| Author | Post |
|---|
Flintlock
Regular Member
| Joined: | Fri May 26th, 2006 |
| Location: | Alaska USA |
| Posts: | 1189 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 29th, 2008 03:44 pm |
|
redlegagent wrote:
You argument is hopelessly flawed. It is widely understood that many of the rights of "the people" excluded women and blacks to say nothing of children when they were written. Have you never heard of child psychologist Carl Jung or developmental stages etc. I bet the SCOTUS has and any argument to try and extend the second amendment to cover children who can't legally make many decisions or even give testimony except under limited circumstances is a dead end. The amusement ride and rock climbing argument is dead on - these kids cannot possible understand the risks involved and were failed by adults who foolishly thought they were in control of the situation. I don't care if the father signed a consent, the instructor should have been smart enough to make the father stand with the child and help him hold it rather than stand back for a photo op. He could have handed his camera to anyone else to take the damn picture instead of leaving the kid on his own. 
You state that my argument is flawed, but yet you state zero actual factual examples of your counter-argument. Blacks and females were indeed discriminated against, but not absolutely. There is an amendment process to the constitution and changes have been made over the years. I am consistent with my constitutional arguments.. I think I have already mentioned that I believe it is the parents' job to determine when children may exercise all of their rights, but I can tell you that it certainly is not the government's place.
Your argument is tantamount to saying that children don't have a right to life or any other right, until they "legally" - (whatever that means, considering the constitution is the supreme law of the land) are old enough to say so.
It's not the governments' place to dictate to you how to raise your child. This is a parental dicision and your right, I have already said that the instructor should have been involved with a capability decision. That is only responsible.
|
Sonora Rebel
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Oct 29th, 2008 03:51 pm |
|
| Puttin' a short barreled fully automatic combat weapon in the hands of a 3rd grader is irresponsible criminal negligence... No matter how ya cut it. This was a CHILD!
|
Flintlock
Regular Member
| Joined: | Fri May 26th, 2006 |
| Location: | Alaska USA |
| Posts: | 1189 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 29th, 2008 03:55 pm |
|
PT111 wrote: redlegagent - Your point is very well taken on the original meaning of "The People". It is rather amusing at times how many people love to define their rights using the argument of the orginal wording then when confronted by their original intentions change their meaning. I really don't believe that authors of the Constitution intended for all of it to apply to every person no matter what race, gender or age. That interpretation has come about much later primarily in 14A by which time most if not all of the original authors were dead. I also find it amusing that many of the people shouting the 2A from the top of the mountain have no idea that they are only shouting the second half of it.
I don't think that the original authors of the Constution felt that a one-year-old slave child was endowed with the same rights as a 35 year-old white male landowner. Therefore to use the thoughts and writings of the founders as absolute Gospel is like arguing with yourself, there is not going to be a winner. However this is all just my opinion.
Well PT111, he didn't give us the original meaning of the "people" in his argument. I laughed when I read your post that I changed my meaning.. When did I do that? I am consistent with my arguments.
I believe in the orginal wording, absolutely. The constitution has an amendment process if and when changes are ever needed to be made. It is difficult effort to change - as it should be..
But you are right about one thing. Slave children were not considered full-people at the time. Neither were adult slaves.. I never made that argument. But that is mentioned in detail constitutionally.
Your argument against me flawed because you perceive us as receiving your rights when the government told you that it is ok to receive them, not when the founders meant.. The founders have stated many times that our rights derive from God and that we are born with them. The constitution merely enumerates a few of them on our founding documents.
The ratification of our constitution is not when we received our rights and it is not a permission slip for government to decide when and how we are allowed to exercise them.
|
shad0wfax
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Oct 29th, 2008 04:24 pm |
|
Sonora Rebel wrote: Puttin' a short barreled fully automatic combat weapon in the hands of a 3rd grader is irresponsible criminal negligence... No matter how ya cut it. This was a CHILD!
I don't think it's necessarily irresponsible or negligent to allow an 8 year old boy to fire the weapon, provided he has the capability and proper instruction to do so safely. (It is physically possible for an 8 year old child to perform a "mag-dump" with a micro-uzi without being unsafe.)
The key issue here is that he had no training and was not properly instructed or supervised. It is only because of this, that the training instructor was grossly negligent and liable (at least from a civil perspective, if not a legal one) for the resulting death of the child.
|
2a4all
Regular Member
| Joined: | Wed Oct 22nd, 2008 |
| Location: | Newport News, VA |
| Posts: | 440 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 29th, 2008 05:34 pm |
|
shad0wfax wrote: Sonora Rebel wrote: Puttin' a short barreled fully automatic combat weapon in the hands of a 3rd grader is irresponsible criminal negligence... No matter how ya cut it. This was a CHILD!
I don't think it's necessarily irresponsible or negligent to allow an 8 year old boy to fire the weapon, provided he has the capability and proper instruction to do so safely. (It is physically possible for an 8 year old child to perform a "mag-dump" with a micro-uzi without being unsafe.)
The key issue here is that he had no training and was not properly instructed or supervised. It is only because of this, that the training instructor was grossly negligent and liable (at least from a civil perspective, if not a legal one) for the resulting death of the child.
Sonora Rebel has it right! The rhetoric flying back and forth here about gun laws and 2A is complete Bull$#!t.
An accident, my @$$! An accident implies no fault. What was accidental about putting this weapon into this kid's hands?
What we have here is a clear case of child endangerment! Child endangerment laws exist to protect those who are dependent (i.e. minor/small children) on others for protection when those others fail in their duty to protect their charges from harm!
Licensing be damned! This moron of an "instructor" clearly should be held accountable, as should the parent(s) (Where was this kid's mother?)
Sued for wrongful death? By whom? The parents? They should be barred from such action, as they are just as culpable.
There's a reason that the Cub Scouts don't teach firearms to kids. It's a Boy Scout issue! Those decades of child mentoring should count for something. The rifle range at my Boy Scout camp was equipped with single-shot 22s, which limited any given shooter a maximum of ONE errant shot.
|
Flintlock
Regular Member
| Joined: | Fri May 26th, 2006 |
| Location: | Alaska USA |
| Posts: | 1189 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 29th, 2008 05:59 pm |
|
2a4all wrote: Sonora Rebel has it right! The rhetoric flying back and forth here about gun laws and 2A is complete Bull$#!t.
An accident, my @$$! An accident implies no fault. What was accidental about putting this weapon into this kid's hands?
What we have here is a clear case of child endangerment! Child endangerment laws exist to protect those who are dependent (i.e. minor/small children) on others for protection when those others fail in their duty to protect their charges from harm!
Licensing be damned! This moron of an "instructor" clearly should be held accountable, as should the parent(s) (Where was this kid's mother?)
Sued for wrongful death? By whom? The parents? They should be barred from such action, as they are just as culpable.
There's a reason that the Cub Scouts don't teach firearms to kids. It's a Boy Scout issue! Those decades of child mentoring should count for something. The rifle range at my Boy Scout camp was equipped with single-shot 22s, which limited any given shooter a maximum of ONE errant shot.
You are right, it was not necessarily an accident, although nobody meant for it to happen. It was negligent. But gun laws and the 2nd amendment are not Bullstuff...
No offense, but your post can be easily mistaken for something Ted Kennedy would write. Government laws are the answer!! LOL
Parental responsibility is the answer as well as instructor competence. No amount of federal laws will make someone more intelligent or give them anymore common sense.
If the rhetoric your spewing is just, then it's amazing that half of this forum membership didn't accidentally shoot themselves before adulthood. Many of us learned to handle firearms of varying degrees at very young ages.
There are plenty of youth programs and even parental responsibility programs offered by the NRA that might help those that require it. Government laws are not going to be the answer.
As a side note: I learned about archery in Cub Scouts. It is my opinion that it is much more difficult and much more "dangerous" to learn how to safely handle and fire bows and arrows than it is for firearms at that age.
|
2a4all
Regular Member
| Joined: | Wed Oct 22nd, 2008 |
| Location: | Newport News, VA |
| Posts: | 440 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 29th, 2008 07:48 pm |
|
Flintlock wrote: 2a4all wrote: Sonora Rebel has it right! The rhetoric flying back and forth here about gun laws and 2A is complete Bull$#!t.
An accident, my @$$! An accident implies no fault. What was accidental about putting this weapon into this kid's hands?
What we have here is a clear case of child endangerment! Child endangerment laws exist to protect those who are dependent (i.e. minor/small children) on others for protection when those others fail in their duty to protect their charges from harm!
Licensing be damned! This moron of an "instructor" clearly should be held accountable, as should the parent(s) (Where was this kid's mother?)
Sued for wrongful death? By whom? The parents? They should be barred from such action, as they are just as culpable.
There's a reason that the Cub Scouts don't teach firearms to kids. It's a Boy Scout issue! Those decades of child mentoring should count for something. The rifle range at my Boy Scout camp was equipped with single-shot 22s, which limited any given shooter a maximum of ONE errant shot.
You are right, it was not necessarily an accident, although nobody meant for it to happen. It was negligent. But gun laws and the 2nd amendment are not Bullstuff...
No offense, but your post can be easily mistaken for something Ted Kennedy would write. Government laws are the answer!! LOL
Parental responsibility is the answer as well as instructor competence. No amount of federal laws will make someone more intelligent or give them anymore common sense.
If the rhetoric your spewing is just, then it's amazing that half of this forum membership didn't accidentally shoot themselves before adulthood. Many of us learned to handle firearms of varying degrees at very young ages.
There are plenty of youth programs and even parental responsibility programs offered by the NRA that might help those that require it. Government laws are not going to be the answer.
As a side note: I learned about archery in Cub Scouts. It is my opinion that it is much more difficult and much more "dangerous" to learn how to safely handle and fire bows and arrows than it is for firearms at that age.
But gun laws and the 2nd amendment are not Bullstuff...
True, but all the rhetoric about them in this thread is (i.e. are they really relative to this incident?).
No offense, but your post can be easily mistaken for something Ted Kennedy would write. Government laws are the answer!! LOL
Sometimes kids just need to be protected from their parents.
I too remember archery from Cub Scouts. It was a closely supervised activity with low-pull bows (so kids could draw them) and (somewhat blunted) target arrows. I also remember parents admonishing kids to be careful "so you don't put someone's eye out". There were also the role models provided by the fictional characters Straight Arrow, Lone Ranger, the Cisco Kid, Gene Autry and others that reinforced what parents told their kids. A way more cautious world then.If the rhetoric your spewing is just, then it's amazing that half of this forum membership didn't accidentally shoot themselves before adulthood. Many of us learned to handle firearms of varying degrees at very young ages.
Could be true. There's young, and then there's too young. Boy's Life Magazine offered some guidelines (would you give your kid a $50.00 bill and send him to the grocery store?). I got my first rifle for Christmas when I was 13, after years of begging and demonstrating proper firearms safety at Boy Scout camp. I had a hunting license and a shotgun before I had a driver's license. I didn't take my younger (by 8 years) brother hunting, though.
|
PT111
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Oct 29th, 2008 07:57 pm |
|
The founders have stated many times that our rights derive from God and that we are born with them. The constitution merely enumerates a few of them on our founding documents.
The ratification of our constitution is not when we received our rights and it is not a permission slip for government to decide when and how we are allowed to exercise them.
If those rights are endowed by God then why did the Founding father even state them? If they are endowed and everyone knew it then there was no need to even mention then in teh Constitution or BOR. Also you say a few of them, why not all of them. Did they just pick and choose then ones they thought were important? Where in the Bible, Koran or other religious texts does it say that it is the right of 8 year olds to walk around wqith UZI's slung over their shoulder. The 2A says arms but it doesn't say rifles, pistols, cannons, tanks or knives. You have put your own interpretaion into it and others have put theirs. I don't know which one is correct but I really don't think the original thought behind 2A was to be sure 2 year olds could carry cannons around behind their prams.
|
Flintlock
Regular Member
| Joined: | Fri May 26th, 2006 |
| Location: | Alaska USA |
| Posts: | 1189 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 29th, 2008 08:03 pm |
|
2a4all wrote: But gun laws and the 2nd amendment are not Bullstuff...
True, but all the rhetoric about them in this thread is (i.e. are they really relative to this incident?).
No offense, but your post can be easily mistaken for something Ted Kennedy would write. Government laws are the answer!! LOL
Sometimes kids just need to be protected from their parents.
I too remember archery from Cub Scouts. It was a closely supervised activity with low-pull bows (so kids could draw them) and (somewhat blunted) target arrows. I also remember parents admonishing kids to be careful "so you don't put someone's eye out". There were also the role models provided by the fictional characters Straight Arrow, Lone Ranger, the Cisco Kid, Gene Autry and others that reinforced what parents told their kids. A way more cautious world then.If the rhetoric your spewing is just, then it's amazing that half of this forum membership didn't accidentally shoot themselves before adulthood. Many of us learned to handle firearms of varying degrees at very young ages.
Could be true. There's young, and then there's too young. Boy's Life Magazine offered some guidelines (would you give your kid a $50.00 bill and send him to the grocery store?). I got my first rifle for Christmas when I was 13, after years of begging and demonstrating proper firearms safety at Boy Scout camp. I had a hunting license and a shotgun before I had a driver's license. I didn't take my younger (by 8 years) brother hunting, though.
I agree that there is such a thing as too young. But I believe that is for the parents to decide and not for the government. All of the examples you mentioned are initiatives that are in strictly controlled environments that either parents run themselves or allow others to run in their stead.
I killed my first rabbit with a .22 at age 8. I was carrying my own rifle and hunting through the Alaskan wilderness with my dad at age 9. I realize that not all kids are raised like I am, but it was my father's decision to decide when he thought I was ready and when he felt comfortable, not because of what some government regulation forced upon him. That's why I am mentioning rights in this thread.
|
Flintlock
Regular Member
| Joined: | Fri May 26th, 2006 |
| Location: | Alaska USA |
| Posts: | 1189 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 29th, 2008 08:10 pm |
|
PT111 wrote: The founders have stated many times that our rights derive from God and that we are born with them. The constitution merely enumerates a few of them on our founding documents.
The ratification of our constitution is not when we received our rights and it is not a permission slip for government to decide when and how we are allowed to exercise them.
If those rights are endowed by God then why did the Founding father even state them? If they are endowed and everyone knew it then there was no need to even mention then in teh Constitution or BOR. Also you say a few of them, why not all of them. Did they just pick and choose then ones they thought were important? Where in the Bible, Koran or other religious texts does it say that it is the right of 8 year olds to walk around wqith UZI's slung over their shoulder. The 2A says arms but it doesn't say rifles, pistols, cannons, tanks or knives. You have put your own interpretaion into it and others have put theirs. I don't know which one is correct but I really don't think the original thought behind 2A was to be sure 2 year olds could carry cannons around behind their prams.
For the sake of saving bandwith, I could PM you about what I think the 2nd amendment means and what it covers, if you'd like. But I would ask that you read all of my posts on this thread and hopefully come to the conclusion that my main point is to say that I am against government regulation on constitutional grounds to raising your children. I say it is up to the parents to decide when their children are ready to handle certain firearms or not, not the government.
We are born with these rights but that is mentioned to make sure the government doesn't attempt to regulate all of them away from us. We have many more rights that are not listed such as the right to eat, breath, travel, etc.. Obviously, the founders were concerned about government intrusions on some of the important rights they thought might come into play at a later date as a basis for their enumeration.
|
shad0wfax
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Oct 31st, 2008 08:53 am |
|
2a4all wrote: shad0wfax wrote: Sonora Rebel wrote: Puttin' a short barreled fully automatic combat weapon in the hands of a 3rd grader is irresponsible criminal negligence... No matter how ya cut it. This was a CHILD!
I don't think it's necessarily irresponsible or negligent to allow an 8 year old boy to fire the weapon, provided he has the capability and proper instruction to do so safely. (It is physically possible for an 8 year old child to perform a "mag-dump" with a micro-uzi without being unsafe.)
The key issue here is that he had no training and was not properly instructed or supervised. It is only because of this, that the training instructor was grossly negligent and liable (at least from a civil perspective, if not a legal one) for the resulting death of the child.
Sonora Rebel has it right! The rhetoric flying back and forth here about gun laws and 2A is complete Bull$#!t.
An accident, my @$$! An accident implies no fault. What was accidental about putting this weapon into this kid's hands?
What we have here is a clear case of child endangerment! Child endangerment laws exist to protect those who are dependent (i.e. minor/small children) on others for protection when those others fail in their duty to protect their charges from harm!
Licensing be damned! This moron of an "instructor" clearly should be held accountable, as should the parent(s) (Where was this kid's mother?)
Sued for wrongful death? By whom? The parents? They should be barred from such action, as they are just as culpable.
There's a reason that the Cub Scouts don't teach firearms to kids. It's a Boy Scout issue! Those decades of child mentoring should count for something. The rifle range at my Boy Scout camp was equipped with single-shot 22s, which limited any given shooter a maximum of ONE errant shot.
Claiming that placing the firearm (whether fully-automatic or not) into a child's hands is by definition endangering the child is the rhetoric you are railing against. Your boyscout analogy is another place where you use rhetoric.
I used the word accidental discharge refering to the boy's finger remaining on the trigger due to his inexperience. I also said "accidental shooting death" because the boy pulled the trigger and he certainly didn't mean to shoot himself in the head, thus he accidentally shot himself in the head. He shot himself by accident because of his inexperience.
Keep in mind that I also labeled the parent as negligent, although ignorantly so, still negligent. The father ignorantly believed that the micro-uzi would be the safest full-auto to shoot because it was a light caliber and therefore should have light recoil. (He didn't understand that a 900 RPM rate of fire (or 1600 RPM on a closed-bolt model) combined with a short barrel and comparatively light gun is a dangerous recipe for muzzle flip.)
Furthermore, I clearly called the instructor grossly negligent. I said this because the instructor should have known the true danger of a micro-uzi in untrained hands. (Even a full-sized adult could hurt or even kill himself in the same manner the boy did, if it was their first time firing a full-auto and they had no instruction.) Whether or not the parents should be barred from filing a civil suit against the negligent instructor is not an argument I'm willing to get into with you.
As for the Cub Scouts not teaching kids to shoot and leaving it to the Boy Scouts, that's not a statement of capability or a guideline the public should necessarily follow. The Cub Scouts choose not to train children on firearms for liability purposes because they don't want to get sued for the death or injury of a child.
I disagree with you on the issue of properly supervised children shooting more than single-shot .22s and so does this 12 year old IPSC competitor. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTUpWdB0kiI I guarantee you that he started younger than 12 to be at the level he is at currently.
This 9-year old boy shooting a Thompson disagrees with you as well. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfDkvSb8TSc The recoil does push him back some, but the muzzle is controlled at all times. It's obviously not his first time. (Gee, look what happens when you use a longer, heavier weapon instead of a machine-pistol...)
Here is an example of proper instruction on firing a mini-uzi at a machine-gun shoot in Idaho. It is a mini-uzi (longer and heavier than the micro-uzi) in the hands of a 16 year old girl who is relatively small and a first-time (for full-auto) shooter: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--yqy-wNANM Notice that she is using the folding stock at all times and the instructor is in physical contact with her shoulder at all times as well. He started her with semi-auto fire, then burst-fire, and then later fully automatic fire. He ensures that she is in a proper stance for full-auto fire and constantly reminds her to lean forward. Even so, the recoil still pushes her back much farther than it should, and he has to apply hand pressure to her shoulder to keep her safe. If she were planning on continuing to shoot full-auto or training seriously, these are problems she would have to correct and demonstrate competency with before the instructor would ever let her fire that weapon without his hand on her shoulder.
Whether or you think any of these three children (or their parents) are irresponsible is your own opinion, but they (and I) disagree with you.
EDIT: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pmmu0FRLPr4 This 9 year old boy firing a mini-uzi disagrees with you as well.
Last edited on Fri Oct 31st, 2008 10:45 am by shad0wfax
|
deepdiver
Activist Member
| Joined: | Mon Apr 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Missouri USA |
| Posts: | 4755 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 31st, 2008 11:55 am |
|
I didn't know BSA changed their rules. I took a firearms safety class and shot a .22 rifle and a black powder rifle while in cub scouts in the late 70s. It was limited to senior cub scouts, ie the older kids. I think I was 11 at the time.
|
Doug Huffman
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Oct 31st, 2008 12:01 pm |
|
The BSA has not reacted well to the rise of the looney left, surviving for a while by compromising.
|
The Donkey
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Oct 31st, 2008 01:03 pm |
|
The instructor was in the best position to realize the dangers here.
Am I correct that this was a firearm borrowed from the range, and that the parents were not firearms experts?
If so, the parents cannot be expected to recognize the dangers inherent in allowing the child to use one type of firearm versus another, or to permit use of this fully automatic combat weapon by an inadequately trained and unready child.
|
Orygunner
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Oct 31st, 2008 01:41 pm |
|
shad0wfax, +1 on your previous post. Very logical and well thought out response.
I agree, this was an accidental death, but it appears negligence on the instructor's part MAY have played a role.
But can we even know that for sure? Perhaps he handed him the weapon, and before he could get prepared, the kid took it upon himself to try shooting it? Or maybe accidentally pulled the trigger before he had a grip on it, and the instructor wasn't expecting it?
Accidents do happen, even with the best of instruction. When I was teaching my 7 year old to ride hiw ATV (90cc), we had been riding for a couple of hours and he was doing well with starting, stopping, and turning. Suddenly, he came to a corner, going pretty slow, and just didn't turn... He plowed into a bunch of bushes. Didn't let off the throttle, and didn't hit the brakes at all. I got him pulled back out of the bushes and asked him why he did that? He said he couldn't turn because he felt like it was going to tip over (not even possible where he was at). I asked him why he didn't let off the throttle or use the brakes, and he said he didn't know and just couldn't remember how to stop right then.
Was that negligence on my part that he had brain lock and crashed? What if something worse had happened and he was injured or died? Everything, including so-called Common sense is relative. Some people think I'm nuts, irresponsible, and negligent in letting my kids ride ATVs & dirt bikes. Other people recognize that just about anything with proper instruction and supervision is possible, and risks can be well managed to keep things relatively safe.
There's a lot of possible factors that could have been responsible for the 8 year old shooting himself. While everybody has their opinion, I think some of the people in this thread are jumping to a lot of conclusions before ALL the facts are available.
...Orygunner...
|
shad0wfax
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Oct 31st, 2008 06:58 pm |
|
The Donkey wrote: The instructor was in the best position to realize the dangers here.
Am I correct that this was a firearm borrowed from the range, and that the parents were not firearms experts?
If so, the parents cannot be expected to recognize the dangers inherent in allowing the child to use one type of firearm versus another, or to permit use of this fully automatic combat weapon by an inadequately trained and unready child.
You are correct. The father mistakenly believed that since the 9mm was a light recoil pistol cartridge that a micro-uzi was a good choice for a young first-time full-auto shooter. (I don't think the mother was present, as she was not mentioned in the article at all.) The father obviously didn't know the danger of uncontrolled recoil and muzzle-climb. The instructor should have known better and been in the correct position to control the firearm if it got out of control. The instructor failed to do so.
Orygunner:
Thank you. Your assertion that negligence may have been a factor is the proper legal assertion. My assertion that gross negligence is the cause is jumping to legal conclusions before any trial or even analysis by the DA has occurred.
Your analogy to ATV's is relevant and you make a good point. However, there is a slight difference: in your situation you felt that your son was capable on his own and later he "choked up" and crashed. You had a basis for trust in your son's competence at this point. In the case of the boy accidentally shooting himself, the boy had never fired a fully-automatic weapon before and therefore had no basis of competence or trust established to do so safely.
The hypothetical situation you described where the boy fires the weapon before the instructor was expecting it is quite possible, if not even probable. In the link I posted of the 16-year old girl with the mini-uzi, the instructor hands her the weapon with the safety on and he keeps his hands on the weapon until he has verified that she is physically ready to take control of the weapon and fire it. This is the proper method of training in this situation, and failing to follow that method of training, especially with a very young shooter (such as an 8 year old boy) is, by definition, improper supervision and I would consider that negligent behavior.
Last edited on Fri Oct 31st, 2008 07:08 pm by shad0wfax
|
Doug Huffman
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Oct 31st, 2008 07:52 pm |
|
shad0wfax wrote:The father mistakenly believed that since the 9mm was a light recoil pistol cartridge that a micro-uzi was a good choice for a young first-time full-auto shooter.
This is I believe the gross technical error. Momentum is conserved and even a small rimfire cartridge fired at high enough rate, would be beyond even Rambut's ability to control.
A problem in the early development of airborne Gatling-type artillery is their ability to stop an AC in flight.
|
Mudwalker
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Dec 5th, 2008 10:48 am |
|
Here's the latest:
Pelham police chief indicted
Friday, December 05, 2008
BUFFY SPENCER
bspencer@repub.com
SPRINGFIELD - Pelham Police Chief Edward B. Fleury was indicted on an involuntary manslaughter charge on Thursday in the death of an 8-year-old Connecticut boy who shot himself accidentally at a Westfield gun show in October.
Also indicted on involuntary manslaughter charges were the Westfield Sportsman's Club, where the death occurred, and two other individuals, identified in court records as Carl Giuffre, of Hartford, and Domenico Spano, of New Milford, Conn.
Fleury and the sportsmen's club were each also indicted by a Hampden Superior Court grand jury on four counts of furnishing a machine gun to a person under 18.
MORE at: http://www.masslive.com/springfield/republican/index.ssf?/base/news-18/122846671939540.xml&coll=1
S/F
Mud
|
Orygunner
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Dec 5th, 2008 12:35 pm |
|
That sucks big time.
Anyone find it strange:
...no indictments were sought against Dr. Charles Bizilj, Christopher's father, who selected the gun that killed his son. "The father will be punished every day of the rest of his life," said Bennett.
Like none of the other people responsible for this tragedy are suffering? Nobody needs to do jail time for this, especially just for "furnishing a machine gun to a minor." That right there is a total load of crap, and that law violates the 2nd Amendment.
If anything, some sort of negligence charge may be appropriate, but don't punish these people more than they've already been.
...Orygunner...
Edited to put quotey thing in.Last edited on Fri Dec 5th, 2008 12:36 pm by Orygunner
|
Mr. Y
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Dec 5th, 2008 12:50 pm |
|
I don't know that this law is fulnerable to a 2A challenge on it's face. If the kid was of legal age to enlist, that might be vulnerable as applied since after enlistment you would soon be handling f/a weapons. Proficiently.
This could make some bad case law if it goes to the worst case scenario. I understand that furnishing a gun to a person under 18 is more often used to outlaw sales or effectual 'transfers' to a minor; not this case which had the child under direct (and disputably adult) supervision.
|
Current time is 03:56 pm | Page:   1 2 3 4 5   |
|
|
|
