Detroit girl, 3, shoots self in head

[LiberalNation]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080407/ap_on_re_us/girl_shoots_self;_ylt=Ag8I.hfjZh3hHV.OD4Qrz6BvzwcF

DETROIT - A 3-year-old girl found a gun in a bedroom of her home and shot herself in the head Sunday, police said.

One of the girl's parents apparently owned the gun, and at least one parent was home when she shot herself Sunday afternoon. Police questioned the parents and took the gun, the Detroit Free Press reported.

The girl was taken to Sinai Grace Hospital, then transferred to Children's Hospital of Michigan. The Detroit News reported she was in critical condition

[Nukeman]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080407/ap_on_re_us/girl_shoots_self;_ylt=Ag8I.hfjZh3hHV.OD4Qrz6BvzwcF

DETROIT - A 3-year-old girl found a gun in a bedroom of her home and shot herself in the head Sunday, police said.

One of the girl's parents apparently owned the gun, and at least one parent was home when she shot herself Sunday afternoon. Police questioned the parents and took the gun, the Detroit Free Press reported.

The girl was taken to Sinai Grace Hospital, then transferred to Children's Hospital of Michigan. The Detroit News reported she was in critical conditionYour thoughts on the story are what????????????????? You bring this NEWS story to a message board yet you have nothing to add except the actual article!!!! Why is that. No comments??? No thoughts? Nothing????

[avatar4321]

why on earth was a gun anywhere near a 3 year old?

[Nukeman]

why on earth was a gun anywhere near a 3 year old?Ummm dude it is Detroit!!! I think thats enough said. Not the greatest gene pool out there!!!!!!!!

[diuretic]

Ummm dude it is Detroit!!! I think thats enough said. Not the greatest gene pool out there!!!!!!!!

Sho nuff. Dat true dere. Hey maybe it's social Darwinism??? Maybe it's de hand of de Lord?

[Nukeman]

Sho nuff. Dat true dere. Hey maybe it's social Darwinism??? Maybe it's de hand of de Lord?We should all go ask Rev. Wright over there in Chicago!!!!!! OHH wait the white man did it!!!!

[Joe Steel]

Bad enough another baby has been sacrificed to the gun cult's great steel phallus. Worse is the lack of sympathy and dismissal of the death by the cultists.

[Dilloduck]

Bad enough another baby has been sacrificed to the gun cult's great steel phallus. Worse is the lack of sympathy and dismissal of the death by the cultists.

How about we just ban everything that somene has died from ? Would that make you feel good ?

[Nukeman]

Bad enough another baby has been sacrificed to the gun cult's great steel phallus. Worse is the lack of sympathy and dismissal of the death by the cultists.
Once again you miss the mark. The gun is not to blame in this it is the idiot parent that left a LOADED, UNLOCKED, ACCESSIBLE hand gun where a 3 year old could reach it. As for sympathy, I have a great deal for the family but that doesn't include me calling for the banning of guns

Lets all say it together, the rallying cry of the left "ITS FOR THE CHILDREN"

Ohh by the way the child is still alive and in critical condition. Next time read the article!!!!:poke:

[Nukeman]

How about we just ban everything that somene has died from ? Would that make you feel good ?

How many 3yo are killed in cars ever day due to dumb parents and others?? How many are injured on the playground every day???

You know your absolutely right dillo we should just put all our children in bubble wrap place them in a sterile room away from all bad influences and than on their 18th birthday release to the wild to fend for themselves.


Hows that sound Joe????? Would that work for you. Oh we would also have to keep ALL otters away including their parents due to the fact that they might be STUPID and inadvertently injure their own choldren.....

[Joe Steel]

How about we just ban everything that somene has died from ? Would that make you feel good ?

How about we ban dangerous things we don't need? That would make me feel good.

[Dilloduck]

How about we ban dangerous things we don't need? That would make me feel good.

Define need.

[Nukeman]

Define need.Well I don't "need" Joe Steel so should we just melt him down and make him into something usefull???

Joe, if your going to get into the need/want debate than we should be banning damn near everything in the world except food and clothing (hell in come climates even clothing) after all we don't really need anything else do we?? I mean you could start off by getting rid of your Internet, you don't NEED that do you?? You could get rid of your TV you don't NEED that either. You could get rid of your hose you don't NEED that as well, you could just live a planet friendly, carbon neutral tent!!!

[Joe Steel]

Once again you miss the mark. The gun is not to blame in this it is the idiot parent that left a LOADED, UNLOCKED, ACCESSIBLE hand gun where a 3 year old could reach it. As for sympathy, I have a great deal for the family but that doesn't include me calling for the banning of guns

Lets all say it together, the rallying cry of the left "ITS FOR THE CHILDREN"

Ohh by the way the child is still alive and in critical condition. Next time read the article!!!!:poke:

Oh. That makes it OK.

[Joe Steel]

Define need.

Far fewer than almost one gun for every person.

[Joe Steel]

How many 3yo are killed in cars ever day due to dumb parents and others?? How many are injured on the playground every day???

Compare the number of deaths in those cases to the number of times a person could be killed by those things; i.e. the number of times a three-year-old rides in a car with the number of times a three-year-old dies while riding in a car. Do the same with guns. The risk from cars and all the other things not designed for killing is far less.

[Nukeman]

Oh. That makes it OK.No Moron but it does put the blame where it should be, ON THE PARENT WHO LEFT A FREAKING LOADED, UNLOCKED, ACCESSIBLE firearm in reach of a 3 year old.

What do you think happened Joe the gun just loaded its self and jumped in the air and pulled its own trigger because "the gun" thought what the hell I'm going to shoot some one today!! My God you really aren't this dense are you???

[Nukeman]

Compare the number of deaths in those cases to the number of times a person could be killed by those things; i.e. the number of times a three-year-old rides in a car with the number of times a three-year-old dies while riding in a car. Do the same with guns. The risk from cars and all the other things not designed for killing is far less.OK lets look at this shall we the number of children injured/killed by guns and the number of children injured/killed by automotive


heres the car for 2002

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/airbags/OccupantProtectionFacts/restraint.htm


However, thousands of children through age 20 continue to be killed and injured in motor vehicle crashes. A total of 7,410 children and youth from birth to age 20 were killed and approximately 730,000 were injured in passenger vehicle crashes in

Heres the gun,

http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/1779/Guns-Youth-CHILDREN-INJURED-KILLED-BY-GUNFIRE.html


show that gunfire killed 2,911 American children and teens in 2001, which equals "one child every three hours, eight children every day, and more than fifty children every week" for that year.

Now for the record these are for all children up to the age of 19 if you can find this staggering number of children under the age of 5 being killed everyday by guns I would Love to see it. I think yo will find the numbers just don't add up.

According to you there are 300 million guns in the us and there were 2911 deaths in 2001 for children between the ages of 0-19.

We have 125 million cars on the road at this time with 7410 children killed by motor vehicles and 730,000 injured, so you do the freaking math and tell me what should be banned and what has a higher incidence of death ind injury!!!!

So every minute 1.3 children are injured or killed while traveling in a motor vehicle. I dont think thats very safe do you!!!!!?????

[diuretic]

We should all go ask Rev. Wright over there in Chicago!!!!!! OHH wait the white man did it!!!!

Of course you deliberately missed my point.

You posted this:


Ummm dude it is Detroit!!! I think thats enough said. Not the greatest gene pool out there!!!!!!!!

I'm not an American but I can understand the intent of this.

[glockmail]

How about we ban dangerous things we don't need? That would make me feel good. Why not ban steak knives and cars?

[Nukeman]

Of course you deliberately missed my point.

You posted this:



I'm not an American but I can understand the intent of this.
I'm a little confused!! I don't think I deliberatley missed your point! You said this



Sho nuff. Dat true dere. Hey maybe it's social Darwinism??? Maybe it's de hand of de Lord?

So you type like the "typical" black person from Detroit, I called attention to it and said maybe we should consult with Rev Wright in Chicago since he is an authorty on black/white relations. I must be missing something or you meant something different!!!!

[Joe Steel]

No Moron but it does put the blame where it should be, ON THE PARENT WHO LEFT A FREAKING LOADED, UNLOCKED, ACCESSIBLE firearm in reach of a 3 year old.

What do you think happened Joe the gun just loaded its self and jumped in the air and pulled its own trigger because "the gun" thought what the hell I'm going to shoot some one today!! My God you really aren't this dense are you???

Try again, dumbass.

You're the one who made a point of the child's condition. Apparently, you think a massive head wound with the potential for devastating, life-long disabilities is OK, or at least not enough to become upset about the incident.

[Joe Steel]

OK lets look at this shall we the number of children injured/killed by guns and the number of children injured/killed by automotive


heres the car for 2002

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/airbags/OccupantProtectionFacts/restraint.htm



Heres the gun,

http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/1779/Guns-Youth-CHILDREN-INJURED-KILLED-BY-GUNFIRE.html



Now for the record these are for all children up to the age of 19 if you can find this staggering number of children under the age of 5 being killed everyday by guns I would Love to see it. I think yo will find the numbers just don't add up.

According to you there are 300 million guns in the us and there were 2911 deaths in 2001 for children between the ages of 0-19.

We have 125 million cars on the road at this time with 7410 children killed by motor vehicles and 730,000 injured, so you do the freaking math and tell me what should be banned and what has a higher incidence of death ind injury!!!!

So every minute 1.3 children are injured or killed while traveling in a motor vehicle. I dont think thats very safe do you!!!!!?????

You're avoiding the issue.

Millions of three-year-olds ride in cars everyday. Relatively few die because of it. On the other hand relatively few three-year-olds are exposed to guns. Relatively many die from the exposure. Obviously, guns are far more dangerous.

[Nukeman]

Try again, dumbass.

You're the one who made a point of the child's condition. Apparently, you think a massive head wound with the potential for devastating, life-long disabilities is OK, or at least not enough to become upset about the incident.
NO dumbass!!!! I pointed out to you your error on the condition of the child!


The child I have sympathy for and the life that they will have to deal with, but ONCE again you fail in your attempt to turn the story. The fault solely lies with the parent who left a LOADED, UNLOCKED, ACCESSIBLE firearm where a child could get to it....

[glockmail]

You're avoiding the issue.

Millions of three-year-olds ride in cars everyday. Relatively few die because of it. On the other hand relatively few three-year-olds are exposed to guns. Relatively many die from the exposure. Obviously, guns are far more dangerous. Thats bullshit. There are millions of guns in homes with parents that don't leave them sitting around. Try again with a more valid comparison.

[Nukeman]

You're avoiding the issue.

Millions of three-year-olds ride in cars everyday. Relatively few die because of it. On the other hand relatively few three-year-olds are exposed to guns. Relatively many die from the exposure. Obviously, guns are far more dangerous.
Bullshit!!!!! show me the number of 3 year olds killed by firearms. the number I gave you included children up to the age of 19. That included the gang bangers and hoodlums out there. You have yet to show the HUGE number of small children being killed by the estimated 300 million gins in the US. You have failed at even attempting to prove your point.

Why don't you just say, your against guns and thats it, instead of trying to conjure BS out of the air....

[Joe Steel]

Thats bullshit. There are millions of guns in homes with parents that don't leave them sitting around. Try again with a more valid comparison.

Try again, dumbass.

A gun locked-away is not a threat. Once they're unlocked, though, they become deadly. If you're going to make a statistical comparison, you have to be fair. Compare death to children riding in cars with death to children exposed to unlocked guns. That's the only fair comparison.

[glockmail]

Try again, dumbass.

A gun locked-away is not a threat. Once they're unlocked, though, they become deadly. If you're going to make a statistical comparison, you have to be fair. Compare death to children riding in cars with death to children exposed to unlocked guns. That's the only fair comparison. Try this, dumbass:

My guns are never locked away. They are ready 24/7 to protect my kids. Compare that to my car whick is locked in the garage and used to transport my kids once or twice per day.

[Monkeybone]

Try again, dumbass.

A gun locked-away is not a threat. Once they're unlocked, though, they become deadly. If you're going to make a statistical comparison, you have to be fair. Compare death to children riding in cars with death to children exposed to unlocked guns. That's the only fair comparison.

please provide you stats on the kids with unlocked guns then shit-puller.

alot of kids are exposed to unlocked guns. i was. so were almost all of my friends. none of us are dead. i have been aropund guns my whole life and shooting since i was about 4. so according to your POV, me or one of my friends should have been killed....yet...we weren't....

it is tragic when something like this happens, but it solely comes down to the parents and their lack of responsibility. that is it. they are the ones that left the gun where a three year old could reach it, they are the ones that left it loaded and they are the ones that didn't have a lock on it. the gun didn't jump down into that kids hands and load itself. you say that once they are unlocked they becomne dangerous. well no shit. but at the same time, so are knives and they don't come with locks. stairs are just as dangerous. so are electrical outlets. and chairs, kids fall off of those. everything in this world is dangerous. that is why it is up to the parents to make it safe for their kids.

provide some actualy stats/proof/anything instead of going on and pulling shit out of your ass.

[Hagbard Celine]

Things like this tend to happen when parents don't take the proper precautions in baby-proofing their house. I'm not a parent yet, but I think rule number one is putting handguns out of reach (shrug)

[Joe Steel]

NO dumbass!!!! I pointed out to you your error on the condition of the child!


The child I have sympathy for and the life that they will have to deal with, but ONCE again you fail in your attempt to turn the story. The fault solely lies with the parent who left a LOADED, UNLOCKED, ACCESSIBLE firearm where a child could get to it....

OK.

The child has not yet died.

That doesn't substantially change the issue, though. Almost certainly, she will be severely affected by the gun shot wound in her brain. Her quality of life has been sacrificed, if not her life, to the gun god.

[Joe Steel]

please provide you stats on the kids with unlocked guns then shit-puller.

Get them yourself, dumbass. You're (the gun cult) is making the comparison. Prove it.

[Hagbard Celine]

OK.

The child has not yet died.

That doesn't substantially change the issue, though. Almost certainly, she will be severely affected by the gun shot wound in her brain. Her quality of life has been sacrificed, if not her life, to the gun god.

Eh. The gun isn't the real issue here. A gun is a tool and handling it properly is part of owning it. That includes storing it out of the reach of children. The issue here is irresponsible parenting, not that guns exist.

[Joe Steel]

Bullshit!!!!! show me the number of 3 year olds killed by firearms. the number I gave you included children up to the age of 19. That included the gang bangers and hoodlums out there. You have yet to show the HUGE number of small children being killed by the estimated 300 million gins in the US. You have failed at even attempting to prove your point.

Why don't you just say, your against guns and thats it, instead of trying to conjure BS out of the air....

You get the numbers. It's your comparison.

Prove it.

[Monkeybone]

you're the one making the statement Joe. you prove shit-puller...oh wait...you can't! why don't you go into paint and make your own graph.

[Little-Acorn]

A 3-year-old girl found a gun in a bedroom

As I said about the article where a teacher kept a gun in an unlocked cabinet accessible by third-graders, this is criminal negligence and child endangerment by the parent(s) or whoever left the gun in the bedroom. Not much different from leaving a swimming pool unattended and easily accessible to a small child who can't swim.

Along with any right or freedom, comes responsibility. When people don't measure up to their responsibilities, bad things happen, sometimes including innocent children getting dead. Hardly a new idea. Is taking away people's rights and freedoms, as many anti-gun-rights advocates want to do, a good solution?

[Joe Steel]

Eh. The gun isn't the real issue here. A gun is a tool and handling it properly is part of owning it. That includes storing it out of the reach of children. The issue here is irresponsible parenting, not that guns exist.

The real issue is your gun lust and your willingness to sacrifice children to the gun god.

[hjmick]

Things like this tend to happen when parents don't take the proper precautions in baby-proofing their house. I'm not a parent yet, but I think rule number one is putting handguns out of reach (shrug)


Eh. The gun isn't the real issue here. A gun is a tool and handling it properly is part of owning it. That includes storing it out of the reach of children. The issue here is irresponsible parenting, not that guns exist.

And there you have it folks. It really and truly is just this simple. It gets no more simple than parental responsibility. Well done, Hag, well done.

Of course, the fact that this tragedy is a direct result of an irresponsible gun owner will not prevent the reactionary ban the gun nuts from using this case in it's irrational an emotional call to ban guns. It's call to put us all at the mercy of the government with nothing but hope that said government will be a benevolent provider with no ill intentions.

[Monkeybone]

:lmao: Hag has gun lust! hahaha! Hag, you're such a right wing nutter...you and your guns! why do you want to kill the children Hag?

[glockmail]

The real issue is your gun lust and your willingness to sacrifice children to the gun god. :lol: Welcome to the Right Wing Nutbag Club, Hag! :cheers2:

[Hagbard Celine]

The real issue is your gun lust and your willingness to sacrifice children to the gun god.

Please save your seething and frothing for someone who cares.

[Joe Steel]

Please save your seething and frothing for someone who cares.

Cares about what?

What are you trying to say?

[MtnBiker]

How about we ban dangerous things we don't need? That would make me feel good.

Exactly who is going to determine what other people need?

[Joe Steel]

Exactly who is going to determine what other people need?

Public opinion.

[Monkeybone]

Public opinion.

so after guns they are gonna ban cigs, booze and meat? because there are public opinions that those are bad as well.

[Hagbard Celine]

Cares about what?

What are you trying to say?

I'm trying to say that I have no interest in arguing over something inane with somebody who exhibits a fundamentalist position on said innanity. Sorry if you couldn't cypher the meaning of my apparently heiroglyphic post above.
Guns aren't evil and they will never be gotten rid of. Therefore your position is unrealistic.

[MtnBiker]

Public opinion.

Where is in the US Constitution is public opinion stated as determining what other people need?

State an example of public opinion determining the needs of other people.

[Joe Steel]

I'm trying to say that I have no interest in arguing over something inane with somebody who exhibits a fundamentalist position on said innanity. Sorry if you couldn't cypher the meaning of my apparently heiroglyphic post above.
Guns aren't evil and they will never be gotten rid of. Therefore your position is unrealistic.

Great!

I don't want to bother explaining complex ideas to someone who oversimplified one my postings and attributed to me something I didn't say.

[Joe Steel]

Where is in the US Constitution is public opinion stated as determining what other people need?

State an example of public opinion determining the needs of other people.

"We the People...to promote the general welfare..."

[MtnBiker]

"We the People...to promote the general welfare..."

You confuse general welfare with an individual's needs.

[glockmail]

Great!

I don't want to bother explaining complex ideas to someone who oversimplified one my postings and attributed to me something I didn't say. Yeah, you're such a complex person, Dumbass. :pee:

[Joe Steel]

You confuse general welfare with an individual's needs.

No.

You confused the "we need" of my posting with your needs.

[MtnBiker]

No.

You confused the "we need" of my posting with your needs.


How about we ban dangerous things we don't need? That would make me feel good.


Who is "we" if not the citizens of the US? If you are speaking of yourself and your family then you have every right to determine those needs as protected by the US Constitution. If you are speaking of "we" as being the citizens of the US, then you have no right to determine the needs of others.

[LiberalNation]

For nukeman about the no comment just story post. I didn't hafta comment, I knew people would post and want to debate in a thread like this so I posted it and look four pages now.

As for my comment, what idiot parents, was the gun not even on safety........

[MtnBiker]

BTW the gun owner that allowed his 3 year old to obtain a gun in the house is an idiot and it is a damn shame that the little girl was harmed.

[Hagbard Celine]

Great!

I don't want to bother explaining complex ideas to someone who oversimplified one my postings and attributed to me something I didn't say.

Oh, so now you never meant to convey that you think guns are to blame for this child shooting itself in the head or that you think people who support owning guns are "lusting and worshipping the gun god" or that you think guns should be banned? However did I get those ideas?

Hmm, maybe it was when you wrote:

How about we ban dangerous things [read: guns] we don't need? That would make me feel good.


The real issue is your gun lust and your willingness to sacrifice children to the gun god.

And of course who could forget when you blamed the "gun god," not irresponsible parenting for the girl's injuries:

OK.

The child has not yet died.

That doesn't substantially change the issue, though. Almost certainly, she will be severely affected by the gun shot wound in her brain. Her quality of life has been sacrificed, if not her life, to the gun god.

:rolleyes: Still want to pretend that I'm "attributing things to you that you haven't said?"

[theHawk]

"We the People...to promote the general welfare..."

Yes, and "We the People" decided that owing guns was of such paramount importance it became the Second Amendment. But of course shitbag liberals could care less about the Constitution and the immunities it grants its citizens.

[Joe Steel]

Oh, so now you never meant to convey that you think guns are to blame for this child shooting itself in the head or that you think people who support owning guns are "lusting and worshipping the gun god" or that you think guns should be banned? However did I get those ideas?

Hmm, maybe it was when you wrote:




And of course who could forget when you blamed the "gun god," not irresponsible parenting for the girl's injuries:

:rolleyes: Still want to pretend that I'm "attributing things to you that you haven't said?"

Gun lust not gun.

Big difference.

[theHawk]

Gun lust not gun.

Big difference.


You're a moron. You got your ass handed to you by Haggy. None of your posts make any damned sense.

[Gadget (fmr Marine)]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080407/ap_on_re_us/girl_shoots_self;_ylt=Ag8I.hfjZh3hHV.OD4Qrz6BvzwcF

DETROIT - A 3-year-old girl found a gun in a bedroom of her home and shot herself in the head Sunday, police said.

One of the girl's parents apparently owned the gun, and at least one parent was home when she shot herself Sunday afternoon. Police questioned the parents and took the gun, the Detroit Free Press reported.

The girl was taken to Sinai Grace Hospital, then transferred to Children's Hospital of Michigan. The Detroit News reported she was in critical condition

The parents should be held for negligence (possible involuntary manslaughter?)

If you are going to own a weapon you better damn well know how to take care of it, and secure it! That is a part of the deal!

[manu1959]

How about we ban dangerous things we don't need? That would make me feel good.

i propose we start with you.....

[5stringJeff]

First, it's an absolute tragedy that any child is shot, but certainly a toddler who probably didn't even know what she was handling.

Second, the parents (or whoever owned the gun) ought to be held criminally liable for the injury to the child.

Third (I sound like CWN), as to banning guns... what a ludicrous proposition. Joe Steel said that guns should be distributed based on need. Not that I agree with that at all, because we live in a capitalist society, but fine, I'll play your little game. I need a gun. As a matter of fact, I need several. Who are you to tell me otherwise?

[DragonStryk72]

Bad enough another baby has been sacrificed to the gun cult's great steel phallus. Worse is the lack of sympathy and dismissal of the death by the cultists.

Oh yes, it was all the NRA's conspiracy, oooh. It couldn't be that these individual parents acted irresponsibly with the gun (no trigger lock, no case, and kept where a 3 yr old could get it), it must instead all be the NRA's fault, with their free gun safety courses, and their personal responsbility.

To paraphrase a great line "Remove head from sphincter, then post!"

[DragonStryk72]

Cares about what?

What are you trying to say?

I believe he's saying that he doesn't care about your highly flawed, wildly un-American opinion. I would tend to agree with that thought. Do we need further clarification on this point, or do you feel that you caught it now?

BTW, I do not own a gun, although I do believe in the freedom to own them. Now, should these parents have that right stripped for a time? Yes, just as someone who drives recklessly should have their driver's license taken away. They failed their personal responsibilities attached to this right, and therefore, due process should, at least for a time, take away that right.

[DragonStryk72]

Great!

I don't want to bother explaining complex ideas to someone who oversimplified one my postings and attributed to me something I didn't say.

Unlike your "gun-nuts" and "sacrifices to the gun gods" painting. You just accused him of behavior you have shown worse of.

[DragonStryk72]

"We the People...to promote the general welfare..."

Oh come on, you need to make this hard for me:

2nd Amendment:
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

You may note that it from the same document you're using.

[MtnBiker]

Joe Steel was making a febile attempt at justifying his desire to determine what other people need.

[Missileman]

Try again, dumbass.

A gun locked-away is not a threat. Once they're unlocked, though, they become deadly. If you're going to make a statistical comparison, you have to be fair. Compare death to children riding in cars with death to children exposed to unlocked guns. That's the only fair comparison.

Don't you mean we should compare the number of 3-year-olds killed while driving a car to the number killed handling an unsafe weapon? :rolleyes:

The fault in this case rests SOLELY with the parents. They were as negligent as if they had let her play in the middle of a busy highway. The problem isn't the guns or the majority of gun owners, it's the few morons who probably shouldn't be allowed to have one. The problem is you can't legislate against stupidity. You don't take away everyones' cars because of the few assholes who drink and drive.

[Missileman]

i propose we start with you.....

I'd hardly call his demonstrated intellect dangerous.

[manu1959]

I'd hardly call his demonstrated intellect dangerous.

that would put you second then.....

[Missileman]

that would put you second then.....

I guess you go last...

[Joe Steel]

Oh come on, you need to make this hard for me:

2nd Amendment:
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

You may note that it from the same document you're using.

OK. I'll make it hard for you.

You may note that document uses the words "people" and "persons."

Why do you think that is?

[Joe Steel]

Third (I sound like CWN), as to banning guns... what a ludicrous proposition. Joe Steel said that guns should be distributed based on need. Not that I agree with that at all, because we live in a capitalist society, but fine, I'll play your little game. I need a gun. As a matter of fact, I need several. Who are you to tell me otherwise?

Me, personally?

I wouldn't try to to decide unless I were in a position authority. If I were a sheriff in a "may issue" county, I'd make you fill-out a form and document your assertions. Then I'd compare your situation with the standards for issuing permits. Presumably, those standards would be a matter of public discussion so, ultimately, the community would be deciding the extent of your need.

[Joe Steel]

You're a moron. You got your ass handed to you by Haggy.

By being misquoted?

That's a bizarre idea.

[My Winter Storm]

DETROIT - A 3-year-old girl found a gun in a bedroom of her home and shot herself in the head Sunday, police said.

One of the girl's parents apparently owned the gun, and at least one parent was home when she shot herself Sunday afternoon. Police questioned the parents and took the gun, the Detroit Free Press reported.

The girl was taken to Sinai Grace Hospital, then transferred to Children's Hospital of Michigan. The Detroit News reported she was in critical condition

This poor little girl! Her parents should be charged with neglect, as it was their responsiblity to ensure their firearm was kept out of reach of their daughter.

[Joe Steel]

Oh yes, it was all the NRA's conspiracy, oooh. It couldn't be that these individual parents acted irresponsibly with the gun (no trigger lock, no case, and kept where a 3 yr old could get it), it must instead all be the NRA's fault, with their free gun safety courses, and their personal responsbility.

To paraphrase a great line "Remove head from sphincter, then post!"

You should take your own advice.

[Joe Steel]

They failed their personal responsibilities attached to this right, and therefore, due process should, at least for a time, take away that right.

Please explain the process for restoring the child's health.

Will the parents' responsibility extend to removing every effect, large or small, of a bullet in the head?

[Joe Steel]

This poor little girl! Her parents should be charged with neglect, as it was their responsiblity to ensure their firearm was kept out of reach of their daughter.

How will that restore the child's health?

[My Winter Storm]

How will that restore the child's health?


It won't, but hopefully by threatening parents with legal action, they will take care to lock up their firearms in future.

[red states rule]

Me, personally?

I wouldn't try to to decide unless I were in a position authority. If I were a sheriff in a "may issue" county, I'd make you fill-out a form and document your assertions. Then I'd compare your situation with the standards for issuing permits. Presumably, those standards would be a matter of public discussion so, ultimately, the community would be deciding the extent of your need.

Libs scream how Christains try to force their views on society

Then libs turn around and want to use governemnt to impose those views on society since the folks are to damn stupid to realize what is best for them

[Joe Steel]

It won't, but hopefully by threatening parents with legal action, they will take care to lock up their firearms in future.

That's good for part of the future. The child, however, remains injured. Either she will lead a life of desperate struggle to overcome her injury or she will die unfulfilled. You can thank the NRA for that.

[Joe Steel]

Libs scream how Christains try to force their views on society

Then libs turn around and want to use governemnt to impose those views on society since the folks are to damn stupid to realize what is best for them

Yes.

[red states rule]

Yes.

Well at least you admit you are a moonbat liberal and your double standards

Congrats

The first step on the road to recovery is to admit you have a problem

[My Winter Storm]

That's good for part of the future. The child, however, remains injured. Either she will lead a life of desperate struggle to overcome her injury or she will die unfulfilled. You can thank the NRA for that.

The NRA has nothing to do with this - they didn't leave a loaded gun lying around the house, did they?
If people must own firearms, they have a responsibility to ensure they are kept out of reach of their children.
Perhaps this child's accident will serve as a lesson to her parents?

[red states rule]

The NRA has nothing to do with this - they didn't leave a loaded gun lying around the house, did they?
If people must own firearms, they have a responsibility to ensure they are kept out of reach of their children.
Perhaps this child's accident will serve as a lesson to her parents?

Joe is a moonbat lib who has all the warmth and charm of a scorpion

To him government is the answer to all problems, people just need to shut up, and pay their taxes to pay for the service

[My Winter Storm]

Joe is a moonbat lib who has all the warmth and charm of a scorpion

To him government is the answer to all problems, people just need to shut up, and pay their taxes to pay for the service


Well, he hasn't got all that negative reputaion for nothing, does he?:laugh:

[red states rule]

Well, he hasn't got all that negative reputaion for nothing, does he?:laugh:

Trust me, he has earned every point

[Nukeman]

How will that restore the child's health?

Do tell ohh enlightened one how banning guns now will help with this child's health. Ohhhh wait it won't will it so your argument is moot.

You speak of banning guns to "save the children" yet you have not listed a single stat that shows the number of children 3 and under killed by firearms. When we call for the prosecution of the REAL problem, that being the irresponsible parents your willing to GIVE THEM A PASS because after all it was the guns fault.

You want to ban guns in the future to stop this from happening but you don't want to prosecute the parents and set precedent for future cases. You are a complete moron:poke:

CAN ANYONE SAY DOUBLE STANDARD!!!!!!!!!!!!:slap:

[avatar4321]

How will that restore the child's health?

How will taking everyone's constitutional right to bear arms away restore the child's health? How will it do anything but put alot of innocent people in more harms way?

[avatar4321]

Yes.

never thought youd be so honest in your hypocrisy. carry on.

[avatar4321]

Do tell ohh enlightened one how banning guns now will help with this child's health. Ohhhh wait it won't will it so your argument is moot.

You speak of banning guns to "save the children" yet you have not listed a single stat that shows the number of children 3 and under killed by firearms. When we call for the prosecution of the REAL problem, that being the irresponsible parents your willing to GIVE THEM A PASS because after all it was the guns fault.

You want to ban guns in the future to stop this from happening but you don't want to prosecute the parents and set precedent for future cases. You are a complete moron:poke:

CAN ANYONE SAY DOUBLE STANDARD!!!!!!!!!!!!:slap:

I think you've hit the truth of what Joe is arguing for in this post even if you haven't directly stated it.

The fact is that he doesnt really care what happens to the child or any other child. The point of his rabid gun control isnt to protect children. Quite the opposite his use of the little child shooting herself by accident is to further his gun control argument. He is just more than willing to use the girl for his own political purposes and would be arguing the same regardless of whether this girl was hurt or anyone else.

He simply wants guns out of the hands of honest law abiding citizens. He wants people dependent on government.

[MtnBiker]

If I were a sheriff in a "may issue" county, I'd make you fill-out a form and document your assertions. Then I'd compare your situation with the standards for issuing permits. Presumably, those standards would be a matter of public discussion so, ultimately, the community would be deciding the extent of your need.

Not sure where that fantasy land town is, but it wouldn't be in the United States of America. There is a little thing called the US Constitution that would govern over any sheriff.

[Joe Steel]

Not sure where that fantasy land town is, but it wouldn't be in the United States of America. There is a little thing called the US Constitution that would govern over any sheriff.

You're wrong.

That's the way it was before the NRA ordered state legislatures to pass "shall issue" concealed gun (universal armament) laws.

[Missileman]

You're wrong.

That's the way it was before the NRA ordered state legislatures to pass "shall issue" concealed gun (universal armament) laws.

:link:

[MtnBiker]

"may issue" and "shall issue" laws are in conjunction with concealed carry permitts, not gun ownership

[Abbey Marie]

This poor little girl! Her parents should be charged with neglect, as it was their responsiblity to ensure their firearm was kept out of reach of their daughter.

Sharon, I noticed that you've changed the font from the default in all of your posts. Fyi, I find it harder to read.

[Joe Steel]

"may issue" and "shall issue" laws are in conjunction with concealed carry permitts, not gun ownership

I know. I'm using it as a model for all gun permits.

[Kathianne]

I know. I'm using it as a model for all gun permits.

So your post #93 was what?

[MtnBiker]

So your post #93 was what?

It was fantasy land, his model would be in voilation of the Constitution. Gun ownership and conceal carry permitts are two different things.

[Kathianne]

It was fantasy land, his model would be in voilation of the Constitution. Gun ownership and conceal carry permitts are two different things.

LOL, thank you! What I assumed, but was waiting for him to try and weasel.

[Joe Steel]

So your post #93 was what?

The protocol for issuing concealed gun permits.

[82Marine89]

Far fewer than almost one gun for every person.

Why? My 2nd Amendment Right protects your 1st.

[BoogyMan]

Joe the 2nd amendment says that you cannot infringe upon the rights of anyone to keep and bear arms.

The idiot parent should have been flogged for leaving the gun where the child could find and play with it.

[Kathianne]

So your post #93 was what?

Wrong, as you said yourself, later.

[5stringJeff]

Me, personally?

I wouldn't try to to decide unless I were in a position authority. If I were a sheriff in a "may issue" county, I'd make you fill-out a form and document your assertions. Then I'd compare your situation with the standards for issuing permits. Presumably, those standards would be a matter of public discussion so, ultimately, the community would be deciding the extent of your need.

Thankfully, most states have "shall-issue" laws for permits, stating that a local law enforcement officer may not tell an otherwise law-abiding citizen that he/she may not carry a firearm.

[Joe Steel]

Joe the 2nd amendment says that you cannot infringe upon the rights of anyone to keep and bear arms.

Properly construed, the Second Amendment declares a collective right to control membership in the military.


The idiot parent should have been flogged for leaving the gun where the child could find and play with it.

Wouldn't that be an infringement on their "right to keep and bear arms?"

[red states rule]

I will never understand why liberals are not woried about Iran getting nukes, They say talke to Little Adoph - he will listen

but they are scared to death of law abiding citizens owning guns, and government has to take those guns away from them

[My Winter Storm]

Wouldn't that be an infringement on their "right to keep and bear arms?"

You mean to say that people should be permitted to keep their loaded firearms lying around the house for young children to find?

You cannot be serious.

[Nukeman]

Properly construed, the Second Amendment declares a collective right to control membership in the military.

No its for a militia not a federal military, Big Difference!!!! That is so the government doesn't get too big for their own good!!




Wouldn't that be an infringement on their "right to keep and bear arms"?NO, no infringement at all they can keep as many as they want, SAFELY!!!!!. They can also keep them out in the open if they choose, but they will have to pay the consequences for their actions! You are just blatently AGAINST gun ownership aren't you?? You can not stand the idea of ANYONE having a firearm in their own home can you?? Why don't you just come right out and tell us the truth!?:poke:

[Gaffer]

You guys haven't figured it out that joe is a communist? He's not just a nuttie lib, he's a full fledged, marxist and mao communist. And he wants all your rights taken away with him in charge. Move over pol pot, joe is waiting to take charge.

[Joe Steel]

You mean to say that people should be permitted to keep their loaded firearms lying around the house for young children to find?

You cannot be serious.

As I recall, the NRA opposes any requirement on the storage of guns. While the may advocate safe storage they oppose laws mandating storage requirements.

[red states rule]

You guys haven't figured it out that joe is a communist? He's not just a nuttie lib, he's a full fledged, marxist and mao communist. And he wants all your rights taken away with him in charge. Move over pol pot, joe is waiting to take charge.

Joe is to the left of Pol Pot

[midcan5]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080407/ap_on_re_us/girl_shoots_self;_ylt=Ag8I.hfjZh3hHV.OD4Qrz6BvzwcF

DETROIT - A 3-year-old girl found a gun in a bedroom of her home and shot herself in the head Sunday, police said.

One of the girl's parents apparently owned the gun, and at least one parent was home when she shot herself Sunday afternoon. Police questioned the parents and took the gun, the Detroit Free Press reported.

The girl was taken to Sinai Grace Hospital, then transferred to Children's Hospital of Michigan. The Detroit News reported she was in critical condition

You got all the gun huggers up in a tizzy.

come to bed honey
i'll only be a little while
but you've been cleaning those guns all evening
they keep us safe dear
but it's cold up here come to bed
be up in a bit
- ladder appears at window
- wife looks up surprised
- masked man puts his finger to lips
my husband is downstairs and armed
is he coming up soon
nah cleaning his guns
you look lonely
i am
- they talk
from downstairs
honey what's all that noise up there
nothing dear you clean your guns
- quiet
dear i'm coming to bed now
- muffled reply
- sotto voce
oh she sleeping so content
- thinks to himself isn't it nice being secure
hugs his gun, kisses it
- scene fades

[Nukeman]

You got all the gun huggers up in a tizzy.


WHY are people who want to protect their freedom to own a gun granted by the 2nd amendment called "gun huggers" or "gun lust", or "gun lovers". I own 1 gun and that is it but I do not want ANYONE telling me I can not own any more or that the one I have is going to be confiscated by the government.

Does this make me a "gun hugger" or does this make you an idiot for assuming that EVERYONE who is for thier constutional rights is some kind of NUT.

Why don't we just say that you can no longer post on a message board unless you have a license to do so, you know one of those issued by the government...... That way they can control what is said and make sure only SAFE people can post what they want them to...... Doesn't that sound like a good idea??? If not why are you willing to give up one right but not another?????:poke:

[avatar4321]

WHY are people who want to protect their freedom to own a gun granted by the 2nd amendment called "gun huggers" or "gun lust", or "gun lovers". I own 1 gun and that is it but I do not want ANYONE telling me I can not own any more or that the one I have is going to be confiscated by the government.

Does this make me a "gun hugger" or does this make you an idiot for assuming that EVERYONE who is for thier constutional rights is some kind of NUT.

Why don't we just say that you can no longer post on a message board unless you have a license to do so, you know one of those issued by the government...... That way they can control what is said and make sure only SAFE people can post what they want them to...... Doesn't that sound like a good idea??? If not why are you willing to give up one right but not another?????:poke:

But everyone who believes the constitution is a nut. its easier to just call them crazy and marginalize them then deal with the actual argument. That's why liberals do it so much.

[Abbey Marie]

You got all the gun huggers up in a tizzy.
...


Shall we call you libs "aborted baby huggers", since you believe there is a Constitutional right to have abortions?

[avatar4321]

I will never understand why liberals are not woried about Iran getting nukes, They say talke to Little Adoph - he will listen

but they are scared to death of law abiding citizens owning guns, and government has to take those guns away from them

You are talking about the people who have a problem executing criminals but none killing innocent children. they dont make sense.

[My Winter Storm]

As I recall, the NRA opposes any requirement on the storage of guns. While the may advocate safe storage they oppose laws mandating storage requirements.

So just because the NRA tells someone that they can leave their loaded gun around in the vicinity of children, this means that idiot parents can do just this?

[DragonStryk72]

Properly construed, the Second Amendment declares a collective right to control membership in the military.



Wouldn't that be an infringement on their "right to keep and bear arms?"

No, it declares "the right of the people to keep and bear arms"

No again, for point of not taking to an idiotic level. Yes, you are liable to being irresponsible with your rights in a way that harms others. First off, there should not have even been bullets in there, but more to the point, there should have been a trigger lock on them, and the gun should have been kept in a place a 3 yr old couldn't get to.

[Joe Steel]

So just because the NRA tells someone that they can leave their loaded gun around in the vicinity of children, this means that idiot parents can do just this?

According to the law, yes.

The NRA determines what gun laws the US should have.

[Joe Steel]

No, it declares "the right of the people to keep and bear arms"

Exactly. The right of "the people" not the right of any person or persons.


No again, for point of not taking to an idiotic level. Yes, you are liable to being irresponsible with your rights in a way that harms others. First off, there should not have even been bullets in there, but more to the point, there should have been a trigger lock on them, and the gun should have been kept in a place a 3 yr old couldn't get to.

What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

[Monkeybone]

Exactly. The right of "the people" not the right of any person or persons. again idiot, ppl are the means everyone.


What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

what part do you not understand is more the question.

[glockmail]

So just because the NRA tells someone that they can leave their loaded gun around in the vicinity of children, this means that idiot parents can do just this? You really need to have a clue about this stuff before you post. http://www.kidshealth.org/kid/watch/er/gun_safety.html


Eddie Eagle, a program sponsored by the National Rifle Association (NRA), teaches kids what to do when they come across a gun:

STOP!
DON'T TOUCH
REMOVE YOURSELF FROM THE AREA
TELL AN ADULT

[DragonStryk72]

Exactly. The right of "the people" not the right of any person or persons.



What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

The right is not being infringed by requiring a basic safety measure.

Now have a seat joe, cause apparently you are the one that doesn't know the meaning of the word infringe.

in·fringe Audio Help /ɪnˈfrɪndʒ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, -fringed, -fring·ing.
–verb (used with object)
1. to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress: to infringe a copyright; to infringe a rule.
–verb (used without object)
2. to encroach or trespass (usually fol. by on or upon): Don't infringe on his privacy.

now, to infringe on the right to own a gun, means to encroach upon the right, or, since obviously encroach is one of them big words, to restrict the right.

The Right to [I]own a gun is not infringed by requiring a basic rule to keep the gun safely. Learn the meaning of the words you are using before you post.

[JimmyAteWorld]

This is a horrible story, and I don't have a particualr problem with safety laws, but it boils down to piss poor parenting. I think anyone that would leave a loaded gun within reach of a 3 year old probably wouldn't be taking the time to follow any safety laws, or any common sense saftey rules for that matter.