I've changed my way of thinking, regarding the 2A

[MRH]

ETA- I would add this to the notion of a 6yr old with a gun. I bought my sons first gun just a few months after he was born. He was shooting firearms by time he was 3-4, was carrying a pistol when in the woods by time he was 8. The guns I bought him are his. However, as his negligence was going to be applied to me as his adult supervision, I restricted his unadulterated access to them. He's 18 in a few months. I told him he needs to buy a safe. Also, I don't have to buy him his guns anymore. He's been considering what he wants to be his first purchase.

This sounds exactly like my childhood, although I had no sidearm...I had a shotgun and a .22 hanging on a gun rack in my bedroom all my life. This was in the 80's. I would walk up my street, with a gun, and into the woods everyday after school and nobody (neighbors) ever thought a thing about it. It was normal. Personal responsibility and safety with a firearm were second nature to me, and every other kid I knew growing up who owned firearms. It comes from responsible parents.

 

[SchmittZoid]

Well too bad for you because I'm pretty hard to the right of most people on here. Shows how much you know about me.

Gordy,

You are correct in one point, I don't know squat about you, other than what you post here. I do find however, those who play "devil's advocate" are usually somehow signed up under his apprenticeship program.

The points I was seeing from the "arguments/questions" you were posing tended to lead me that direction (liberal).

If your line of questioning above does not mirror your leaning, then what is your intent? To stir the pot? Then yes, I must agree with you the similarity to Laufen is in fact striking.

 

[MRH]

I never said no one under 16 should not own a gun.

As for your shall not be infringed argument...that is why I asked about a 6 year old. Do you think a 3, 4, 6, 11 year old have a right to own a gun that shall not be infringed by either the state or other person such as their parent or do you think a parent can limit the age and if so to what age?

Everyone here is saying "ohh shall not be infringed, shall not be infringed" yet you guys do not want to admit that would in fact seperate a parent of having any say so as to what age a child can own and operate a gun.

I believe it was GeauxLSU who stumped me with the age thing on 2A rights a while back and after much thought on the subject I believe anyone should be able to own a gun, no matter their age, but I also believe that parents most definitely have the right to decide for their children what they can or cannot have...Much like any other decision parents make for their children. I don't see how the BOR has anything to do with taking away parents rights to parent their children.

Agreed.
Also I believe the parents have the right to have say so about their own children or those they have custody of.
That being said I believe a parent has the right to infringe upon that child's right, as one right ends where another's begins.

That being said the Govt needs to stay out, except for the judge presiding over the law suit for any negligence the child is involved with.

Exactly.

 

[SchmittZoid]

I never said no one under 16 should not own a gun.

As for your shall not be infringed argument...that is why I asked about a 6 year old. Do you think a 3, 4, 6, 11 year old have a right to own a gun that shall not be infringed by either the state or other person such as their parent or do you think a parent can limit the age and if so to what age?

Everyone here is saying "ohh shall not be infringed, shall not be infringed" yet you guys do not want to admit that would in fact seperate a parent of having any say so as to what age a child can own and operate a gun.

Negative, you are trying (unsuccessfully) to set up a logical construct that inserts the government and the Bill of Rights in the chain of parental authority. Again, something Laufen would do . . . .

 

[GeauxLSU]

Gordy,

You are correct in one point, I don't know squat about you, other than what you post here. I do find however, those who play "devil's advocate" are usually somehow signed up under his apprenticeship program.

The points I was seeing from the "arguments/questions" you were posing tended to lead me that direction (liberal).

If your line of questioning above does not mirror your leaning, then what is your intent? To stir the pot? Then yes, I must agree with you the similarity to Laufen is in fact striking.

GF is no liberal and he's a good guy. He is just like the VAST majority of gun owners who see no problem with any number of restrictions and ... what is it?....That's right "sensible gun laws". The irony of his post in THIS thread, considering the subject of the OP, are just sort of striking.
Many gun owners (not saying GF is one) are very uncomfortable admitting what the 2A is about. It is about as politically INcorrect as can be today. Once you accept and understand what it is about, the rest becomes infinitely clearer. If it doesn't.... start over.

 

[YOTESHOOTER]

And you think society has produced smarter, more responsible kids? LOL.

No and today's pathetic baby makers are worse than the kids, the walnut does not fall from the tree.............

Fortunately grandparents are having to step in and raise the kids, "THANKS TO THE GRAND PARENTS"!! they might be able to
steer them in a better direction......

 

[SchmittZoid]

GF is no liberal and he's a good guy. He is just like the VAST majority of gun owners who see no problem with any number of restrictions and ... what is it?....That's right "sensible gun laws". The irony of his post in THIS thread, considering the subject of the OP, are just sort of striking.
Many gun owners (not saying GF is one) are very uncomfortable admitting what the 2A is about. It is about as politically INcorrect as can be today. Once you accept and understand what it is about, the rest becomes infinitely clearer. If it doesn't.... start over.

And I get that, really I do. It's just that some of the "examples" given in favor of "limitations" are taken to the extreme, taken completely without context and background, and which seem on the surface, disingenuous and quite frankly, masque the intent of the writer . . . . .

If we cannot have a real conversation that is centered around real ideas then I fear we are only one shade of "off-white" away from that which we loathe the most.

Or am I missing something . . . . ?

 

[Gordon Freeman]

GF is no liberal and he's a good guy. He is just like the VAST majority of gun owners who see no problem with any number of restrictions and ... what is it?....That's right "sensible gun laws". The irony of his post in THIS thread, considering the subject of the OP, are just sort of striking.
Many gun owners (not saying GF is one) are very uncomfortable admitting what the 2A is about. It is about as politically INcorrect as can be today. Once you accept and understand what it is about, the rest becomes infinitely clearer. If it doesn't.... start over.

I know exactly what the 2A is about, and its not for hunting or range practice, or even defense from home invaders. Having said that, I never asked any agency or federal government to restrict anyone's rights on my behalf, and I have called for complete dismemberment of the ATF and NFA laws, and prohibition of carrying in government buildings and schools. My position is that not of the average mainstream "gun owner". It's rather scary to most people when you mention the elimination of restrictions on silencers, SBR'r and ownership of tanks. Just having a conversation here.

 

[GeauxLSU]

And I get that, really I do. It's just that some of the "examples" given in favor of "limitations" are taken to the extreme, taken completely without context and background, and which seem on the surface, disingenuous and quite frankly, masque the intent of the writer . . . . .

If we cannot have a real conversation that is centered around real ideas then I fear we are only one shade of "off-white" away from that which we loathe the most.

Or am I missing something . . . . ?

No you are not missing anything, we just differ on our perception of his intent. I don't think it's nefarious. Again, I just think he's like 95%+ of gun owners that haven't walked their specific 2A beliefs all the way to the logical conclusion or ever attempted to justify them Constitutionally to themselves. He will vote for the more pro 2A candidates.

 

[GeauxLSU]

I know exactly what the 2A is about, and its not for hunting or range practice, or even defense from home invaders. Having said that, I never asked any agency or federal government to restrict anyone's rights on my behalf, and I have called for complete dismemberment of the ATF and NFA laws, and prohibition of carrying in government buildings and schools. My position is that not of the average mainstream "gun owner". It's rather scary to most people when you mention the elimination of restrictions on silencers, SBR'r and ownership of tanks. Just having a conversation here.

Keep going.......... you would have denied the 14 year old American Revolutionary his right to bear arms?