. It's not a precise statement. It doesn't say that people can only bear arms as part of a well regulated militia.
 
Angilion said:
Because it's debatable how each part of the sentence relates to the others. It's not a precise statement. It doesn't say that people can only bear arms as part of a well regulated militia.
Click to expand...

It's partially the punctuation, it's all over the shop and that causes problems. There's some ratified versions of the 2nd amendment that only have 2 commas and one that has 4. Which is the definitive version then? It'll vary from state to state. There's also the strange use of capitals, but that's a lesser issue.

But imo, the biggest issue with it is that it was written in 1791 and they're trying to work out what the framers were thinking and what were their intentions. And what hope of they got really. After all, this is the country where some states defined dogs as weapons, but only when owned by a free black person...
 
We're the 2 victims people of colour and or crawling away from the shooter?
Cops and robbers US style.
 
Mr Badger said:
Toddler shoots two three-year-olds at daycare

"Two three-year-old children have been shot by another toddler at a home daycare facility in the US state of Michigan."

Good old US of A second amendment. All we need is an NRA spokesmen to point out that if the victims had also been armed with guns they could have defended themselves...
Click to expand...

It sounds bad at first, but on the positive side, at least nobody prevented this toddler from exercising his 2nd Amendment rights.
 
Flibster said:
I still find the people who scream "You can't change the second amendment!" endlessly entertaining. Shall we take a look at the word amendment? They're often the kind of person who introduces you to their wife and sister, and there's one woman standing there.
Click to expand...

They should just ban ammo, then there doesnt need to be a change to the 2nd Amendment :)
 
second amendment states as "part of a well regulated malitia" i never got why they didnt just restrict gun ownership to those who were in one.

training give up X amount of time, learn manouvers etc, basically like the TA but not ran by the government

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Click to expand...

yet there is no malitia regulated or not
 
dowie said:
Realistically they're not getting rid of guns or the second amendment any time soon so complaints about that still existing are rather naive/misplaced - guns are a reality now in America and will be for the foreseeable future. What they could do however is have some stricter laws regarding the sale and storage of firearms
Click to expand...
Is the same line of thinking true for any stupid law in any Country unlikely to change soon?
Public stoning for Adultery in Saudi for example may be unlikely to change, are our complaints about it naive/misplaced?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom