This about sums up the absurdity of gun free zones! (parties, support)
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.
Charles Whitman case is an classic example about how effective armed citizens can be. After initial shots, Charles was pinned down by civilian fires and then killed by a civilian and two officers. If not for armed citizens he would have killed a lot more people.
Charles Whitman case is an classic example about how effective armed citizens can be. After initial shots, Charles was pinned down by civilian fires and then killed by a civilian and two officers. If not for armed citizens he would have killed a lot more people.
So you agree that my 14 year old should be allowed to carry in order to protect himself at school?
And, "after initial shots?" Clearly we have vastly different definitions of "initial."
Why not? There's no age limit in the 2nd amendment just like there's no restrictions on the type of guns people can own. Right?
Sounds to me like you are in favor of...restrictions on gun ownership.
That sounds like "infringement" to me.
Why do you hate the Constitution?
I agree, the age limit on kids owning firearms should be limited to their parents. when the parent thinks that are old enough then its ok to own them. I am not in favor of infringing anyone on their rights. you want it, then buy it if you can afford it.
if you think your 14 year old is responsible enough to carry, sure.
Thank you.
I see little difference between being old enough for driver's ed, which he will be next month, and gun ownership.
And only one of those is guaranteed by the Constitution.
I know you are not being serious. Please take your ridiculous argument somewhere else.
I am being serious.
He'll be old enough to start driving next month. Driving is probably the most dangerous thing any teen will undertake, and yet we pat them on the head and say "have at it."
And driving is only a privilege, it isn't even a right.
We want our kids protected, right?
Or are they only allowed to protect themselves if they are over 21?
Surely when the 2nd amendment was written, kids had and used guns.
If one is going to make the argument that no infringement is no infringement as the Founders intended, then surely you must agree that limiting gun ownership to only those over 21 is not what the Founders intended.
Or does the idea of kids carrying guns make you uncomfortable?
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.