Idiots with guns

Chat about anything and everything... (well almost anything) Whether it be the front porch or the pot belly stove or news of interest or a topic of your liking, this is the place to post it.

Moderator: S2k Moderators

Message
Author
GalvestonDuck
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 15941
Age: 57
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2002 8:11 am
Location: Galveston, oh Galveston (And yeah, it's a barrier island. Wanna make something of it?)

Idiots with guns

#1 Postby GalvestonDuck » Tue Jul 27, 2004 2:55 pm

Did anyone happen to see the story on the Today Show this morning (later rebroadcast on MSNBC) about the parents who had their children taken away after a neighbor videotaped this couple's 3-year-old son playing with a handgun? On the video, he is seen handling the gun, turning it up and down and sideways, and once even pointing it towards his own head. Meanwhile, (also on the tape), the parents are seen drinking beers and target shooting several yards away from the boy.

I suppose I'm one of those rare Republicans ("suppose?"...heck, I already know I am :) ), who feels that certain morons should simply NOT own guns. Most of it comes from working in the ER. We learned that certain people shouldn't drive or breed either. I'm all for our rights to protect ourselves. But some of the crazy stuff I used to see in the trauma bays -- and the reasons for them being there -- just blows a person mind (excuse the pun, but I'm not backspacing now :) ).

In case anyone is wondering, they did ask the woman why she didn't put down the camera and go get the gun from the little boy. She said that she was scared for his safety and hers. She didn't want to startle him and have the gun accidentally go off. She didn't want him to accidentally shoot himself or her. And she didn't want the parents to react negatively at the sight of her running towards their son (after all, they also had guns in their hands and were under the influence).

It's idiots like those parents, who don't understand responsible gun ownership, who give the anti-gun crowd ammunition in their fight to take guns away. The strongest, most emotional argument they have involves the stories of children who were killed by accidental shootings.

Argh! Okay, vent over.
0 likes   

User avatar
vbhoutex
Storm2k Executive
Storm2k Executive
Posts: 29114
Age: 73
Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2002 11:31 pm
Location: Cypress, TX
Contact:

#2 Postby vbhoutex » Tue Jul 27, 2004 3:03 pm

Those sorry excuses for parents should have their guns taken away and be prevented from ever buying any type of firearm again!!! they should also be jailed for child endangerment and neglect!!!
0 likes   
Skywarn, C.E.R.T.
Please click below to donate to STORM2K to help with the expenses of keeping the site going:
Image

User avatar
Kiko
Category 2
Category 2
Posts: 754
Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2002 12:31 pm
Location: central Pennsylvania

#3 Postby Kiko » Tue Jul 27, 2004 3:14 pm

It was loaded?!

Here's another controversial category, since you bring it up Duck.

Pistol Packin' Mamas:

Candidates ignore 'security moms,' at their peril
By Michelle Malkin
I am what this year's election pollsters call a "security mom." I'm married with two young children. I own a gun. And I vote.
Nothing matters more to me right now than the safety of my home and the survival of my homeland. I believe in the right to defend myself, and in America's right to defend itself against its enemies. I am a citizen of the United States, not the United Nations.

I want a president who is of one mind, not two, about what must be done to protect our freedom and our borders. I don't care about the hair on his head or the wrinkles in his forehead. I am not awed by his ability to ride a snowboard or fly a plane. Nor does it matter much to me whether his wife speaks four languages or bakes good cookies.

What I want is a commander in chief who will stop pandering to political correctness and People magazine editors, and start pandering to me.

The Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks shook me out of my Generation X stupor. Unlike Hollywood and The New York Times and the ivory tower, I have not settled back casually into a Sept. 10 way of life. I have studied the faces on the FBI's most-wanted-terrorists list. When I ride the train, I watch for suspicious packages in empty seats. When I am on the highways, I pay attention to large trucks and tankers. I make my husband take his cell phone with him everywhere — even on a quick milk run or on a walk to the community pool.

Educate the children

We have educated our 4-year-old daughter about Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. She knows that there are bad men in the world trying to kill Americans everywhere.

She has helped us decorate packages of books and bubblegum for our brave soldiers. And at night, we ask God to bless our troops as they risk their lives trying to kill the bad men before they kill us.

This isn't living in fear. This is living with reality. We drive defensively. Now, we must live defensively, too.

I am not alone. Professors and political analysts have observed the remarkable conversion of "soccer moms" to "security moms" since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. According to GOP pollster David Winston, "security moms" now make up between 11% and 14% of the electorate. The trend has manifested itself in increased concealed-weapons-permit applications among women; the rise of national-security-focused Web logs published by hard-hitting female "war bloggers"; and an upsurge in political activism by women on core homeland-defense issues, such as immigration enforcement.

Security moms are women such as Grace Godshalk, who lost her 35-year-old son, Bill, when the World Trade Center's south tower collapsed on Sept. 11. Godshalk is on the board of the 9/11 Families for a Secure America, which lobbies for secure borders. She has made it her "lifetime job to put an end to terrorism so no one else ever has to live this nightmare."

Security moms are women such as Bonnie Eggle, a Michigan schoolteacher who lost her 28-year-old son, Kris, a National Park Service ranger who was gunned down by a drug smuggler at the U.S.-Mexico border in August 2002.

"I approach this whole situation as a mother," Eggle said during a Washington, D.C., news conference after her son was murdered. "I want other parents to know that these are things that can happen to your children. Our son took a bullet that he did not have to if we had secure borders."

And conservative activist Kay R. Daly, a security mom of two in Northern Virginia, warns that "A candidate who underestimates the security mom and her vote this fall may do so at his own peril. Hell hath no fury like a momma protecting her babies."

Do the presidential candidates truly comprehend how fierce this sentiment is among ordinary moms across the country? Do they understand our demands for a president who will ensure that Islamic terrorists are kept out of our country and that criminal illegal aliens are kicked out for good? Will they ensure that our children grow up in a world where the bloody, severed heads of Americans are not a weekly occurrence on the evening news? Do they have what it takes to keep suicide bombers off our shores and out of our malls?

No clear-cut leader

So far, neither presidential ticket quite measures up. Judging from the touchy-feely-fest put on by the John Kerry-John Edwards campaign recently, it is clear that the Democratic Party still thinks it can win by wallowing in the Sept. 10 politics of grievance, entitlement and passivity. The Democratic presidential campaign is softer than a Kleenex tissue, when its motto should be "No More Tears."

As for the Republicans, I have supported President Bush's war on terror overseas, but he continues to fight only a half-hearted battle to defend Americans on American soil from hostile invasion or attack. Recently, the White House revived an amnesty plan for millions of illegal aliens, and the Department of Homeland Security retreated on immigration-enforcement sweeps in Southern California. It is clear that the GOP elite gravely underestimates the wrath we security moms feel toward Washington's fatal addiction to "cheap labor" and "cheap votes" at the expense of secure borders.

To paraphrase the Iron Lady, Margaret Thatcher: Gentlemen, this is no time to go warm and fuzzy. Security moms will never forget that toddlers and schoolchildren were incinerated in the hijacked planes on Sept. 11. Murderous Islamic fanatics will stop at nothing to do the same to our kids. As they plot our death and destruction, these enemies will not be won over by either hair-sprayed liberalism or bleeding-heart conservatism.

Neither will we.



Michelle Malkin is a nationally syndicated columnist and author. Her Web log address is http://www.michellemalkin.com.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/ed ... lkin_x.htm


Not living in fear? She may be sure of that for herself, but what about the others she speaks of?
0 likes   

GalvestonDuck
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 15941
Age: 57
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2002 8:11 am
Location: Galveston, oh Galveston (And yeah, it's a barrier island. Wanna make something of it?)

#4 Postby GalvestonDuck » Tue Jul 27, 2004 3:30 pm

Doesn't matter IMO if it was loaded or not. All firearms should be handled as if they are loaded.

That's the most common line we heard in the ER, in regards to accidental shootings -- "I didn't think it was loaded."

Furthermore, why do people think it's cool to have their finger on the trigger when holding (not aiming) a gun? That's something I learned early on and it's second-nature even if I'm just holding a squirt gun or a power drill.

Kiko -- why is what you posted controversial? Women and moms can own guns.
0 likes   

User avatar
Kiko
Category 2
Category 2
Posts: 754
Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2002 12:31 pm
Location: central Pennsylvania

#5 Postby Kiko » Tue Jul 27, 2004 3:46 pm

GalvestonDuck wrote:Kiko -- why is what you posted controversial? Women and moms can own guns.


Because I know there are people on this board who won't like anyone who thinks this kind of article is fear-mongering. (me)

Because, Duck, some child is going to end up getting hurt in an incident just like your opening post.

Because they're letting their fear of reality rule where common sense fails to go.

Because I fear for a generation who has to grow up with insecurity and hate instead of loving kindness in their hearts.


...at night, we ask God to bless our troops as they risk their lives trying to kill the bad men before they kill us.
0 likes   

GalvestonDuck
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 15941
Age: 57
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2002 8:11 am
Location: Galveston, oh Galveston (And yeah, it's a barrier island. Wanna make something of it?)

#6 Postby GalvestonDuck » Tue Jul 27, 2004 4:18 pm

Kiko wrote:Because I know there are people on this board who won't like anyone who thinks this kind of article is fear-mongering. (me)

Because they're letting their fear of reality rule where common sense fails to go.

Because I fear for a generation who has to grow up with insecurity and hate instead of loving kindness in their hearts.


We can have kindness in our hearts. But that doesn't mean we should just sit back and cry like cowards instead of defending ourselves from the next attack. It's not insecurity or hate -- it's part of how we came to be a free country.


Kiko wrote:Because, Duck, some child is going to end up getting hurt in an incident just like your opening post.


Nope, that's typical gun control rhetoric. You believe that anyone with a gun is irresponsible and someone is inevitably going to get hurt. That's because the media makes sure you hear about the bad incidents involving guns and now how guns have been used to protect people. Kind of like how everyone hears about the idiot gays in bookstores, public park restrooms, and adult theaters and assumes we're all promiscuous pervs, but no one hears (nor really cares to hear) the boring stories of those of us who just go to work, fall in love, pay bills, and other boring stuff that really shouldn't make a difference anyway.
0 likes   

User avatar
Kiko
Category 2
Category 2
Posts: 754
Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2002 12:31 pm
Location: central Pennsylvania

#7 Postby Kiko » Tue Jul 27, 2004 4:50 pm

Not 'anyone', Duck. Some... Even ONE child injured is too many. You'd know if it was someone close to you.

Your opening post proves that they're out there, ready for that accident waiting to happen.
0 likes   

GalvestonDuck
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 15941
Age: 57
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2002 8:11 am
Location: Galveston, oh Galveston (And yeah, it's a barrier island. Wanna make something of it?)

#8 Postby GalvestonDuck » Tue Jul 27, 2004 4:55 pm

Like I said, there are idiots with guns out there. I saw them many times in the ER. Heck, I've even seen a gun in Michael Moore's hands.

What does that have to do with the news article in your post? Not everyone who owns a firearm is irresponsible nor would they allow a 3-year-old to handle the gun.
0 likes   

User avatar
Kiko
Category 2
Category 2
Posts: 754
Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2002 12:31 pm
Location: central Pennsylvania

#9 Postby Kiko » Tue Jul 27, 2004 5:32 pm

Sorry folk, this post got edited by mistake and I lost the text.
Last edited by Kiko on Tue Jul 27, 2004 6:53 pm, edited 2 times in total.
0 likes   

User avatar
bahamaswx
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 1543
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2003 1:11 am
Location: Georgetown, Bahamas

#10 Postby bahamaswx » Tue Jul 27, 2004 5:53 pm

...it happens.
0 likes   

Guest

#11 Postby Guest » Tue Jul 27, 2004 6:05 pm

I don't see why you posted that article either Kiko. I just don't see the controversy. It is very true about how we need to secure our borders to ensure our safety. There are some great grassroot organizations that promote just that, such as http://www.numbersusa.com and http://www.projectusa.org

About the original topic at hand, which of course Kiki has attempted to turn political, those people are complete morons. I'm glad the child is okay.

Duck, some of your comments had me bursting out laughing, particularly "We learned that certain people shouldn't drive or breed either." Amen to that! lol
...Jennifer...
0 likes   

User avatar
Kiko
Category 2
Category 2
Posts: 754
Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2002 12:31 pm
Location: central Pennsylvania

#12 Postby Kiko » Tue Jul 27, 2004 6:51 pm

I never get involved in gun threads except that this one has the added dimension of the fear factor since 9/11 and the war on terror.

It's not my fear of guns, I've had lots of training--no fear here. It's my fear of guns in the hands of morons, as you so sweetly put it.

Fear + guns = accident waiting to happen

Please re-read the rest of my reasons why I'm not so happy with security moms packing heat. Duck already asked that.

Does everything have to be political?
0 likes   

User avatar
streetsoldier
Retired Staff
Retired Staff
Posts: 9705
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 11:33 pm
Location: Under the rainbow

#13 Postby streetsoldier » Tue Jul 27, 2004 7:02 pm

1) Have guns, knives, swords

2) Don't display them or use them UNLESS necessity dictates

3) Far from being labelled an "idiot".

There.
0 likes   

User avatar
coriolis
Retired Staff
Retired Staff
Posts: 8314
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 10:58 pm
Location: Muncy, PA

#14 Postby coriolis » Tue Jul 27, 2004 8:26 pm

I'll add to the list. Not only are there people who shouldn't own guns, drive, or breed, there's also people who shouldn't practice medicine (mistakes by doctors kill people), people who shouldn't be police officers (beatings by police), people who shouldn't teach (students who don't get a proper education), people who shouldn't be firefighters (thrill arsonists), people who shouldn't work in banks (thiefs), and I could go on. You don't see anyone saying that we shouldn't have doctors, police officers, teachers, firefighters, and banks. So sure there's people who shouldn't own guns. Once again, gun opponents make a big case about a few idiots. We're surrounded by idiots. So let's just make a law against idiots. That would solve a lot of problems.
0 likes   
This space for rent.


Return to “Off Topic”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 38 guests