It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

5-year-old Kentucky boy fatally shoots 2-year-old sister with gift rifle

page: 31
22
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 6 2013 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


I find it far more frustrating when people want more laws and bigger government. I think if we took care of what we have now it would be fine. Adding more laws that will not be enforced on those who need it will do nothing to help the problems.

Raist




posted on May, 6 2013 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


If they are coming after me they will meet the business end of a firearm. I am law abiding and follow the rules. I am responsible with my firearms. If any one wants to start a war with me because I am teaching my child firearms safety and responsibility they will get one.

Raist



posted on May, 6 2013 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Raist
reply to post by seabag
 


If they are coming after me they will meet the business end of a firearm. I am law abiding and follow the rules. I am responsible with my firearms. If any one wants to start a war with me because I am teaching my child firearms safety and responsibility they will get one.

Raist


Im not saying what you are doing is wrong.

But if the goveement wanted to stop you you would be powerlesss.

Unless your part of a well trained and equiped militia ( which i honnestly think the founding fathers wanted as thats better to stand up to power than a few disorganised rebels) you will end up shot and your kids taken into care.

To be honnest you yanks should be formimg organised militias and resistance cells. Cause when your goverment pushes tyranny too far that will be the only way you can resist.

Lone wolfs dont win wars.


And I know im not a yank but if the US falls to tyranny then the UK will follow suit we are all in it together.

edit on 6-5-2013 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2013 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


It seems odd for sure. Our bedrooms are too small for that any way lol. Us poor folk have small homes.

I cannot say I really agree. My sons room is right across the hall from mine and my wife's. I think I will stick with the system I have now.

Raist



posted on May, 6 2013 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by crazyewok
 


Oh, don't get me wrong. I most likely would die.

But you know what? I would die for the things I stand for. I believe it is my right to own a firearm. I believe it is my right to teach in a responsible manner my son how to use a firearm. If I die, I die. At least I die standing up for my rights and my beliefs. My son would at least understand it is more important to stand by your cause than to run and toss it by the way side. I am going to die one day or another any way



Raist



posted on May, 6 2013 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by strato
Only in the USA.
People are too dumb to be allowed to own firearms.


Get off your high horse buddy. There are stupid people in every country. These parents were stupid, most gyun owners are far more responsible.

Raist



posted on May, 6 2013 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Raist
reply to post by crazyewok
 


Oh, don't get me wrong. I most likely would die.

But you know what? I would die for the things I stand for. I believe it is my right to own a firearm. I believe it is my right to teach in a responsible manner my son how to use a firearm. If I die, I die. At least I die standing up for my rights and my beliefs. My son would at least understand it is more important to stand by your cause than to run and toss it by the way side. I am going to die one day or another any way



Raist


Yes but its one thing to die for a reason in a way that in the bigger scheme of things wont matter and another to die for a reason in a way that would send shockwave throughout the USA.


If you were part of a organised group then even if you die the fight would continue. Maybe if part of group you wouldnt die?

If it is just you then chances are the media would just protray you as some insane gun nut (I know that not the case).

If it is a whole group then that would make people step up and listen.

I dont know if Im makeing sense.

Just think back to Lexington in 1776. If it was just a couple of dudes shoting at us Brits we would have just caught them and hung them like we normaly would and there would have been no American revolution (or at least it would have been delayed). But because a whole millitia force turned up our army had to think twice which ment it gave time for other patriots to get the news and organise.
edit on 6-5-2013 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2013 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by crazyewok
 


Putting yourself into a militia though puts you on a watch list. There are plenty in this area that would take up arms if they needed too. While I do not associate with those who consider themselves rednecks, hillbillies, or cowboys I do work with them. This is an area where the majority hold firearms. And one thing I learned early on (one reason I do not associate with them) is not to get on the bad side of those I just mentioned. Anyone coming after their guns will certainly be on their bad side.

It is one thing to be a lone wolf but another to know there are those who would support you as long as you are supporting them. No need to form a militia or else the feds start visiting.

Raist



posted on May, 6 2013 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Raist
reply to post by Indigo5
 


I find it far more frustrating when people want more laws and bigger government. I think if we took care of what we have now it would be fine. Adding more laws that will not be enforced on those who need it will do nothing to help the problems.

Raist


More laws...

Bigger Government....

I am for niether...What we have is a game of cat and mouse, where the gov. creates rational law A, and the NRA through it's lobby and payola, gut Law A and make it useless...then gov tries law B...ditto NRA guts/defunds law B. You would be suprised to learn there is a tonnage of "pro-gun" amendments, laws, riders all aimed at hobbling other laws.

The NRA complains of laws not being enforced...whilst passing laws to make sure they can't be enforced.

The NRA complains about too many laws, while emplying teams to WRITE new laws ...to gut existing law.

So no....I am not advocating "Bigger Gov."...the Manchin-Toomey amendment was not about confiscation...actually I am not sure why you keep retreating to "they are comming for my guns"...when confiscation is only supported by what? One Senator? and if then not really...just idealogical bloviating.

The Manchin-Toomey AMENDMENT was aimed at expanding background checks to Gun Shows...all vendors including private sales at Gun Shows and SOME internet sales.

So please stop with the nonsense about new laws and big government or confiscation.

Those are non-existent extreme positions and BS the NRA screams to get otherwise rational folks to oppose rational measures.

Straw men...arguments created for thier convenience in opposing.

What is wrong with not creating a new law, but expanding and enforcing criminal background checks to gun shows and internet sales?

edit on 6-5-2013 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2013 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Raist
reply to post by crazyewok
 


Putting yourself into a militia though puts you on a watch list. There are plenty in this area that would take up arms if they needed too. While I do not associate with those who consider themselves rednecks, hillbillies, or cowboys I do work with them. This is an area where the majority hold firearms. And one thing I learned early on (one reason I do not associate with them) is not to get on the bad side of those I just mentioned. Anyone coming after their guns will certainly be on their bad side.

It is one thing to be a lone wolf but another to know there are those who would support you as long as you are supporting them. No need to form a militia or else the feds start visiting.

Raist


Its a shame that would get you on a watch list as that exactly what your founding fathers did not want


I personaly dont see how disorganised groups could stand a chance at anything. Yeah rednecks could kick up a fuss and kill a few people but eventually without smarter and cooler heads to orgnaise them and keep them focused on the task at hand I just cant see a resistance that is not planned gaining anything but alot of dead and more tyranny as the govemnet clamp down.

However organised resistance cells with good leaderships can acheive almost anything!

to be honnest I think the leaders of your patriots had this same disscussion 200 years ago



posted on May, 6 2013 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


I have no problem with background checks. We all ready went over that. I was just clarifying that we need to fix and focus on the laws we have. I have filled out a background check for ever firearm I bought including one I bought at a gun show about 10 years ago.

I also need to clarify that I am for background checks but no record keeping of those checks. Meaning that once the check is through nothing is kept showing that you had a check to purchase a firearm. I am strictly against firearm registration. I am for the owner keeping multiple records though of the firearms they have. I have photo evidence and documented evidence of each firearm, a description and the serial number is recorded for each and every firearm.

Still though none of the laws written would have prevented this from happening. You cannot fix stupid people. No amount of laws will get stupid people to do things. The only way this could have been prevented was for the parents to have some firearms sense and abide by the safety rules. Instead their stupidity sacrificed their youngest child.

As far as gun bans and confiscations there are plenty of cities or states working on that. It does not have to be the federal government doing it to be wrong. Ask the residents of CT about their gun rights at this moment. Or even ask those in Illinois. I can take my firearm through there but the way I must carry it makes it pointless to do.

Raist
edit on 5/6/13 by Raist because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2013 @ 07:45 PM
link   
reply to post by crazyewok
 


Well a lot of those in this area also have family in the military. A good number of those members would likely join their families in the fight bringing with them what ever equipment they could. I suspect the military/police would be split down the middle if it came to a hostile take over of the public.

While there was something with the recent bombing suspects I am not sure many more of those would fly either. I think it largely depends on the area. There are plenty of people around here that are good people but they like to have their fun (some make their own drink or grow their own plants). They like to protect their own place with lethal force.

You do not want to be caught walking on someone's property around here, some of them are likely to shoot you.
Some of these people around here are hard core.

Raist



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 07:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by JuniorDisco
 


Come on now, I am fairly certain that you can read.



So you're just going to rely on the difficulty of procuring a weapon of mass destruction to protect you?


My point was pretty clear. The jihadists don't follow our laws..... they follow theirs.
We can have a whole boatload of laws against bombs and they will still make and use them. (they just did... up there in Boston)
Yes, right now, all we have is difficulty of procurement protecting us, because the terrorists do not abide by our laws when they are practicing jihad.... or hadn't you noticed???


The law doesn't make them want to do it any less, obviously. It makes it harder for them to procure the materials. Not impossible, but harder.



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 07:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by seabag

This is true. It’s always been that way and always will be. Murder has been around for thousands of years prior to the invention of guns, friend.


But my point is that kids will be shot who otherwise would be alive. They would not automatically be strangled or stabbed instead.

Like in the case in the OP. Without widespread gun ownership that kid would be probably be alive. Guns provide another stunningly dangerous opportunity for idiots to kill themselves and others. Yes, without guns they will crash cars drunk or knife each other, but removing guns will remove one way for them to accidentally or intentionally kill.



I
It’s not a fetish it’s the document that our Constitutional Republic was based on. America’s rise to the top of the economic and military food chain can be attributed to our form of government. We take it seriously (well, those of us with any sense and aren’t corrupt)!


In part, although I'm not sure your democracy is a shining example any more. And the bits that are successful would have been successful without widespread gun ownership.

Also you're not top of the food chain any more, certainly not economically.





It’s absolutely effective for self defense. There is a reason why swords are obsolete on the battlefield!


If they are so ineffective then what’s your problem with me having a bunch of them?? My children have never accidently discharged a firearm. Why should I take a safety course??


I'm not saying you should. But in my opinion you should have to show your proficiency with a gun and also the right character to own one.

And you missed my point. I was specifically refuting the notion that rifles would be as effective at repelling an oppressive force as they were when the law was written. I wasn't saying they aren't dangerous. They're lethally good at shooting kids; not so good at bringing down helicopters.





Yes, perhaps we should ONCE AGAIN make them legal. Before 1934 they were legal! Thanks for pointing out another example of my rights being infringed upon!


You genuinely believe that IEDs and RPGs should be legal? Can you not see that something like the Boston Marathon bombing could end with thousands dead if such weapons were allowed to be owned by anyone?





Guns have been legal to own since their invention and no such ownership requirements have ever been in place. Why do we need them now? Is it because you believe the media hype?? I think so. Violent gun crimes are at historic lows, friend.


They are still very high, relative to places like the UK.

Look, I'm not suggesting people shouldn't be allowed to own guns. Just that some sort of check might reduce the number of innocents who are shot with them. If you can face up to the fact that your freedom comes at a price - as I've said I certainly do with car ownership, for example - then I applaud you. But that price does involve dead children.



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 07:18 AM
link   
reply to post by JuniorDisco
 





The law doesn't make them want to do it any less, obviously. It makes it harder for them to procure the materials. Not impossible, but harder.

How so?

The law isn't what makes plutonium and refined uranium difficult to come by.... it is the extremely expensive processing that makes it difficult to have.

I don't think it is illegal to own a flawless diamond the size of a hens egg.... not everyone has one though. Why is that?



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Raist
reply to post by JuniorDisco
 


In this case the parents were also breaking the law. It is called negligence and child endangerment. They left children unsupervised with a loaded gun. No amount of laws would have stopped more than likely because you cannot fix stupid. The parents were nothing but stupid in this.


A little bit of common sense and gun safety goes a long way. This rifle had potential to make a great gift and make for a life of happiness. But instead some stupid moron of a parent leaves the thing sitting around loaded instead of storing it in a nonfunctioning fashion. It is very easy to do with this rifle and takes mere seconds.

Raist


I largely agree. But the fact remains that if these people had felt more impelled to store the weapon correctly (due to penalties for not doing so) or had not been able to buy one, the child would be alive.

Youcertainly can't legislate to stop stupidity.But you can make it harder for stupid people to hurt others.



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 08:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by JuniorDisco

But the fact remains that if these people had felt more impelled to store the weapon correctly (due to penalties for not doing so) or had not been able to buy one, the child would be alive.


I love this notion that people who arent phased by the likelihood of death due to negligent storage could somehow be swayed by the threat of a ticket or fine.



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 08:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Raist
reply to post by JuniorDisco
 


In many cases guns are just as useful if not more so than cars. It depends on the person and their needs.

Raist


Obviously that's a value judgement. A gun is more use to a guy who is being charged by a bear than a car is. Or to someone being robbed. But in the vast majority of cases cars have more utility.

If you had to choose would you take car or gun? Some people would choose the latter, sure. A minority, I think, as shown by people's current purchasing habits. But if the country had to outlaw one, based purely on usefulness, which would it be? Note I'm not saying they have to, it's simply a method to explore which object class is more indispensable.



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by JuniorDisco

But the fact remains that if these people had felt more impelled to store the weapon correctly (due to penalties for not doing so) or had not been able to buy one, the child would be alive.


I love this notion that people who arent phased by the likelihood of death due to negligent storage could somehow be swayed by the threat of a ticket or fine.


They are stupid, remember. They are phased by death, they just don't think it will happen - they don't make the connection. If they see people being fined effectively for this they will make the connection and store guns more effectively.



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy





The law doesn't make them want to do it any less, obviously. It makes it harder for them to procure the materials. Not impossible, but harder.

How so?

The law isn't what makes plutonium and refined uranium difficult to come by.... it is the extremely expensive processing that makes it difficult to have.

I don't think it is illegal to own a flawless diamond the size of a hens egg.... not everyone has one though. Why is that?


This is kind of a sidetrack, but I'll indulge you. Scarcity makes things like diamonds and uranium hard to come by, but so does their illegality. Likewise if guns were illegal people would still get shot but it's likely guns would be more scarce.

Anyway, what's your point? And how does it relate to the thrust of my argument above?



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join