Right to bear arms

Paul Watson

A 7-year-old first-grader showed up at school Monday with two loaded handguns

Apparently he found them at his uncle's house and thought they were toys. I'm pretty sure there are laws that make it the responsibility of the gun owner to keep them in a safe place, out of the reach of the innocent.

regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa

Fernando A. Gomez F. wrote:

At least he achieved immortality for a few years.

soap brain

Good to see young people exercising their right to convey firearms. Considering his youthful nature, it is unlikely that, should he need to defend himself, he would otherwise be capable of doing so.

Dr. Ravel Joyce, Cubic Self is cubeless. God is cubeless.

Paul Watson

Ravel H. Joyce wrote:

should he need to defend himself, he would otherwise be capable of doing so.

Heck, I'm 28 and would have a difficult time using a gun to defend myself. And you can do all the target practice you want with a gun, I very much doubt it prepares you for the fear and panic of a situation in which you have to defend your life.

soap brain

Then it should be compulsory for primary school children to strangle puppies and kittens, to deaden all their humanity, the 'safety' if you will on their firearms.

Dr. Ravel Joyce, Cubic Self is cubeless. God is cubeless.

Paul Watson

Quite.

regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa

Fernando A. Gomez F. wrote:

At least he achieved immortality for a few years.

Gary Kirkham

Paul Watson wrote:

responsibility of the gun owner to keep them in a safe place, out of the reach

You are right, it is the gun owners responsibility to keep his guns in a safe place. I don't need a law to make me do it. I also keep my knives, matches, lighters and poisonous chemicals in a safe manner as well...regardless of what the Knife, Matches, Lighter, and Poisonous Chemical Act of 1903 might require of me.

Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God" Me blog, You read

Ilion

... because Mom just leaves the keys to the family car where Junior can get at them any time. Clearly, private ownership of automobiles ... except for Our Betters (their should be supplied by the public fisc) ... must be outlawed! Now!

Paul Watson

You are an idiot, aren't you? No offense meant, just an observation.

regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa

Fernando A. Gomez F. wrote:

At least he achieved immortality for a few years.

Haydn Chapman

Although, it's a little easier to pull a trigger and point than unlocking a car, getting in, starting the ignition, putting it into gear (or drive in automatics), then doing something more destructive than running into the garage door or hitting a car coming out the driveway. Your arguments are normally more solid than that....wait wrong person, sorry. :laugh:

Stan Shannon

Paul Watson wrote:

I'm pretty sure there are laws that make it the responsibility of the gun owner to keep them in a safe place, out of the reach of the innocent.

I'm pretty sure thats the concern of the people of Baltimore County, Maryland.

Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization

Ilion

Paul Watson wrote:

No offense meant, just an observation.

How could a mental midget, such as yourself, possibly give offense? It's inconceivable, really.

Paul Watson

By revealing the truth about you. Quite simple really.

regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa

Fernando A. Gomez F. wrote:

At least he achieved immortality for a few years.

Ilion

John Davids wrote:

Although, it's a little easier to pull a trigger and point than unlocking a car, getting in, starting the ignition, putting it into gear (or drive in automatics), then doing something more destructive than running into the garage door or hitting a car coming out the driveway.

Even were this true ... but it must not be, since we're always seeing the ease with which four-year-olds disrupt traffic patterns ... would it be relevant? After all, it surely takes far more effort to set and set off a bomb than to fire a gun. So, there's no objection to private ownership of bombs? After all, it surely takes far more effort to load the weapons system of a tank, drive it to the mayor's office and give the fellow what he so richly deserves, than to fire a gun, or simply drive an auto. So, there's no objection to private ownership of tanks with operable weapons systems and freely available weapons/supplies for those systems?

John Davids wrote:

Your arguments are normally more solid than that....wait wrong person, sorry. :laugh:

You people are such an amusement. :laugh:

Ilion

Please, do reveal some truth. All you've done so far is make the same sort of lame and pedestrian assertions that you fools cannot seem to resist.

Lost User

Ilíon wrote:

their should be supplied by the public fisc

Can you re-write that so I can understand it.

Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription

Ilion

their[s] should be supplied by the public fisc

Haydn Chapman

How many 4 year olds have loaded the weapons system of a tank, driven it into the mayor's office and given him, in your opinion, what he so richly deserves? I thought the debate was about the ease at which children can inflict (normally)unintentional harm through the use of weapons that require very little knowledge, not the case for banning everything because there is a possibility that someone, somewhere with the know how may one day get into a situation where they do use a tank in the above fashion.

Even were this true ... but it must not be, since we're always seeing the ease with which four-year-olds disrupt traffic patterns ... would it be relevant?

Where did you get that nugget of information? I didn't realise there were so many 4 year olds driving about causing havoc in the streets. I bet it's all those hours spent playing GTA III, when will the parents learn!

Paul Watson

As opposed to your dramatic and irrelevant automobile comment. Call us both fools then.

regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa

Fernando A. Gomez F. wrote:

At least he achieved immortality for a few years.

Ilion

Paul Watson wrote:

Call us both fools then.

It's logically impossible to split the difference between error (your position, in case you're having trouble with the concept) and not-error (my position).

Paul Watson wrote:

As opposed to your dramatic and irrelevant automobile comment.

Drama? Please! It was a reductio ad absurdum; it was a test of assumptions and "logic" you are employing. And, in case you're still having difficulty with this, the assumptions and "logic" you are employing failed the test.

Paul Watson

Ilíon wrote:

you are employing failed the test.

I called you a name. You should have given up long ago. I am on two weeks holidays and can sit here for hours idly responding to your high-falluting responses.

regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa

Fernando A. Gomez F. wrote:

At least he achieved immortality for a few years.