8 year old accidently shoots himself with an Uzi

@cjhsa,

cjhsa wrote:

Intrepid wrote:

cjhsa wrote:

The real problem with the type of people here on A2K is that they have their bitch-boy in the Whitehouse soon and he WILL try to take away your guns and second amendment rights. He fully intends to rewrite the constitution.

Lock and load. Molon labe.

One can only hope

Thanks for clarifying that ya dumb **** canuck.

Ooooh, I'm sooo scared of the words from the scourge of A2K who can't even write a cohesive sentence. Go play in your sandbox gun boy.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

When I was 8, I went to Arizona.
My next door neighbor was a captain
in the National Guard. He took the kids
in the neighborhood, including his son,
to the local military fort, where we
had the opportunity to work out with
rifles, pistols, and submachineguns.
(This was before the Uzi was invented.)
We LOVED them.

Submachineguns are tons of fun,
and no one was ever even slightly injured.

David

Your next door neighbour wasn't exactly working with a full deck, was he? I also wonder if he had the permission of all of the children's parents before doing such an irresponsible thing.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

Quote:
"A Micro Uzi is made by and for the Israeli Armed Forces and is intended to meet the operational needs of Israeli Special Forces," Bennett said, noting the weapon has a rate of fire of 1,700 rounds per minute. "It is not a hunting weapon."

I'm not sure whether or not Massachusetts law prohibits letting a kid have a machine gun, but this statement from the prosecutor is disturbing.

Whether or not the gun is "a hunting weapon" has nothing to do with the issue of whether or not it was legal to let the kid fire the gun.

Freedom haters often make oddball comments like "that isn't a hunting weapon" from out of the blue, apparently in the belief that they are making some profound point.

Is this a case of a prosecutor upholding the law, or is it a case of an out-of-control prosecutor with an anti-freedom agenda?

(Note: If the law really was violated, I do not oppose the prosecution.)

I just went and looked up the relevant law:

http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/140-130.htm

I guess the prosecution looks legit. I'm not sure why the prosecutor felt the need to publicly state that this wasn't a hunting weapon though.

-----

Note for those who wonder why the law gives rules for "firearms" as a class separate from rifles, shotguns and machineguns, this definition page shows that the term "firearm" is defined to mean handguns and short-barreled shotguns/rifles, and not longer weapons.

http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/140-121.htm

(Lawyers..... Laughing

)

1 Reply

The 2nd Amendment was not enacted to protect SPORTS,
neither hunting deer any more than ball games.

Can we believe that the Founders meant to follow an amendment
securing freedoms of speech, the press and religion with an amendment
protecting possession of sporting goods?
Did we need more amendments for possession of catchers’ mitts
and roller skates? By assuring an armed populace, the Founders
physically put sovereignty into the hands of the citizens themselves,
after wresting it away from the British Monarchy.

US Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story (1811-1845) pointed out that:
"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered
as the Palladium of the liberties of the republic since it offers
a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power
of the rulers; and will generally...enable the people to resist and
triumph over them."

It was for defense of the civilian population
from the violence of man or beast and to enable the citizens
to keep the government in line.

Even before the 2nd Amendment was enacted,
this concept was made clear in the Federalist Papers,
in support of ratification of the Constitution.

David

0 Replies

@oralloy,

He probably pointed out it wasn't a hunting weapon to emphasize the fact that it was made expressly for the purpose of killing humans. In other words, there is no reason to have or fire it. Hunting rifles, on the other hand, are used to shoot game or targets and it is not uncommon for it to be fired.

2 Replies

@Intrepid,

Intrepid wrote:

He probably pointed out it wasn't a hunting weapon to emphasize the fact that it was made expressly for the purpose of killing humans. In other words, there is no reason to have or fire it. Hunting rifles, on the other hand, are used to shoot game or targets and it is not uncommon for it to be fired.

No.
The primary purpose of keeping and bearing arms
is not SPORTS; it is to kill humans. That is the main reason
to keep them and be proficient with them. That is the reason
protected by the Supreme Law of the Land.

David

0 Replies

@Intrepid,

Intrepid wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

When I was 8, I went to Arizona.
My next door neighbor was a captain
in the National Guard. He took the kids
in the neighborhood, including his son,
to the local military fort, where we
had the opportunity to work out with
rifles, pistols, and submachineguns.
(This was before the Uzi was invented.)
We LOVED them.

Submachineguns are tons of fun,
and no one was ever even slightly injured.

David

Your next door neighbour wasn't exactly working with a full deck, was he?

What u say is ridiculous.
He was very competent; a successful businessman,
an officer and a gentleman, by act of Congress.

Quote:

I also wonder if he had the permission of all of the children's parents before doing such an irresponsible thing.

He took his son target shooting and any of the kids
nearby who chose to come along. There was never any trouble.
More people were killed by Ted Kennedy 's car than by any of our
submachineguns, during target practice. It was a fine thing to do.
I am grateful to him. I wish I had gone more ofen.

I still enjoy firing submachineguns.
My favorite is the 9mm H & K MP 5; very sweet.
Thay shoud have classes on its use in the public schools.

David

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

It took an act of congress to make him a gentleman? Wow!

Nowhere did you say that he had permission of the parents. You only said he took any kid that wanted to go.

How can you, in all seriousness, say that what I said was ridiculous?

Wow!

2 Replies

@Intrepid,

May I give you a piece of advice, Intrepid?

When dealing with seriously mentally disturbed and unstable personalities, do not expect logic and do not attempt to use logic while engaged in conversation. It's like trying to attach a mound of Jell-o to the wall with a staple-gun. Not worth the effort.

People who are unable to distinguish between right and wrong, between sensible actions and aberrant ones, are not sane. It's that simple. Every court in the land recognizes this fact. You're just wasting your breath with the likes of David or cjhsa. Give it up.

3 Replies

@Merry Andrew,

Thank you for your logically correct advice. it is refreshing to converse with a sane gentleman who can see beyond the rhetoric and insanity of fruitless conversation.

0 Replies

@Intrepid,

Intrepid wrote:

It took an act of congress to make him a gentleman? Wow!

Nowhere did you say that he had permission of the parents.
You only said he took any kid that wanted to go.

Yes.
We lived in an environment of freedom; no problems.
Over the years, we went target shooting quite a few times,
usually on weekends. If a parent of a kid were around at the time,
I imagine he probably mentioned it; occasionally, some of the other neighbors,
parents and non-parents, accompanied us; sometimes in 2 or 3 cars.
It never became a problem n it was a lot of fun.
I am glad to have had that in my life experience,
and I feel richer for it.

I bet u woud screw me OUT of it, if u were able to.

David

0 Replies

@Merry Andrew,

Merry Andrew wrote:

May I give you a piece of advice, Intrepid?

When dealing with seriously mentally disturbed and unstable personalities, do not expect logic and do not attempt to use logic while engaged in conversation. It's like trying to attach a mound of Jell-o to the wall with a staple-gun. Not worth the effort.

People who are unable to distinguish between right and wrong, between sensible actions and aberrant ones, are not sane. It's that simple. Every court in the land recognizes this fact. You're just wasting your breath with the likes of David or cjhsa. Give it up.

Because of your churlish incivility, and hostility against freedom,
I have put u on IGNORE.

Therefore, if u address me (however unlikely that may be)
I will not know it (unless someone quotes u).
I suggest that reciprocally, u put me on ignore.

David

0 Replies

@Intrepid,

Intrepid wrote:

He probably pointed out it wasn't a hunting weapon to emphasize the fact that it was made expressly for the purpose of killing humans.

Yes. That is why I suspected the prosecution. Freedom haters often make that point, apparently in the belief that it has some sort of significance.

For the prosecutor to make such a meaningless point in public raised the immediate suspicion that he was twisting the law for some sort of anti-freedom agenda.

Having gone and looked up the law myself though, the charges do seem to be in order. But is still disturbing to see a prosecutor making such comments.

Intrepid wrote:

In other words, there is no reason to have or fire it.

That is incorrect. There are many reasons to have or fire a gun that is designed to kill humans.

Self defense and recreational target shooting are two in particular that stand out.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

Both responses were so weak that I will not expend more time than is necessary to type these words on a reply. It would be useless.

3 Replies

@Intrepid,

Intrepid wrote:

Both responses were so weak that I will not expend more time
than is necessary to type these words on a reply. It would be useless.

Was I supposed to be STRONG n powerful in response ?
Maybe that is some new rule.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

There are many reasons to have or fire a gun that is designed to kill humans.

Self defense and recreational target shooting are two in particular that stand out.

There is just something a little wrong with that statement.

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

45 rounds are not cheap and I don't think you could get away with shooting reloads either in that type of weapon.

Fifty 45 rounds going toward a target in a matter of seconds!

0 Replies

Submachineguns are tons of fun !
I just love them !

David

0 Replies

The dumb **** canuck will never get it. He's defensively impaired.

1 Reply

@Merry Andrew,

Merry Andrew wrote:

May I give you a piece of advice, Intrepid?

When dealing with seriously mentally disturbed and unstable personalities, do not expect logic and do not attempt to use logic while engaged in conversation. It's like trying to attach a mound of Jell-o to the wall with a staple-gun. Not worth the effort.

People who are unable to distinguish between right and wrong, between sensible actions and aberrant ones, are not sane. It's that simple. Every court in the land recognizes this fact. You're just wasting your breath with the likes of David or cjhsa. Give it up.

So, in your little fucked up world, the overzealous paramilitary cop that busted down the wrong door and shot the defenseless family to death is in the right, because, well, he's a LEO, and thus, he cannot be insane?

MA, and all gun haters - please go away. Get the **** out of the USA or at least stop complaining about the fact we are allowed to own guns. Are you afraid? Do you have an agenda? Just, go the **** away. You are the insane ones who are willing to give up any chance of defending yourself and depending on a police force that really prefers to mess with you, not protect you.

3 Replies

8 year old accidently shoots himself with an Uzi

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know