Amen.
The way it’s interpreted today totally ignores the first 13 words. The result of NRA propaganda. Yup, the NRA: the subhumans who have spent the last few months metaphorically urinating on the graves of dead children and spitting in the faces of their surviving loved ones.
What happened to the King of Thailand?
The insanity started when buying a lethal weapon for a 5 year old. WTF?
Disagree. This case is stupid from beginning to end. It is entirely stupid for a company to market an instrument of killing to children. It is stupid for any government to allow this. It is further stupid for parents to buy guns for kids that age. It is further stupid to load a gun and leave it unattended, especially if there are children around. Anyone who thinks any aspect of this is any reflection of what the founders had in mind when they wrote the second amendment is an idiot- it has nothing to do with politics.
Oddly enough, for the last two pages on this thread TG is one of the few who have made NON-POLITICAL comments. From my first post on this thread I’ve been saying it’s a NON-POLITICAL issue. Nothing political at all about picking apart the 2nd amendment, right? It’s just common sense the 2nd amendment needs amending. Nothing political about that at all 
I’m in the mood for something coherent. I think I’ll go in a China chat room and talk about Taiwan
How about this for rule of thumb? If your kid could drown himself in a tub or die in a car due to heat exhaustion, if your kid could not read, if your kid could not get a flu shot or have his teeth pulled out without crying, if your kid still think Santa’s real, don’t give the kid a real fraking rifle? Is that about as non-political as it gets?
Yeah well what I heard was the store was sold out of ‘my first rat poison’ and ‘my first cattle prod’…c’mon you can’t be serious, this shit was marketed towards children and bought as a gift for a child, you are comparing apple and oranges.
And Americans, you treat your fucking constitution like the fucking Bible, its not, its been raped, pillaged and ransacked a thousand times by politicians and is nowadays simply a legal document, get off your fucking high horse and admit the flaws of the 2nd amendment (the one part of it you should have actually changed).
No I’m not. I’m not comparing anything. I absolutely think the idea of a rifle made for a 5-year-old is insane, and would be happy to see it stopped. I’m not from Kentucky though. I really have no idea if most people there would agree or not. At least I’m sure that one set of parents didn’t think it was insane and bought one for their child, of their own free will. I’m saying that as parents they had the primary, ultimate, unquestionable responsibility of ensuring their own children’s safety. The buck stops with them here.
Kentucky probably has open gun laws; I’m not sure. The Second Amendment hasn’t stopped localities from enacting gun laws as they see fit. I don’t think this is a Second Amendment issue as much as the simple reality that in large parts of the US people WANT the right to buy whatever weapons they want.
I hate that and would love nothing more than to see it changed. I think our founding fathers would be turning in their graves. Not because of a five-year-old learning to shoot a rifle. I don’t think that would surprise them too much. Cheap handguns and assault weapons would have them bug-eyed though.
Unfortunately IMO they worded the Second Amendment explicitly to allow gun possession. They had no way of foreseeing what the results would be. I’d love to change that but the simple reality is that it will be politically impossible in the US to do so. Essentially most people in 2/3 of the States would have to support it. That sucks, but that is the reality. The fact that even one pair of parents thought it wise to buy a rifle for their five-year-old, much less that such a thing is actually MADE, says as much.
OK there’s my 
on it.
This thread is in IP, so really Louis is within his rights to kickstart the usual shitfest of Americans arguing about every fecking atom on the planet. But yes, it is so fecking tiresome than seemingly nothing can be discussed without the desire to jump into the pig trough and have a wrestle.
A parent buys a gun for a child and the child accidentally kills his sister with it. This is the matter at hand. Who is to blame? That is what is up for discussion. Should one blame a society where the mechanism which caused the death is both prevalent and in some sectors glorified? Or should one blame the parent from bringing an unsuitable object to the child and then leaving the child unsupervised? I would suggest the latter is the problem. The parent could have bought the child a number of different objects which could have then killed another child. A catapult, a snooker cue, a toy with tiny plastic pieces. Many things. The mechanism of death is a tricky subject to grasp here because it’s primary purpose generally is as a mechanism of death. That is was used by a child unsupervised is the fault of the parent, in my opinion, and the parents should be jailed for causing the death of their child through extreme negligence.
If you don’t agree with me I will try not to cry about it. 
The irony.
Why does it have to be one or the other? Can it not be both?
It wasn’t society that left the child alone with a mechanism which can cause death. It was the parent. Is society to blame for the ocean? The ocean will kill a small child if you take it to the beach and turn your back for a while. But many societies have many bodies of water and glorify the beach. What you gonna do? Go down and ban the ocean? You child wants some moshi monster toys… you give them some. You turn your back and the childs smaller brother swallows one and chokes to death. What you gonna do? Ban toys?
Guns and gun crime are one issue. Leaving a small child alone with a mechanism which can kill another child is a separate issue. We should be talking about leaving a small child alone with a mechanism which can kill, not another bloody gun debate.
:bravo: 
:bravo:
I realize I helped to start the whole shitfest you mentioned by taking a jab at liberals, although I would prefer to say DD kicked it off 
, but this was really the only point I’ve been trying to make from my first post. Thank you for more effectively expressing my position.
The funny thing is most of my political opinions are on the left. I get along great with lefties until guns get mentioned, and those on the right usually agree with me until I mention drug laws, health care, and the environment. My liberal friends think I’m a gun freak and my conservative friends think I’m a tree-hugging hippie. It’s a sad, lonely world for Louis 
Not that any of you would care. Lonely people tend to talk about themselves a lot 
Obviously the parent. Parents should not buy guns for kids. D’uh!
How would people react if the truth of the matter were presented as follows:
A parent buys a deadly weapon for an immature person prone to errors and random acts without full understanding of the consequences of using that weapon. This immature person accidentally kills his sister.
It is only the nuttiness of the gun nuts that blinds them to the obvious fact that you don’t give deadly weapons to kids, especially those with a range of killing power and which kill easily.
you are ignoring the issue where some have created a myth that “owning guns = being American”, and built a culture around it so they can sell more weapons, even if the weapons are targeted at preschoolers. At no point should a 5 year-old need a rifle to protect himself and all the gun related training could be done with BBs or other alternatives.
Giving a loaded rifle to a 5 year old is equally dangerous with supervision. Having grown-ups around didn’t stop some kid shooting a 48 year-old woman dead. Like Cooperations said, that manufactured culture is equally dangerous and at fault here as the parents. I don’t think the founding fathers would be custom making guns for their own 5 year-olds. Because they’d know it’s nuts. They don’t need young children fending off the British forces, or any forces for that matter. And that’s what the 2nd amendment is about.
No, you are trying to shoehorn the gun debate into this. Where do you get that the child was given the gun to protect himself? Where do you get all this owning a gun = being American. I am not from a gun culture and so perhaps I am more free to just think of this as an idiot giving an inappropriate object to a child.
Swap the gun for a catapult and have another crack at thinking it through. Parent buys child catapult. Parent turns back. Child kills sister by catapulting rock at sister. Swap the gun for a bow and arrow and have another crack at it. Parent makes bow and arrows for child. Child shoots sister with arrow and kills her while unsupervised. Now who do you blame? Nobody is arming a five year old for protection except in your head.
I agree the parents are idiots. But on the other side of it, how would people react if the truth of the matter were presented as follows:
A company markets [quote]a deadly weapon for an immature person prone to errors and random acts without full understanding of the consequences of using that weapon. This immature person accidentally kills his sister. [/quote]
I think they bare some responsibility here, especially now that companies are officially people.
I think they bare some responsibility here, especially now that companies are officially people.
Good points, but we had catapults and bows and arrows and flick knives as kids. We were supervised when we used them and they were taken off us when adults weren’t around. My parents were responsible enough to allow me to use deadly objects under their responsibility. When we had BB guns we shot each other in the ass. So if we wanted to shoot a rifle we had to go to a rifle range. My mate shot rifles as a young boy, just responsibly. He has never killed anyone, to my knowledge, as an adult.
in both your analogies the parents are the ones who has to build the dangerous devices, or they can buy one but the manufacturers won’t be targeting their products at children. So in both analogies the parents are the sole idiots for leaving their kids unsupervised with deadly devices. That’s why your analogies don’t apply to the actual event, where gun manufacturers are making guns targeting child market.
Someone is manufacturing a culture where selling weapons without any kind of restriction is a great idea. The current trend of “extreme gun culture” is a made up marketing ploy like “smoking cigarettes making people look cool”, or “must buy chocolate for valentines.” In this case, parents are not the only idiots.
In the early 80’s catapults for kids were pretty big in the UK. They were glorified and they were aimed at us and they could kill. My parents only realised the deadly forced after I had been left alone and shot a bunch of stones up in the air and smashed a greenhouse of some dude down the road. Dennis the Menace had a catapult. And a gun. The catapult came with foam balls, but stones were readily available.
