Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Try reading up on the story first. If you don't get why it is a bad idea to keep having children(married or not) when you can't afford them, I can't explain it to you.
The reportdid not say they were on welfare and it did not say they were not married,
which makes no difference.
No where did it say they could not afford their children or even more children.
You read it ... It is about gun safety and parent neglect ... nothing more ! ! !
Wrong, it was reported in the Albuquerque Journal the family was living in the motel.
The boy was reaching for an Ipad per the father and got the gun instead, and the family was waiting for a pizza to be delivered.
So let's see we have an unmarried couple who already have two kids and another one on the way, an Ipad that the 3yr old uses(priorities), and ordering a pizza, while on welfare, but let's not judge right?
Why is it so hard to admit there are people who shouldn't be parents?
So it appears it was an accident, so I assume safety was not on. How else would a 3 year old kid accidentally make a gun go off.
One day you come out of that hotel room and meet up with a character who needs his fix, for the night and decides he needs your money and maybe looks side ways at your pretty daughter you are going to wish that you took that gun safety course and knew how to use the tool properly if needed.
Guns at home stopped more burglars dead in their tracks too. If people are using and inanimate object stupidly then it is natures way of culling the weak lame brained of society. It does not take a rocket scientist to take a safety course and know that it is not a toy. Much like a car. You take lessons before you drive and not toy around the street without knowing the first thing about driving, right?
The NRA members are the most proficient owners and users of this inanimate object, on the face of the planet. Slamming them as though they were irresponsible gun owners because some moron who never took a course or leaves the gun around unattended, with children around, is not logical of you, NOR IS IT COOL.
Stop taking the blue pill of cluelessness, and come into the world of reality. Guns don't kill; people do. An armed society is a VERY POLITE society, indeed.
Before governments killed their people by the millions: THEY DISARMED THEM. Historical fact.
BTW: it is because of people like you, that if I saw you held up at gun point I would drive on and think you should have bought your own, to the party.
Every politicians who advocates the removal of the 2nd Amendment has a body guard with guns. Every one of their children has body guards with guns. I don't know about you but what do they have to be afraid of that I don't? Why do their children need protection and not mine?
Ans:
There is no logical argument for them to disarm others while they themselves are "armed" protected. The political class are self absorbed narcissist who regard themselves a higher form of humanity. When in reality they are at the bottom of the moral, scruples rung of the ladder. As can be seen how they wreck and ruin society, partying hardy while children are homeless and hungry. They took the job and are a miserable losers and failures every minute a child goes to bed homeless and hungry.
Go ahead take the red pill trip and open your eyes, my friend.
Last edited by Byron1022; 02-01-2015 at 04:53 PM..
Reason: grammar
Wrong, it was reported in the Albuquerque Journal the family was living in the motel.
The boy was reaching for an Ipad per the father and got the gun instead, and the family was waiting for a pizza to be delivered.
So let's see we have an unmarried couple who already have two kids and another one on the way, an Ipad that the 3yr old uses(priorities), and ordering a pizza, while on welfare, but let's not judge right?
Why is it so hard to admit there are people who shouldn't be parents?
You're arguing two different things. No maybe they should not have been, however the fact they may have fallen on hard times is not the reason why. People lose their jobs and their homes every day, I would not judge a family just for falling on hard times, do you know their life story? I don't pretend to so I can't judge them.
Byron1022"One day you come out of that hotel room and meet up with a character who needs his fix, for the night and decides he needs your money and maybe looks side ways at your pretty daughter you are going to wish that you took that gun safety course and knew how to use the tool properly if needed."
Not at the type of hotels I stay at. (Not sure about you). I'm in one now as I was traveling into NYC today and with a storm overnight, it was easier, and to get to my floor, one needs a special access card.
Sounds like you need to upgrade the type of hotel/motel you stay at.
Location: where you sip the tea of the breasts of the spinsters of Utica
8,297 posts, read 14,161,809 times
Reputation: 8105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enigma777
The reality is that if you are living in a motel room in Albuquerque, you probably should have a gun, as it is not exactly a low crime city. But obviously, it should not have been kept in the mother's purse. I am also having a difficult time understanding why all these two and three year-old children can pull a trigger--don't guns have safeties? The government is so concerned with legislating safety features on cars--is there a reason they aren't required to be on all guns, or do people just not bother using them?
The NRA has vehemently opposed any extra required gun safety measures.
Why is this even an issue? It's a constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. If the founding fathers hadn't intended for 3 year olds to have guns, wouldn't that prohibition have made it into the 2nd amendment? It's not there and will never be there.
I'm sure that if you'd asked any of the founding fathers who had children whether a 3 year old with a gun was dangerous, they'd agree that it is. However, they specifically decided that right was not to be infringed and that it was better to live with the consequences of armed 3 year olds than the alternative.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But then again.......
