# Nine year old girl accidentally shoots & kills firearm instructor with UZI



## wat (Aug 27, 2014)

You know, there is a video of the instructor and he's obviously doing everything he can to show her how to hold the gun, how to stand and all that...but...it's a *FUCKING UZI*, a fully automatic sub-machine gun, and she's 9 years old. 

You would think a voice in the back of his head would tell him that no amount of careful instruction could make giving a fully automatic to a 9 year old NOT a terrible idea. Now he's dead, his kids are without a father, his wife without a husband and a 9 year old girl is a killer. 

Uzi recoil causes girl to fatally shoot gun instructor - FOX5 Vegas - KVVU



> DOLAN SPRINGS, AZ (FOX5) -
> Authorities in northwest Arizona said the recoil on an automatic Uzi while in the hands of a 9-year-old girl led to a weapon instructor's fatal shooting.
> 
> Charles Vacca, 39, of Lake Havasu City, AZ, died Monday night while being treated at University Medical Center in Las Vegas, the Mohave County Sheriff's Office said Tuesday.
> ...


----------



## Cloudy (Aug 27, 2014)

I saw this earlier, completely ridiculous. I get that teaching kids about guns is important in a country where its as easy as it is to get a gun but a nine year old has NO business shooting a fully automatic weapon.


----------



## Mik3D23 (Aug 27, 2014)

Cloudy said:


> I saw this earlier, completely ridiculous. I get that teaching kids about guns is important in a country where its as easy as it is to get a gun but a nine year old has NO business shooting a fully automatic weapon.




Get that commie talk outta here! Are you one of the libtard controlled media's drones sent to brainwash us?!


----------



## Dog Boy (Aug 27, 2014)

When I was 9 I was watching tv and playing Nintendo. I wasn't permited to shoot a single shot .22 until I was 12. What kind of parents want their kid to have automatic weapon experience at 9 years old? She should have been playing with Barbies.


----------



## loqtrall (Aug 27, 2014)

Mik3D23 said:


> Get that commie talk outta here! Are you one of the libtard controlled media's drones sent to brainwash us?!



All that made me think of was:



As for the age I was allowed to use a firearm, well I'm old enough I could use one legally if I wanted to, but my mother always told me she'd beat my ass if she ever found out I used/shot a gun. For any reason. And to this day I still haven't owned or shot one, no need to.


----------



## tedtan (Aug 27, 2014)

I feel sorry for the girl for having to live with that for the rest of her life and the guy's kids, but when you do stupid things, bad things often happen so the instructor's death is definitely on his own hands.


----------



## asher (Aug 27, 2014)

Big difference between teaching her how to shoot and deciding she's capable of handling a fully automatic weapon.


----------



## jerm (Aug 27, 2014)

Dog Boy said:


> When I was 9 I was watching tv and playing Nintendo. I wasn't permited to shoot a single shot .22 until I was 12. What kind of parents want their kid to have automatic weapon experience at 9 years old? She should have been playing with Barbies.



Exactly my thoughts.

Kids shouldn't be using weapons like this. 

Boils down to stupid parenting.


----------



## Dog Boy (Aug 27, 2014)

tedtan said:


> I feel sorry for the girl for having to live with that for the rest of her life and the guy's kids, but when you do stupid things, bad things often happen so the instructor's death is definitely on his own hands.


 
Don't mean to start something but what exactly did the Instructor do that was stupid?


----------



## Captain Butterscotch (Aug 27, 2014)

He let a 9 year old hold a loaded ....ing automatic weapon.


----------



## Mik3D23 (Aug 27, 2014)

Dog Boy said:


> Don't mean to start something but what exactly did the Instructor do that was stupid?



Let a 9 year old shoot an Uzi?


----------



## Dog Boy (Aug 27, 2014)

Mik3D23 said:


> Let a 9 year old shoot an Uzi?


 
Hmmm, well how do we know it wasn't comapny policy to let 9 yos shoot at the range? Maybe the Instructor was just doing his job? Maybe the kid was incapable of understanding the instuctions at that age?


----------



## USMarine75 (Aug 27, 2014)

It's hard enough teaching adults, even professionals (i.e. military, LE, etc) how to shoot fully auto and 3 round burst weapons... let alone a 9 year old girl. WTF.


----------



## Fred the Shred (Aug 27, 2014)

9 year old. Uzi.

What's next? 7 year old accidentally explodes family and self with grenade?

Learning how to wield guns - fine. Putting anything that packs a real punch in the hands of a kid is silly, let alone a full automatic. I took my first shots when I was 10 or 11, but it was a typical hunting shotgun, and the recoil was obviously pretty overwhelming at first - can't begin to imagine having done that with an automatic rifle. Maybe because my family isn't downright insane.



Dog Boy said:


> Hmmm, well how do we know it wasn't comapny policy to let 9 yos shoot at the range? Maybe the Instructor was just doing his job? Maybe the kid was incapable of understanding the instuctions at that age?



Maybe the instructor had all the right to make a judgement call should he have seen the understandable inability of the child to cope with the gun or the inherent safety rules? Maybe doing one's job isn't really about giving a child green light to fire a weapon said child was clearly unprepared to handle as he'd be toying with death by then?


----------



## Mik3D23 (Aug 27, 2014)

It probably was his job.. And I wouldn't be surprised if it's commonplace for kids to do this at this place. But at some point this guy took a job and voluntarily helped a 9 year old shoot an Uzi.. 

I'd be more scared of a child with a sub-machine gun, than losing my shooting range job because I refuse to put my life in danger.


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash (Aug 27, 2014)

Dog Boy said:


> Maybe the kid was incapable of understanding the instuctions at that age?


No Instructions are going to be able teach a 9 year old on how to stabilize an Uzi.


----------



## JD27 (Aug 27, 2014)

That just real poor judgement, plain and simple.


----------



## MikeH (Aug 27, 2014)

I'm pro-gun, but this is utterly stupid. No reason for a child to be using a gun of that caliber. (No pun intended)


----------



## Dog Boy (Aug 27, 2014)

JoshuaVonFlash said:


> No Instructions are going to be able teach a 9 year old on how to stabilize an Uzi.


 
Agreed.


----------



## asher (Aug 27, 2014)

Likely a discretionary decision on the part of the instructor.

Shooting instructor dies after being accidentally shot by girl | Las Vegas Review-Journal


----------



## Necris (Aug 27, 2014)

And the Darwin award goes to...


----------



## UnderTheSign (Aug 27, 2014)

Dog Boy said:


> Hmmm, well how do we know it wasn't comapny policy to let 9 yos shoot at the range? Maybe the Instructor was just doing his job? Maybe the kid was incapable of understanding the instuctions at that age?



See:



Mik3D23 said:


> It probably was his job.. And I wouldn't be surprised if it's commonplace for kids to do this at this place. But at some point this guy took a job and voluntarily helped a 9 year old shoot an Uzi..
> 
> I'd be more scared of a child with a sub-machine gun, than losing my shooting range job because I refuse to put my life in danger.



"Just doing his job" is bollocks. What's next, saying Mengele wasn't accountable for anything, he was, after all, just doing his job?

_Common. Freaking. Sense._


----------



## Overtone (Aug 27, 2014)

2008
Christopher Bizilj
8 years old



> What came next happened so fast, it was hard to make out even on the videotape captured on Dr. Bizilj's video camera. The four-foot, three-inch, 66 pound Christopher pulled the trigger and the Micro Uzi fired a powerful burst. The recoil forced the gun barrel up and the butt stock of the gun slipped off Christopher's chest. The gun, still firing, spun around Christopher's trigger finger until the barrel pointed up and back toward Christopher. A fatal bullet smashed into his head, sending a piece of his skull shooting up toward the sky.


 Why this instructor would be unaware or indifferent of this story boggles my mind. "Now go full auto" is a very casual way of treating the situation after seeing the girl just shoot once or twice. Would a driving instructor ever say "now floor it?" if their student was just a regular 16 year old getting their license? Why should this instructor be training a 9 year old in automatic weapons with such an easygoing attitude?

The harsh truth of how I feel about this is that it's still a better outcome than the girl having killed herself.



> "All right, go ahead and give me one shot," he tells the girl, whose back is to the camera during the entire 27-second video. He then cheers when she fires one round at the target.​"All right full auto," Vacca says. The video, which does not show the actual incident, ends with a series of shots being heard.


----------



## Dog Boy (Aug 27, 2014)

Fred the Shred said:


> Maybe doing one's job isn't really about giving a child green light to fire a weapon said child was clearly unprepared to handle as he'd be toying with death by then?


 
Well that's what we don't know. There are probably all kinds of waivers and policies in place and maybe the instructor made a bad call. But the parents have to share in the blame for this too...she's nine years old and this isn't the mid east.


----------



## tedtan (Aug 27, 2014)

Necris said:


> And the Darwin award goes to...



Yeah, but too bad it didn't happen before he passed his genes along (no offense intended towards is surviving family).


----------



## The Shit Wolf (Aug 27, 2014)

Dog Boy said:


> Hmmm, well how do we know it wasn't comapny policy to let 9 yos shoot at the range? Maybe the Instructor was just doing his job? Maybe the kid was incapable of understanding the instuctions at that age?



As far as I know it's perfectly legal in vegas for kids to shoot at ranges, I have friends that have taken their kids but they were all smart enough to have the kids start with smaller guns with less recoil and their kids were usually closer to 12-13. 

I'm not saying I agree with it though, I've been saying for years we should set some of age limit (instead of height requirement) in Vegas for kids to go to shooting ranges because this type of scenario is actually pretty commen here except what normally happens is the parents take the kids to the range, the instructor is professional and teaches them to shoot but then once they are home they find a gun, think they know how to Handle it and shoot themselves or a sibling.

The other problem here is the countless amounts of accidents caused by people going out to the desert to shoot and get drunk 




asher said:


> Likely a discretionary decision on the part of the instructor.
> 
> Shooting instructor dies after being accidentally shot by girl | Las Vegas Review-Journal



Heads up for anyone who reads this article and visits vegas, bullets and burgers sucks...my burger was really dry and their fries were soggy. Go to "pops philly cheese steaks" best food in town.


----------



## tedtan (Aug 27, 2014)

Dog Boy said:


> Don't mean to start something but what exactly did the Instructor do that was stupid?



There's no way a child can just grab an automatic weapon and control it. What happens when you fire a full auto weapon (one that fires more than one round per trigger pull) is that the recoil from each shot causes the next successive shot to be a little higher than where that first shot went. This is often referred to as having the point of aim "walk up" on you. This is something that even adults have to learn to control, and properly teaching that with someone new to automatic weapons involves limiting the number of rounds in the magazine so that they can't get themselves (or others in the vicinity) in trouble. Start with one round, move on to two, then three. Also, having some type of restraining device to prevent the firearm from straying more than a few degrees off the initial point of aim wouldn't hurt, either.

But the simplest way to avoid this is to simply not put a full auto weapon in the hands of a young child. That, in and of itself, was a stupid decision. To add on to someone's analogy above, you don't teach a kid to drive a car by sticking him behind the wheel of a Formula One car or a top fuel dragster - that's just way too much for him to control. And the Uzi is like that race car: it's not a pellet gun for plinking cans on the back 40, it's a high performance weapon designed for close quarters urban combat, and too much for a child to control.

Note that I'm not anti-gun. I grew up shooting, and even learned at 2-3 years of age with a .22LR. But my uncle or dad made sure they were actually in control of the gun so I couldn't accidentally hurt or kill someone. And that's the key that's being missed - safety is paramount when dealing with things that are potentially lethal.


----------



## Hollowway (Aug 27, 2014)

Dog Boy said:


> Well that's what we don't know. There are probably all kinds of waivers and policies in place and maybe the instructor made a bad call. But the parents have to share in the blame for this too...she's nine years old and this isn't the mid east.



There's no maybe here. He DID make a bad call. But I agree that the parents are equally at fault here. What's surprising is that the situation got far enough to have a 9 year old firing an Uzi, and no one stopped it. What are the odds of finding enough people to allow this to happen? Sadly, probably not nearly bad enough. If this were on a TV show no one would believe it.


----------



## asher (Aug 27, 2014)

If the parents are stupid enough to want it, it's the instructor's *job* to tell them that the kid is going to be unable to control the weapon.


----------



## TimothyLeary (Aug 27, 2014)

that's my girl.


----------



## narad (Aug 27, 2014)

tedtan said:


> Yeah, but too bad it didn't happen before he passed his genes along (no offense intended towards is surviving family).



I don't think it's a genetic predisposition...


----------



## Forrest_H (Aug 27, 2014)

I feel so sorry for that little girl, she's probably sick with guilt right now...


----------



## Overtone (Aug 27, 2014)

Unless she's an Obaminati plant who was brainwashed to do this as part of his gun control agenda.


----------



## gigawhat (Aug 27, 2014)

I'm very pro-gun, it's the way I was raised. The day my parents found out they were having a boy, my grandpa went out and bought a Daisy Red Ryder and a Daisy break-open pellet gun. I got a Remington Youth Single Shot .22LR for my 4th birthday, and some kind of gun for just about every birthday after that. I starting shooting in local competitions at 8, and actually won a State-Level Black-powder competition at 9 against 20+ boys no younger than 3 years older than myself. And with a smaller gun. 

While guns have played a huge part in my family's life, from recreational shooting to hunting for food, gun safety has always been a bigger part. 

Take that .22 I got for my 4th birthday for example. Right when I got it, literally having just pulled it out of its box, I as an excited 4-yo proceeded to look through the scope at everything out the window pretending like I was shooting stuff. In my excitement when I turned around to say something to my grandparents, I accidentally tracked the barrel across my grandpa's legs. He immediately jumped up and took it from me, told me why he was taking it from me and put it away. I cried and pleaded, but he said I couldn't touch it again for a week, and only then if I could tell him how I messed up, and why what I did was so bad.

My whole childhood was like that. I knew from a VERY young age that guns are not toys, you do not "play" with guns, and that they are very serious business and MUST be treated as such.

Now I say all that to lead up to this story, pretty soon after I won that competition at 9, my grandpa and I were at our local range when the county SWAT team showed up to practice with the new armaments they had just got. One of the guys had a select-fire MP5 that everyone was going ga-ga over, and eventually everyone got a try. Now even for the adults, they only got 5 rounds, and most of those always ended up in the burm after the first or second shot.
When I asked to try my grandpa said no. A child has no business shooting a full auto weapon is pretty much what he said. After some talk it was agreed that I could try the burst-fire. So 3 rounds were loaded, and with my grandpa behind me bracing my back and arms, I got to live every kids dream. Even with him bracing me, the third shot hit the very top of the burm, and it was decided that that was it. Lord knows how that would have played out had I been handed a full-auto, even with a limited clip.

Needless to say, if I couldn't have handled a full-auto rifle with all the experience I had by then, surrounded by a ton of people who had been shooting much longer than I was alive, a 9 yo girl has no business what-so-ever shooting a full-auto pistol, under any circumstances, and the fault lies with the father for allowing his daughter to do it, and the instructor for not doing his job and shutting down the idea immediately as unsafe. Unfortunately in this case, the instuctor and his family and the girl and her family suffered for their lapse in judgement.



Overtone said:


> Unless she's an Obaminati plant who was brainwashed to do this as part of his gun control agenda.



I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but it is a tad ridiculous how much coverage incidents like these are receiving since gun control was brought back to the board. And how little information is actually being released about them compared to similar pre-'08 incidents.


----------



## metaldoggie (Aug 27, 2014)

Didn't they learn anything from this???

Court Video of Boy Who Shot Himself With Uzi - ABC News


----------



## TheStig1214 (Aug 27, 2014)

*facepalm*


----------



## Necris (Aug 27, 2014)

gigawhat said:


> I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but it is a tad ridiculous how much coverage incidents like these are receiving since gun control was brought back to the board. And how little information is actually being released about them compared to similar pre-'08 incidents.



Well, you see the same thing with things like the Ferguson shooting, after that happened I saw a huge uptick in the reporting of shootings by police, excessive force used by officers and questionable arrests.


----------



## DocBach (Aug 27, 2014)

asher said:


> If the parents are stupid enough to want it, it's the instructor's *job* to tell them that the kid is going to be unable to control the weapon.



No shit, subject matter expert and all should know perhaps handing machine guns to an inexperienced child might be a little out of her comfort zone -- a .22 perhaps?


----------



## asher (Aug 27, 2014)

DocBach said:


> No shit, subject matter expert and all should know perhaps handing machine guns to an inexperienced child might be a little out of her comfort zone -- a .22 perhaps?



Dog Boy does not seem convinced


----------



## Rev2010 (Aug 27, 2014)

Pro-Guns or Anti-Guns, a 9 year old should NOT be shooting an automatic weapon. What f'ing purpose does it serve??? Is she going to come home from school to stumble upon her parents tied up in a home invasion and magically conjure up an Uzi?? No, ain't gonna happen. Why couldn't the parents give her a real vacation rather than shooting lessons at a gun range? WTF is wrong with some people?? My father tought me how to shoot when I was younger, can't recall the age but I think I was around 12 or so. It was a single shot rifle, also can't recall the caliber but it was probably between 22 and 30 caliber. It was fun, but if I had a child I'd personally still wait till he/she was 16, but the thought of having such a young child as 9 years old handle an automatic is just plain insanity. The chances of a recoil causing death to someone in the vacinity for a single shot weapon is almost nil. For an automatic the risks are tremendous. Look at that other boy that also died shooting an UZI, at 8 years old. An automatic weapon in the hands of someone that can pull the trigger but not handle the strength of recoil is just... god I have nothing more to say. People are just so god damned stupid sometimes.


Rev.


----------



## Dog Boy (Aug 27, 2014)

asher said:


> Dog Boy does not seem convinced


 
They sell more burgers if they let everyone shoot. FOLLOW THE MONEY.


----------



## Shimme (Aug 27, 2014)

Man I have only a small amount experience with guns (~15 hours on small gauge shotguns and ~3 on .22s), but doesn't the positioning of the instructor seem unsafe? Shouldn't he be standing behind the girl on her trigger arm if he's going to help her, instead of standing at her side opposite the weapon? Obviously it's foolish to have a young girl trying to control a fully automatic pistol, but it seems to me that lax safety also contributed. Unless I'm completely off base here, which is possible.


----------



## Overtone (Aug 27, 2014)

> Unless I'm completely off base here, which is possible.



No it isn't.


----------



## 7stg (Aug 27, 2014)

That instructor gets a Darwin award. Wrong in many ways. Watching the video, that girl has no business with that gun. She is unskilled, she does not even know the basics like a proper stance.

The only way I could see teaching a kid to use an UZI, Is first. Insure they are a very competent shooter not just a shoot every once in awhile on the weekends kind of shooter. Second, start with one bullet to get a feel of the recoil and insure that was handled with competence. Third, two bullets to get a feel of the second shot and I would stay here for a good long while until I felt comfortable that they could handle the second shot. Then add a third bullet and go through the process again.

Similarly, I will not let a rookie shooter shoot a 500 mag or 454 with more than one round in the gun, as the recoil can cause a rookie to shoot off a second round.


----------



## 7stg (Aug 27, 2014)

double


----------



## estabon37 (Aug 28, 2014)

You know, I started typing, and there were lots of words, as usual for me. But ...



That poor kid. 

I'll rant another day. Tonight I'm just going to hope that the people who failed to do the right thing by her in the lead-up to the accident do the right thing by her now, and give her the love and protection she needs.

....ing hell.


----------



## Tyler (Aug 28, 2014)

I can perfectly see someone of that age firing a 22 bolt action rifle or something like that. I did that when I was a kid and my Grandfather taught me how to shoot, but an automatic weapon should be out of the question.


----------



## OmegaSlayer (Aug 28, 2014)

This would have sounded bad even if it happened in Sudan :/


----------



## jwade (Sep 1, 2014)

Most adults firing an Uzi would have a hard time keeping it stable. How anyone could think that a small child could possibly handle the recoil is amazing. Unparalleled stupidity.


----------



## tacotiklah (Sep 1, 2014)

I've always been a moderate on guns. If you are competent, not insane, and responsible, then by all means own a gun. Own ten guns, I don't care.

But this proves that all it takes is one very poor lapse of judgment and then someone is dead. Even worse, a 9 year old girl has to grow up with the guilt that she took another person's life, even if it was on accident. Congrats "parents", you all but destroyed your daughter's mental health and robbed another family of their father. And what for? Because you got off on seeing kids shoot uzis?

There isn't a word in the English language that describes the loathing I have for those failed pieces of shit that try to call themselves parents. It just lends more credence to the notion that parenting should come with a competence test.


----------



## fps (Sep 2, 2014)

tacotiklah said:


> I've always been a moderate on guns. If you are competent, not insane, and responsible, then by all means own a gun. Own ten guns, I don't care.
> 
> But this proves that all it takes is one very poor lapse of judgment and then someone is dead. Even worse, a 9 year old girl has to grow up with the guilt that she took another person's life, even if it was on accident. Congrats "parents", you all but destroyed your daughter's mental health and robbed another family of their father. And what for? Because you got off on seeing kids shoot uzis?
> 
> There isn't a word in the English language that describes the loathing I have for those failed pieces of shit that try to call themselves parents. It just lends more credence to the notion that parenting should come with a competence test.



...or, since that's impossible, that being around guns should.


----------



## tacotiklah (Sep 2, 2014)

You have my total agreement there. I've long advocated that firearms ownership should be a licensed thing as a means to weed out the crazies. I have no delusions as to it being some sort of god-given policy for ending all gun-related deaths, but I do see it as at least being a step in the right direction. 

I feel that if you aren't crazy, irresponsible, and/or using the size of a gun to compensate for dick size (after a fashion, it can fall into the two previous categories), then own all the guns you want. 

I view gun ownership and religion in the same light as I do a penis; it's fine to have. Hell, be proud of it if you want. But don't cram it down my throat and definitely do not whip it out in public, especially around innocent kids.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Sep 2, 2014)

I think you're on to something there: Link gun ownership qualification to penis size. Schlong under a certain length? No gun for you! That'd cut down the ownership numbers in a hurry! Either because of undersized wieners, or being too shy to let the guy behind the desk at Walmart take a tape measure to ol' Mr. Winky.

We've just solved the gun problem in the US. I believe pats on the back are in order all around.


----------



## asher (Sep 2, 2014)

Extra strict standards for law enforcement.


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash (Sep 2, 2014)

asher said:


> Extra strict standards for law enforcement.


OT: That's a whole 'nother can of worms. There should be strict standard not just for the right to use the guns but to even put on the uniform.


----------



## asher (Sep 2, 2014)

So what you're saying is 1/2" stricter for the uniform then another 1/2" again for a gun?


----------



## tacotiklah (Sep 2, 2014)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> I think you're on to something there: Link gun ownership qualification to penis size. Schlong under a certain length? No gun for you! That'd cut down the ownership numbers in a hurry! Either because of undersize wieners, or being too shy to let the guy behind the desk at Walmart take a tape measure to ol' Mr. Winky.
> 
> We've just solved the gun problem in the US. A believe pats on the back are in order all around.



I know you're being facetious, but there are times I actually almost believe that would solve half the world's problems right there.


----------



## gigawhat (Sep 5, 2014)

tacotiklah said:


> You have my total agreement there. I've long advocated that firearms ownership should be a licensed thing as a means to weed out the crazies.



I'd appreciate it if you weren't so quick to give away people's natural-right to own firearms.

I mean, I understand where you are coming from, but it just opens too big a can of worms.

Let's look at two other instances where the government stepped in and started using licenses to regulate use of natural-rights.

First we have the Driver's License, which was originally issued to make sure that anyone who got behind the wheel of a car was at least knowledgeable in its use, and semi-competent in the application. All well and good, how can you even argue against that. Now-a-days though, it's used as a way to assure not just competency, but also to assure you are debt-free to the government, to your baby-mama, and that you have registered all your personal info with the government. It seems like there was something else I am forgetting, but even just those three are enough. What do ANY of those things have to do with your ability to drive a car? Nothing, but they can keep you from getting your license to drive one.

Now let's look at another, granted its arguable, natural-right that the government so graciously stepped in and made a privilege. 

The Marriage License.

This was originally for nothing more than records keeping, but for the longest time it has been used to stop people from getting married based on arbitrary reasons such as gender, race, religion, etc. To this day because marriage is now a governed institution, when you have the operation performed (I'm assuming you want one, I'm not fully up-to-date on where you stand there, I apologize if I'm being inaccurate) and are "legally" recognized as a woman by the government, you will be unable to marry a girl and have it be a "legal" marriage in the eyes of the government.

Now inarguably, requiring licenses for these has done some good, i.e. keeping people who really shouldn't be behind a wheel off the streets, keeping 16-17 year olds from running off and eloping, etc, but by doing so has allowed a heinous invasion into your personal and private life by the government.

And at the same time, they aren't really stopping anything. That person who shouldn't be behind the wheel will probably still drive, the kids will just run off to some state with less strict marriage laws, meanwhile the single dad who doesn't make enough to cover rent, bills, and all his child support can't get his license renewed because his baby mama filed on him for paying late, gays can't get married simply because they have the same genitalia, hell even in this day and age a Louisiana judge wouldn't allow an interracial couple to get married. Granted he was forced to resign and I'm sure they ended up getting married, but it WAS in his power to say no for that simple fact. 

Just like if they require licenses for firearms, the crazies will still get guns one way or the other, while most law-abiding citizens will be unarmed because they can't be bothered going through the ridiculous process of getting a gun.

I personally am afraid to see the stipulations the government would attach to a license to own a firearm. The ones to get a CHL in some states are ridiculous enough as it is.

TLDR: Licenses for firearm ownership? No. Just... no.


----------



## asher (Sep 5, 2014)

I question your assertion that driving is a natural right very strongly. A right to be able to get around - for transportation? Probably. But not to _driving_.

Similarly, you have a natural right to _self-defense_ but not necessarily to _guns_.

Also, your argument basically boils down to "there are some good reasons to do this, but it doesn't always work right, so instead of fixing the process, scrap it all!".


----------



## Konfyouzd (Sep 5, 2014)

asher said:


> Big difference between teaching her how to shoot and deciding she's capable of handling a fully automatic weapon.



A PRODIGIOUS difference. 

We go shooting all the time out in the country with children younger than her. They can handle a .22 rifle just fine. I've never even shot an automatic weapon myself, but I imagine if a 9mm or a .45ACP moves when I fire it, it's gonna happen the same way with an automatic one just RAPIDLY.

Putting that in her hands was stupid.

If you let her drive a car and she goes out and runs someone over it was your dumb ass fault for letting that happen.


----------



## gigawhat (Sep 5, 2014)

asher said:


> I question your assertion that driving is a natural right very strongly. A right to be able to get around - for transportation? Probably. But not to _driving_.
> 
> Similarly, you have a natural right to _self-defense_ but not necessarily to _guns_.
> 
> Also, your argument basically boils down to "there are some good reasons to do this, but it doesn't always work right, so instead of fixing the process, scrap it all!".



Driver Licensing vs. Right to Travel - TLP

That is my rebuttal to your opinion that right to travel is a privilege. It makes for a very interesting read with all legal quotes referenced. Basically it boils down to this.



> The forgotten legal maxim is that free people have a right to travel on the roads which are provided by their servants for that purpose, using ordinary transportation of the day. Licensing cannot be required of free people, because taking on the restrictions of a license requires the surrender of a right. The driver's license can be required of people who use the highways for trade, commerce, or hire; that is, if they earn their living on the road, and if they use extraordinary machines on the roads. If you are not using the highways for profit, you cannot be required to have a driver's license.



Right to travel on the roads...using ordinary transportation of the days would equal driving a car.


Also, claiming that owning guns is not a natural-right goes against our very country's Constitution, and those of most of the state's as well. 

The 2nd amendment declares:


> A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.



So explain to me how the right to keep arms is not a right to own firearms. Unless you're going to argue the definition of arms.

To your last point, I'll ask this, because 1-5%, hell even 10% of the population causes issue, the answer is to subjugate the ENTIRE population? Anytime we see such acts anywhere else in the world, we usually declare them tyrannical.


----------



## asher (Sep 5, 2014)

gigawhat said:


> Driver Licensing vs. Right to Travel - TLP
> 
> That is my rebuttal to your opinion that right to travel is a privilege. It makes for a very interesting read with all legal quotes referenced. Basically it boils down to this.



Clearly didn't read what I said.



> Right to travel on the roads...using ordinary transportation of the days would equal driving a car.



Or a bus, train, bicycle, subway, etc...



> Also, claiming that owning guns is not a natural-right goes against our very country's Constitution, and those of most of the state's as well.
> 
> The 2nd amendment declares:
> 
> ...



1. Right via the Constitution of the U.S. != a "natural right" by definition.

2. The SCOTUS has held multiple times that the government, though it cannot remove said ability to bear arms completely, that it is allowed to regulate or place limits on manufacture, sale, or ownership of said arms.

Licensing is a regulation, no?



> To your last point, I'll ask this, because 1-5%, hell even 10% of the population causes issue, the answer is to subjugate the ENTIRE population? Anytime we see such acts anywhere else in the world, we usually declare them tyrannical.



THE TYRANNY OF A DRIVER'S LICENSE!

This is kind of risible as an equation.


----------



## FILTHnFEAR (Sep 5, 2014)

I was 8 when I first shot a weapon but it sure wasn't fully automatic. And I think I was 17 the first time I fired an uzi on full-auto. I can't imagine handing that to a 9 year old girl. 

This girls father and that instructor are first class morons. That little girl is going to have a rough time with this. And has absolutely no fault in the incident. I feel sorry for her.


----------



## gigawhat (Sep 5, 2014)

asher said:


> Clearly didn't read what I said.
> 
> Or a bus, train, bicycle, subway, etc...



You obviously didn't read, yes, while those are also means of transportation, can you really argue that cars are not ordinary transportation of the day? I would say at least half of our country, if not way more, drive a car going about there everyday business. Therefore "driving" a car would fall under a right to travel. This argument stems from you saying you strongly disagree that driving is a right. I'm not sure what point you are making by bringing up subways and bikes.



asher said:


> 1. Right via the Constitution of the U.S. != a "natural right" by definition.
> 
> 2. The SCOTUS has held multiple times that the government, though it cannot remove said ability to bear arms completely, that it is allowed to regulate or place limits on manufacture, sale, or ownership of said arms.
> 
> Licensing is a regulation, no?



Lawls, I'll give you your definition of Natural-right, though I was always speaking in terms of the USA, so Constitutional rights are supposedly just as good.

I would like legal references to those SC decisions, as the two most recent I can find say otherwise.

District of Columbia v. Heller 554 U.S. 570 (2008)


> The Supreme Court of the United States held in a 5-4 decision that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution applies to federal enclaves and protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.



That says that the Feds can't touch your right to own a gun for lawful purposes.
That doesn't apply to everyday carry or even self-defense itself, but SOLELY gun ownership, which is what our little discussion is about.

McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010)


> The Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states.



This says that the SC said not just the Feds, but even the States can't touch your right to own a gun. Both of those are in direct contradiction to your claim.




asher said:


> THE TYRANNY OF A DRIVER'S LICENSE!
> 
> This is kind of risible as an equation.



So it's not the scale but the level of the crime that decides if it's tyranny? So if Saddam Hussein had just stolen everyone in the country's lunch money everyday or tapped the whole country's phone lines to spy on them instead of killing a bunch of people, he wouldn't have been a tyrannical leader? 

Tyranny:Cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary use of power or control.

Sure, a driver's license is kind of inane compared to mass murder and other such depravity, but doesn't it always start out small and innocuous, i.e. hey, wear this armband.

(Yes I understand a holocaust reference is quite a reach, but it's an example. And doesn't make the example any less true. I'm not trying to suggest that is where we are headed or some shit.)


----------



## Rev2010 (Sep 5, 2014)

gigawhat said:


> I'd appreciate it if you weren't so quick to give away people's natural-right to own firearms.



"Natural" right? Firearms aren't natural objects, and last I checked the constitutional right to bear arms falls under man-made societal governance. And the right to bear arms simply means you have a right to possess a firearm. What difference does it really make under that context if there's a simple requirement of owning a license? You can still have firearms, you just need to have the proper permit, same as driving a vehicle requires a license as you mentioned. It insures you are aware of proper, and safe, use of said object and the laws surrounding its use. Can't see how that's so terribly impeding on people's rights.



gigawhat said:


> Just like if they require licenses for firearms, the crazies will still get guns one way or the other, while most law-abiding citizens will be unarmed because they can't be bothered going through the ridiculous process of getting a gun.



That's the thing though, yes the crazies will still get guns because people will *always* be able to get guns illegally, but you simply can't use that as an argument because it has no basis. Is it simple to get illegal guns? In some places yes, in others it's very difficult. Many factors attribute to this on either side. But, the penalties for getting caught with an illegal firearm are also severe. So since the crazies will still attempt to gain hold of a firearm does that mean we should just make it that much more easy?? Oh sure, forget licenses, approval wait periods, let's just hand off a legally purchased gun right on spot to some guy who wants to shoot his wife cause she left him.

You're also still quoting a constitution that was written over two hundred years ago in a time where firearms were more necessary in a newborn country amongst much wilderness. Are things never supposed to change?

Sorry, I don't agree.

*EDIT - saw your natural right response. Here's what I get first response from Dictionary.com and Mirriam Webster:


*natural right

Examples
Word Origin

noun
1.
any right that exists by virtue of natural law.*

Mirriam: 

*natural right
noun
Full Definition of NATURAL RIGHT
: a right conferred upon man by natural law <a natural right &#8230; would hold in the absence of organized government &#8212; Lucius Garvin> &#8212; compare legal right *

Still can't see how the right to bear arms fits under that definition.


Rev.


----------



## Mik3D23 (Sep 5, 2014)

Driving is not a natural right. It is a privilege. If you are a danger to other drivers/people, then yes, that privilege can be taken from you, or other measures can be taken against you. You agree to all of this the second you get a driver's license.

That's not to say that police officers/others use a driver's license for purposes further than they should. But if someone has a warrant out for their arrest for murder, and they get pulled over, should that not be searchable when their license gets ran? There's more things that it is used for than your small list of anecdotes.


----------



## MFB (Sep 5, 2014)

gigawhat said:


> The 2nd amendment declares: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> 
> So explain to me how the right to keep arms is not a right to own firearms. Unless you're going to argue the definition of arms.
> ...



I like that you brought up the 2nd Amendment, because it begs the question: ARE you part of a militia? Because if you read it, a more modern interpretation would read like this: "a well regulated militia will not have it's rights to keep and bear arms infringed upon, as it is necessary to the security of a free state," but how many people who actually own guns ARE belonging to a militia? IIRC, militia are organizations that have members, chapters, etc... yet not a single person I've ever met at a range has said, "Yeah, I belong to a militia" but everyone's willing to throw out the 2nd Amendment as this be-all-end-all


----------



## tacotiklah (Sep 5, 2014)

gigawhat said:


> I'd appreciate it if you weren't so quick to give away people's natural-right to own firearms.
> 
> I mean, I understand where you are coming from, but it just opens too big a can of worms.
> 
> ...



Excellent points, but I'm kinda iffy on "natural right" to own a firearm. I see it more as a privilege and one to not take lightly. Don't get me wrong, I've posted in the gun thread and I still have an interest in getting one (finances have never worked out for me to make that first purchase, and I find buying firearms while on the dole to be irresponsible), but I'm not going to delude myself into thinking that Jesus descended from the heavens, burst forth from the clouds, and blessed me with a pistol grip, combat-ready Remington 870 as a divinely inspired right. "GO FORTH AND SMITE SOME BITCHES, MY DAUGHTER!" 
I know, you're going to decry "SECOND AMENDMENT!" to me. Have you actually read the amendment?:


> AMENDMENT II
> A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


(Second Amendment | Constitution | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute)

Yes, there is the phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear arms", but people discount the prefactory phrase before it. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state". When you pair those together, it sounds to me as if this merely is saying that people have the right to the armed defense of their country, aka military. But I'm all about compromise (something our political leaders are SORELY lacking in these days), so I'll go a step further and say that in order to fulfill the first part of the second amendment, people are required to be "a well regulated militia" before owning weapons. I see the definition of the phrase "well regulated militia" here as being two-part:
-Well trained and competent in the handling of firearms
-This gives the federal government the right to dictate who can and cannot own firearms

This to me is the legal basis for having agencies like ATF (Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms) crack down on those that are not being responsible with gun ownership, and it is also the legal basis for which gun restrictions can be applied. Therefore, I also see it as a legal basis for which there can be a requirement that you need to demonstrate that you are fully capable of handling and being responsible with a firearm (licensing). 

Now for the next part, what I offered is probably the most reasonably sound attempt at a solution that I know of. Is it a perfect one? Not by any means and I don't pretend that it is. But the thing I keep seeing from the pro-gun crowd is "well all those solutions suck, but we don't have any better ideas than to vehemently criticize anything that anyone offers as an attempt at a solution."
If the ideas are terrible, offer something reasonable here. No, surrounding people with more guns is not a reasonable solution. I see some ridiculous crap from the anti-gun crowd too. Anyone that wants to blanket ban all guns is not worth listening to in my book either. Clearly they've never spent all the much time reading the US constitution either.

But to shoot down every attempt at a solution, offer no logically and constitutionally based alternative, and do literally nothing is just going to keep letting the body count pile up. Honestly, I see some of the blood spilled here as being on our hands as a nation for allowing ourselves to be so divided to the point that logic and reason has flown the coop, and instead we let theories and principles override basic human decency. 

So then, if this really is such a terrible idea due to bigger government (as a liberal, I don't always see that as such a bad thing. Sometimes yes, but not always), the by all means let us hear what your alternative to a licensing program would be.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Sep 5, 2014)

The second amendment... 

Obama has fvcking drones...

As Jim Jeffries says... Good luck bringing a gun to a drone fight...

We put that in there so we could rise up against an unjust government. Hmm... I wonder why that is? Probably had something to do w that war we fought right before we wrote that constitution of ours...

Guns realistically aren't going to help us. They just make ppl feel better and they're fun when handled responsibly. Take them or don't. It really wouldn't matter. There might be fewer "accidents" though.

Hell I realistically don't even see myself shooting intruders. The laws in VA are set up such that I'm more likely to go to jail than the robber.


----------



## tacotiklah (Sep 5, 2014)

Konfyouzd said:


> The second amendment...
> 
> Obama has fvcking drones...
> 
> ...



Oh believe me, that's definitely one issue where I would take Obama to task for. But that point you bring up is the exact reason why I kinda roll my eyes whenever someone claims that we need the right of arms in the event of an uprising. I'm just like "right, because your damn pop-gun is going to do anything near the damage to the government that .50 caliber bullets, artillery rounds, JDAMS, and thermonuclear weapons would be capable of doing to poorly-trained redneck separatists."

The only thing I see that regular, everyday people "need" in terms of protecting themselves with firearms is home defense or protection from wildlife. (bear country can get kinda scary if you don't have a pretty powerful rifle handy). Anything beyond that is just a want, for whatever their personal reasons might be.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Sep 5, 2014)

Yup... Mine are essentially just for "sport". I'd be way more upset if the govt took my instruments.


----------



## FILTHnFEAR (Sep 5, 2014)

Konfyouzd said:


> The second amendment...
> 
> Obama has fvcking drones...
> 
> ...



True, in the face of the feds, weapons wouldn't pose a threat. At all. I'm glad that here in Indiana the law is in support of the person defending their home and not the criminal. Sorry to hear it's like that in VA.

I don't own firearms because I'm gonna hold off the military. lol I own pistols and shotguns first and foremost for home defense. Also because they are fun. Lots of fun. Especially my assault rifles. And in the unlikely, but very possible face of civil unrest.


----------



## FILTHnFEAR (Sep 5, 2014)

Konfyouzd said:


> I'd be way more upset if the govt took my instruments.



Now THAT would be cause to overthrow the government!


----------



## Konfyouzd (Sep 5, 2014)

FILTHnFEAR said:


> True, in the face of the feds, weapons wouldn't pose a threat. At all. I'm glad that here in Indiana the law is in support of the person defending their home and not the criminal. Sorry to hear it's like that in VA.
> 
> I don't own firearms because I'm gonna hold off the military. lol I own pistols and shotguns first and foremost for home defense. Also because they are fun. Lots of fun. Especially my assault rifles. And in the unlikely, but very possible face of civil unrest.



In VA I have to run to the farthest corner of my home and/or be cornered before I'm allowed to actually attack the intruder (or shoot him at least). I'm not sure if that's still the case if I can confirm that he/she is armed but either way it gives them a lot of time to hurt me should they so choose. 

That said I don't think anyone really wants to come to my house and mess w me anyway so I guess it really doesn't matter. Not yet anyway. 

Not sure how I'd actually feel after doing something like that anyway. It's easy to say what you'd do in a hypothetical scenario...


----------



## tedtan (Sep 5, 2014)

tacotiklah said:


> Yes, there is the phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear arms", but people discount the prefactory phrase before it. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state". When you pair those together, it sounds to me as if this merely is saying that people have the right to the armed defense of their country, aka military. But I'm all about compromise (something our political leaders are SORELY lacking in these days), so I'll go a step further and say that in order to fulfill the first part of the second amendment, people are required to be "a well regulated militia" before owning weapons. I see the definition of the phrase "well regulated militia" here as being two-part:
> -Well trained and competent in the handling of firearms
> -This gives the federal government the right to dictate who can and cannot own firearms
> 
> This to me is the legal basis for having agencies like ATF (Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms) crack down on those that are not being responsible with gun ownership, and it is also the legal basis for which gun restrictions can be applied. Therefore, I also see it as a legal basis for which there can be a requirement that you need to demonstrate that you are fully capable of handling and being responsible with a firearm (licensing).



Keep in mind though, that the founding fathers intended for the US to be a weak federal government that would loosely keep the states pulling in the same direction while the real power would reside at the state, and even local, level. Given that, I'd be reluctant to read the constitution as written in favor of the national government on this topic. It's only been over the past ~100 years that the feds have been on a power trip trying to take the power from the states. Plus, it was such a given that people would have guns for personal use (hunting, home defense, etc.) at that point in time that they probably considered putting that type of firearm usage in the constitution in the same way they would have considered including language that people would have the right to breath fresh, unpolluted air and drink fresh, unpolluted water. Those may be obvious "rights" to be listed today, but back in the 1700's they were such a given that no one would have even thought to mention them.

And don't misunderstand - I'm in favor of addressing the roots of the problems that lead to gun violence: identifying (and providing treatment for) the mentally ill; addressing the fact that many working people in the US don't manage to earn a living wage; providing universal health care in the US; working to eliminate gangs; etc., etc. So I'm certainly not against ensuring that gun owners are capable of using them responsibly. But I do want to ensure that we thoroughly vet any propositions from all angles rather than merely parroting back the party line of either party (and I realize that you aren't doing this, Jess - I'm speaking in general, here, not directing this comment to you, specifically).




tacotiklah said:


> The only thing I see that regular, everyday people "need" in terms of protecting themselves with firearms is home defense or protection from wildlife. (bear country can get kinda scary if you don't have a pretty powerful rifle handy). Anything beyond that is just a want, for whatever their personal reasons might be.



This is true for a lot of people, but don't forget that there are still a lot of folks in the US (and in the Americas in general) who would rather hunt and farm for a living (basically living off the land like our ancestors did for thousands of years) than work a normal office/factory/retail job or take government handouts. So even if that situation doesn't apply to most of us, it's still a very real lifestyle choice that hundreds of thousands/millions of Americans make and, as such, must be respected even if wee don't encounter these folks every day (after all, they're hanging out in their farmland or out in the woods rather than in the cities and forums where most of us spend our time).


----------



## tedtan (Sep 5, 2014)

Konfyouzd said:


> In VA I have to run to the farthest corner of my home and/or be cornered before I'm allowed to actually attack the intruder (or shoot him at least). I'm not sure if that's still the case if I can confirm that he/she is armed but either way it gives them a lot of time to hurt me should they so choose.



That's not good. Here in Texas, we've probably taken it too far in the other direction, though - we have the right to shoot and kill someone repossessing a vehicle that we didn't make the payments on. And we've had cases where the neighbor of a property owner shot the people robbing his neighbor's property in the back while they ran away from the crime scene and no charges were pressed, so it's safe to say that the rights in Texas revolve around the property owner/renter and those acting on their behalf (even without their consent) rather than the party screwing around on property they don't have a legal right to be on.




Konfyouzd said:


> That said I don't think anyone really wants to come to my house and mess w me anyway so I guess it really doesn't matter. Not yet anyway.



Unfortunately, shit will still happen from a statistical perspective, so the onus is still on us to prevent it from happening.




Konfyouzd said:


> Not sure how I'd actually feel after doing something like that anyway. It's easy to say what you'd do in a hypothetical scenario...



I've heard from several people, military and police, that have had to take a human life in the course of doing their job and they've each said that it was the worst thing they've ever had to do, something that haunts them years later. Hopefully we'll never be in that position.


----------



## Grindspine (Sep 5, 2014)

It is illegal to teach a nine year old to drive. A nine year old does not have the physical or emotional control to properly and responsibly handle that machinery.

The exact same premise exists for guns.

Giving a child not yet old enough to drive a car a tool that can kill is just a complete lack of sense.


----------



## Grindspine (Sep 5, 2014)

gigawhat said:


> I'd appreciate it if you weren't so quick to give away people's natural-right to own firearms.


 


> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


 
I read that as *well regulated militia*. The right to bear arms does not disregard the need for regulation on that right.

Methinks the forefathers put some thought into that wording.


----------



## FILTHnFEAR (Sep 6, 2014)

Konfyouzd said:


> In VA I have to run to the farthest corner of my home and/or be cornered before I'm allowed to actually attack the intruder (or shoot him at least). I'm not sure if that's still the case if I can confirm that he/she is armed but either way it gives them a lot of time to hurt me should they so choose.
> 
> *That is insane. I wonder what planet the people that wrote that law are from. And to whose side they are on. If I run to the other side of my home it's to grab my .45 and they should have used that time to make their exit.*
> 
> ...



.


----------



## FILTHnFEAR (Sep 6, 2014)

Grindspine said:


> I read that as *well regulated militia*. The right to bear arms does not disregard the need for regulation on that right.
> 
> Methinks the forefathers put some thought into that wording.


Yea, they did. I wish more people would take the time to try and understand the framework those men set up. And their reasons for doing so.


----------



## tacotiklah (Sep 6, 2014)

tedtan said:


> Keep in mind though, that* the founding fathers intended for the US to be a weak federal government *that would loosely keep the states pulling in the same direction while the real power would reside at the state, and even local, level. Given that, I'd be reluctant to read the constitution as written in favor of the national government on this topic. It's only been over the past ~100 years that the feds have been on a power trip trying to take the power from the states. Plus, it was such a given that people would have guns for personal use (hunting, home defense, etc.) at that point in time that they probably considered putting that type of firearm usage in the constitution in the same way they would have considered including language that people would have the right to breath fresh, unpolluted air and drink fresh, unpolluted water. Those may be obvious "rights" to be listed today, but back in the 1700's they were such a given that no one would have even thought to mention them.
> 
> And don't misunderstand - I'm in favor of addressing the roots of the problems that lead to gun violence: identifying (and providing treatment for) the mentally ill; addressing the fact that many working people in the US don't manage to earn a living wage; providing universal health care in the US; working to eliminate gangs; etc., etc. So I'm certainly not against ensuring that gun owners are capable of using them responsibly. But I do want to ensure that we thoroughly vet any propositions from all angles rather than merely parroting back the party line of either party (and I realize that you aren't doing this, Jess - I'm speaking in general, here, not directing this comment to you, specifically).



Sorry dude, but I'm gonna have to call bollocks on this. There were two political groups among the founding fathers where you had the Federalists (people like James Madison and John Adams) who wanted a strong central federal government, and then you had the Democratic-Republican party (consisting of men such as Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton) who wanted a weak central government. Even in the founding of our country, we as a nation went back and forth on many issues. What made our constitution so awesome is that people of such polarizing opinions were able to compromise and it lead to the birth of our form of government.

It drives me crazy when people try to say what the founding fathers said, and 9/10 times they're either misquoting or just plain dead wrong on who said what, to say nothing of the context of what was written/spoken.
If you do get a chance, really read The Federalist Papers. James Madison and John Adams both make astounding cases for why there is a need for a strong central government (in which they were both proven correct just shy of a 180 years later with the civil rights movement, and in recent years with the LGBT movement)

(sources:
Two Parties Emerge [ushistory.org]
Federalist No. 49 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)





tedtan said:


> This is true for a lot of people, but don't forget that there are still a lot of folks in the US (and in the Americas in general) who would rather hunt and farm for a living (basically living off the land like our ancestors did for thousands of years) than work a normal office/factory/retail job or take government handouts. So even if that situation doesn't apply to most of us, it's still a very real lifestyle choice that hundreds of thousands/millions of Americans make and, as such, must be respected even if wee don't encounter these folks every day (after all, they're hanging out in their farmland or out in the woods rather than in the cities and forums where most of us spend our time).




I probably should have expanded to include those that hunt, and whatnot when I made the exception for wildlife, but that doesn't seem like an unreasonable exception. That said, there still needs to be a bit of regulation there. Using dynamite to go fishing, an RPG for turkey shoots, and other nonsense along those lines are antithetical to responsible gun ownership.


----------



## BornToLooze (Sep 6, 2014)

tacotiklah said:


> The only thing I see that regular, everyday people "need" in terms of protecting themselves with firearms is home defense or protection from wildlife. (bear country can get kinda scary if you don't have a pretty powerful rifle handy). Anything beyond that is just a want, for whatever their personal reasons might be.



Because no one has been mugged..ever. 

And from watching the video the way he was telling her to stand made the gun recoil more. When a gun recoils, the recoil goes to the path of least resistance. If you shoot a pistol with your right hand it will recoil up and to the left, you shoot it with your left hand it will recoil up and to the right. So with him telling her to stand at an angle, plus the fact that she was 9 I can almost guarantee she didn't have a good grip on it, the recoil was going to be even worse. Because of how expensive NFA regulations have made it to buy a machine gun, most people don't have any experience with them unless they were in the military. So regardless of how old someone is, if you are going to a gun range and renting a machine gun, they should make sure you know how to shoot it. Get squared up to the gun, get a good grip on it, and start with 2-3 rounds in the magazine until you get used to the recoil from it.

In my opinion, this isn't the parents fault. Unless they're complete morons, they obviously think that their daughter is responsible enough to be shooting. In the video they said that the dad shot it first, and I'm willing to bet since an Uzi shoots a pistol round from a gun that weighs about 7 pounds that he thought the recoil wasn't THAT bad and their daughter would be able to handle it. The instructor should have started her out with 2-4 rounds in the magazine and been standing behind her helping her hold it down.


----------



## tedtan (Sep 6, 2014)

tacotiklah said:


> Sorry dude, but I'm gonna have to call bollocks on this. There were two political groups among the founding fathers where you had the Federalists (people like James Madison and John Adams) who wanted a strong central federal government, and then you had the Democratic-Republican party (consisting of men such as Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton) who wanted a weak central government. Even in the founding of our country, we as a nation went back and forth on many issues. What made our constitution so awesome is that people of such polarizing opinions were able to compromise and it lead to the birth of our form of government.
> 
> It drives me crazy when people try to say what the founding fathers said, and 9/10 times they're either misquoting or just plain dead wrong on who said what, to say nothing of the context of what was written/spoken.
> If you do get a chance, really read The Federalist Papers. James Madison and John Adams both make astounding cases for why there is a need for a strong central government (in which they were both proven correct just shy of a 180 years later with the civil rights movement, and in recent years with the LGBT movement)
> ...



There have always been, and always will be, people with different political opinions; there is almost never 100% agreement on a given issue. But the fact that we ended up with a weak federal government and strong state governments strongly implies that the majority of the founding fathers wanted a weak federal government and strong state governments, no? We are a representative democracy after all, and the majority rules, so if the majority wanted a strong federal government, that's how they would have implemented the respective governments.

So what part of what I said is "either misquoting or just plain dead wrong on who said what, to say nothing of the context of what was written/spoken"?


----------



## tacotiklah (Sep 6, 2014)

The part where you're asserting that all the founding fathers wanted a weak central government. That's not the case. Compromises were made, but that doesn't mean that's what everyone wanted.

Honestly, that's neither here nor there though as the issue is about a girl being given a weapon that she honestly was not capable of handing. No matter where one stands on the issue, I feel fairly confident that the vast majority of people would agree that handing a 9 year old girl a full auto weapon is a serious lapse of common sense and logic.


----------



## tedtan (Sep 6, 2014)

I follow what your saying now, but I didn't intend to imply that there was a 100% consensus among the founding fathers. I thought that the context (e.g., democracy) was sufficient to indicate that I was referring to majority rather than unanimity. My apologies is that wasn't clear.

And I agree about the girl - this is a terrible thing for her to have to live with.


----------



## flint757 (Sep 6, 2014)

We had a strong state/weak federal system and it completely failed. The switch was to a stronger federal government, not weaker. What you are describing sounds a lot more like the Articles of Confederation honestly. Granted they did wish to limit the scope of the federal governments power, but it had little to do with solid insight on the subject. They were simply afraid of this country turning into another monarchy, which has little to do with federal/state power honestly. 

Today the federal government is far more powerful than each states government yet the diversity of each state still exists. Congress makes all of the decisions essentially as well, which is far off from a monarchy. Giving states more power than the federal government only serves to complicate everything. It creates a situation where laws are changing dramatically between each state, disjointed military, currency and inflation issues, etc. In the early days of our nation we were basically a really bad version of the EU. It could maybe work better in today's time, but if things did start going that way I'd be moving out of Texas as quick as I could. The last group I'd want to gain more power is the Texas government. It'd quickly turn into a "Christian" state with zero infrastructure except to big businesses (taxes are bad mkay). No thanks.


----------



## tedtan (Sep 6, 2014)

flint757 said:


> We had a strong state/weak federal system and it completely failed. The switch was to a stronger federal government, not weaker. What you are describing sounds a lot more like the Articles of Confederation honestly. Granted they did wish to limit the scope of the federal governments power, but it had little to do with solid insight on the subject. They were simply afraid of this country turning into another monarchy, which has little to do with federal/state power honestly.
> 
> Today the federal government is way more powerful than each states government yet the diversity of each state still exists. Congress makes all of the decisions essentially as well which is far off from a monarchy. Giving states more power than the federal government only serves to complicate everything. It creates a situation where laws are changing dramatically between each state, disjointed military, currency and inflation issues, etc. In the early days of our nation we were basically a really bad version of the EU. It could maybe work better in today's time, but if things did start going that way I'd be moving out of Texas as quick as I could. The last place I'd want to get more power is the Texas government. It'd quickly turn into a "Christian" state with zero infrastructure except to big businesses (taxes are bad mkay). No thanks.



Sorry, but I'm not following you, flint. How does this relate to the discussion (beyond being a straw man and/or red herring)? (And I asked based on the fact that Jess and I were already on a tangential discussion to begin with, so I may simply be missing something, not just to argue).


----------



## flint757 (Sep 6, 2014)

It was in addendum to your tangential discussion. Ultimately it has nothing to do with the original post. I've already said my piece on that awhile back anyhow. 

Why exactly would discussing what you have already been discussing for the last page be a red herring or a straw man? How does your original conversation regarding that topic relate to this thread? Was it a red herring as well? I'm not following why you bothered responding if that was your assumption. No idea what you could be missing either. It's additional information in regards to the topic you have been discussing for the last page. A 'correction' if you will.

[EDIT]

It was in response to all, but your last post, regarding the founding fathers and whatnot, before mine if that helps clear anything up.


----------



## tedtan (Sep 7, 2014)

I follow you now. I was tiered last night and my reading comprehension had gone to sh_it_ (which is why I asked for clarification).


----------

