9
   

Fight the U.N. Gun Ban

 
 
Montana
 
  1  
Sat 17 Jun, 2006 10:30 am
Hey Wilso :-D

Yeah, some people make me wonder.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  0  
Sun 18 Jun, 2006 09:23 am
They just lowered the gun deer season age to 12 here in Michigan. I think it's still too high. My 10-year old is completely ready to hunt.

In my experience kids are typically the safest hunters out there, or at least they try to be. Much better than drunken redneck yahoos.

Kids should be taught gun safety as soon as they are curious. You can be as safe or gun free as you want, but at some point, your kids are going to come into contact with weapons. They should be able to tell if the person with them is treating them properly or not.
0 Replies
 
Montana
 
  1  
Sun 18 Jun, 2006 09:48 am
CJ
Some kids mature much faster than others and I'm assuming your son is one of the mature ones. Unfortunately, for every mature kid, there are several who are off the walls.
I've met some kids that are so smart that it blows my mind, but those ones are a rare find, in fact, there are few 18-19 year olds that I would consider mature enough to hold a gun, never mind own one.
I find a lot of the kids today to be quite rebelious and vindictive and it truly scares me to know that some of them have guns.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Sun 18 Jun, 2006 09:48 am
I think it's somehow stupid to allow someone to kill at the age of 12 or ten, but have to wait for a weak beer until she/he is 21.

(Spüort shooting is allowed here from 12 onwards, but you easily get the pro forma certificate of exemption fot younger children. Hunting outsite is 16.)
0 Replies
 
Montana
 
  1  
Sun 18 Jun, 2006 10:18 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
I think it's somehow stupid to allow someone to kill at the age of 12 or ten, but have to wait for a weak beer until she/he is 21.


I hear ya, Walter.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Sun 18 Jun, 2006 11:40 pm
Montana wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Montana wrote:
Kids shouldn't be hunting. It's not like it's needed to survive anymore and
they are simply not responsible enough to be holding any gun.

Naked prejudice.

That does not accord with my experience
of 5 years direct observation,
including myself. There were no problems.

Are u sure that u are justified
in throwing other peoples' rights away in the garbage ?
David


Naked prejudice? Laughing You must be joking!

Not joking.




Quote:

I am now convinced that you live in la la land,
since you obviously have no clue!

I do not live in Los Angeles; I live in NYC.




Quote:

Childrens brains are not fully developed yet, which is why we call them children ;-)

I take no delight in being redundant,
but since the age of 8, I armed myself with
a 2" .38 revolver, for personal protection
( until I upgraded to a .44 special revolver, some years later ).
The other kids in my Arizona neighborhood
were also well armed.
During the 5 years of my direct observation,
we had no complaints of any person of any age
exhibiting bad manners with firearms.

Indeed, I have no memory of the police ever showing up
in our quiet neighborhood.

Anyway, saying that everyone has the right to defend his life,
is the same as saying that everyone has an equal right to live.
David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Sun 18 Jun, 2006 11:51 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
I think it's somehow stupid to allow someone to kill at the age of 12 or ten,
but have to wait for a weak beer until she/he is 21.


I don 't choose to comment
on the laws concerning consumption of beer.
In my childhood, I used to have to drink it,
but I never liked it much; still don 't.

If a 10 or 12 year old person
is not theatened, then he shud not kill,
but if his life IS threatened,
then failure to kill with sufficient speed,
may cost him his life.

David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Mon 19 Jun, 2006 12:07 am
Montana wrote:
CJ
Some kids mature much faster than others and I'm assuming your son is one of the mature ones.
Unfortunately, for every mature kid, there are several who are off the walls.

Special treatment may be necessary
for any person who is sufficiently " off the walls. "






Quote:

I've met some kids that are so smart that it blows my mind, but those ones are a rare find, in fact, there are few 18-19 year olds that I would consider mature enough to hold a gun, never mind own one.
I find a lot of the kids today to be quite rebelious and vindictive and it truly scares me to know that some of them have guns.

Thru out most of American history
( up to around the first third of the 1900s ),
most of the states had no anti-gun laws,
or only laws against the concealment of guns
called " open carry ".

History does not record
that children, nor people of any age group
wreaked carnage upon America
,
with bullets flying all over. That did not happen.
There was, and is, no reason for u to be scared,
as u have indicated.

David
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  0  
Mon 19 Jun, 2006 09:23 pm
Certainly you have to judge each child and each individual on a case by case basis.

I think passing the hunters safety class is a good test of character.

As is passing the standard background checks required to own any firearm.

We already have plenty of gun control in the U.S. The existing laws simply need to be enforced. Additional controls are just anti-gunners and blowhard politicians looking for free advertising.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Mon 19 Jun, 2006 09:56 pm
1. With all respect,
it seems to me that legislation concerning the control of guns
is like legislation concerning the control of theological opinion,
or of the citizens' choice of a favorite color.
The existing anti-gun laws cannot be enforced consistently
with the citizens' constitutional freedom.

This was placed beyond the reach of government jurisdiction.

One of the 2 reasons for doing that
was the Founders' knowledge that ONE revolution
might not necessarily prove to be sufficient; Jefferson suspected
that the human nature of holders' of public office was such
as to necessitate a revolution every 20 years.

These successful Revolutionaries who wrote the Bill of Rights desired that in any future revolution,
the citizens wud WIN, and their hireling government wud lose.
So to speak, the 2nd Amendment was an eraser on the pencil of government.

2. Addressing the morality of discrimination,
it seems ghastly to me to tell any person
whose life is threatened by violence:
" No: You are too young to defend your life.

U must allow the criminal ( or predatory animal ) to kill u,
unless u can successfully turn your back and run away,
or win the predator 's sympathy
by showing him how an AMERICAN child can beg n grovel,
because if u have armed yourself with defensive emergency equipment,
in the fulfillment of your constitutional rights,
u may offend the liberals, and u WILL offend the predator who is harmed
by your resistence. "
David
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Mon 26 Jun, 2006 10:40 am
NEVER believe them when they try to tell you that there are no plans for more restrictive treaties in the future!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/un_curbing_guns

I suggest the time is ripe for the napalm attack I spoke of before.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  0  
Mon 26 Jun, 2006 12:18 pm
The U.N. is filled with international terrorists bent on destruction of the USA. Never trust them.
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Mon 26 Jun, 2006 03:32 pm
cjhsa wrote:
The U.N. is filled with international terrorists bent on destruction of the USA. Never trust them.


To think the school sent us to the UN on field trips when I was a kid. They must have brainwashed all of us. But now I see the light! Quick, send me an NRA membership form!
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Mon 26 Jun, 2006 11:06 pm
cjhsa wrote:
The U.N. is filled with international terrorists bent on destruction of the USA.

Never trust them.

True.
It is not wise to go around promiscuously trusting people.
David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Tue 27 Jun, 2006 12:49 am
oralloy wrote:
NEVER believe them when they try to tell you that there are no plans for more restrictive treaties in the future!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/un_curbing_guns

I suspect that our Ambassador John Bolton
will take good care of us. He was good in 2001
David
0 Replies
 
Montana
 
  1  
Tue 27 Jun, 2006 12:51 am
Laughing
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Tue 27 Jun, 2006 01:59 am
OmSigDAVID wrote:
oralloy wrote:
NEVER believe them when they try to tell you that there are no plans for more restrictive treaties in the future!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/un_curbing_guns

I suspect that our Ambassador John Bolton
will take good care of us. He was good in 2001
David


Indeed. I still remember all the wailing and tantrums the diplomats engaged in when Bolton made them strip out the language about civilian gun ownership back in 2001.

I was SO relieved to see Bolton become UN ambassador.

But I am a little apprehensive about what the UN will try to do when the day comes that we don't have Bush and Bolton there to protect us anymore.
0 Replies
 
Montana
 
  1  
Tue 27 Jun, 2006 11:16 am
Laughing Laughing Laughing
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Tue 27 Jun, 2006 11:43 am
The gun nuts are taking turns scaring each other on this thread--this is highly entertaining!
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Wed 28 Jun, 2006 12:58 am
D'artagnan wrote:
The gun nuts


Is it possible to tone down the bigoted language?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/27/2024 at 11:58:59