# How does a child live with this?



## Wry Catcher

HAYDEN, Idaho — A 2-year-old boy accidentally shot and killed his mother after he reached into her purse at a northern Idaho Wal-Mart and her concealed gun fired, authorities said Tuesday.

Here is the link to this horrible and preventable accident:

Authorities 2-year-old boy accidentally shoots and kills mom inside northern Idaho Wal-Mart Star Tribune

This is very sad, but these final three paragraphs floored me:

'Idaho lawmakers passed legislation earlier this year allowing concealed weapons on the state's public college and university campuses.

"Despite facing opposition from all eight of the state's university college presidents, lawmakers sided with gun rights advocates who said the law would better uphold the Second Amendment.

"Under the law, gun holders are barred from bringing their weapons into dormitories or buildings that hold more than 1,000 people, such as stadiums or concert halls."


----------



## Indofred

And there we have another responsible gun owner.
Darwin said something about survival of the fittest - sounds like he was right again.

This daft cow let a little kid into her bag, knowing there was a loaded weapon in there.
What a moron.


----------



## Pogo

Wry Catcher said:


> HAYDEN, Idaho — A 2-year-old boy accidentally shot and killed his mother after he reached into her purse at a northern Idaho Wal-Mart and her concealed gun fired, authorities said Tuesday.
> 
> Here is the link to this horrible and preventable accident:
> 
> Authorities 2-year-old boy accidentally shoots and kills mom inside northern Idaho Wal-Mart Star Tribune
> 
> This is very sad, but these final three paragraphs floored me:
> 
> 'Idaho lawmakers passed legislation earlier this year allowing concealed weapons on the state's public college and university campuses.
> 
> "Despite facing opposition from all eight of the state's university college presidents, lawmakers sided with gun rights advocates who said the law would better uphold the Second Amendment.
> 
> "Under the law, gun holders are barred from bringing their weapons into dormitories or buildings that hold more than 1,000 people, such as stadiums or concert halls."



There are a couple of other threads on this but the title brings up a salient point: not only will this 2-year old have to deal with this memory but there were three other children with her -- not to mention whatever other customers were around.  They're all going to have to come to terms with what they witnessed.

Interesting background from the article here too.


----------



## S.J.

No doubt liberals will try to exploit this tragedy to attack the second amendment but the kid could just as well have gotten his hands on the gun at home as in a Walmart store, so the laws allowing people to have guns in public places have nothing to do with why this happened.


----------



## Pogo

S.J. said:


> No doubt liberals will try to exploit this tragedy to attack the second amendment but the kid could just as well have gotten his hands on the gun at home as in a Walmart store, so the laws allowing people to have guns in public places have nothing to do with why this happened.



Not at all.  Let's use the gun nuts' logic -- what was needed here is a good toddler with a gun to stop the bad toddler with a gun.  Clearly we need to arm more toddlers.  What's a little matricide, as long as you get to have your toys?  Priorities.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Need a few more threads on this exact same story

Maybe 5 or 6 more


----------



## S.J.

Pogo said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> No doubt liberals will try to exploit this tragedy to attack the second amendment but the kid could just as well have gotten his hands on the gun at home as in a Walmart store, so the laws allowing people to have guns in public places have nothing to do with why this happened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all.  Let's use the gun nuts' logic -- what was needed here is a good toddler with a gun to stop the bad toddler with a gun.  Clearly we need to arm more toddlers.  What's a little matricide, as long as you get to have your toys?  Priorities.
Click to expand...

That's right, make fun of a tragedy, funny guy.  Are you proud of yourself?


----------



## Wry Catcher

S.J. said:


> No doubt liberals will try to exploit this tragedy to attack the second amendment but the kid could just as well have gotten his hands on the gun at home as in a Walmart store, so the laws allowing people to have guns in public places have nothing to do with why this happened.



The point of this thread which I posted is simple - gun owners need to be responsible.  Period.  Those who own firearms have a duty to keep others, and themselves, safe.  Not only did this gun owner fail to protect herself, she created a situation where her son - and as pointed out above - other children have this horrific incident burned into their brains and will be there for ever.


----------



## Wry Catcher

CrusaderFrank said:


> Need a few more threads on this exact same story
> 
> Maybe 5 or 6 more



Hypocrite alert.  How many threads on Benghazi, Solyndra, Obama's religion, place of birth?


----------



## S.J.

Wry Catcher said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> No doubt liberals will try to exploit this tragedy to attack the second amendment but the kid could just as well have gotten his hands on the gun at home as in a Walmart store, so the laws allowing people to have guns in public places have nothing to do with why this happened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point of this thread which I posted is simple - *gun owners need to be responsible.*  Period.  Those who own firearms have a duty to keep others, and themselves, safe.  Not only did this gun owner fail to protect herself, she created a situation where her son - and as pointed out above - other children have this horrific incident burned into their brains and will be there for ever.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with that.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Progressives miss school shootings


----------



## Indofred

S.J. said:


> so the laws allowing people to have guns in public places have nothing to do with why this happened.



Utter crap.
Allowing idiots to carry guns is exactly what caused this death.
Luckily, only the idiot was killed.


----------



## Indofred

Wry Catcher said:


> The point of this thread which I posted is simple - gun owners need to be responsible.  Period.  .



Since that isn't possible, ban the bloody guns.


----------



## S.J.

Indofred said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> so the laws allowing people to have guns in public places have nothing to do with why this happened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Utter crap.
> Allowing idiots to carry guns is exactly what caused this death.
> Luckily, only the idiot was killed.
Click to expand...

You don't think the idiot could have been shot in her own home?


----------



## Wry Catcher

CrusaderFrank said:


> Progressives miss school shootings



You've out done yourself, this ^^^ is the quintessential IDIOT-GRAM!


----------



## Tom Sweetnam

Pogo said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> No doubt liberals will try to exploit this tragedy to attack the second amendment but the kid could just as well have gotten his hands on the gun at home as in a Walmart store, so the laws allowing people to have guns in public places have nothing to do with why this happened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all.  Let's use the gun nuts' logic -- what was needed here is a good toddler with a gun to stop the bad toddler with a gun.  Clearly we need to arm more toddlers.  What's a little matricide, as long as you get to have your toys?  Priorities.
Click to expand...


Sure thing Mr. Prodigy. How much do you remember from when you were a 2 year-old?


----------



## pismoe

all the kids will live , I'd tell them that it was an accident .  Death coulda happened on the way home in a car accident .   Too bad it happened but people die everyday .  See the middle east or the war zones in Chicago .


----------



## Wry Catcher

Isn't the Internet great!

Babies Can Remember Traumatic Events for Years


----------



## Indofred

S.J. said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> so the laws allowing people to have guns in public places have nothing to do with why this happened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Utter crap.
> Allowing idiots to carry guns is exactly what caused this death.
> Luckily, only the idiot was killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't think the idiot could have been shot in her own home?
Click to expand...


She could have been, but she was killed in public.
Allowing the daft bitch to have a gun was the error, not where she was at the time.


----------



## pismoe

remember events , sure they can .  But the kids will live and carry on if they get the right encouragement and are kept out of the hands of the wacky healthcare professional .


----------



## pismoe

its her RIGHT to have the gun Indo !!    She was just careless is all it was .


----------



## CrusaderFrank

guns are bad, only the government should have guns. It worked for Progressive Founding Fathers Hitler, Stalin and Mao, it will work for modern Progressives as well


----------



## S.J.

Indofred said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> so the laws allowing people to have guns in public places have nothing to do with why this happened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Utter crap.
> Allowing idiots to carry guns is exactly what caused this death.
> Luckily, only the idiot was killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't think the idiot could have been shot in her own home?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She could have been, but she was killed in public.
> Allowing the daft bitch to have a gun was the error, not where she was at the time.
Click to expand...

And who decides who is too dumb to have a gun, you?


----------



## Carla_Danger

Wayne LaPierre is outraged!!!  He demands tighter restrictions on hand bags!


----------



## Indofred

S.J. said:


> And who decides who is too dumb to have a gun, you?



In this case, events proved so.
In general, it should be assumed everyone is too stupid, unless they prove otherwise.


----------



## S.J.

Indofred said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> And who decides who is too dumb to have a gun, you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In this case, events proved so.
> In general, it should be assumed everyone is too stupid, unless they prove otherwise.
Click to expand...

Stupid by whose standards, your's?


----------



## Pogo

S.J. said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> No doubt liberals will try to exploit this tragedy to attack the second amendment but the kid could just as well have gotten his hands on the gun at home as in a Walmart store, so the laws allowing people to have guns in public places have nothing to do with why this happened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all.  Let's use the gun nuts' logic -- what was needed here is a good toddler with a gun to stop the bad toddler with a gun.  Clearly we need to arm more toddlers.  What's a little matricide, as long as you get to have your toys?  Priorities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's right, make fun of a tragedy, funny guy.  Are you proud of yourself?
Click to expand...


Y-you mean.... the 'good guy with a gun' theory_ doesn't work_??

I'm crushed.  Crushed I tell ya.

We'd better fall back on the next gun nut remedy -- armed guards on every corner.  Of everywhere.  Including when she's driving home from Mal-Wart.  Just to be ready in case.  As Barney Fife would say, nip it in the bud!

Or are you gonna tell me that's a stoopid idea too...


----------



## Pogo

Tom Sweetnam said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> No doubt liberals will try to exploit this tragedy to attack the second amendment but the kid could just as well have gotten his hands on the gun at home as in a Walmart store, so the laws allowing people to have guns in public places have nothing to do with why this happened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all.  Let's use the gun nuts' logic -- what was needed here is a good toddler with a gun to stop the bad toddler with a gun.  Clearly we need to arm more toddlers.  What's a little matricide, as long as you get to have your toys?  Priorities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure thing Mr. Prodigy. How much do you remember from when you were a 2 year-old?
Click to expand...


You think the kid's not gonna grow up wondering why he doesn't have a mother?

Or that his older siblings (cousins, whatever they were) won't tell him?  They have memories too...


----------



## pismoe

supposed to be a Free Country with certain guaranteed Right Indo .


----------



## Pogo

pismoe said:


> supposed to be a Free Country with certain guaranteed Right Indo .  Being armed is one of those Rights.




The catch is, it's not a question of "rights".  It's a question of values.
Whether she's got a _right _to walk around Mal-Wart with a loaded gun or not, she _can _do it.  The question is, why did she *want *to?


----------



## pismoe

sure the kid will realize , might cry and wonder but eventually he'll realize that his mother is dead Pogo !!    And why wouldn't the kid be told ??   Its not like he murdered .


----------



## pismoe

because she wanted to I guess .


----------



## Pogo

pismoe said:


> sure the kid will realize , might cry and wonder but eventually he'll realize that his mother is dead Pogo !!    And why wouldn't the kid be told ??   Its not like he murdered .



He might be told -- if he has any hearing left...


----------



## pismoe

probably has hearing , if not obamacare will fix it .


----------



## pismoe

the only way to handle it is to tell him the truth . Only problem might be age and telling the whole story fully .


----------



## pismoe

no matter what though , it was an accident .


----------



## Book of Jeremiah

Indofred said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> so the laws allowing people to have guns in public places have nothing to do with why this happened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Utter crap.
> Allowing idiots to carry guns is exactly what caused this death.
> Luckily, only the idiot was killed.
Click to expand...


Nonsense.  It was a tragic accident.  When has that ever happened before?  I do not recall any story even close.   It was a freak accident.  Move on with your life.  Your in Indonesia, Fred. Was is it to you whether Americans have a permit to carry concealed weapons?   You should realize the concealed carry permits are here to stay.  This is America.  

It was a terrible accident.  Move on.


----------



## Book of Jeremiah

pismoe said:


> the only way to handle it is to tell him the truth . Only problem might be age and telling the whole story fully .



He is too young.  I wouldn't tell him.  It was an accident.  When he is much older he can told it was an accident - because he will be able to understand what that is.  A child that age would not.


----------



## Book of Jeremiah

pismoe said:


> supposed to be a Free Country with certain guaranteed Right Indo .



In Indonesia - guaranteed rights - are to the Muslim population - all others?  There are no guarantees.  When someone grows up in such a prejudiced culture it is hard to grasp the meaning of liberty and justice *for all. *


----------



## pismoe

yep , mommy died in an accident and that's it at that age !!


----------



## Indofred

S.J. said:


> Stupid by whose standards, your's?



Yes, fucking yes.
If I had the slightest thought of that daft bitch having a working brain, I'd consider myself to be an idiot.


----------



## Indofred

Jeremiah said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> supposed to be a Free Country with certain guaranteed Right Indo .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In Indonesia - guaranteed rights - are to the Muslim population - all others?  There are no guarantees.  When someone grows up in such a prejudiced culture it is hard to grasp the meaning of liberty and justice *for all. *
Click to expand...


You have no prejudices against anyone?????????


----------



## Indofred

Jeremiah said:


> You should realize the concealed carry permits are here to stay.



I know - it's stupid, but I know.


----------



## Book of Jeremiah

I do not find it stupid.  Citizens with guns prevent thousands of crimes from occurring in the USA every single day!  3600 rapes a day are never attempted because the victims either have a gun or showed a gun according to experts research the statistics on gun owners in America.  

More than 90% of violent crimes in America occur without a gun according to federal statistics.  So when the victim has a firearm?   That is one less violent crime happening.  

The accident was tragic.  But concealed carry for responsible owners is a good thing for America.


----------



## Gunman

Wonder how many Kids have died within 20 mi of that Wal Mart in Auto Accidents. We still don't Ban Cars...Last Year over twenty kids died in cheap Wal Mart Swimming Pools.. We band Pools Yet..??? How many folks died from faulty Heaters or Stoves...We Ban Heaters Yet...??? I could go on But you Should get the Idea... Well May-be Not... A Gun is only One of Many things that can Kill you.. Guy in the Neighborhood Dead when he plugged in his Drill with Foot in water... O-Well I'm gonna shut-up and go load some Ammo.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Gunman said:


> Wonder how many Kids have died within 20 mi of that Wal Mart in Auto Accidents. We still don't Ban Cars...Last Year over twenty kids died in cheap Wal Mart Swimming Pools.. We band Pools Yet..??? How many folks died from faulty Heaters or Stoves...We Ban Heaters Yet...??? I could go on But you Should get the Idea... Well May-be Not... A Gun is only One of Many things that can Kill you.. Guy in the Neighborhood Dead when he plugged in his Drill with Foot in water... O-Well I'm gonna shut-up and go load some Ammo.



Progressive need to disarm American citizens so they can finally bring us the Workers Paradise

These threads are always started by the Useful Idiots


----------



## S.J.

Indofred said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid by whose standards, your's?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, fucking yes.
> If I had the slightest thought of that daft bitch having a working brain, I'd consider myself to be an idiot.
Click to expand...

Maybe you shouldn't be allowed to drive a car because some internet poster thinks you're a moron.


----------



## Dot Com




----------



## Indofred

Jeremiah said:


> 3600 rapes a day are never attempted because the victims either have a gun



I've heard some really daft claims, but that has to be the worst ever.
Don't tell me, 4,000 windows weren't broken because there weren't enough stones around.


----------



## Indofred

S.J. said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid by whose standards, your's?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, fucking yes.
> If I had the slightest thought of that daft bitch having a working brain, I'd consider myself to be an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe you shouldn't be allowed to drive a car because some internet poster thinks you're a moron.
Click to expand...


Given I don't let two year old kids drive my car, they'd probably be wrong.


----------



## Book of Jeremiah

Indofred said:


> Jeremiah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3600 rapes a day are never attempted because the victims either have a gun
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've heard some really daft claims, but that has to be the worst ever.
> Don't tell me, 4,000 windows weren't broken because there weren't enough stones around.
Click to expand...


Take it up with the experts.  Those are federal statistics, Fred.  Not my own.


----------



## S.J.

Indofred said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid by whose standards, your's?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, fucking yes.
> If I had the slightest thought of that daft bitch having a working brain, I'd consider myself to be an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe you shouldn't be allowed to drive a car because some internet poster thinks you're a moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Given I don't let two year old kids drive my car, they'd probably be wrong.
Click to expand...

It would be safer if the two year olds were driving.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

A 2 year old is not going to remember anything in later life. Unless low life Liberals keep reminding him that is.


----------



## Sarah G

S.J. said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> No doubt liberals will try to exploit this tragedy to attack the second amendment but the kid could just as well have gotten his hands on the gun at home as in a Walmart store, so the laws allowing people to have guns in public places have nothing to do with why this happened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all.  Let's use the gun nuts' logic -- what was needed here is a good toddler with a gun to stop the bad toddler with a gun.  Clearly we need to arm more toddlers.  What's a little matricide, as long as you get to have your toys?  Priorities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's right, make fun of a tragedy, funny guy.  Are you proud of yourself?
Click to expand...

Not making fun, it's the exact argument I've heard you gun nuts make over and over.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Sarah G said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> No doubt liberals will try to exploit this tragedy to attack the second amendment but the kid could just as well have gotten his hands on the gun at home as in a Walmart store, so the laws allowing people to have guns in public places have nothing to do with why this happened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all.  Let's use the gun nuts' logic -- what was needed here is a good toddler with a gun to stop the bad toddler with a gun.  Clearly we need to arm more toddlers.  What's a little matricide, as long as you get to have your toys?  Priorities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's right, make fun of a tragedy, funny guy.  Are you proud of yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not making fun, it's the exact argument I've heard you gun nuts make over and over.
Click to expand...

You are a bald faced liar. No one has called for arming toddlers or children. In regards children if their parents want to teach them to hunt most of us have no problem.


----------



## S.J.

Sarah G said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> No doubt liberals will try to exploit this tragedy to attack the second amendment but the kid could just as well have gotten his hands on the gun at home as in a Walmart store, so the laws allowing people to have guns in public places have nothing to do with why this happened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all.  Let's use the gun nuts' logic -- what was needed here is a good toddler with a gun to stop the bad toddler with a gun.  Clearly we need to arm more toddlers.  What's a little matricide, as long as you get to have your toys?  Priorities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's right, make fun of a tragedy, funny guy.  Are you proud of yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Not making fun*, it's the exact argument I've heard you gun nuts make over and over.
Click to expand...

Yes he is and you would do well not to align yourself with that POS.


----------



## Sarah G

RetiredGySgt said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> No doubt liberals will try to exploit this tragedy to attack the second amendment but the kid could just as well have gotten his hands on the gun at home as in a Walmart store, so the laws allowing people to have guns in public places have nothing to do with why this happened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all.  Let's use the gun nuts' logic -- what was needed here is a good toddler with a gun to stop the bad toddler with a gun.  Clearly we need to arm more toddlers.  What's a little matricide, as long as you get to have your toys?  Priorities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's right, make fun of a tragedy, funny guy.  Are you proud of yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not making fun, it's the exact argument I've heard you gun nuts make over and over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are a bald faced liar. No one has called for arming toddlers or children. In regards children if their parents want to teach them to hunt most of us have no problem.
Click to expand...

You all have never said anything like if there had been a good guy with a gun at some mass shooting, things would have turned out better?


----------



## Sarah G

S.J. said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> No doubt liberals will try to exploit this tragedy to attack the second amendment but the kid could just as well have gotten his hands on the gun at home as in a Walmart store, so the laws allowing people to have guns in public places have nothing to do with why this happened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all.  Let's use the gun nuts' logic -- what was needed here is a good toddler with a gun to stop the bad toddler with a gun.  Clearly we need to arm more toddlers.  What's a little matricide, as long as you get to have your toys?  Priorities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's right, make fun of a tragedy, funny guy.  Are you proud of yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Not making fun*, it's the exact argument I've heard you gun nuts make over and over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes he is and you would do well not to align yourself with that POS.
Click to expand...

Pogo always was a good poster, not a pos.  That would be some on your side maybe.


----------



## S.J.

Sarah G said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> No doubt liberals will try to exploit this tragedy to attack the second amendment but the kid could just as well have gotten his hands on the gun at home as in a Walmart store, so the laws allowing people to have guns in public places have nothing to do with why this happened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all.  Let's use the gun nuts' logic -- what was needed here is a good toddler with a gun to stop the bad toddler with a gun.  Clearly we need to arm more toddlers.  What's a little matricide, as long as you get to have your toys?  Priorities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's right, make fun of a tragedy, funny guy.  Are you proud of yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Not making fun*, it's the exact argument I've heard you gun nuts make over and over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes he is and you would do well not to align yourself with that POS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pogo always was a good poster, not a pos.  That would be some on your side maybe.
Click to expand...

Never mind, I forgot you're a POS too.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Sarah G said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> No doubt liberals will try to exploit this tragedy to attack the second amendment but the kid could just as well have gotten his hands on the gun at home as in a Walmart store, so the laws allowing people to have guns in public places have nothing to do with why this happened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all.  Let's use the gun nuts' logic -- what was needed here is a good toddler with a gun to stop the bad toddler with a gun.  Clearly we need to arm more toddlers.  What's a little matricide, as long as you get to have your toys?  Priorities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's right, make fun of a tragedy, funny guy.  Are you proud of yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not making fun, it's the exact argument I've heard you gun nuts make over and over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are a bald faced liar. No one has called for arming toddlers or children. In regards children if their parents want to teach them to hunt most of us have no problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You all have never said anything like if there had been a good guy with a gun at some mass shooting, things would have turned out better?
Click to expand...

Which has nothing to do with toddlers or accidental shootings.


----------



## I.P.Freely

RetiredGySgt said:


> A 2 year old is not going to remember anything in later life. Unless low life Liberals keep reminding him that is.


Perhaps his dad will get him a tear drop tattoo.


----------



## Indofred

Jeremiah said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jeremiah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3600 rapes a day are never attempted because the victims either have a gun
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've heard some really daft claims, but that has to be the worst ever.
> Don't tell me, 4,000 windows weren't broken because there weren't enough stones around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Take it up with the experts.  Those are federal statistics, Fred.  Not my own.
Click to expand...


Ones you seem to be having problems linking to.


----------



## Indofred

S.J. said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid by whose standards, your's?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, fucking yes.
> If I had the slightest thought of that daft bitch having a working brain, I'd consider myself to be an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe you shouldn't be allowed to drive a car because some internet poster thinks you're a moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Given I don't let two year old kids drive my car, they'd probably be wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It would be safer if the two year olds were driving.
Click to expand...


Perhaps you could expand on that, explaining how you know I'm not a very experienced, well trained driver, and how you know I haven't got more qualifications and training than the vast majority of motorists on the roads anywhere in the world, not to mention, driven in many countries, in a wide variety of vehicles.
If you try, you'd be wrong.


----------



## Figaro

> A 2-year-old boy accidentally shot and killed his mother after he reached into her purse at a northern Idaho Wal-Mart and her concealed gun fired, authorities said Tuesday



2-Year-Old Accidentally Kills His Mom in Wal-Mart - ABC News
2 yr old shot mom in front of his 3 siblings...
Well, can we say stupidity kills this time? I think yes. It`s all about stupid carrying of gun. Do you think we don`t need strict regulation?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

“She had a concealed weapons permit. Miller said the young boy was left in a shopping cart, reached into his mother's purse and grabbed a small-caliber handgun, which discharged one time.”

And what exactly was this 'small-caliber handgun'? What was its condition?

This is important information for those who own the same firearm, so they can take the necessary precautions.


----------



## theHawk

What do you propose?  Going through every mother's purse when they go into Wal-Mart?


----------



## Indofred

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> And what exactly was this 'small-caliber handgun'? What was its condition?
> 
> This is important information for those who own the same firearm, so they can take the necessary precautions.



No it isn't.
The important information is - don't be a fucking idiot with guns.


----------



## strollingbones

perhaps using the safety on the gun?


----------



## Figaro

theHawk said:


> What do you propose?  Going through every mother's purse when they go into Wal-Mart?


Never, ever keep a loaded weapon in a place that prevents you from gaining control of it and pointing it in a safe direction in less than a second.
Take the guns away from idiots (even if it the majority of the people who do not know how to handle with gun


----------



## Skull Pilot

Wry Catcher said:


> HAYDEN, Idaho — A 2-year-old boy accidentally shot and killed his mother after he reached into her purse at a northern Idaho Wal-Mart and her concealed gun fired, authorities said Tuesday.
> 
> Here is the link to this horrible and preventable accident:
> 
> Authorities 2-year-old boy accidentally shoots and kills mom inside northern Idaho Wal-Mart Star Tribune
> 
> This is very sad, but these final three paragraphs floored me:
> 
> 'Idaho lawmakers passed legislation earlier this year allowing concealed weapons on the state's public college and university campuses.
> 
> "Despite facing opposition from all eight of the state's university college presidents, lawmakers sided with gun rights advocates who said the law would better uphold the Second Amendment.
> 
> "Under the law, gun holders are barred from bringing their weapons into dormitories or buildings that hold more than 1,000 people, such as stadiums or concert halls."


How much do you remember from when you were 2?

The kid won't remember it, his peers won't know about it.

If his family does the right thing and lies to him about how his mother died he'll be just fine


----------



## Crick

Ban the possession of handguns, period.


----------



## theHawk

Crick said:


> Ban the possession of handguns, period.



What a grand idea!  Then most women wouldn't be able to protect themselves from rapists and murderers.  That's Progress!


----------



## JoeB131

theHawk said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ban the possession of handguns, period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a grand idea!  Then most women wouldn't be able to protect themselves from rapists and murderers.  That's Progress!
Click to expand...


They really can't now.  Most women who are raped or murdered are raped and murdered by someone they know.


----------



## WinterBorn

Crick said:


> Ban the possession of handguns, period.



Yeah, who cares that there are over 100 million privately owned handguns in the country and less than 1,000 accidental shooting deaths.   Lets go with the kneejerk reaction, blame the gun, and ban them all.


----------



## gipper

WinterBorn said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ban the possession of handguns, period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, who cares that there are over 100 million privately owned handguns in the country and less than 1,000 accidental shooting deaths.   Lets go with the kneejerk reaction, blame the gun, and ban them all.
Click to expand...


Every totalitarian government throughout history prevented their people from arming themselves, because it worked so well.


----------



## JoeB131

WinterBorn said:


> Yeah, who cares that there are over 100 million privately owned handguns in the country and less than 1,000 accidental shooting deaths. Lets go with the kneejerk reaction, blame the gun, and ban them all.



Hey, i'm surprised that you aren't applauding the child's marksmanship skills.


----------



## Gunman

In any case the two year old IS NOT responsible for the Accident ... the Adult IS... and She is DEAD... so she payed the price for Her Mistakes... I'm almost 100% sure that they ARE NOT gonna take the Kid to court... Their are Kids out their with a lot of worse things in their past that they will have to live with.. Just think of what O-bum-a two girls will have to live with for the rest of their life's...! ! ! ! !


----------



## WinterBorn

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, who cares that there are over 100 million privately owned handguns in the country and less than 1,000 accidental shooting deaths. Lets go with the kneejerk reaction, blame the gun, and ban them all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, i'm surprised that you aren't applauding the child's marksmanship skills.
Click to expand...


Oh look!!   More posts from JoeyB that have no point and are only an attempt at insults.  What a surprise.

It is funny that you condemn others for posting what you claim is nonsense, and yet you are guilty of the same and more often.  Hypocrisy is your friend?


----------



## JoeB131

WinterBorn said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, who cares that there are over 100 million privately owned handguns in the country and less than 1,000 accidental shooting deaths. Lets go with the kneejerk reaction, blame the gun, and ban them all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, i'm surprised that you aren't applauding the child's marksmanship skills.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh look!!   More posts from JoeyB that have no point and are only an attempt at insults.  What a surprise.
> 
> It is funny that you condemn others for posting what you claim is nonsense, and yet you are guilty of the same and more often.  Hypocrisy is your friend?
Click to expand...


Naw, man, I was just remembering how you said that Adam Lanza could have killed just as many kids using mommy's pistols, so I was really kind of surprised you didn't say something like "Good shot, kid!"  here.


----------



## PratchettFan

Figaro said:


> A 2-year-old boy accidentally shot and killed his mother after he reached into her purse at a northern Idaho Wal-Mart and her concealed gun fired, authorities said Tuesday
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2-Year-Old Accidentally Kills His Mom in Wal-Mart - ABC News
> 2 yr old shot mom in front of his 3 siblings...
> Well, can we say stupidity kills this time? I think yes. It`s all about stupid carrying of gun. Do you think we don`t need strict regulation?
Click to expand...

 
Yes, I think we don't need strict regulation.  This was a tragic event, but it changes nothing at all.


----------



## Indofred

Why do gun idiots always add a little blame for Obama?
There is no way this moronic woman can be blamed on your president.


----------



## Sarah G

Gunman said:


> In any case the two year old IS NOT responsible for the Accident ... the Adult IS... and She is DEAD... so she payed the price for Her Mistakes... I'm almost 100% sure that they ARE NOT gonna take the Kid to court... Their are Kids out their with a lot of worse things in their past that they will have to live with.. Just think of what O-bum-a two girls will have to live with for the rest of their life's...! ! ! ! !


Obama has nothing to do with this, gun nut.


----------



## Sarah G

Skull Pilot said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> HAYDEN, Idaho — A 2-year-old boy accidentally shot and killed his mother after he reached into her purse at a northern Idaho Wal-Mart and her concealed gun fired, authorities said Tuesday.
> 
> Here is the link to this horrible and preventable accident:
> 
> Authorities 2-year-old boy accidentally shoots and kills mom inside northern Idaho Wal-Mart Star Tribune
> 
> This is very sad, but these final three paragraphs floored me:
> 
> 'Idaho lawmakers passed legislation earlier this year allowing concealed weapons on the state's public college and university campuses.
> 
> "Despite facing opposition from all eight of the state's university college presidents, lawmakers sided with gun rights advocates who said the law would better uphold the Second Amendment.
> 
> "Under the law, gun holders are barred from bringing their weapons into dormitories or buildings that hold more than 1,000 people, such as stadiums or concert halls."
> 
> 
> 
> How much do you remember from when you were 2?
> 
> The kid won't remember it, his peers won't know about it.
> 
> If his family does the right thing and lies to him about how his mother died he'll be just fine
Click to expand...

A lot of people know about it so he will find out eventually but I agree, don't tell him anything until he gets older and begins to ask.  It wasn't his fault.


----------



## Merchant_of_Meh

As harsh as it sounds, she paid the ultimate price for her carelessness. Tragic and sensless stuff.

That's going to be one doozy of a conversation for that kid when he grows up and learns what he did to his mom.


----------



## rightwinger

Figaro said:


> A 2-year-old boy accidentally shot and killed his mother after he reached into her purse at a northern Idaho Wal-Mart and her concealed gun fired, authorities said Tuesday
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2-Year-Old Accidentally Kills His Mom in Wal-Mart - ABC News
> 2 yr old shot mom in front of his 3 siblings...
> Well, can we say stupidity kills this time? I think yes. It`s all about stupid carrying of gun. Do you think we don`t need strict regulation?
Click to expand...

 
A small price to pay for our second amendment rights


----------



## Old Rocks

strollingbones said:


> perhaps using the safety on the gun?


Or better yet, publically hold those whose mishandling of guns result in injury or death responsible. Were we to see some of the parents who mishandle guns spend ten years in the pen for ciminal negligence when their children use those guns, people like that mother might take more care in how she carries that gun. A needless tragedy, the simplest of precautions would have prevented it.


----------



## Old Rocks

WinterBorn said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ban the possession of handguns, period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, who cares that there are over 100 million privately owned handguns in the country and less than 1,000 accidental shooting deaths.   Lets go with the kneejerk reaction, blame the gun, and ban them all.
Click to expand...

But that 1000 accidental shooting deaths are far too many. Rather, let us hold gun owners responsible for what is done with their guns. You leave you gun lying around, a child gets it and harms someone or himself, you get to go to prison on criminal negligence charges. That puts the onus where it belongs, on the irresponsible gun owner. Yet the NRA fights any such laws.


----------



## PratchettFan

Old Rocks said:


> strollingbones said:
> 
> 
> 
> perhaps using the safety on the gun?
> 
> 
> 
> Or better yet, publically hold those whose mishandling of guns result in injury or death responsible. Were we to see some of the parents who mishandle guns spend ten years in the pen for ciminal negligence when their children use those guns, people like that mother might take more care in how she carries that gun. A needless tragedy, the simplest of precautions would have prevented it.
Click to expand...

 
You think we should put the mother in jail?


----------



## PratchettFan

Old Rocks said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ban the possession of handguns, period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, who cares that there are over 100 million privately owned handguns in the country and less than 1,000 accidental shooting deaths.   Lets go with the kneejerk reaction, blame the gun, and ban them all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But that 1000 accidental shooting deaths are far too many. Rather, let us hold gun owners responsible for what is done with their guns. You leave you gun lying around, a child gets it and harms someone or himself, you get to go to prison on criminal negligence charges. That puts the onus where it belongs, on the irresponsible gun owner. Yet the NRA fights any such laws.
Click to expand...

 
How about knives?  Should parents go to jail if their kid cuts themselves?


----------



## Wry Catcher

Gunman said:


> In any case the two year old IS NOT responsible for the Accident ... the Adult IS... and She is DEAD... so she payed the price for Her Mistakes... I'm almost 100% sure that they ARE NOT gonna take the Kid to court... Their are Kids out their with a lot of worse things in their past that they will have to live with.. Just think of what O-bum-a two girls will have to live with for the rest of their life's...! ! ! ! !



On so many levels this post ^^^ should embarrass supporters of Second Amendment Rights and anyone who has even rudimentary knowledge of the Juvenile Justice System and basic psychology.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Wry Catcher said:


> Gunman said:
> 
> 
> 
> In any case the two year old IS NOT responsible for the Accident ... the Adult IS... and She is DEAD... so she payed the price for Her Mistakes... I'm almost 100% sure that they ARE NOT gonna take the Kid to court... Their are Kids out their with a lot of worse things in their past that they will have to live with.. Just think of what O-bum-a two girls will have to live with for the rest of their life's...! ! ! ! !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On so many levels this post ^^^ should embarrass supporters of Second Amendment Rights and anyone who has even rudimentary knowledge of the Juvenile Justice System and basic psychology.
Click to expand...

And what do you know about the developmental psychology of a 2 year old?

This kid will not remember any of this.


----------



## S.J.

Indofred said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid by whose standards, your's?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, fucking yes.
> If I had the slightest thought of that daft bitch having a working brain, I'd consider myself to be an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe you shouldn't be allowed to drive a car because some internet poster thinks you're a moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Given I don't let two year old kids drive my car, they'd probably be wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It would be safer if the two year olds were driving.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps you could expand on that, explaining how you know I'm not a very experienced, well trained driver, and how you know I haven't got more qualifications and training than the vast majority of motorists on the roads anywhere in the world, not to mention, driven in many countries, in a wide variety of vehicles.
> If you try, you'd be wrong.
Click to expand...

I wasn't referring to your driving, I was referring to your logic.  Hopefully you use better judgment when driving.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

News flash: Many states allow women to drive despite the thousands of children killed in car crashes.


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> HAYDEN, Idaho — A 2-year-old boy accidentally shot and killed his mother after he reached into her purse at a northern Idaho Wal-Mart and her concealed gun fired, authorities said Tuesday.
> 
> Here is the link to this horrible and preventable accident:
> 
> Authorities 2-year-old boy accidentally shoots and kills mom inside northern Idaho Wal-Mart Star Tribune
> 
> This is very sad, but these final three paragraphs floored me:
> 
> 'Idaho lawmakers passed legislation earlier this year allowing concealed weapons on the state's public college and university campuses.
> 
> "Despite facing opposition from all eight of the state's university college presidents, lawmakers sided with gun rights advocates who said the law would better uphold the Second Amendment.
> 
> "Under the law, gun holders are barred from bringing their weapons into dormitories or buildings that hold more than 1,000 people, such as stadiums or concert halls."




Yes...and the victims of Virginia tech wish they had been able to carry their legally owned firearms to save their classmates...and themselves....

But sure....let's make sure we have gun free killing zones for mass killers.....


----------



## 2aguy

Indofred said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> so the laws allowing people to have guns in public places have nothing to do with why this happened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Utter crap.
> Allowing idiots to carry guns is exactly what caused this death.
> Luckily, only the idiot was killed.
Click to expand...



That is why we are trying to keep you from carrying a gun.....


----------



## 2aguy

Indofred said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> so the laws allowing people to have guns in public places have nothing to do with why this happened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Utter crap.
> Allowing idiots to carry guns is exactly what caused this death.
> Luckily, only the idiot was killed.
Click to expand...



Assholes like you are why I no longer wait to post about these shootings...you guys never wait to drag the dead to the nearest camera to cry for more pointless, and useless gun control....wading through the blood without a second thought....

So I will post when these things happen....you assholes have never shown decency or restraint....


----------



## 2aguy

Another plane crashed in the ocean.....those things are just flying death machines....they need to be banned...if only one life can be saved....and when they crash they kill hundreds....even children......ban airplanes now....airplane companies know they are building machines that can crash...yet the airline lobby keeps pushing to have these things in the air.......where is the outrage.....

We don't need machines that can fall out of the sky.....horses and buggies were fine for hundreds of years......and killed a lot less people....


----------



## westwall

The child won't have to "live with it" as the child won't have any memory of it.  It is a sad, tragic, and ultimately preventable incident that the anti gun drones will flock to in an effort to create outrage and discord all in a vain attempt to drum up support for their failed gun grabbing attempts.

The facts are that you are far more likely to die from almost anything more than a gun.  The gun grabbers don't try and deal with those issues, they always go after the gun because so long as people are armed they can't force their collectivist nightmare down the throats of the people and that just pisses them off.


----------



## 2aguy

Sarah G said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> No doubt liberals will try to exploit this tragedy to attack the second amendment but the kid could just as well have gotten his hands on the gun at home as in a Walmart store, so the laws allowing people to have guns in public places have nothing to do with why this happened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all.  Let's use the gun nuts' logic -- what was needed here is a good toddler with a gun to stop the bad toddler with a gun.  Clearly we need to arm more toddlers.  What's a little matricide, as long as you get to have your toys?  Priorities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's right, make fun of a tragedy, funny guy.  Are you proud of yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not making fun, it's the exact argument I've heard you gun nuts make over and over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are a bald faced liar. No one has called for arming toddlers or children. In regards children if their parents want to teach them to hunt most of us have no problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You all have never said anything like if there had been a good guy with a gun at some mass shooting, things would have turned out better?
Click to expand...



Yeah...and in mass shootings where a civilian had a gun they stopped the shooter....and 1.6 million times a year they stop violent criminal attacks and save lives......good guys with guns save lives....more lives than bad guys with guns take....


----------



## 2aguy

Indofred said:


> Jeremiah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jeremiah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3600 rapes a day are never attempted because the victims either have a gun
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've heard some really daft claims, but that has to be the worst ever.
> Don't tell me, 4,000 windows weren't broken because there weren't enough stones around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Take it up with the experts.  Those are federal statistics, Fred.  Not my own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ones you seem to be having problems linking to.
Click to expand...



Here is a link....

Okay...again...here are all the studies that actually give numbers for guns used to save lives and stop crimes taken from the table I provided from guncite.com...

GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense 

GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys


The group that did the study is followed by the year and the number of times they found in their research that law abiding, non military, non police citizens used guns to stop violent criminal attack and save lives.....and these aren't even all of the studies or research....

Field...1976...*.3,052,717*

Bordua...1977...*1,414,544*

DMIa 1978..*.2,141,512
DMIb...1978...1,098,409

Hart...1981...1.797,461

Ohio...1982...771,043
Mauser...1990...1,487,342

Gallup...1991...777,153

Gallup...1993...1,621,377
L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,682

Tarrance... 1994... 764,036
And this from the clinton justice department...

DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million

(Subsequent to Kleck's study, the Department of Justice sponsored a survey in 1994 titled, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms (text,PDF). Using a smaller sample size than Kleck's, this survey estimated 1.5 million DGU's annually.)

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..
.(Lawrence Southwick, Jr.,Guns and Justifiable Homicide: Deterrence and Defense-concludes there are at least 400,000 "fewer violent crimes due to civilian self-defense use of guns" and at least "800,000 violent crimes are deterred each year because of gun ownership and use by civilians.")


From Obama's CDC...they spent 10 million dollars in 2013 for this study...

from slate.com an article on CDC obama's era...500-3 million defensive gun uses

Handguns suicides mass shootings deaths and self-defense Findings from a research report on gun violence.

7. Guns are used for self-defense often and effectively. “Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year … in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008,” says the report. The three million figure is probably high, “based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys.”
--------------------

"Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year."
As shown in the previous footnote, this study did not use a nationally representative population. To correct for this, Just Facts used the following equation:



I re ran the numbers with all of the studies and the average number of times guns are used to save lives and stop violent crime each year in the United States is 1.6 million....

8-9,000 gun murders a year vs. 1.6 million times, on average that a non law enforcement, non military, law abiding citizen stops a violent criminal attack or saves a life....

8-9,000 vs. 1.6 million....

Guns save far more lives than they take....even using the lowest numbers from anti gun biased studies.....*


----------



## 2aguy

Skull Pilot said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gunman said:
> 
> 
> 
> In any case the two year old IS NOT responsible for the Accident ... the Adult IS... and She is DEAD... so she payed the price for Her Mistakes... I'm almost 100% sure that they ARE NOT gonna take the Kid to court... Their are Kids out their with a lot of worse things in their past that they will have to live with.. Just think of what O-bum-a two girls will have to live with for the rest of their life's...! ! ! ! !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On so many levels this post ^^^ should embarrass supporters of Second Amendment Rights and anyone who has even rudimentary knowledge of the Juvenile Justice System and basic psychology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And what do you know about the developmental psychology of a 2 year old?
> 
> This kid will not remember any of this.
Click to expand...



He thinks like a 2 year old....they have that in common.....


----------



## Carla_Danger

Jeremiah said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> so the laws allowing people to have guns in public places have nothing to do with why this happened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Utter crap.
> Allowing idiots to carry guns is exactly what caused this death.
> Luckily, only the idiot was killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense.  It was a tragic accident.  When has that ever happened before?  I do not recall any story even close.   It was a freak accident.  Move on with your life.  Your in Indonesia, Fred. Was is it to you whether Americans have a permit to carry concealed weapons?   You should realize the concealed carry permits are here to stay.  This is America.
> 
> It was a terrible accident.  Move on.
Click to expand...



That was not a freak accident, you boob.


----------



## Carla_Danger

Jeremiah said:


> I do not find it stupid.  Citizens with guns prevent thousands of crimes from occurring in the USA every single day!  3600 rapes a day are never attempted because the victims either have a gun or showed a gun according to experts research the statistics on gun owners in America.
> 
> More than 90% of violent crimes in America occur without a gun according to federal statistics.  So when the victim has a firearm?   That is one less violent crime happening.
> 
> The accident was tragic.  But concealed carry for responsible owners is a good thing for America.




Do you have a link showing that 3,600 rapes a day are prevented with guns?


----------



## 2aguy

Carla_Danger said:


> Jeremiah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> so the laws allowing people to have guns in public places have nothing to do with why this happened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Utter crap.
> Allowing idiots to carry guns is exactly what caused this death.
> Luckily, only the idiot was killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense.  It was a tragic accident.  When has that ever happened before?  I do not recall any story even close.   It was a freak accident.  Move on with your life.  Your in Indonesia, Fred. Was is it to you whether Americans have a permit to carry concealed weapons?   You should realize the concealed carry permits are here to stay.  This is America.
> 
> It was a terrible accident.  Move on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That was not a freak accident, you boob.
Click to expand...



It was exactly that....an accident.....


----------



## 2aguy

Here is a nice breakdown of the rapes stopped by a gun ...

 8220 How Many Rapes Are Stopped Each Year By A Gun 8221 Extrano s Alley a gun blog

Someone stopped by searching for “how many rapes are stopped each year by a gun.”

Let me rephrase that a bit, for clarity. If we made the question “How many intended rapes are never carried through because the potential victim may have a gun,” we can start trying to find some actual numbers to break down.

Conventionally, there are about 1,800 rapes a day in the United States, and as little as one in ten is reported to the police.

Other sources peg the number of forcible rapes at just over one a minute, or 425,000 forcible rapes a year.

On the other hand, the National Crime Victimization Poll indicates a total of 188,960 completed rapes, with a reporting rate of 12.5% for 2006, the latest numbers available.

Of course, those numbers are not “official.” The official numbers are the numbers from the FBI Uniform Crime Report. For 2010, the FBI had a total of 84,757 rapes, 232 rapes a day, reported to the police.

If we accept the NCV poll’s 12.5% reporting rate, that would be 678,000 rapes a year. So we have a fine muddle, with between 85,000 and 1,800,000 rapes occurring each year. So what’s the true number.

*The latest independent crime victims polls estimate that 512,000 rapes occur each year, 1,400 a day, and just under 17% are reported to the police. That agrees with the FBI numbers, so I will go with 512,000 rapes, with 17% or one in six reported to the police.*

With the magnitude of the problem established:

*In the early 1990’s a study concluded that 650 rapes a day were stopped because the victim was – or may have been – armed. But the number of women who carry, and the number of homes with guns, is much higher now.*

*The latest prisoners surveys estimate that 3,600 rapes a day are never attempted because the victim either showed a gun, said she had a gun, or the rapist though the victim had a gun for some other reason.*

*So one way or the other, guns prevent 3,600 rapes a day, or more than 1.3 million rapes a year.*

That is an enormous amount of human misery prevented by the mere presence of a gun.


----------



## Carla_Danger

Billc said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jeremiah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> so the laws allowing people to have guns in public places have nothing to do with why this happened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Utter crap.
> Allowing idiots to carry guns is exactly what caused this death.
> Luckily, only the idiot was killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense.  It was a tragic accident.  When has that ever happened before?  I do not recall any story even close.   It was a freak accident.  Move on with your life.  Your in Indonesia, Fred. Was is it to you whether Americans have a permit to carry concealed weapons?   You should realize the concealed carry permits are here to stay.  This is America.
> 
> It was a terrible accident.  Move on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That was not a freak accident, you boob.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It was exactly that....an accident.....
Click to expand...



But not a freak accident.  A freak accident is when you get hit in the face by a duck while riding on a roller coaster.

This woman had a gun in her purse.  Toddlers get into their mom's purses all the time. 

It was stupidity and negligence.


----------



## Carla_Danger

Billc said:


> Here is a nice breakdown of the rapes stopped by a gun ...
> 
> 8220 How Many Rapes Are Stopped Each Year By A Gun 8221 Extrano s Alley a gun blog
> 
> Someone stopped by searching for “how many rapes are stopped each year by a gun.”
> 
> Let me rephrase that a bit, for clarity. If we made the question “How many intended rapes are never carried through because the potential victim may have a gun,” we can start trying to find some actual numbers to break down.
> 
> Conventionally, there are about 1,800 rapes a day in the United States, and as little as one in ten is reported to the police.
> 
> Other sources peg the number of forcible rapes at just over one a minute, or 425,000 forcible rapes a year.
> 
> On the other hand, the National Crime Victimization Poll indicates a total of 188,960 completed rapes, with a reporting rate of 12.5% for 2006, the latest numbers available.
> 
> Of course, those numbers are not “official.” The official numbers are the numbers from the FBI Uniform Crime Report. For 2010, the FBI had a total of 84,757 rapes, 232 rapes a day, reported to the police.
> 
> If we accept the NCV poll’s 12.5% reporting rate, that would be 678,000 rapes a year. So we have a fine muddle, with between 85,000 and 1,800,000 rapes occurring each year. So what’s the true number.
> 
> *The latest independent crime victims polls estimate that 512,000 rapes occur each year, 1,400 a day, and just under 17% are reported to the police. That agrees with the FBI numbers, so I will go with 512,000 rapes, with 17% or one in six reported to the police.*
> 
> With the magnitude of the problem established:
> 
> *In the early 1990’s a study concluded that 650 rapes a day were stopped because the victim was – or may have been – armed. But the number of women who carry, and the number of homes with guns, is much higher now.*
> 
> *The latest prisoners surveys estimate that 3,600 rapes a day are never attempted because the victim either showed a gun, said she had a gun, or the rapist though the victim had a gun for some other reason.*
> 
> *So one way or the other, guns prevent 3,600 rapes a day, or more than 1.3 million rapes a year.*
> 
> That is an enormous amount of human misery prevented by the mere presence of a gun.




I guess I should have asked for a credible source.  My bad.


----------



## Dante

*How does a child live with this? *



Wry Catcher said:


> HAYDEN, Idaho — A 2-year-old boy accidentally shot and killed his mother...
> 
> ...



easy. children adapt better then adults do


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Carla_Danger said:


> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a nice breakdown of the rapes stopped by a gun ...
> 
> 8220 How Many Rapes Are Stopped Each Year By A Gun 8221 Extrano s Alley a gun blog
> 
> Someone stopped by searching for “how many rapes are stopped each year by a gun.”
> 
> Let me rephrase that a bit, for clarity. If we made the question “How many intended rapes are never carried through because the potential victim may have a gun,” we can start trying to find some actual numbers to break down.
> 
> Conventionally, there are about 1,800 rapes a day in the United States, and as little as one in ten is reported to the police.
> 
> Other sources peg the number of forcible rapes at just over one a minute, or 425,000 forcible rapes a year.
> 
> On the other hand, the National Crime Victimization Poll indicates a total of 188,960 completed rapes, with a reporting rate of 12.5% for 2006, the latest numbers available.
> 
> Of course, those numbers are not “official.” The official numbers are the numbers from the FBI Uniform Crime Report. For 2010, the FBI had a total of 84,757 rapes, 232 rapes a day, reported to the police.
> 
> If we accept the NCV poll’s 12.5% reporting rate, that would be 678,000 rapes a year. So we have a fine muddle, with between 85,000 and 1,800,000 rapes occurring each year. So what’s the true number.
> 
> *The latest independent crime victims polls estimate that 512,000 rapes occur each year, 1,400 a day, and just under 17% are reported to the police. That agrees with the FBI numbers, so I will go with 512,000 rapes, with 17% or one in six reported to the police.*
> 
> With the magnitude of the problem established:
> 
> *In the early 1990’s a study concluded that 650 rapes a day were stopped because the victim was – or may have been – armed. But the number of women who carry, and the number of homes with guns, is much higher now.*
> 
> *The latest prisoners surveys estimate that 3,600 rapes a day are never attempted because the victim either showed a gun, said she had a gun, or the rapist though the victim had a gun for some other reason.*
> 
> *So one way or the other, guns prevent 3,600 rapes a day, or more than 1.3 million rapes a year.*
> 
> That is an enormous amount of human misery prevented by the mere presence of a gun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess I should have asked for a credible source.  My bad.
Click to expand...

So you disagree with how many unreported rapes there are, right? According to you if they are not reported they did not happen.


----------



## Pogo

westwall said:


> The child won't have to "live with it" as the child won't have any memory of it.  It is a sad, tragic, and ultimately preventable incident that the anti gun drones will flock to in an effort to create outrage and discord all in a vain attempt to drum up support for their failed gun grabbing attempts.
> 
> The facts are that you are far more likely to die from almost anything more than a gun.  The gun grabbers don't try and deal with those issues, they always go after the gun because so long as people are armed they can't force their collectivist nightmare down the throats of the people and that just pisses them off.



Oh come ON...

A two-year old toddler, who's by definition dependent on and bonded with its mother, isn't going to have questions about where she went?  Certainly it's too young to comprehend what exactly went down (besides her).  That isn't the point.  The question of "guilt" didn't even occur to me -- of course it's not the child's fault.  Not the point.  That will have to be explained, and not explaining it or lying about it is probably worse than never addressing it.  Still not the point.

The point is that child is going to have to wonder what kind of fucked up world has it been brought into that walks around with a loaded gun in its purse.  As should we all.

You gun fetishists can see only down the barrel of your own fetish object.  Your ultimate concern seems to be, "oh that's a tragedy, but the question is -- how is this gonna affect Numero Uno?"


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Pogo said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The child won't have to "live with it" as the child won't have any memory of it.  It is a sad, tragic, and ultimately preventable incident that the anti gun drones will flock to in an effort to create outrage and discord all in a vain attempt to drum up support for their failed gun grabbing attempts.
> 
> The facts are that you are far more likely to die from almost anything more than a gun.  The gun grabbers don't try and deal with those issues, they always go after the gun because so long as people are armed they can't force their collectivist nightmare down the throats of the people and that just pisses them off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh come ON...
> 
> A two-year old toddler, who's by definition dependent on and bonded with its mother, isn't going to have questions about where she went?  Certainly it's too young to comprehend what exactly went down (besides her).  That isn't the point.  The question of "guilt" didn't even occur to me -- of course it's not the child's fault.  Not the point.  That will have to be explained, and not explaining it or lying about it is probably worse than never addressing it.  Still not the point.
> 
> The point is that child is going to have to wonder what kind of fucked up world has it been brought into that walks around with a loaded gun in its purse.  As should we all.
> 
> You gun fetishists can see only down the barrel of your own fetish object.  Your ultimate concern seems to be, "oh that's a tragedy, but the question is -- how is this gonna affect Numero Uno?"
Click to expand...

And again I repeat, you don't like our rights? Change the Constitution.


----------



## Pogo

RetiredGySgt said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The child won't have to "live with it" as the child won't have any memory of it.  It is a sad, tragic, and ultimately preventable incident that the anti gun drones will flock to in an effort to create outrage and discord all in a vain attempt to drum up support for their failed gun grabbing attempts.
> 
> The facts are that you are far more likely to die from almost anything more than a gun.  The gun grabbers don't try and deal with those issues, they always go after the gun because so long as people are armed they can't force their collectivist nightmare down the throats of the people and that just pisses them off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh come ON...
> 
> A two-year old toddler, who's by definition dependent on and bonded with its mother, isn't going to have questions about where she went?  Certainly it's too young to comprehend what exactly went down (besides her).  That isn't the point.  The question of "guilt" didn't even occur to me -- of course it's not the child's fault.  Not the point.  That will have to be explained, and not explaining it or lying about it is probably worse than never addressing it.  Still not the point.
> 
> The point is that child is going to have to wonder what kind of fucked up world has it been brought into that walks around with a loaded gun in its purse.  As should we all.
> 
> You gun fetishists can see only down the barrel of your own fetish object.  Your ultimate concern seems to be, "oh that's a tragedy, but the question is -- how is this gonna affect Numero Uno?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And again I repeat, you don't like our rights? Change the Constitution.
Click to expand...


Wanna quote where I said jack shit about anyone's "rights"?

Didn't think so.

Go git chew a remedial reading course.


----------



## rdean

Wry Catcher said:


> HAYDEN, Idaho — A 2-year-old boy accidentally shot and killed his mother after he reached into her purse at a northern Idaho Wal-Mart and her concealed gun fired, authorities said Tuesday.
> 
> Here is the link to this horrible and preventable accident:
> 
> Authorities 2-year-old boy accidentally shoots and kills mom inside northern Idaho Wal-Mart Star Tribune
> 
> This is very sad, but these final three paragraphs floored me:
> 
> 'Idaho lawmakers passed legislation earlier this year allowing concealed weapons on the state's public college and university campuses.
> 
> "Despite facing opposition from all eight of the state's university college presidents, lawmakers sided with gun rights advocates who said the law would better uphold the Second Amendment.
> 
> "Under the law, gun holders are barred from bringing their weapons into dormitories or buildings that hold more than 1,000 people, such as stadiums or concert halls."


Come on.  It's in a Red State.  Republicans worship at the alter of the Church of the Heartless Bastard.  They don't care when stuff like that happens.  In fact, I suspect more than a few hide a small grin.  They think snickering at stuff like that is "manly" and being upset is sissy.


----------



## OnePercenter

S.J. said:


> No doubt liberals will try to exploit this tragedy to attack the second amendment but the kid could just as well have gotten his hands on the gun at home as in a Walmart store, so the laws allowing people to have guns in public places have nothing to do with why this happened.



Intelligence hasn't caught up with the second amendment.


----------



## OnePercenter

I wonder if Walmart is going to pay their employees while the store is closed due to the lack of intelligence of this Mother.


----------



## S.J.

OnePercenter said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> No doubt liberals will try to exploit this tragedy to attack the second amendment but the kid could just as well have gotten his hands on the gun at home as in a Walmart store, so the laws allowing people to have guns in public places have nothing to do with why this happened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intelligence hasn't caught up with the second amendment.
Click to expand...

Because you're so much smarter than the founding fathers, right?


----------



## OnePercenter

S.J. said:


> Because you're so much smarter than the founding fathers, right?



As a gun owner I believe in the second amendment.  I don't believe that everyone is intelligent enough to own a firearm. To believe so is ignorance at it's best.


----------



## OnePercenter

S.J. said:


> That's right, make fun of a tragedy, funny guy.  Are you proud of yourself?



It's the stupidity that caused the tragedy.


----------



## S.J.

OnePercenter said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because you're so much smarter than the founding fathers, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a gun owner I believe in the second amendment.  I don't believe that everyone is intelligent enough to own a firearm. To believe so is ignorance at it's best.
Click to expand...

Not everyone is intelligent enough to drive a care either but that's just something we have to live with in a free society.


----------



## S.J.

OnePercenter said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's right, make fun of a tragedy, funny guy.  Are you proud of yourself?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's the stupidity that caused the tragedy.
Click to expand...

That's true, and it's stupidity that caused pogo to laugh about it.


----------



## OnePercenter

S.J. said:


> Not everyone is intelligent enough to drive a care either but that's just something we have to live with in a free society.



That's why there is liability insurance and laws requiring insurance. Since you agree that 'Not everyone is intelligent'; should gun owners be required to carry insurance?


----------



## S.J.

OnePercenter said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not everyone is intelligent enough to drive a care either but that's just something we have to live with in a free society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's why there is liability insurance and laws requiring insurance. Since you agree that 'Not everyone is intelligent'; should gun owners be required to carry insurance?
Click to expand...

No, because self defense is a right, not a privilege, like driving.


----------



## Pogo

S.J. said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's right, make fun of a tragedy, funny guy.  Are you proud of yourself?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's the stupidity that caused the tragedy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's true, and it's stupidity that caused pogo to laugh about it.
Click to expand...


There's nothing "laughable" about this.  Perhaps you and RGS could get a package deal on that reading course.


----------



## OnePercenter

S.J. said:


> No, because self defense is a right, not a privilege, like driving.



You're the one that tied gun ownership with driving.


----------



## OnePercenter

Pogo said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's right, make fun of a tragedy, funny guy.  Are you proud of yourself?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's the stupidity that caused the tragedy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's true, and it's stupidity that caused pogo to laugh about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's nothing "laughable" about this.  Perhaps you and RGS could get a package deal on that reading course.
Click to expand...


The stupidity is laughable.


----------



## S.J.

OnePercenter said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, because self defense is a right, not a privilege, like driving.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one that tied gun ownership with driving.
Click to expand...

No I didn't, idiot.  Go back and read it again.  Damn, you're stupid!


Pogo said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's right, make fun of a tragedy, funny guy.  Are you proud of yourself?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's the stupidity that caused the tragedy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's true, and it's stupidity that caused pogo to laugh about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's nothing "laughable" about this.  Perhaps you and RGS could get a package deal on that reading course.
Click to expand...

You were making light of it, you POS.  Own up to your disgusting behavior.


----------



## OnePercenter

S.J. said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, because self defense is a right, not a privilege, like driving.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one that tied gun ownership with driving.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No I didn't, idiot.  Go back and read it again.  Damn, you're stupid!
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's right, make fun of a tragedy, funny guy.  Are you proud of yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's the stupidity that caused the tragedy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's true, and it's stupidity that caused pogo to laugh about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's nothing "laughable" about this.  Perhaps you and RGS could get a package deal on that reading course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You were making light of it, you POS.  Own up to your disgusting behavior.
Click to expand...


How does a child live with this?


----------



## S.J.

OnePercenter said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, because self defense is a right, not a privilege, like driving.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *You're the one that tied gun ownership with driving.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No I didn't, idiot.  Go back and read it again.  Damn, you're stupid!
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's right, make fun of a tragedy, funny guy.  Are you proud of yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's the stupidity that caused the tragedy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's true, and it's stupidity that caused pogo to laugh about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's nothing "laughable" about this.  Perhaps you and RGS could get a package deal on that reading course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You were making light of it, you POS.  Own up to your disgusting behavior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does a child live with this?
Click to expand...

As the post clearly shows, I wasn't saying they are the same thing, stupid.  You're not too good at reading comprehension, are you?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Pogo said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The child won't have to "live with it" as the child won't have any memory of it.  It is a sad, tragic, and ultimately preventable incident that the anti gun drones will flock to in an effort to create outrage and discord all in a vain attempt to drum up support for their failed gun grabbing attempts.
> 
> The facts are that you are far more likely to die from almost anything more than a gun.  The gun grabbers don't try and deal with those issues, they always go after the gun because so long as people are armed they can't force their collectivist nightmare down the throats of the people and that just pisses them off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh come ON...
> 
> A two-year old toddler, who's by definition dependent on and bonded with its mother, isn't going to have questions about where she went?  Certainly it's too young to comprehend what exactly went down (besides her).  That isn't the point.  The question of "guilt" didn't even occur to me -- of course it's not the child's fault.  Not the point.  That will have to be explained, and not explaining it or lying about it is probably worse than never addressing it.  Still not the point.
> 
> The point is that child is going to have to wonder what kind of fucked up world has it been brought into that walks around with a loaded gun in its purse.  As should we all.
> 
> You gun fetishists can see only down the barrel of your own fetish object.  Your ultimate concern seems to be, "oh that's a tragedy, but the question is -- how is this gonna affect Numero Uno?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And again I repeat, you don't like our rights? Change the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wanna quote where I said jack shit about anyone's "rights"?
> 
> Didn't think so.
> 
> Go git chew a remedial reading course.
Click to expand...


And of course you support the 2nd Amendment, the right to be armed openly and concealed carry.


----------



## westwall

Pogo said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The child won't have to "live with it" as the child won't have any memory of it.  It is a sad, tragic, and ultimately preventable incident that the anti gun drones will flock to in an effort to create outrage and discord all in a vain attempt to drum up support for their failed gun grabbing attempts.
> 
> The facts are that you are far more likely to die from almost anything more than a gun.  The gun grabbers don't try and deal with those issues, they always go after the gun because so long as people are armed they can't force their collectivist nightmare down the throats of the people and that just pisses them off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh come ON...
> 
> A two-year old toddler, who's by definition dependent on and bonded with its mother, isn't going to have questions about where she went?  Certainly it's too young to comprehend what exactly went down (besides her).  That isn't the point.  The question of "guilt" didn't even occur to me -- of course it's not the child's fault.  Not the point.  That will have to be explained, and not explaining it or lying about it is probably worse than never addressing it.  Still not the point.
> 
> The point is that child is going to have to wonder what kind of fucked up world has it been brought into that walks around with a loaded gun in its purse.  As should we all.
> 
> You gun fetishists can see only down the barrel of your own fetish object.  Your ultimate concern seems to be, "oh that's a tragedy, but the question is -- how is this gonna affect Numero Uno?"
Click to expand...





No, she won't.  After a year has passed she will no longer have a memory of her.  When she's older and she finds out what happened, then she might have feelings.  But not until then.


----------



## Indofred

Billc said:


> It was exactly that....an accident.....



No, it was a moron with a gun, but without a clue.
Actually, her death turns out to be a good thing.
She appears to have worked in the nuclear industry; imaging the careless bitch making a mistake at work.


----------



## Carla_Danger

westwall said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The child won't have to "live with it" as the child won't have any memory of it.  It is a sad, tragic, and ultimately preventable incident that the anti gun drones will flock to in an effort to create outrage and discord all in a vain attempt to drum up support for their failed gun grabbing attempts.
> 
> The facts are that you are far more likely to die from almost anything more than a gun.  The gun grabbers don't try and deal with those issues, they always go after the gun because so long as people are armed they can't force their collectivist nightmare down the throats of the people and that just pisses them off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh come ON...
> 
> A two-year old toddler, who's by definition dependent on and bonded with its mother, isn't going to have questions about where she went?  Certainly it's too young to comprehend what exactly went down (besides her).  That isn't the point.  The question of "guilt" didn't even occur to me -- of course it's not the child's fault.  Not the point.  That will have to be explained, and not explaining it or lying about it is probably worse than never addressing it.  Still not the point.
> 
> The point is that child is going to have to wonder what kind of fucked up world has it been brought into that walks around with a loaded gun in its purse.  As should we all.
> 
> You gun fetishists can see only down the barrel of your own fetish object.  Your ultimate concern seems to be, "oh that's a tragedy, but the question is -- how is this gonna affect Numero Uno?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, she won't.  After a year has passed she will no longer have a memory of her.  When she's older and she finds out what happened, then she might have feelings.  But not until then.
Click to expand...



That's ridiculous. A toddler losing a parent is a very traumatic event, on so many levels.


----------



## westwall

Carla_Danger said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The child won't have to "live with it" as the child won't have any memory of it.  It is a sad, tragic, and ultimately preventable incident that the anti gun drones will flock to in an effort to create outrage and discord all in a vain attempt to drum up support for their failed gun grabbing attempts.
> 
> The facts are that you are far more likely to die from almost anything more than a gun.  The gun grabbers don't try and deal with those issues, they always go after the gun because so long as people are armed they can't force their collectivist nightmare down the throats of the people and that just pisses them off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh come ON...
> 
> A two-year old toddler, who's by definition dependent on and bonded with its mother, isn't going to have questions about where she went?  Certainly it's too young to comprehend what exactly went down (besides her).  That isn't the point.  The question of "guilt" didn't even occur to me -- of course it's not the child's fault.  Not the point.  That will have to be explained, and not explaining it or lying about it is probably worse than never addressing it.  Still not the point.
> 
> The point is that child is going to have to wonder what kind of fucked up world has it been brought into that walks around with a loaded gun in its purse.  As should we all.
> 
> You gun fetishists can see only down the barrel of your own fetish object.  Your ultimate concern seems to be, "oh that's a tragedy, but the question is -- how is this gonna affect Numero Uno?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, she won't.  After a year has passed she will no longer have a memory of her.  When she's older and she finds out what happened, then she might have feelings.  But not until then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's ridiculous. A toddler losing a parent is a very traumatic event, on so many levels.
Click to expand...





I have an eight year old girl.  She has no memory of ANYTHING that happened when she was two.  She has peripheral memories of events when she was three.  That is normal for children.


----------



## Carla_Danger

westwall said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The child won't have to "live with it" as the child won't have any memory of it.  It is a sad, tragic, and ultimately preventable incident that the anti gun drones will flock to in an effort to create outrage and discord all in a vain attempt to drum up support for their failed gun grabbing attempts.
> 
> The facts are that you are far more likely to die from almost anything more than a gun.  The gun grabbers don't try and deal with those issues, they always go after the gun because so long as people are armed they can't force their collectivist nightmare down the throats of the people and that just pisses them off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh come ON...
> 
> A two-year old toddler, who's by definition dependent on and bonded with its mother, isn't going to have questions about where she went?  Certainly it's too young to comprehend what exactly went down (besides her).  That isn't the point.  The question of "guilt" didn't even occur to me -- of course it's not the child's fault.  Not the point.  That will have to be explained, and not explaining it or lying about it is probably worse than never addressing it.  Still not the point.
> 
> The point is that child is going to have to wonder what kind of fucked up world has it been brought into that walks around with a loaded gun in its purse.  As should we all.
> 
> You gun fetishists can see only down the barrel of your own fetish object.  Your ultimate concern seems to be, "oh that's a tragedy, but the question is -- how is this gonna affect Numero Uno?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, she won't.  After a year has passed she will no longer have a memory of her.  When she's older and she finds out what happened, then she might have feelings.  But not until then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's ridiculous. A toddler losing a parent is a very traumatic event, on so many levels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have an eight year old girl.  She has no memory of ANYTHING that happened when she was two.  She has peripheral memories of events when she was three.  That is normal for children.
Click to expand...



Children and toddlers that lose parents still have psychological issues even though they may have no memory of losing the parent.


----------



## Pogo

westwall said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The child won't have to "live with it" as the child won't have any memory of it.  It is a sad, tragic, and ultimately preventable incident that the anti gun drones will flock to in an effort to create outrage and discord all in a vain attempt to drum up support for their failed gun grabbing attempts.
> 
> The facts are that you are far more likely to die from almost anything more than a gun.  The gun grabbers don't try and deal with those issues, they always go after the gun because so long as people are armed they can't force their collectivist nightmare down the throats of the people and that just pisses them off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh come ON...
> 
> A two-year old toddler, who's by definition dependent on and bonded with its mother, isn't going to have questions about where she went?  Certainly it's too young to comprehend what exactly went down (besides her).  That isn't the point.  The question of "guilt" didn't even occur to me -- of course it's not the child's fault.  Not the point.  That will have to be explained, and not explaining it or lying about it is probably worse than never addressing it.  Still not the point.
> 
> The point is that child is going to have to wonder what kind of fucked up world has it been brought into that walks around with a loaded gun in its purse.  As should we all.
> 
> You gun fetishists can see only down the barrel of your own fetish object.  Your ultimate concern seems to be, "oh that's a tragedy, but the question is -- how is this gonna affect Numero Uno?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, she won't.  After a year has passed she will no longer have a memory of her.  When she's older and she finds out what happened, then she might have feelings.  But not until then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's ridiculous. A toddler losing a parent is a very traumatic event, on so many levels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have an eight year old girl.  She has no memory of ANYTHING that happened when she was two.  She has peripheral memories of events when she was three.  That is normal for children.
Click to expand...


Don't think so.  I think this event is now etched in that child's mind forever.  Even though too young to comprehend what happened or why, it cannot not have noticed (a) the extreme loud bang, for an immediate thing; (b) the fact that everybody around went into panic mode; (c) the fact that everything in its life just changed.  Those cannot be ignored.


----------



## Carla_Danger

There's no telling what this child will have to suffer through if there isn't enough support from other family members.


----------



## Gunman

Was going around the internet where a DOG knocked a gun over and Killer his Owner... But How dose the Dod Feel...? ? ? and the man is still Dead...! ! !


----------



## Gunman

O-Yes it's 12:20 TEXAS Time---- Happy New Years Yall....


----------



## DigitalDrifter

By the way, hopefully no one calls her "stupid", since she was a nuclear scientist.


----------



## Politico

Pogo said:


> Don't think so.  I think this event is now etched in that child's mind forever.  Even though too young to comprehend what happened or why, it cannot not have noticed (a) the extreme loud bang, for an immediate thing; (b) the fact that everybody around went into panic mode; (c) the fact that everything in its life just changed.  Those cannot be ignored.


At two it is etched as much as what they had for dinner last night.


----------



## JoeB131

S.J. said:


> No doubt liberals will try to exploit this tragedy to attack the second amendment but the kid could just as well have gotten his hands on the gun at home as in a Walmart store, so the laws allowing people to have guns in public places have nothing to do with why this happened.



I think you missed the point.  the fact is, she had that gun because people like you have her SOOOOO terrified of the scary negro she thinks is going to rape her out in the middle of Idaho that she carried a gun in her purse while trying to manage four kids in a Wal-Mart. 

And one of them shot her.  

Hey, the NRA should name that kid "Young Gun Patriot of the Year"!


----------



## 2aguy

Joe...your violent attitude toward minorities needs to be addressed....get some help.....


----------



## OnePercenter

S.J. said:


> As the post clearly shows, I wasn't saying they are the same thing, stupid.  You're not too good at reading comprehension, are you?



You stated; 'Not everyone is intelligent enough to drive a care either but that's just something we have to live with in a free society.'

I stated (since you've tied gun ownership with driving) 'That's why there is liability insurance and laws requiring insurance. Since you agree that 'Not everyone is intelligent'; should gun owners be required to carry insurance?'


----------



## OnePercenter

S.J. said:


> No, because self defense is a right, not a privilege, like driving.



If you break the rules don't you loose one or both?


----------



## 2aguy

you loose them when you break the law...not before....so sure....if someone commits,a crime and becomes a felon...no guns....


----------



## 2aguy

OnePercenter said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> As the post clearly shows, I wasn't saying they are the same thing, stupid.  You're not too good at reading comprehension, are you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You stated; 'Not everyone is intelligent enough to drive a care either but that's just something we have to live with in a free society.'
> 
> I stated (since you've tied gun ownership with driving) 'That's why there is liability insurance and laws requiring insurance. Since you agree that 'Not everyone is intelligent'; should gun owners be required to carry insurance?'
Click to expand...



sure...if insurance was free...but since it costs money...that would be like a poll tax to vote...since the 2nd amendment is a right.....


----------



## S.J.

OnePercenter said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> As the post clearly shows, I wasn't saying they are the same thing, stupid.  You're not too good at reading comprehension, are you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You stated; 'Not everyone is intelligent enough to drive a care either but that's just something we have to live with in a free society.'
> 
> I stated (since you've tied gun ownership with driving) 'That's why there is liability insurance and laws requiring insurance. Since you agree that 'Not everyone is intelligent'; should gun owners be required to carry insurance?'
Click to expand...

You still don't get it, do you?  I used driving as an example of one of many things unintelligent people are allowed to do.  I also believe I pointed out that gun ownership is a right, not a privilege (like driving and many other things).  You can take away somebody's right to drive a car (or do other things) because that's not a right.  I think you know what I'm conveying but you need to muddy the waters to avoid admitting you're wrong.


----------



## OnePercenter

RetiredGySgt said:


> And of course you support the 2nd Amendment, the right to be armed openly and concealed carry.



I support the 2nd Amendment but I don't think everyone should be able to possess a gun, such as those leaving a loaded handgun within reach of a child.


----------



## OnePercenter

S.J. said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> As the post clearly shows, I wasn't saying they are the same thing, stupid.  You're not too good at reading comprehension, are you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You stated; 'Not everyone is intelligent enough to drive a care either but that's just something we have to live with in a free society.'
> 
> I stated (since you've tied gun ownership with driving) 'That's why there is liability insurance and laws requiring insurance. Since you agree that 'Not everyone is intelligent'; should gun owners be required to carry insurance?'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You still don't get it, do you?  I used driving as an example of one of many things unintelligent people are allowed to do.  I also believe I pointed out that gun ownership is a right, not a privilege (like driving and many other things).  You can take away somebody's right to drive a car (or do other things) because that's not a right.  I think you know what I'm conveying but you need to muddy the waters to avoid admitting you're wrong.
Click to expand...


You've tied driving and gun ownership. Now answer the insurance question.


----------



## 2aguy

OnePercenter said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> As the post clearly shows, I wasn't saying they are the same thing, stupid.  You're not too good at reading comprehension, are you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You stated; 'Not everyone is intelligent enough to drive a care either but that's just something we have to live with in a free society.'
> 
> I stated (since you've tied gun ownership with driving) 'That's why there is liability insurance and laws requiring insurance. Since you agree that 'Not everyone is intelligent'; should gun owners be required to carry insurance?'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You still don't get it, do you?  I used driving as an example of one of many things unintelligent people are allowed to do.  I also believe I pointed out that gun ownership is a right, not a privilege (like driving and many other things).  You can take away somebody's right to drive a car (or do other things) because that's not a right.  I think you know what I'm conveying but you need to muddy the waters to avoid admitting you're wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've tied driving and gun ownership. Now answer the insurance question.
Click to expand...



I know I answered it....if you believe in poll taxes then you would believe in requiring people to pay for their right to self defense....in an effort to keep them from exercising that right....


----------



## OnePercenter

Billc said:


> sure...if insurance was free...but since it costs money...that would be like a poll tax to vote...since the 2nd amendment is a right.....



Wouldn't free insurance be costly for those 'poor' insurance companies? 

Since the 2nd amendment was written well before cars, shouldn't we add cars to it?


----------



## 2aguy

OnePercenter said:


> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> sure...if insurance was free...but since it costs money...that would be like a poll tax to vote...since the 2nd amendment is a right.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't free insurance be costly for those 'poor' insurance companies?
> 
> Since the 2nd amendment was written well before cars, shouldn't we add cars to it?
Click to expand...



They had horses and coaches back then.....so that doesn't fly.....

Yes, free insurance is impossible so you can't require it because that would prevent the exercise of a right....


----------



## OnePercenter

Billc said:


> I know I answered it....if you believe in poll taxes then you would believe in requiring people to pay for their right to self defense....in an effort to keep them from exercising that right....



So you do believe the the United States Constitution is severely out-of-date.


----------



## OnePercenter

Billc said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> sure...if insurance was free...but since it costs money...that would be like a poll tax to vote...since the 2nd amendment is a right.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't free insurance be costly for those 'poor' insurance companies?
> 
> Since the 2nd amendment was written well before cars, shouldn't we add cars to it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They had horses and coaches back then.....so that doesn't fly.....
> 
> Yes, free insurance is impossible so you can't require it because that would prevent the exercise of a right....
Click to expand...


Again, So you do believe the the United States Constitution is severely out-of-date.


----------



## 2aguy

OnePercenter said:


> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> sure...if insurance was free...but since it costs money...that would be like a poll tax to vote...since the 2nd amendment is a right.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't free insurance be costly for those 'poor' insurance companies?
> 
> Since the 2nd amendment was written well before cars, shouldn't we add cars to it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They had horses and coaches back then.....so that doesn't fly.....
> 
> Yes, free insurance is impossible so you can't require it because that would prevent the exercise of a right....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, So you do believe the the United States Constitution is severely out-of-date.
Click to expand...



Me....absolutely not....I think the Constitution is a miracle document....as is the Bill of Rights....I'm not the one advocating for limiting a right....


----------



## RetiredGySgt

OnePercenter said:


> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> sure...if insurance was free...but since it costs money...that would be like a poll tax to vote...since the 2nd amendment is a right.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't free insurance be costly for those 'poor' insurance companies?
> 
> Since the 2nd amendment was written well before cars, shouldn't we add cars to it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They had horses and coaches back then.....so that doesn't fly.....
> 
> Yes, free insurance is impossible so you can't require it because that would prevent the exercise of a right....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, So you do believe the the United States Constitution is severely out-of-date.
Click to expand...

Since you OBVIOUSLY are to stupid to understand what has already been pointed out to you, lets try one more time....

The Government can not force you to pay to exercise a right. The 2nd Amendment is a right. Voting in and of itself is not a right but the categories of who is eligible to vote is. And one can not have a poll tax on voting. Get the point yet MORON?


----------



## S.J.

RetiredGySgt said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> sure...if insurance was free...but since it costs money...that would be like a poll tax to vote...since the 2nd amendment is a right.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't free insurance be costly for those 'poor' insurance companies?
> 
> Since the 2nd amendment was written well before cars, shouldn't we add cars to it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They had horses and coaches back then.....so that doesn't fly.....
> 
> Yes, free insurance is impossible so you can't require it because that would prevent the exercise of a right....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, So you do believe the the United States Constitution is severely out-of-date.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since you OBVIOUSLY are to stupid to understand what has already been pointed out to you, lets try one more time....
> 
> The Government can not force you to pay to exercise a right. The 2nd Amendment is a right. Voting in and of itself is not a right but the categories of who is eligible to vote is. And one can not have a poll tax on voting. Get the point yet MORON?
Click to expand...

One Percenter knows what we're all saying, he/she cannot refute it, so he/she has to keep throwing out red herrings and pretending they are legitimate arguments.  Call it pride, I guess.


----------



## 2aguy

S.J. said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> sure...if insurance was free...but since it costs money...that would be like a poll tax to vote...since the 2nd amendment is a right.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't free insurance be costly for those 'poor' insurance companies?
> 
> Since the 2nd amendment was written well before cars, shouldn't we add cars to it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They had horses and coaches back then.....so that doesn't fly.....
> 
> Yes, free insurance is impossible so you can't require it because that would prevent the exercise of a right....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, So you do believe the the United States Constitution is severely out-of-date.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since you OBVIOUSLY are to stupid to understand what has already been pointed out to you, lets try one more time....
> 
> The Government can not force you to pay to exercise a right. The 2nd Amendment is a right. Voting in and of itself is not a right but the categories of who is eligible to vote is. And one can not have a poll tax on voting. Get the point yet MORON?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One Percenter knows what we're all saying, he/she cannot refute it, so he/she has to keep throwing out red herrings and pretending they are legitimate arguments.  Call it pride, I guess.
Click to expand...



call it genetically based liberal dishonesty......to be accurate....and fair....


----------



## OnePercenter

RetiredGySgt said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> sure...if insurance was free...but since it costs money...that would be like a poll tax to vote...since the 2nd amendment is a right.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't free insurance be costly for those 'poor' insurance companies?
> 
> Since the 2nd amendment was written well before cars, shouldn't we add cars to it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They had horses and coaches back then.....so that doesn't fly.....
> 
> Yes, free insurance is impossible so you can't require it because that would prevent the exercise of a right....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, So you do believe the the United States Constitution is severely out-of-date.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since you OBVIOUSLY are to stupid to understand what has already been pointed out to you, lets try one more time....
> 
> The Government can not force you to pay to exercise a right. The 2nd Amendment is a right. Voting in and of itself is not a right but the categories of who is eligible to vote is. And one can not have a poll tax on voting. Get the point yet MORON?
Click to expand...


Billc tied gun ownership to driving. I was carrying the debate to his illogical conclusion.

What our Founding Fathers didn't foresee were idiots, so the 2nd Amendment needs to be updated.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

OnePercenter said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> sure...if insurance was free...but since it costs money...that would be like a poll tax to vote...since the 2nd amendment is a right.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't free insurance be costly for those 'poor' insurance companies?
> 
> Since the 2nd amendment was written well before cars, shouldn't we add cars to it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They had horses and coaches back then.....so that doesn't fly.....
> 
> Yes, free insurance is impossible so you can't require it because that would prevent the exercise of a right....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, So you do believe the the United States Constitution is severely out-of-date.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since you OBVIOUSLY are to stupid to understand what has already been pointed out to you, lets try one more time....
> 
> The Government can not force you to pay to exercise a right. The 2nd Amendment is a right. Voting in and of itself is not a right but the categories of who is eligible to vote is. And one can not have a poll tax on voting. Get the point yet MORON?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Billc tied gun ownership to driving. I was carrying the debate to his illogical conclusion.
> 
> What our Founding Fathers didn't foresee were idiots, so the 2nd Amendment needs to be updated.
Click to expand...

You want to change the 2nd? Get Congress to approve a new amendment and then get 37 States to agree, failing that there is no way you can foist insurance on gun owners.


----------



## OnePercenter

Billc said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> sure...if insurance was free...but since it costs money...that would be like a poll tax to vote...since the 2nd amendment is a right.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't free insurance be costly for those 'poor' insurance companies?
> 
> Since the 2nd amendment was written well before cars, shouldn't we add cars to it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They had horses and coaches back then.....so that doesn't fly.....
> 
> Yes, free insurance is impossible so you can't require it because that would prevent the exercise of a right....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, So you do believe the the United States Constitution is severely out-of-date.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Me....absolutely not....I think the Constitution is a miracle document....as is the Bill of Rights....I'm not the one advocating for limiting a right....
Click to expand...


It's nothing more than common sense of the 1700's. It needs to be updated.


----------



## OnePercenter

S.J. said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> sure...if insurance was free...but since it costs money...that would be like a poll tax to vote...since the 2nd amendment is a right.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't free insurance be costly for those 'poor' insurance companies?
> 
> Since the 2nd amendment was written well before cars, shouldn't we add cars to it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They had horses and coaches back then.....so that doesn't fly.....
> 
> Yes, free insurance is impossible so you can't require it because that would prevent the exercise of a right....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, So you do believe the the United States Constitution is severely out-of-date.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since you OBVIOUSLY are to stupid to understand what has already been pointed out to you, lets try one more time....
> 
> The Government can not force you to pay to exercise a right. The 2nd Amendment is a right. Voting in and of itself is not a right but the categories of who is eligible to vote is. And one can not have a poll tax on voting. Get the point yet MORON?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One Percenter knows what we're all saying, he/she cannot refute it, so he/she has to keep throwing out red herrings and pretending they are legitimate arguments.  Call it pride, I guess.
Click to expand...


 I refuted everything.


----------



## OnePercenter

Billc said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't free insurance be costly for those 'poor' insurance companies?
> 
> Since the 2nd amendment was written well before cars, shouldn't we add cars to it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They had horses and coaches back then.....so that doesn't fly.....
> 
> Yes, free insurance is impossible so you can't require it because that would prevent the exercise of a right....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, So you do believe the the United States Constitution is severely out-of-date.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since you OBVIOUSLY are to stupid to understand what has already been pointed out to you, lets try one more time....
> 
> The Government can not force you to pay to exercise a right. The 2nd Amendment is a right. Voting in and of itself is not a right but the categories of who is eligible to vote is. And one can not have a poll tax on voting. Get the point yet MORON?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One Percenter knows what we're all saying, he/she cannot refute it, so he/she has to keep throwing out red herrings and pretending they are legitimate arguments.  Call it pride, I guess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> call it genetically based liberal dishonesty......to be accurate....and fair....
Click to expand...


You tied driving to gun ownership and you call me 'dishonest?'


----------



## OnePercenter

RetiredGySgt said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't free insurance be costly for those 'poor' insurance companies?
> 
> Since the 2nd amendment was written well before cars, shouldn't we add cars to it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They had horses and coaches back then.....so that doesn't fly.....
> 
> Yes, free insurance is impossible so you can't require it because that would prevent the exercise of a right....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, So you do believe the the United States Constitution is severely out-of-date.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since you OBVIOUSLY are to stupid to understand what has already been pointed out to you, lets try one more time....
> 
> The Government can not force you to pay to exercise a right. The 2nd Amendment is a right. Voting in and of itself is not a right but the categories of who is eligible to vote is. And one can not have a poll tax on voting. Get the point yet MORON?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Billc tied gun ownership to driving. I was carrying the debate to his illogical conclusion.
> 
> What our Founding Fathers didn't foresee were idiots, so the 2nd Amendment needs to be updated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You want to change the 2nd? Get Congress to approve a new amendment and then get 37 States to agree, failing that there is no way you can foist insurance on gun owners.
Click to expand...


Again, Billc tied gun ownership to driving. I was carrying the debate to his illogical conclusion.


----------



## DigitalDrifter

OnePercenter said:


> I wonder if Walmart is going to pay their employees while the store is closed due to the lack of intelligence of this Mother.


She was a nuclear scientist.


----------



## 2aguy

OnePercenter said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> sure...if insurance was free...but since it costs money...that would be like a poll tax to vote...since the 2nd amendment is a right.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't free insurance be costly for those 'poor' insurance companies?
> 
> Since the 2nd amendment was written well before cars, shouldn't we add cars to it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They had horses and coaches back then.....so that doesn't fly.....
> 
> Yes, free insurance is impossible so you can't require it because that would prevent the exercise of a right....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, So you do believe the the United States Constitution is severely out-of-date.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since you OBVIOUSLY are to stupid to understand what has already been pointed out to you, lets try one more time....
> 
> The Government can not force you to pay to exercise a right. The 2nd Amendment is a right. Voting in and of itself is not a right but the categories of who is eligible to vote is. And one can not have a poll tax on voting. Get the point yet MORON?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Billc tied gun ownership to driving. I was carrying the debate to his illogical conclusion.
> 
> What our Founding Fathers didn't foresee were idiots, so the 2nd Amendment needs to be updated.
Click to expand...



Uh...I don't think I did, I think I responded to a post that did.....and it doesn't correlate to driving because the 2nd amendment is a right, not a priveldge.


----------



## 2aguy

OnePercenter said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> sure...if insurance was free...but since it costs money...that would be like a poll tax to vote...since the 2nd amendment is a right.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't free insurance be costly for those 'poor' insurance companies?
> 
> Since the 2nd amendment was written well before cars, shouldn't we add cars to it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They had horses and coaches back then.....so that doesn't fly.....
> 
> Yes, free insurance is impossible so you can't require it because that would prevent the exercise of a right....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, So you do believe the the United States Constitution is severely out-of-date.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since you OBVIOUSLY are to stupid to understand what has already been pointed out to you, lets try one more time....
> 
> The Government can not force you to pay to exercise a right. The 2nd Amendment is a right. Voting in and of itself is not a right but the categories of who is eligible to vote is. And one can not have a poll tax on voting. Get the point yet MORON?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Billc tied gun ownership to driving. I was carrying the debate to his illogical conclusion.
> 
> What our Founding Fathers didn't foresee were idiots, so the 2nd Amendment needs to be updated.
Click to expand...



Actually, the Founding Fathers anticipated idiots....getting into office and trying to take away our rights...that is why the created the document the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution that separated powers and created checks and balances....the idiots they foresaw are the very ones trying to get rid of the 2nd Amendment.........that is why it was insisted that our natural rights be put where they were easily seen for the idiots who would try to infringe on them....

Good thing they did to....with the way the democrats are trying to take away the 2nd Amendment........and the 2nd Amendment is just fine.......


----------



## Gunman

May not be on topic but it applies...!!!!


----------



## 2aguy

OnePercenter said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> As the post clearly shows, I wasn't saying they are the same thing, stupid.  You're not too good at reading comprehension, are you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You stated; 'Not everyone is intelligent enough to drive a care either but that's just something we have to live with in a free society.'
> 
> I stated (since you've tied gun ownership with driving) 'That's why there is liability insurance and laws requiring insurance. Since you agree that 'Not everyone is intelligent'; should gun owners be required to carry insurance?'
Click to expand...



As you can see here One....someone else linked gun ownership to cars.....not me, I responded to that idea.....I don't link driving to gun ownership or carrying a gun.....


----------



## Gunman

Their are 2.3 guns for every human in the USA and only 60% own  guns.. The government can't keep track of 2,000 guns IE( fast & ferrous ) The government dose not have a Clue of Who has what Gun or How many... If the government tryed to force me to turn in my guns,,, I would turn in Two and keep the other eight... Now I suppose you want to give the government the right to come into my house and search for guns... You cannot own a gun in Mexico... Ask yourself More crime in Mexico or USA..??? O-yes you want to have some real fun try driving in Mexico....


----------



## ChrisL

Stop trying to exploit the mother's death and the pain that this child is going to have to live with for your anti gun ideology.  It is not anyone else's fault that this woman was irresponsible, keeping a loaded gun in her purse without the safety on in reach of her child/children.  That is just pure irresponsibility with a dangerous weapon.  The fact of the matter is, some people are idiots.  These are the same people who leave while their small children are in the pool to come back and find them drowned.  They are NOT an adequate representative of gun owners at all.


----------



## Flash

The Libtards think that gun control laws will somehow correct the consequences of stupidity. 

All it really does it takes Constitutional rights from Americans and stupid people will continue to be stupid.

A child with an irresponsible mother is going to be at risk no matter if the mother has a gun or not.


----------



## Gunman

Don't think Obumo's  Gun Control plan is working...! ! !


----------

