To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
This is sorta like one of Dan’s “every child deserves a mother and father” posts.
Now tell my why this person had a “right” to have that gun…
Apparently they were “retraining” their father as a marksman?
Those kids should have been carrying guns!
I’d question his “right” to be a father a whole lot more.
The story quote says the boys “both retrained their father until their mother ordered them to let him go” What did they re-train him to do??
And I looked all over and found the Mother but Charles, there ain’t no fucking in that story….
@5 Don’t change the subject. When it comes to the 2nd Amendment, you have to take the good with the bad. If you defend the blanket right to bear arms, inevitably you will end up having to deal with the fact that you support the gun ownership rights of people like this guy. You can’t just pull an about-face and say “this incident has nothing to do with the fact he owns a gun” (which is what you are implying) just because he gives the rest of the gun-owning populace a bad name.
OK, Hernandez, whatever you say. But this incident really does have nothing to do with the fact that he owns a gun. It has a lot to do with the fact that he’s an irresponsible fuckwad.
That same irresponsible fuckwad could get behind the wheel of a car and easily do as much or more harm. Are you saying we should use that as a justification to ban all cars?
No, cars aren’t evil. Neither are guns. This is exactly what I’ve been saying here for years now: Punish the behavior, don’t try to villify inanimate objects just because a small percentage of the people in the world are too fucking stupid to behave appropriately.
@8 The government can not control behavior but the government can control the availability of said inanimate objects.
Yes he is an irresponsible fuckwad but it was the fact that he is able to get his irresponsible hands on a firearm is the real crime.
@8 No, I’m not. I’m not against gun ownership as a general concept. But I’m not naive enough to think that this situation would’ve unfolded differently if the guy didn’t have a loaded gun sitting there in his house.
You’re right, it does have everything to do with the fact that the guy is an irresponsible fuckwad, an irresponsible fuckwad who owns (and is allowed to own) a gun. If you support unrestricted gun ownership rights, then you support the idea of irresponsible fuckwads owning guns. Personally, I’d like to see more restrictions. Punish the behavior, but proactively take steps to prevent the possibility for that behavior in the first place.
Your car analogy is great – cars are dangerous and car ownership is pretty heavily regulated. Maybe we should be doing the same thing for guns, to minimize the possibility of an irresponsible fuckwad getting ahold of one?
We regulate behavior all the time, Mantooth. Go to your local library sometime – there are about 20 volumes of statutes there, every word on every page of which regulates behavior.
Hernandez, maybe it’s the libertarian in me (small “L,” please), but I firmly believe that, in a free country, everyone should have enough freedom and responsibility to fuck up. Not freedom and responsibility given to them by the government, but as an unalienable right given to them at birth. You prove you’re not worthy or deserving of it, it gets taken away (along with, in all probability, your freedom to do lots of other things too). But I don’t believe the government has any “right” to do that before I fuck up or demonstrate that I’m not trustworthy.
as long as angry dumbasses use this particular type of handy, not-evil inanimate objects on their offspring only, preferably before the offspring have reproduced, then the harm to society is minimal.