And the madness continues

stewski said:
I can't really understand why you'd refuse to comment on other equally entrenched barbaric out dated laws (and that is all they are) that cost citizen's their lives, whilst suggesting it's naive/misplaced for others to question equally barbaric, out dated laws in the USA.
Click to expand...

I've not commented on stoning in Saudi Arabia as it isn't relevant to the thread about a toddler shooting other toddlers in the US, I've stated that already, I'm not really sure why you keep asking.

BaroUK2 said:
They just had to store their guns in a place where children cannot get to and it should have had the safety on, or keep ammo seperately..... Bad parenting or guardians nothing else....
Click to expand...

indeed - but given the often general lack of requirement for firearm owners in the US to store their firearms safely this is where some legislation could help - laws re: storage of firearms and greater accountability for firearm owners would both be useful IMO
 
stewski said:
Hmmm interesting way of looking at things, the legality of carrying a hand gun and someone (young or old) shooting someone else with said hand gun, are not related?

You should look up Bill Hicks he has a pretty interesting come back to that position :)
Click to expand...
We can discuss this all day long whether an adult was fit to carry a gun or not thats totally different thing. Although i am against it as I live in UK but in this case i see this no different then a toddler swallowing drugs and killing himself / herself. It could have prevented by simply keeping dangerous stuff out of babies / toddlers / childrens reach....
 
dowie said:
I don't really know what more to say as I've already stated twice that I've not commented on stoning as it isn't irrelevant to the thread, I'm not really sure why you keep asking.
Click to expand...
It's totally analogous to your statement and I have a fairly good idea why someone who had made an attempt to set the boundary of discussion would avoid acknowledging that!
 
stewski said:
It's totally analogous to your statement and I have a fairly good idea why someone who had made an attempt to set the boundary of discussion would avoid acknowledging that!
Click to expand...

Stewski, the thread has nothing to do with stoning, I'm not really interested in discussing stoning. It isn't analogous to anything I've posted.
 
BaroUK2 said:
We can discuss this all day long whether an adult was fit to carry a gun or not thats totally different thing. Although i am against it as I live in UK but in this case i see this no different then a toddler swallowing drugs and killing himself / herself. It could have prevented by simply keeping dangerous stuff out of babies / toddlers / childrens reach....
Click to expand...
How does mentioning other ways for people to die relate to these events?
A large number of people die due to fire arms laws in the states, legally carrying a gun and people from that gun are not likely unrelated.
 
dowie said:
Stewski, the thread has nothing to do with stoning, I'm not really interested in discussing stoning. It isn't analogous to anything I've posted.
Click to expand...
Pick any law of a clearly barbaric tradition from a country who's law you don't feel it naive or misplaced to question then!
 
stewski said:
How does mentioning other ways for people to die relate to these events?
A large number of people die due to fire arms laws in the states, legally carrying a gun and people from that gun are not likely unrelated.
Click to expand...
People?, Two three-year-old children have been shot by another toddler.
 
stewski said:
Thanks for that I was aware, my kids a person too. Now how about answering a question?
Click to expand...
Well if you have babies or a toddler or when they were babies or toddler, did you;
Leave knifes laying around on floor or where they could access them? Ban knives? or better to keep them somewhere they cant reach?
Didnt cover electric sockets and left metal objects around them? stop using electric sockets? or cover the sockets?
Or left medicines on tables laying about where they can access them? ban medicines? or keep them somewhere out of reach?
and thousand other stuff we as parents need to watch out for when there are babies around.....
 
BaroUK2 said:
Well thats why i said its bad parenting so not sure what your main point was when replying to me lol. .....
Click to expand...
Because on a thread where a mother legally took a hand gun to play group, it is a bit irrelevant that it's bad parenting.
The odds of this occurrence are more than somewhat lower here, if you watch the Bill Hicks sketch he explains.
Deaths in the UK due to guns 14, the USA 14,000 but you'd be a fool and a communist to say there is a link.

Yes this parent could have had an illegal gun, or a bowie knife in her hand bag, she didn't but she did take a fire arm legally to play group!
 
stewski said:
Because on a thread where a mother legally took a hand gun to play group, it is a bit irrelevant that it's bad parenting.
The odds of this occurrence are more than somewhat lower here, if you watch the Bill Hicks sketch he explains.
Deaths in the UK due to guns 14, the USA 14,000 but you'd be a fool and a communist to say there is a link.

Yes this parent could have had an illegal gun, or a bowie knife in her hand bag, she didn't but she did take a fire arm legally to play group!
Click to expand...
What if news title was toddler knived 2 3 year olds instead of guns.... I am not defending they should keep guns, i didnt even comment anything about that, its just bad parenting, nothing else....
 
BaroUK2 said:
What if news title was toddler knived 2 3 year olds instead of guns.... I am not defending they should keep guns, i didnt even comment anything about that, its just bad parenting, nothing else....
Click to expand...
We obviously agree taking a gun to play groups falls in the bad camp, I'm just saying that being legal falls in the insane camp!
 
In the end, the real issue here is the responsibility of the person who owned the firearm, clearly in America where self-defence is a top priority and you need access to it quick, but it shouldn't be possible for kids to get to it.

You need to take lessons and finally a test or two before you can drive, but the same isn't said for firearms. You should have to take lessons on firearm safety and responsibility of owning one that teaches really basic stuff, especially when you have kids around.
 
IronWarrior said:
You need to take lessons and finally a test or two before you can drive, but the same isn't said for firearms. You should have to take lessons on firearm safety and responsibility of owning one that teaches really basic stuff, especially when you have kids around.
Click to expand...

with a test you can fail, and random inspections, although i doubt they'd agree to any of that.
 
Tefal said:
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.
Click to expand...

Because it does not state "part of a well regulated militia". It does state "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", though. It's not clear how the first part of the sentence connects to the second part of the sentence. The English is unclear and the meaning that the authors of the amendent intended is even less clear and all the more so since English has changed. For example, they probably meant "well regulated" to mean "effective". That's not what "well regulated" would mean today, but it was what it probably meant in that context in that time.

But even if you interpret the second part as being wholly dependent on the first part and make some assumptions about the intended meaning, it's still not clearly a nullification of the second part. The first part states that it is necessary for an effective militia to be available. It doesn't put a time limit on that. So if you interpret the second part as being dependent on the first part, the logical conclusion is that as many people as possible should be armed in order to increase the effectiveness of the militia that could be raised as required. It would also be a logical conclusion from that interpretation to greatly increase the range of weaponry available. A militia would be a lot more effective with explosives, missile launchers and suchlike. I don't think the militia angle is a good idea.
 
you got any source thst "tell regulated" means "effective" ?

also they dont nullify each other as various citizens do have thier right to bear arms removed (convicted felons or the mentally ill) and some kinda of guns are banned, assault weapons and explosives.

both of which are about the only way a Malitia could be "effective" against a government.

so they dont really follow the amdenment as it is ajyway.


perhaps the Swiss system you may have a gun but you must complete a year of military training.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom