Lying in an attempt to win. What else can it be? Certainly the NRA has never said anything like that. My guess they could not even find a gun owner who has said anything like that else.
Oh, and do you want to know what a NRA spokesperson really looks like? Here is a picture of a couple of them from the NRA convention last May:
Sorry about the poor picture of the one on the right. She probably just heard the latest lie from some anti-gun bigot claiming the NRA was a bunch of baby killers or something.
Can you see any resemblance between the artist’s rendition and reality?
Lies, it’s all they have to work with.
Also it raises another question. If you trust a teacher to care, mind, and educate you child 5 days a week during school, but somehow if this person was given the same right to self-defense (and by proxy your children) as the rest of us, something really bad would come of it…or something.
Anti-rights groups assure that when a freak arms up to commit murders, they are a GOD until the police arrive.
L. Neil Smith believes children should carry guns on their own. Google “Kids, Guns and Schools L Neil Smith” to find his essay (I’m too lazy to find the link on my own this morning). And I agree with him!
The funny thing is, though, that the NRA does NOT support such things. The NRA also doesn’t mind making machine guns illegal–which I disagree with, too.
The NRA that went along with the full auto freeze was almost 25 years ago. Things have changed since then. Yes, as an organization they still aren’t as aggressive as we would like but I don’t think the leadership has any opposition to machine guns. They just don’t think there is any political advantage to be talking about them at this time.
I didn’t read it all that closely but it didn’t seem to me that Smith was talking about handguns being carried by small children. Rifles and shotguns for hunting by even 12 year olds? Sure, I don’t have a problem with that. In Idaho even 10 year olds can buy a hunting license. So why can’t they take the gun with them to school so they can hunt before or after?
Handguns in the hands of 6 year olds while on the playground for self defense? I’m not convinced that is a good idea. Do we have any data on that?
I’m pleased to see that we can change “the NRA does NOT support such things” to “the NRA did not support such things” :-). In changing the hearts and minds of the people, the NRA has to change first…or, at least, perhaps the NRA is reflecting the hearts and minds of the people! It’s hard to see for certain.
With regards to data, I don’t think L. Neil Smith had any hard data. In his essay, he talked about kids at the age of six being given rifles to hunt with, and whatnot. Most of this happened at the 19th and early 20th centuries.
Overall, though, I’m inclined to agree with L. Neil Smith on this issue…but then, over the last few years, I’ve become rather hard-core libertarian. Yes, as a Latter-day Saint, and as a product of the public school system, this sometimes conflicts with my sensibilities, but overall, I’m convinced that the best thing we could do with government is to figure out the best way to privatize it, and then let individuals figure out the best ways to get along!
Devil’s advocate here: “Handguns in the hands of 6 year olds while on the playground for self defense? I’m not convinced that is a good idea.”
Self defense is a natural right. Would you deprive 6-year olds of Freedom of Speech? Would you deprive them of their other enumerated rights? That’s what bigots do!
The gun industry should be incouraged to invent pacifier-style guns and baby bottle-style guns. If a kid can hold a pacifier, he can hold a gun! When we take guns away from babies, the Brady’s win!
Nikki Goeser and?
ubu52,
I’m so pleased to finally have you on our side! I will treasure this moment for a long, long time.
There are lots of infringement of natural rights on those that are not mature enough. We force 6-year olds to go to school. We won’t let them freely associate with anyone they want to. We prohibit them from accessing certain books, magazines, and movies. We don’t allow them to drive vehicles on public roads. We don’t allow them to use certain recreational drugs that are legal for adults (tobacco and alcohol).
It is an interesting and difficult question as to what is the best way to determine when someone is mature enough to handle the responsibilities. Clearly some are ready for adult responsibilities at age 16. Others end up in prison for their irresponsible behavior at ages greater than 21.
I hope you are not arguing that all adults should be treated like children in regards to guns unless they are given government paychecks
“…kids at the age of six being given rifles to hunt with, and whatnot. Most of this happened at the 19th and early 20th centuries.”
I don’t know about the age of six, but in the late 20th century at least, we regularly had kids show up to high school with hunting rifles and shotguns in their cars (well, usually pickups). No one thought anything of it other than, “Oh, I see Johnny is going hunting.” Nowadays I suppose they’d freak out, call the police, and require suspension, counseling and psychological evaluation for the hunter. Maybe they’d go after the parents as well.
That’s political control by overreaction. I suppose that would fit into my definition of an “ignoracracy”. Some would argue, snootily and with their noses in the air, that “times have changed” yadda yadda, blah, blah. Right. And who’s been in charge of the education and “welfare” establishments for the last several decades? The ignoracracy. Times (actually attitudes) have changes because the left changed them. For the worse.
FTFY. Ever since Columbine, I’ve never heard of a school district where having a firearm in your truck didn’t automatically trigger an expulsion if the school officials found out about it.
Joe,
There is no mention of this thing you call “maturity” in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Give those newborns their guns!
Lyle,
Funny, but I think the problems with guns have to do with increased First Amendment freedoms. We had no violent video games, no “cop killer” rap songs, etc. Growing up, we watched Andy Griffith and Lucille Ball. A violent movie was “Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid,” not “No Country for Old Men.” Violence became fashionable, glamourous even, in the past 30 years.
Nice try ubu, your trap is ill-concealed.
Try looking up “citizen” for a change and then tell me if newborns and children are qualified to exercise the full rights of a citizen. Because “well regulated” meant “well-trained” back then, and it was important enough to be listed among the first ten.
Oh AntiCitizen, way to prove you are not from this world. The Supreme Court never said that “well regulated” meant “well-trained.” You made that up.
Everyone born in the USA is a citizen. It’s in the 14th Amendment. Here’s the text:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
It says nothing about age. You lose, you loser! I’m saying that everyone should have gun rights and you are saying that you are a bigot!!
And neither was it said in the Constitution that “well-regulated” = “gun free zones” or “waiting periods” or “assault weapons bans” etc, etc. that antis like you make up.
However it is to be said that if you cannot be trusted without a custodian, you cannot be trusted with a gun. Unless these are emancipated minors, do you honestly trust newborns and children without their guardians? Please see David Codrea’s site and his column: http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-national/some-people-simply-shouldn-t-have-guns for more information. Unfortunately, it is difficult to determine who is mature, but then again, you can’t save everyone.
If you don’t have the brainpower and mental skill to comprehend the Constitution, let alone any book, how can you remember how not only to be safe with a gun but also how to use it properly, confidently, and efficiently?
True. Because it never needed to.
False.
But, then again, facts have never been much of a hinderance to UBU’s various rantings and ravings,
evenespecially when she is acting (?) the idiot…The Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller:
ubu52,
Most of the time I think you present yourself fairly well. This isn’t one of those times. Although you are welcome to continue I would advise otherwise.
Your choice.
Ubu is also showing the fallacy that all antis expect of us – that we’re just handing out arms willy-nilly. No, it’s the other way around. You want to bear arms? It’s there for you if you want, but YOU have to pick your butt up off that chair and get to it! No one will hand them out to you!
Whoops, I sit corrected. Thanks for digging that up, Joe.
Now, let us see if UBU can admit her own error.
“Most of the time I think you present yourself fairly well. This isn’t one of those times. Although you are welcome to continue I would advise otherwise.” Ha! It’s rather fun to take the other position: “Guns for Everyone” and see the usual people actually argue against that.
I blew it on the “well-regulated” thing. I’ll admit it. I didn’t look it up.
You know what is interesting to me about this whole discussion: 10-year olds can get a hunting license in Idaho. A kid 8 or 9 can get jumped into an urban gang, and it actually came out in court testimony that the Mexican Mafia appointed a 14-year old as “shot caller” for one gang. So how young is too young to handle a gun?
If you cannot comprehend the consequences of your actions…
If you cannot follow instructions…
If you cannot be taught the value of life and how to defend your own…
You are too young to handle a gun effectively to the fullest extent.
Hence the “citizen” classification. Children have the PROTECTION afforded to them by the government/Constitution. They were GIVEN this protection. However no child is able to VOTE. Voting is participating in the democratic process of this great nation. By voting, you are saying that you understand the consequences of this decision and how it affects other individuals, and that you understand the worth and value of your vote, and what it means to you as a person. By voting you are saying you have enough life experience to see how the world is run and affected every single day.
Thus, if you cannot vote, you cannot be trusted with a gun.
Could that be because none of us are actually arguing for that?
“Straw man”. Go look it up.
First, here’s photographic evidence of a six-year-old with a rifle, and evidence that he knew how to use it: http://www.corneredcat.com/Kids/1932.aspx
Second, I am in the midst of reading a book, available online (in bits and pieces), describing the maturity level of children at the time of the American Revolution. See http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/1q.htm
As a brief summary, this section describes someone who, as a 10-year-old, was commissioned as a midshipman. It describes how he handled the first time he saw someone killed (the guy’s head was blown off, and landed on him), and at the age of twelve, he was given his first command when he was picked to head a prize crew.
Read the whole thing: it’s rather interesting!