Moron

Generally I figure if somebody screwed up badly enough to have their gun rights revoked they shouldn't be around much longer to complain about it.
Drivers license, I personally believe they're also unconstitutional, imagine if you'd told George Washington he needed a license to ride his horse, vehicles are modern day horses, I know 98% of people wil think I'm nuts, and maybe I am just a bit.

 

Still an accident. Say a 3 year old kid is playing in the car and puts it in neutral and kills somebody, or just rolls out and hits traffic, who do you charge?

 

The parent who left the keys in the ignition.

When I was little my dad had a manual volvo. I wasn't supposed to be in the front seat. One day my sisters and I are in the car, dad stops to run into Ace and I climb in front to play driver. Dad comes out, yanks me out of the car and paddles my behind, tells me to stop crying or he'll give me something to cry about, then teaches me about what keeps a car from moving.

 

You think a 3 year old kid can't figure out how to put the key in the ignition?
See there today your dad would be in jail for child abuse and you'd be in foster care.

 

You make some interesting points in both of your posts. I actually agree with some of what you point out, not all but some. Right now, I'm beat, at 60 I just can't do what I used to be able to do. This time of year, we're real busy at the farm, there's just not enough hours in a day. I'll try and give you my rebuttal tomorrow. It seems we might actually have more in common than we initially thought....

 

Why did the three year old have the keys?

It also takes WAAAAYY more than a public spanking to get a kid taken away. Getting a dps/cps/whatever-your-state-calls-it interview is easy, getting them to do something takes some effort.

 

Digging through mom's purse, found in the cup holder, maybe mother ran in the store quick and instead of dragging two rambunctious boys in with the baby she left them in the car with the AC running.
Kid running their own bath water and burning themselves will get your kids at least temporarily removed from your custody, I know a couple who's had it happen. I would hate to see what happens the wrong person sees you whack your kid in public from a distance without knowing anything about what is going on.

 

I'm behind in this discussion at this point and I gotta get back to work, so I'll need to keep it brief, here goes.

I think you're misinterpreting the founders meaning of the words "well regulated" in the 2A. By regulated the founders meant trained, armed, ready-to-go in a moments notice, not regulated as in government regulated. You are correct, the 2A is an individual right, as evidenced by multiple recent SCOTUS decisions.

We try to legislate responsibility and morality because it gives the appearance of doing something good; however, it doesn't work. People are either responsible and have morals or they don't. Their upbringing, or lack thereof, plays a huge role in this. Like I said in an earlier post, only honest people obey the laws. Criminals only fear one thing, punishment; however, even then, some don't care. One things for sure though, someone who intentionally murders someone and is executed will never do it again. Someone who commits a violent felony and is locked up and kept there for awhile won't be victimizing anyone else soon.
Actually gun permits, like driver's licenses, do get revoked for misuse, happens all the time. The key difference between the two is one is a right and one is a privilege; however, reckless endangerment by both mediums is a crime and similarly punished.

The prevalence of "gun violence" is much more today, that is true; however, the argument of the "ease of availability" of obtaining firearms as the cause just doesn't hold water. The causes of this go way deeper then that. For example, when I was in high school in the '70's, we had a small bore rifle team (.22). We would take our rifles, unloaded and cased, on the school bus to school. We would deposit them in the coaches office, after school, we would go to another school for a match and after get back on the school bus, with our rifle and go home. Imagine doing that today? There were no school shootings or stabbings then, fist fights yes, but not that.

No, I don't think that all violent criminals are mentally ill. Some are very intelligent and clever, but have an extremely evil & reprobate mind. What I was saying is that both types can be intent on killing you, forcing you to defend yourself, thus no different in that aspect.

I agree, the punishment must fit the crime. The point I was making was that how many violent felonies and how many victims does it take to keep someone locked up for a long enough time to prevent them from harming anyone else.
Many criminals can be rehabilitated, but there are some that simply cannot & will not be rehabilitated. We agree that the death penalty should not be taken lightly and only applied when there is no shadow of a doubt of the person's guilt. Prosecutorial & police misconduct, along with inept defense do have merit; however, that is why we have the appellate courts and retrials, to seek out the truth. What I do find ironic, is the same people who absolutely detest the death penalty in any case whatsoever, are the same people that let the murderer out after 20 years, even though he had been given a "life term". These same people also have no problem with abortion, even supporting "at birth" abortions, what hypocrisy.

You talk about choices. I somewhat agree. Where there is no hope, no opportunity, no vocational training programs, no moral guidance or good mentoring, no good jobs, no consistency, structure or discipline, allowing drug dealers and gangs to run rampant, there will continue to be problems. Many wrongfully believe, well, if we just throw more money at it it'll work itself out. No, it won't. Regardless though, the blame for ones criminal actions is owned by him and him alone.

What happens when the armed citizen misses and injuries or kills a third party, or wrongfully employs deadly force? He should and will be held accountable, criminally and civilly, and rightly so. Like I said earlier, carrying and using a firearm for defense comes with a big responsibility and liability. It is not to be taken lightly, nor is it for everyone. That is a personal decision one has to make for himself, not the governments and not by someone who simply hates guns and decides that you shouldn't have one either. I choose to carry; I wish I didn't have too though, but the way society has deteriorated, I feel I must do so to protect my family and myself. As far as leaving guns laying around, no. My rule is it is either on me personally or locked up.

I was raised with and taught to shoot firearms since about age 5. I was shooting pistols by age 8. My father taught me responsible firearms handling, as his father before him. They were never kept a secret or hidden away. I was taught they can be your best friend or your worst enemy depending on how you choose to handle them. I always considered a firearm as a tool, no different than any other tool I own or use. Perhaps many people today hate guns because of what they were taught from a young age. If a youngster is raised and taught that guns are bad, that only bad people have and use guns, that guns are the cause of violent crime, well, they likely will think that way as adults. Along the same lines as the mother teaching their kid that the police are bad and they're the reason that your daddy's in jail.


We both agree on the "red flag" laws, enough said.

I also concur with your last paragraph, age and wisdom plays a part here, and no I don't think of you as a commie socialist at all. In so much as we each tend to lean in different directions, I do believe that we share much common ground.

I got to get back to work, to be continued. As @x1Heavy says, git going yer late. Yeah, yeah, I know, story of my life a day late and a dollar short....