Gun controlFollow

/rant on

No, no, I think it's a perfectly legitimate belief that the writers of the second amendment intended to protect the right of all 8 year olds to fire Uzis into their @#%^ing heads. @#%^ing morons. I hope the intructor goes to jail and I hope the kids father kills himself. Useless @#%^ing people...like there isn't enough misery in the world that this is what you need to do to entertain your young children. Take them to a god damn museum! A library! The zoo! Do they REALLY need to be firing automatic weapons at that age? Seriously!? And people complain that video games are desensitizing children to violence. You know what else desensitizes children? GETTING SHOT IN THE @#%^ING HEAD!

/rant off

Boy, 8, Shoots Self With Uzi at Gun Show


Yeah, sounds like a great time.

Nexa

Edited, Oct 27th 2008 2:39pm by Nexa

Eight year olds can't handle automatic weapons? Huh... who ever would have guessed that?

Natural selection sure is great.

He didn't shoot the guy who gave him the gun.

It's much easier to kill terrorists with a fully automatic Uzi than it is with a Cricket.

Probably. I assumed, from the description of the accident, that he was firing it on an automatic setting since it pulled up at his head and continued to fire bullets.

I imagine it could have jerked back like that and the kid pulled the trigger accidentally.

Yeah, every time someone uses that completely retarded comparison, God kills a kid with an automatic weapon. Guns are made to kill, Uzis are made to kill people. Cars are made for transportation and sometimes accidents happen. Also of note: 8 year olds aren't allowed to ******* drive, *******.

Nexa

No, but it's a decent argument for not letting 8-year-olds drive them.

Yeah, I know Nexa already said it but it bears repeating.

There's also a difference between family sedans and race cars. People who don't drive them for a living usually don't feel the need to own race cars.

In the right-wing mindset, the 2nd Amendment is there to provide people a means to protect themselves. An automatic weapon is an even more efficient way of killing people that are threatening you!

In the interest of playing devil's advocate...

When the founding fathers drafted the 2nd amendment, military firearms and civilian firearms were for all intents and purposes, identical. If you care to listen to one side of the argument, they created the 2nd amendment with the purpose of giving the people the ability to fight back against a tyrannical, unjust government. As such, the right to firearms as capable as military arms was intentionally granted.

Artillery of the day was capable of firing hundreds of projectiles simultaneously (called grapeshot). There was nothing preventing civilians of the day from buying their own artillery if they could afford it (during the Civil War, one Confederate citizen, Wade Hampton, did just that, equipping a small force of infantry, cavalry and artillery at his own expense).

Now, how can we be expected to fight against the upcoming Marxist Obama regime if we aren't allowed to buy our own M1A2 Abrams tanks and Apache gunships?

It's still a legal requirement for every Englishman to practice the Longbow for one hour every Sunday after Mass from the age of 5.

Who are we to judge?

Besides, the 2nd amendment had in mind the defence against invading Englishmen. Things have moved on, and what you really need now is a defence against Englishmen stealing your wimminz and invading your forumz.

On that basis I suspect Uzi-Toting 8-year olds is a fairly proportionate response.

Where was banning "weapons" mentioned in this thread?