Well I fail to see what a 15 year old illegally smuggling a 22 caliber revolver into school has to do with giving shotguns to adults living in dangerous neighborhoods, but I'm not the one trying to say it's a bad idea, you are.

As for backing up Ducimus you're right, but I also have the right to not only agree with him but say so when I do.

Too bad the "throw more guns at the problem until it goes way" mentality is probably just as ineffective as banning weapons altogether.

And this after you post the kid probably got the gun from irresponsible parents ? Let's hand out shotguns to "adults" in bad neighborhoods. I'm guessing you are assuming the adults that are more than likely parents will be accountable with this shotgun? Certainly the people in the bad neighbor will be much more responsible. The way I see it then is the person handing out the shotgun is an enabler. So, irresponsible parents(adults) leave guns around for their kids(after all, kids can only get guns from their parents) and providing more weapons to these folks is a good idea. I do not see this as a good idea.

This.

The gun came from somewhere. Odds are it was a parent. Maybe the kids parents, or maybe a friends parents who didn't keep their gun away from kids reach.

As for infringing, that's exactly what your post there was implying, only in a very sarcastic way. (I know all about sarcasm, i should write a book on it). As to shotguns, i was happy posting funny biden pictures until you made that post.
After reading that post, I can understand your being emotional about it. Any parent would be. Despite that, what your post there makes me wonder, is just how much of your personal freedoms are you willing to give up for the illusion of safety. If your willing to let government take away some or all of your personal freedoms in order to make you feel safer, that's fine. But don't expect the rest of us to go along with that idea. I for one would go down fighting to defend them.

Just use a double-barrelled shotgun. :up: Easy to check if it still contains a shell, in the latter case it's also impossible to blow through it.

-Once again, you are assuming the gun was gotten from a irresponsible parent, friends parent, aunt, uncle....can't do that. Guns are gotten on the street all the time.

-Please show me in my original post were infringing on anything was implied, inferred or out right saying it. You will not find it.

-My post was not about personal freedom and giving up any part of it. It concerned being on the other side of the coin and the picture is much different. Are some weapons available for purchase really necessary to have and own?

-Did I ask anyone to go along with my "idea"? On the same token, do not expect others to go along with your idea that having a arsenal is a personal freedom and all people are responsible gun owners ready and willing to be accountable.




-No sir, you did not understand anything about being emotional in my post. You blatantly went on a dissertation of your life in high school and everyone should suck it up and invest in body armor. You understanding any emotion in my post was utterly lost between the following:

and Your post basically states it happens all the time so it is ok. Reaming the bore is what it is all about.

I'll trade your irresponsible parent with a parent who uses one of these shotguns to protect his family from home invaders. I'll bet there are a heckuva lot more of the latter than the former in the high crime neighborhoods of our country.

I think you bet on too much. I also believe you love to muddle conversations with post such as this. Finding hard evidence would be helpful. Honestly, what does home invaders have to do with my original post?

Muddle? It's the reason for the thread. Why else do you think they want to hand out shotguns? To shoot skeet?

Avgwarhawk:
Did you bother to read my entire post or only selected items?

You mean this one?

Seems like a general rant against the 2A using an example that nothing to do with the subject at hand to me.

The bottom line here is just because some people might abuse a right, that is not a justification for denying that right to others.

You still did answer my question. What does home invaders have to do with my original post? Did I state we should deny any rights? Was I justifying anything other than when the coin is flipped it looks different from that side?

About as much as your example has to do with the thread topic of arming adults. Good enough answer?

You called it "entirely out of control" That implies that you favor control and would likely support efforts to deny people their civil rights.

The problem is you're comparing the halves of two different coins. Giving an adult the means to defend themselves vs an underage person illegally possessing something. Apples and oranges my friend.

Lets rewind so AVG can understand what he was really saying.
You open with sarcasm. So what your meaning is the exact opposite of what your saying. So your "did i say that?" defense is a load of crap.


What your really saying, "Lets exacerbate the problem as i see it!"


What your really saying, "Bad stuff!"

So now your chastising.


More chastisement.


Here is where your sarcasm stopped and you start talking directly.

Your lead in to what has you emotionally charged.

Your reason for switching stance on the 2nd amendment.


About the only thing that wasn't offensive, because it's something everyone can be grateful for.

This, may as well have been a personal insult. Like i said, I've seen plenty of violence growing up. Much less cheering for gun ownership, right to self defense and the 2A ? Yeah right. I experienced violence directly against my own life growing up. So yeah, I took that as a personal insult since i'm probably someone you catagorize as "go guns".


When you use sarcasm, what you say, and what you mean are two different things.

-The answer will have to do.

-I am in favor of some form of control. Support a control is not supporting efforts tot deny a civil right. Do we really need fully auto rifles with magazines that hold 50 rounds? In my mind, unless you are defending yourself in a wartime situation, a fully auto capable of holding 50 rounds is overkill for "home defense." The word "control" is simply over defined. The good upstanding people my have their guns if they desire. It is their civil right. There just won't be any that hold 50 rounds capable of mowing down the entire lot of mall patrons. So, everyone can get a gun. Just not one particular kind of gun. Were then has a civil right been denied?

-Apples and oranges? But, wait, the responsible adults ready to take on accountability for their weapons is forming up to be a myth. The kids are still getting the weapons from the parents lot of firearms as you have assumed since my first post in this thread. The apples have become the enablers for the oranges. :03:

You not a a person who is "go guns." You are a person who is "go Bill of Rights and Constitution." You do not beat the bush about either. Guns just happen to be the subject matter. Your are passionate about the Constitution and Bill of Rights as evident in your sig and postings. Admirable certainly. However, do not allow it to trump what others think or believe on the subject. We are entitled to our opinions. Only my wife is allowed to give me my opinion. :shifty:

Just so you know, getting fully auto guns is extremely hard to do. You have to go through ATF to get finger printed, photo taken, etc etc. They're called Class 3 weapons, and nobody uses those as self defense weapons that I am aware of.

You keep bouncing between subjects. This thread is about SHOTGUNS. Your example of why you are against it included a link to a story about REVOLVERS. Now you're defending your position by talking about supposed evils of MACHINEGUNS?

One type of gun? In this thread alone you have objected to four types of guns by my count.

They call it the Bill of RIGHTS, not the Bill of NEEDS Brother. If you don't like it then try and repeal the second Amendment. To do anything less is both dishonest and weakens the rest of the BoR.

I have not applied for such a weapon. But these weapons do find their way on the streets. But I'm entire agreement concerning parents that allow guns to lay around for kids to have at if needed. I'm kind of in favor of having the parent arrested if the weapon used by the kid is registered to the kids parent. These days home owners are arrested if a under age kid drinks at their home. Why not translate this thought to weapons?

It should also be noted that the current semi-auto ban proposal in Congress would be more restrictive than the full auto ban.