A machine gun is not a children’s toy

[Geezah]

Both the state House and Senate have approved a measure that would ban children under 16 years old from handling or shooting machine guns.

Our first thought on this is, why was there no such law on the books previously? In fact, Connecticut law allows minors to handle other guns when supervised. Supporters of the bill said it makes sense to single out machine guns because their recoil could be too powerful for a child to handle.

Some would add that we shouldn’t have to legislate common sense, but apparently we do. The ban stems from the October death of an 8-year-old Ashford boy who accidentally shot himself in the head with an Uzi at a Massachusetts gun show. His father had selected the compact weapon for his four-foot, 66-pound son, believing its small size made it safer but the 9mm Micro Uzi can fire at a rate of 1,700 rounds a minute — making it clearly a weapon designed for war. The gun show itself was overseen by three men, including Pelham, Mass. Police Chief Edward Fleury, whose business promoted the gun show and two men who brought the Uzi. They are now facing charges of involuntary manslaughter.

The fact is, it has been unlawful since 1934 for civilians to own machine guns without special permission from the U.S. Treasury Department. To become a registered owner, a complete FBI background investigation is conducted, checking for any criminal history or tendencies toward violence, and an application must be submitted to the BATF including two sets of fingerprints, a recent photo, a sworn affidavit that transfer of the NFA firearm is of “reasonable necessity,” and that sale to and possession of the weapon by the applicant “would be consistent with public safety.”

Is a ban on popular ownership of machine guns a violation of the Second Amendment? The Eighth Circuit Court didn’t think so, saying “Machine guns are not in common use by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes and therefore fall within the category of dangerous and unusual weapons that the government can prohibit for individual use.”

It’s hard to imagine what “reasonable necessity” would allow a private citizen to own a machine gun.

Link (http://www.newbritainherald.com/articles/2009/05/18/opinion/doc4a1219aa41578153734895.txt)

Because for one they are cool, plus they always appreciate in value.

Now they're going after the NFA...........

[XShipRider]

Yet another law to protect the stupid.

There should be no law necessary where parental/adult supervision or just plain common sense would normally carry the day. Obviously that's not the case in these United States now that we've got Uncle Sam to tell us when to tie our shoes.

[martinexsquaddie]

This is what happens when your negligent the DAD might not have known a micro uzi like all compact sub guns can and will bite the firer if there not careful.
the owner of the weapon must have known and shouldn't have let a child or anyone who couldn't handle the rather surprising recoil recoil from said bullet hose near it.

gpmg minim i m60 (if you must) knock your self out very had to shoot yourself or someone else by mistake.

[tluassa]

I am the only one thinking that a BB or Airsoft gun is completely enough for anyone under 16 years of Age, and that only a complete Idiot would let his 8 year old child shoot a real gun ?

[Indiana Jones]

I am the only one thinking that a BB or Airsoft gun is completely enough for anyone under 16 years of Age, and that only a complete Idiot would let his 8 year old child shoot a real gun ?
?
I don't consider that problematical at all, provided there is proper supervision.
I learned to shoot when I was seven years old.

[Walter Sobchak]

I am the only one thinking that a BB or Airsoft gun is completely enough for anyone under 16 years of Age, and that only a complete Idiot would let his 8 year old child shoot a real gun ?

Learning gun safety is best started early. I could shoot before I could ride a bicycle without training wheels. Plus, I was hunting by age 8, with adult supervision, of course.

If you look at young people who misuse guns, they were either never properly supervised and monitored in the correct and safe way to handle a weapon or were "sheltered" from bad old guns and decided to sneak around and handle one, often times with dire consequences.

And neither my father, my grandfather, my uncles or grown cousins were "complete idiots". Just the opposite. You? I think you just have a different cultural predisposition.

[California Joe]

My son has a .22 that I built for him. It's a single shot Remington Model 3 takedown with a new octagonal barrel and custom stock that I carved myself. I fully expect him to pass it down to his son someday. I gave it to him when he was 12. He had a Red Ryder when he was 10. He knows all about firearms safety.

The father in the article however is a f*cking idiot, the law is trying to pacify the retarded and legislate common sense in those who have none, and RIP to the little boy.

[Geezah]

I am the only one thinking that a BB or Airsoft gun is completely enough for anyone under 16 years of Age, and that only a complete Idiot would let his 8 year old child shoot a real gun ?

I shot my first firearm when I was 8yrs old over here visiting from the UK. I had a .22 Air Rifle when I was 13 in the UK, the age is not he issue. I'm sure if he had started his kid out the right way, the Mcro Uzi may have been ok to shoot. I know I would expect my son to be a frickin expert if I'm giving him a $3,500 firearm.

[Walter Sobchak]

The father in the article however is a f*cking idiot, the law is trying to pacify the retarded and legislate common sense in those who have none, and RIP to the little boy.

Common Sense is becoming so rare, that it should be declared a marketable job skill, if not an outright super power!

Where there is more personal accountability, fewer laws are needed. Where there are more laws, there is less personal accountability. Eventually, governments will legislate their people into a total inability to think or reason without laws or regulations to guide their thought patterns.

[11 Bravo]

My mini-me just turned 6 a month ago and he's had a 22 cal cricket for two years now.And a Red Rider for 3 years. He can load , aim shoot his cricket and an array of other 22's to include the subcal kit in an AR. Start them early , pound safety and common sense into them , and damn well make them shoot straight or all is for naught.
I got my first high powered rifle from a USMC veteran when I was a wee lad of 11. It was a typical been there done that type 38 Arisaka that was taken on Okinawa.
On the idiot and the range moron that got the small kid killed... put them downrange and let them get danced on with micro uzis.
That American society as noted is going down the slippery slope to big brotherism is bad karma... that we are going faster yet with oblahmatons wanting everything on someone else's dimes is expected , but worse yet when the chosen one panders to their lazy selfish thought process.

[Socrates187]

I shot my first firearm when I was 8, it was a .50 cal. Another damn gun law.

[tluassa]

Learning gun safety is best started early. I could shoot before I could ride a bicycle without training wheels. Plus, I was hunting by age 8, with adult supervision, of course.

If you look at young people who misuse guns, they were either never properly supervised and monitored in the correct and safe way to handle a weapon or were "sheltered" from bad old guns and decided to sneak around and handle one, often times with dire consequences.

And neither my father, my grandfather, my uncles or grown cousins were "complete idiots". Just the opposite. You? I think you just have a different cultural predisposition.

Im sorry and I did not mean to call any of your relatives Idiots. (I guess they knew the weapons they handed you very well and since many years)

My point was more that probably less or even NO child would kill themselv or others if the would ONLY be allowed at a certain age to fire "real" guns. (not necessarily as late as 21, but more to 14 where you are mentally more suited than an 8 year old to understand and calculate your doings )
Supervision is great but since you dont have to be an Expert handling arms in the US (is there even a state test or something to tell you about weapon handling ?) - I find the risk even higher.

[Seraphim]

Last year that one dad let his kid shoot an uzi at a machinegun shoot...kid held the trigger and the recoil brought the muzzle to his head and died.

[Soldat_Américain]

Where do these words exist in the 2nd amendment to the Constitution of the United States?
I'm sorry but you shouldn't need a machine gun to defend your self...just a sweet Colt .45:)

[PeterRJG]

Careful boys, you'll end up with a mandatory warning label on your guns, just like with your alcohol.

[toki]

Careful boys, you'll end up with a mandatory warning label on your guns, just like with your alcohol.

The US has to be the country with the most mandatory warning labels.
"Objects in the rearview mirror..." is my favourite one. Who writes in a rear view mirror. Some day someone will claim he was irritated by the letters on his mirror.

[brainplay]

Soo with all of the other problems in the US, our valiant Congress has decided to spend time debating and legislating this piece of...crap? Couldn't they have legislated some more pork instead?


My point was more that probably less or even NO child would kill themselv or others if the would ONLY be allowed at a certain age to fire "real" guns. (not necessarily as late as 21, but more to 14 where you are mentally more suited than an 8 year old to understand and calculate your doings )

The kid getting shot with a machine gun was an utter rarity. A majority of the gun related child deaths are from kids handling firearms with NO supervision. A new law isn't going to change that. Fact of the matter is that the "supervision" was another kid standing next to the kid with the Uzi and the adult standing behind them too far away to grab the weapon. This is eventually going to be looked at in the future along the same lines of "women can't parachute on Sundays" kind of law.

One point you have to understand is that if this legislation goes through they set a precedent to put age limits on any firearm they choose by merely expanding this current law. How's about the only legal firearm you can fire till you're 21 is an airsoft gun.

[Rad Resistance]

But having a fully automatic Mac-10 to defend yourself is a great idea because you'll never miss the target with 50 rounds of pure ownage.

[commanding]

Bo
th the state House and Senate have approved a measure that would ban children under 16 years old from handling or shooting machine guns.

Our first thought on this is, why was there no such law on the books previously? In fact, Connecticut law allows minors to handle other guns when supervised. Supporters of the bill said it makes sense to single out machine guns because their recoil could be too powerful for a child to handle.

Some would add that we shouldn’t have to legislate common sense, but apparently we do. The ban stems from the October death of an 8-year-old Ashford boy who accidentally shot himself in the head with an Uzi at a Massachusetts gun show. His father had selected the compact weapon for his four-foot, 66-pound son, believing its small size made it safer but the 9mm Micro Uzi can fire at a rate of 1,700 rounds a minute — making it clearly a weapon designed for war. The gun show itself was overseen by three men, including Pelham, Mass. Police Chief Edward Fleury, whose business promoted the gun show and two men who brought the Uzi. They are now facing charges of involuntary manslaughter.

The fact is, it has been unlawful since 1934 for civilians to own machine guns without special permission from the U.S. Treasury Department. To become a registered owner, a complete FBI background investigation is conducted, checking for any criminal history or tendencies toward violence, and an application must be submitted to the BATF including two sets of fingerprints, a recent photo, a sworn affidavit that transfer of the NFA firearm is of “reasonable necessity,” and that sale to and possession of the weapon by the applicant “would be consistent with public safety.”

Is a ban on popular ownership of machine guns a violation of the Second Amendment? The Eighth Circuit Court didn’t think so, saying “Machine guns are not in common use by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes and therefore fall within the category of dangerous and unusual weapons that the government can prohibit for individual use.”

It’s hard to imagine what “reasonable necessity” would allow a private citizen to own a machine gun.

First, private citizens should be allowed to own fully automatic weapons...idealy without govt. license or permit. Second, gun shows should (and most do) have each weapon inspected, cleared, and "tied" where they will not discharge inside the gun show. Usually uniformed police of the local town will do this job at the entry.
Third, I think that making a law that it is illegal for children to fire a machinegun is stupid. I fired a 30 caliber tripod mounted machine gun when I was about 8 years old (firing blanks at Texas A&M university on a family day type thing.....it was a hoot, and they let you keep the brass, which I remember was so hot it burnt my wittle hand :) )....I only got off about 2 or three rounds. Still it did no harm. It was very closely supervised shoot, ....similar to the grenade range in basic training.

[Hot Lips]

Yet another law to protect the stupid.

Sounds more like a law that is intended to make it easier to punish the stupid and hold them accountable for their idiocy. If a law doesn't exist, the stupid and their supporters inevitably cry in court that it was perfectly legal.

They charged them with involuntary manslaughter. How easy / hard would a conviction be with existing laws?

[Geezah]

The kid getting shot with a machine gun was an utter rarity. A majority of the gun related child deaths are from kids handling firearms with NO supervision. A new law isn't going to change that. Fact of the matter is that the "supervision" was another kid standing next to the kid with the Uzi and the adult standing behind them too far away to grab the weapon. This is eventually going to be looked at in the future along the same lines of "women can't parachute on Sundays" kind of law.

Exactly, when ever I take someone out that has little to no knowledge of firearms, I'm all over them like flys on poop.
I normally stand right behind them, slightly to their right side but in place that if need be I can get my hand on the firearm to get it down range.
It sucks about the child, but new laws will not make the stupid acquire any brains.

[deagle]

training and education are needed before letting people handle guns. if ppl want to smoke and get lung cancer, drink and get liver cancer, and handle firearms w/o training/license, or just for fun, and get killed, oh well.

[Walter Sobchak]

At what point do laws to protect the stupid from themselves start to seriously usurp Darwin and allow defective specimens to dilute the gene pool?

Maybe that's why Swine flu may yet drop-kick our pansy asses over the moon into the metaphorical La Brea tar pit of oblivion.

(Note: Poster is only half-serious or half-joking; even he can't tell which!)

[Hot Lips]

At what point do laws to protect the stupid...

How is this law protecting the father or the guys at the gun show that stood by while a child shot himself with a gun he couldn't handle?

[Soldat_Américain]

Where does the 2nd amendment to the Constitution of the United States state that I can only have a firearm to defend myself?

Where does it say a person can actually own a weapon just for personal use?


Amendment II:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html
And this version appeared in the Virginia Declaration of Rights in 1776:

That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

I am not infringing on your right to own and use a firearm, however the Constitution says a well regulated militia, so if you went to the letter of the Constitution...strict constructionist I think is the term, than only as part of a militia am I allowed to own and possess a firearm and not have one for personal use. For the record, I don't use an AR to hunt.

[Delta Niner]

I'm sorry but you shouldn't need a machine gun to defend your self...just a sweet Colt .45:)

but it holds only 7 rounds in the magazine and 1 on the chamber. not enough if 10 zombies came rambling in through the door :D

[XShipRider]

Sounds more like a law that is intended to make it easier to punish the stupid and hold them accountable for their idiocy. If a law doesn't exist, the stupid and their supporters inevitably cry in court that it was perfectly legal.

They charged them with involuntary manslaughter. How easy / hard would a conviction be with existing laws?

Which is why laws have to be passed to protect them ... from themselves. In actuality I believe this law is intended to chip away at private gun ownership. Much like the anti-drinking laws very persistently ebbing away legal consumption, piecemeal legislation will erode until gun ownership is a thing of the past.

Given enough time water can erode mountains.

[Walter Sobchak]

How is this law protecting the father or the guys at the gun show that stood by while a child shot himself with a gun he couldn't handle?

Well, I think that the whole gist of the argument is that, had such a law existed, the aforementioned people would not have engaged in the aforementioned risky behavior. Those are stupid people doing stupid things and, some would say, need more laws to codify into law their stupid behavior and by extension, prevent said behavior from being repeat by other equally stupid people.

[Walter Sobchak]

I am not infringing on your right to own and use a firearm, however the Constitution says a well regulated militia, so if you went to the letter of the Constitution...strict constructionist I think is the term, than only as part of a militia am I allowed to own and possess a firearm and not have one for personal use. For the record, I don't use an AR to hunt.

Sure you're infringing on my rights, big time.

I am part of the "well-regulated militia", live every adult male. I just have not been called up lately. I must stay trained and sharp, so I can be available at a moment's notice should my State or Nation require my services. In fact, I probably should have a personal M-16 (versus my semi-auto AR15), so I can stay fully-qualified with the weapon with which I once served!

Also, how about that standing army? Should we disband that, as well?

[Geezah]

I am not infringing on your right to own and use a firearm, however the Constitution says a well regulated militia, so if you went to the letter of the Constitution...strict constructionist I think is the term, than only as part of a militia am I allowed to own and possess a firearm and not have one for personal use.

Hang on a mo, people alot brighter than you or I penned the Bill of Rights and they have shown they're intent regarding the 2nd many times.
They understood that an individual right to protect themselves from harm was important, that's why there are a few commas in the 2nd.



For the record, I don't use an AR to hunt.

And?

I don't get this part, because there are plenty that do use their ARs to hunt.

[Will Clark]

Sounds more like a law that is intended to make it easier to punish the stupid and hold them accountable for their idiocy. If a law doesn't exist, the stupid and their supporters inevitably cry in court that it was perfectly legal.


We already have laws to punish stupidity that ends in death, and they're being applied. It obviously isn't a huge problem, so why the legislation? The only rational reason is to get a foot in the door for gun control, there's been no success on their more bold AWB front, so why not get a foothold further down the line and use a bill that plays people's emotions. No one can be against kids using machine guns right?




They charged them with involuntary manslaughter. How easy / hard would a conviction be with existing laws?


http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/244/poy2004kobe.jpg

[Geezah]

It's for the kids after all, they tried the "it's for the Mexicans" but no-one could care less about that, so they have to go back to the kids on something.

I'm just surprised that they went after the NFA, because the last time anyone touched that was back in 86.

[Will Clark]

Where does it say a person can actually own a weapon just for personal use?


You're misinterpreting the phrase, it never says the it's the right of the militia to have arms, or that arms are only to be used for militia purposes. It says that a good militia is necessary to preserve freedom, so the right of the people to have firearms can't be taken away. Meaning that the people get to keep a bitchin arsenal, and as a bonus if freedom is in danger we'll be prepared. Checkout the DC v Heller decision and how the majority opinion laid out 2A rights. It brought clarity to a bunch of questions I had, and makes sense to me for the most part.



I am not infringing on your right to own and use a firearm, however the Constitution says a well regulated militia, so if you went to the letter of the Constitution...strict constructionist I think is the term, than only as part of a militia am I allowed to own and possess a firearm and not have one for personal use. For the record, I don't use an AR to hunt.

Yes, you are. Once again, read through it a few times. It doesn't say arms are for sole use in the militia, it says that having a prepared militia is a good idea. It furthermore protects individuals by saying that the people can't have their right to arms infringed. The heller decision clears these issues up.

[brainplay]

Sounds more like a law that is intended to make it easier to punish the stupid and hold them accountable for their idiocy. If a law doesn't exist, the stupid and their supporters inevitably cry in court that it was perfectly legal.

They charged them with involuntary manslaughter. How easy / hard would a conviction be with existing laws?


I don't think that there is any criminal punishment thats going to affect the father or owner knowing that their incompetance got an adolescent killed.

This law is a waste of taxpayer dollars. The government is not our babysitter. At worst this should have come up as a state public referendum not through federal legislation.

[Stainless Steel Rat]

Also, how about that standing army? Should we disband that, as well?

Based on the majority of US History, that has been our exact pattern as a nation up until the early 1950's, to keep a small (almost miniscule) professional army and bring those "militias" into service when the need arises.

Worked fine until after WWII (see how fast we demilitarized 1946-1950), when we supplanted Britian/Europe as the Great World Power and were forced to confront the "Commies". And since then the Military-Industrial complex plus Great Power status has kept us with large standing military forces, which I think would horrify many of the Founding Fathers.

Apologies for slight derail, please return to gun control, of which I have nothing much to say.

[Walter Sobchak]

Based on the majority of US History, that has been our exact pattern as a nation up until the early 1950's, to keep a small (almost miniscule) professional army and bring those "militias" into service when the need arises.

Worked fine until after WWII (see how fast we demilitarized 1946-1950), when we supplanted Britian/Europe as the Great World Power and were forced to confront the "Commies". And since then the Military-Industrial complex plus Great Power status has kept us with large standing military forces, which I think would horrify many of the Founding Fathers.

Apologies for slight derail, please return to gun control, of which I have nothing much to say.

It was a rhetorical question, but thanks for the right-on-the-money answer.

[Walter Sobchak]

You contradict yourself. WE are the civil power.

Right on!

I'm more convinced every day that the average American and most of the other people in this world, who also offer their opinion, have no idea that the US Government was formed by the States to do things that the states could not do singly, on their own. That government was created as a limited government with a Constitution that stated only what the central government was allowed to do.

There were also some who believed - mainly Madison - that there was no reason to add the Bill of Rights, because as they reasoned, any person could read the Constitution and understand that nothing in the proposed Bill of Rights was in any way inferred or implied in the Constitution. However, there were those who did not trust a central government without limits specifically enumerated, and felt that the Constitution as it was written, fell short of guaranteeing basic liberties. So, let's defer to Madison and take away the Bill of Rights for a moment. If you read the Constitution, there is nothing in there about giving the central government any ability to control a citizen's access to arms, or limiting any other basic freedoms and rights. That was Madison's argument.

Now, defer to Jefferson and add the Bill of Rights back into the mix, and understand that the Second Amendment was there to bolster and strengthen the implied prohibition in the Constitution against the regulating of a citizen's right to own and bear arms. Stop deconstructing and word-gaming the Second Amendment, because it was the ultimate safeguard of the right to own and bear arms. It strengthened what was already implied Constitutionally.

Jefferson proves to be visionary in that he and the pro-Bill of Rights crowd knew that perhaps one day the central government would over-step its Constitutional powers and the Second Amendment would be needed. Most of you know the rest of Jefferson's rationale for guaranteeing an armed citizenry in the face of a too-powerful central government...

[Soldat_Américain]

I mean I guess my mind is so convoluted because I grew up in a city and only went hunting out of state with my cousin's in central Kansas...that I believe you don't need a freakin' arsenal for the apocalypse in your basement.

[Arabia]

Massachusetts already has some of the strictest firearm owner licensing requirements in the nation. Gun owners must take a mandatory 12hr firearm safety course before they apply for a firearm license through their local police department. Firearm Licensing is "may issue" which means the local chief of police has the finial decision on who gets a license. In many of the larger cities, and towns it is near impossible, unless one had good reason, to be get a firearm license.

[rkpo]

Does shooting a gun from age 7 make you a better shooter when your an adult? If yes then its a hard ticket to sell... but if not really then kids could get the same gun culture from airsoft while being massively safer for the kids and community.

[Bro Jangles]

Does shooting a gun from age 7 make you a better shooter when your an adult? If yes then its a hard ticket to sell... but if not really then kids could get the same gun culture from airsoft while being massively safer for the kids and community.
Marksmanship is not the issue, it is responsibility and saftey. last time i checked airsoft breaks the major gun rules.

[XShipRider]

Massachusetts already has some of the strictest firearm owner licensing requirements in the nation. Gun owners must take a mandatory 12hr firearm safety course before they apply for a firearm license through their local police department. Firearm Licensing is "may issue" which means the local chief of police has the finial decision on who gets a license. In many of the larger cities, and towns it is near impossible, unless one had good reason, to be get a firearm license.

I was stationed in Mass for 3 years. Living in on-base housing I was not allowed to keep a firearm in my home. Seems odd that someone who takes an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States," the same Constitution which therein contains the 2nd Amendment, cannot keep a gun in their home.

Rather than go through Mass's ridiculous rules for bringing guns in I kept them at a friend's home in Georgia and my brother's place in Michigan.

[Geezah]

The Four Rules of Gun Safety

1, All guns are always loaded (until you establish whether they are or not).
2, Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy. Keep your gun pointed in a safe direction at all times: on the range, at home, loading, or unloading.
3, Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target (and you are ready to shoot).
4, Be sure of your target. Know what it is, what is in line with it and what is behind it. Never shoot at anything that you haven't positively identified.

........................

[Arabia]

I was stationed in Mass for 3 years. Living in on-base housing I was not allowed to keep a firearm in my home. Seems odd that someone who takes an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States," the same Constitution which therein contains the 2nd Amendment, cannot keep a gun in their home.

Rather than go through Mass's ridiculous rules for bringing guns in I kept them at a friend's home in Georgia and my brother's place in Michigan.

There is no RKBA in the state of Massachusetts for citizens. In the early 1970s the Mass State Supreme court ruled that the RKBA was only for the Government.
I thought that active duty military personel could have firearms in state as long as they did not take them off base. But I could be wrong.

[Natasha]

the problem arises when you've got one of those "yah I needs mah gun to protects mah family" hillbillies as father who tries to pound that mentality in you too. a lot of kids who learn shooting and get their hands on a real gun sooner or later don't learn about the responsibility that comes with it.

seriously with all the **** you hear it's like putting a M249 in a chimpanzee's hands and letting him toy with it in a public place.

besides, what's the big deal about learning to shoot a gun anyway? if you do it for fun, why not, go for it. about the same as skateboarding. only you can't kill people with a skateboard. unless you're tony hawk.

what I'm trying to say is, guns are simply not for idiots, but nowadays every idiot can get one.

[11 Bravo]

I mean I guess my mind is so convoluted because I grew up in a city and only went hunting out of state with my cousin's in central Kansas...that I believe you don't need a freakin' arsenal for the apocalypse in your basement.

There you go again soiled ami. So you define a hobby/collection now as an arsenal... and you intone or twist the definition of "arsenal" negatively the way you use it here. Please do stay in the city... let the Police be your guardian 100% , and keep your limited constitutional thinking in the city limits as well !.

[Bro Jangles]

besides, what's the big deal about learning to shoot a gun anyway? if you do it for fun, why not, go for it. about the same as skateboarding. only you can't kill people with a skateboard. unless you're tony hawk.

what I'm trying to say is, guns are simply not for idiots, but nowadays every idiot can get one.
i dont get what your getting at?

[11 Bravo]

what I'm trying to say is, guns are simply not for idiots, but nowadays every idiot can get one.


Gee wiz ; so "nowadays" what can't an idiot as you define get whatever it wants ?.Hell the idiots for example now get all manner of gub'mint monies for sitting on their arse's and assorted oblahma payola for votes.

[XShipRider]

There is no RKBA in the state of Massachusetts for citizens. In the early 1970s the Mass State Supreme court ruled that the RKBA was only for the Government.
I thought that active duty military personel could have firearms in state as long as they did not take them off base. But I could be wrong.

I could have brought them in... with the state's permission (though few military people actually bothered obtaining that permission). Firearms could be taken off base for any legal purpose once proper procedures for bringing them into the state were followed. All personal firearms had to be stored in a local armory (on a space available basis).

I chose the easiest route since I had ready out of state storage available.

[Natasha]

I love this F@#$ing attitude. Read this article (http://www.wtic.com/pages/3207394.php?)I love the part that states "The father is the medical director of emergency medicine at Johnson Memorial Hospital, in Stafford Springs, Conn."

I know a lot of those "yah I needs mah gun to protects mah family" hillbillies as father who tries to pound that mentality in you too." And most of them are extremely safe with their guns and the #1 reason is that they teach their children, as I have, at a young age what a firearm will do and how to handle it. They take the curiosity of the gun away and allow their childeren to shoot whenever they wish which keeps them from getting it out "when Pa ain't 'round an playin wiff it". The majority of youth negligent discharge shootings are in middle class, suburban families because the 'enlightened' parents think that the last thing in the world they should do is allow their childeren to know anything about a gun so they hide it. The Government is the #1 problem because they instill this "If a child gets anywhere near a gunn they'll die" persauna.

I wouldn't recommend steriotyping "Hillbillies" because most of them are "Hillbillies" because they know what the F*&^ they are doing.

This is another stupid law that won't bring that poor 8 year old boy back and it won't prevent anything else and it will only instill more "Hide those guns from your kids or they'll all die" misperceptions.

excuse me, my phrasing was probably a little out of the way.

But, nobody ever said "Hide those guns from your kids or they'll all die.".

There's a lot of people able to parent their children properly and teach them gun usage in an appropriate way.

But where that's not the case, it can prove to be a fatal and deadly mistake. And it has.

Should that be a reason to make stricter gun laws? Not necessarily, but you could introduce psychological and ability tests for the purchase and use of such guns to single out those people that should not have such a gun in their household, for whatever reason. But even that is too much for the regular citizen. They want guns handed out to them like candy in candy land, completely unaware of the consequences. That's retarded.

And maybe you'd think over your own attitude if you realized that it's those retards that give you a bad name and makes other people go ape**** about guns and putting more and more restrictions on them. If those retards couldn't get their hands on a gun (in a legal way) in the first place, you'd never even have that problem.

As for the article, it merely proves what I'm saying. The so called supervisors and the boys father are those kind of idiots that shouldn't be allowed to teach a child gun usage. FULL AUTO ROCK & ROLL, SMG in an 8 year old kids hand...

[Flounder]

For the record, I'd like to point out that you can in fact kill people with a skateboard.

[PsihoKeke]

And now for something completly different, a kid with machinegun

http://i254.photobucket.com/albums/hh119/mzmadmike/guns/morriganprep.jpg

[LineDoggie]

Not really a Machinegun, M1919A4. Its a semiautomatic Rifle with attached "Hellfire" crank made from an M1919A4 parts kit.

About as legal to buy as a winchester 30-30 in most states.

[Bro Jangles]

Not really a Machinegun, M1919A4. Its a semiautomatic Rifle with attached "Hellfire" crank made from an M1919A4 parts kit.

About as legal to buy as a winchester 30-30 in most states.
Actually according to the media that is a full semi-automatic assualt evil satan stick.

[Soldat_Américain]

There you go again soiled ami. So you define a hobby/collection now as an arsenal... and you intone or twist the definition of "arsenal" negatively the way you use it here. Please do stay in the city... let the Police be your guardian 100% , and keep your limited constitutional thinking in the city limits as well !.
Narrow...whatever...it's nurture, I guess if you grew up in an urban setting with almost no crime then you yourself may or may not feel the same way.

Actually according to the media that is a full semi-automatic assualt evil satan stick. Satan stick, good laugh there man, I like it

[Bro Jangles]

Narrow...whatever...it's nurture, I guess if you grew up in an urban setting with almost no crime then you yourself may or may not feel the same way.
Satan stick, good laugh there man, I like iti grew up in a suburb, ins several of the most liberal states in the US, they Day i turned 18, i bought a WASR10 (semi AK47). now at 20 i got 3 "assault weapons" a shotty, couple bolt guns. i use them for sport (aka FUN ) and self defense. have i ever had my house broken into?, No. does that mean it will never happen? No. i would rather be prepared than be sorry. Semper Paratus