5 year old shoots 2 year old sister

Guess while they're at it they should confiscate electricity and
swimming pools as well. Originally Posted by bojulay

More fucking brilliance from the resident Bible Thumper.

How tired is this discussion getting?

"5 year old shoots and kills 2 year old sister."

"Well kids die when (fill in the stupid fucking excuse here) too. Why don't we just ban that?"

But this thread actually moves toward support of abortion. Did I actually head one of you losers tailing against procreation?

You've "stupided" yourselves into a corner. Guess you'll have to blast your way out!

Number one, you don't check the barrel, you check the breech. Looking down a barrel is not a good idea.

This is a rare event. More rare than say a 12 year old shooting someone in Chicago on purpose.

Why do stupid gun grabbers always go with that same, tired, stupid claim that a pistol is a rifle is a aircraft is a tank or is a rocket launcher or is an nuclear bomb. The second amendment talks about arms. A lot of these idiots like to say that the founders were only talking about muzzle loaders just like they had in 1789. Something else they were allowed to own in 1789 (if you could afford it) was a cannon, a warship, you own brigrade or company. You could have a storeroom full of gun powder and an arsenal of rifles or pistols. When someone writes something about a billionaire buying a nuclear bomb you sound like a complete idiot and don't know your history.

I wish the bigots would stop posting all the anti-Kentucky/redneck/hick stuff. Some pretty smart people have come out of Kentucky and some good basketball players (I threw that in there for the jocks). You sound like elitist bigots. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Except that there are also many right wingers who actually do believe they should be able to have access to anything the government has, which would include tanks, rocket launchers, and nuclear weapons.

Second, the definition of "arms" isn't a clear cut definition. Just like most things, it's one that has many varying degrees of definition depending on who you ask.

"many right wingers"... care to name a few that have gone public with that sentiment?

Speedie you had better talk to my firearms instructor who has a concealed carry course, He says that most gun owners with a concealed carry spend MORE time practicing than the police do. The other thing is that a civilian is probably not going to shoot unless he or she really needs to whereas a policeman has some legal protection if they make a mistake. A few years ago the FBI's crime statistics indicated that civilians were slightly better at picking the perpetrator than the police (by less than 1% but still better)

Tim, you forgot about the 6 million jews that Hitler killed because of no guns to defend themselves. Originally Posted by slim deez

LOL....like having a handgun would have stopped the the Gestapo!

You dumb fuckers think the 2nd protects you from the government!

More fucking brilliance from the resident Bible Thumper.

How tired is this discussion getting?

"5 year old shoots and kills 2 year old sister."

"Well kids die when (fill in the stupid fucking excuse here) too. Why don't we just ban that?"

But this thread actually moves toward support of abortion. Did I actually head one of you losers tailing against procreation?

You've "stupided" yourselves into a corner. Guess you'll have to blast your way out!

Can't start my lawnmower. Won't cut no grass! Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Dumb Dumb has now spoken. The final word. CC you can now close this thread.

Stupided??

Assup and the rest of the Sandbox Libtards new theme song.

I rarely close threads in here. Its important that everyone get the very last of the stupid out and posted.

"many right wingers"... care to name a few that have gone public with that sentiment?

Speedie you had better talk to my firearms instructor who has a concealed carry course, He says that most gun owners with a concealed carry spend MORE time practicing than the police do. The other thing is that a civilian is probably not going to shoot unless he or she really needs to whereas a policeman has some legal protection if they make a mistake. A few years ago the FBI's crime statistics indicated that civilians were slightly better at picking the perpetrator than the police (by less than 1% but still better) Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Here's a few a simple Google search brings up:

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/01/22/1479081/ted-yoho-military/?mobile=nc

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a89_1359762422

http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2013/01/21/barton-2nd-amendment-applies-to-any-weapon/

The idea stands that belief that the Second Amendment allows the public access to any weapon the military has is not an uncommon one amongst the conservative members of our society. It's obviously not a majority view, but you hear it often and loudly enough that it's not an unexpected one for someone to bring up periodically.

Number one, you don't check the barrel, you check the breech. Looking down a barrel is not a good idea.

This is a rare event. More rare than say a 12 year old shooting someone in Chicago on purpose.

Why do stupid gun grabbers always go with that same, tired, stupid claim that a pistol is a rifle is a aircraft is a tank or is a rocket launcher or is an nuclear bomb. The second amendment talks about arms. A lot of these idiots like to say that the founders were only talking about muzzle loaders just like they had in 1789. Something else they were allowed to own in 1789 (if you could afford it) was a cannon, a warship, you own brigrade or company. You could have a storeroom full of gun powder and an arsenal of rifles or pistols. When someone writes something about a billionaire buying a nuclear bomb you sound like a complete idiot and don't know your history.

I wish the bigots would stop posting all the anti-Kentucky/redneck/hick stuff. Some pretty smart people have come out of Kentucky and some good basketball players (I threw that in there for the jocks). You sound like elitist bigots. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Number two, you don't check the breech, you check the chamber.

"many right wingers"... care to name a few that have gone public with that sentiment?

Speedie you had better talk to my firearms instructor who has a concealed carry course, He says that most gun owners with a concealed carry spend MORE time practicing than the police do. The other thing is that a civilian is probably not going to shoot unless he or she really needs to whereas a policeman has some legal protection if they make a mistake. A few years ago the FBI's crime statistics indicated that civilians were slightly better at picking the perpetrator than the police (by less than 1% but still better) Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Practicing with a firearm only means that you are more likely to hit your intended target than having not practiced. It does NOT guarantee that you will know when or if you should interfere when you see a crime being committed. What does your firearms instructor say about that? Not trying to be a wise guy. I'm very interested in knowing what is taught in Concealed Handgun classes about one's responsibility in defending others whose lives may be in danger.

It's obviously not a majority view, but you hear it often and loudly enough that it's not an unexpected one for someone to bring up periodically. Originally Posted by jbravo_123

And those that don't subscribe to it apparently think the "slippery slope" only slopes one way.

I have a concealed handgun permit and have been around guns my entire life. During my lifetime, I have used and depended upon guns for both personal defense and/or survival. I am also an avid, lifelong hunter. With all of that said, I would hate to live with the burden of knowing that I gave my 5 year old son a gun for a present (which I would never have done in the first place) and left the gun loaded. Knowing full well that the 5 year old will eventually do what any 5 year old will do. He's going to pull the trigger. Thus killing his 2 year old sister!

That is what I would call a serious (perhaps even criminal) case of parental neglect!

Absolutely shameful! Originally Posted by bigtex

+1

Shocked, BiSex?

Watch the Crickett ad: Excited boy points gun at sister's head. Then Mom points gun at her son's head.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/201...the_gun_a.html

I taught riflery to children. First safety rule: Beware of muzzle orientation at all times. Never point a gun at anything you don't intend to shoot.

Just ain't nothing like BSwine calling people who ridicule uneducated, hateful, xenophobic and often inbred racists "bigot."

And then getting another thrilling YouTube from ECCIE's resident Bible Thumper...

LMAO @ignorant dipshits,

Let me cover jbravo first (with dirt I guess); you should watch your own links, the first link of Rep. Yoho does not support what you said. If fact, Yoho says that he supports Obama in his quest to end gun violence but, BUT we must read the executive orders and Obama must respect the 2nd amendment. The part of rockets launchers was Yoho telling about what some of his constituents have told him. Those are not his beliefs. At least not in this video. STRIIIIIIKKKKKKEEEE ONE!

The second link is about Marty Hayes. I don't know which Marty Hayes this is other than he identifies himself as a lawyer. There are just too many others to be sure but he is not a congressman or a senator, he is not a governor, nor is he the president. No one by that name in any of those offices. No where in the article to his nephew is anything about citizens owning bazookas or tanks. He is still talking about semi-automatic rifles and pistols. STRIKE TWO!

Ed Brayton wrote a blog whoever he is. He also does not say that citizens need or should have machine guns or grenades. He is also still talking about semi-automatic weapons. Do I have to say it? STRIKE THRRRREEEEEE! You're out!

As for the rest; the instructor was very clear about when you can, cannot, or should not use lethal force in both the states of Missouri and Kansas. One state is a castle state which mean you can use lethal force on someone found inside of your home. The other requires that you attempt to retreat first. You can use lethal force to protect human life; yours, your families, a stranger in distress but you cannot defend (or avenge) the family dog. You cannot kill to protect your property or livestock. All of this can be overridden if a perp pulls a gun on you with suspected intent or a weapon such as a knife inside a distance that can be considered life threatening, or if you have already been fired upon at any distance.

I should point out that every state teaches to a different standard.

This is not the old west (the old west was not the old west) where anyone can fan fire their six gun and a miserable coyote. Not even for horse stealing.