Three-year-old shoots and kills baby sister in California

[2aguy]

You have no shame.

You really think a 2 year old has the ability to hold a gun and at the same time pull the trigger that likely has an over 5 pound pull weight? You have no brain.

 

[ABikerSailor]

not seeing in the 2nd A where responsible is defined??

as for driving,, we only take their license after they fuck up.. OH,, driving isnt a right,,

Thanks for answering like I said someone would.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Accidental death of 1 year olds by car?

77

Why aren't you more concerned about more children dying in car accidents?

If a person accidentally runs over a child with a car, an investigation is conducted, and depending on the circumstances, the driver can at the very least be fined, or, they can be put in jail and have their license taken away.

If a gun owner accidentally shoots someone, an investigation is done, but they are mostly allowed to keep their guns and don't face jail time or any other serious consequences.

 

[ABikerSailor]

You really think a 2 year old has the ability to hold a gun and at the same time pull the trigger that likely has an over 5 pound pull weight? You have no brain.

Well, considering the OP's linked article, a 3 year old definitely did.

And.................fwiw...................there are 2 year olds out there who are just as big with the same amount of strength as a 3 year old.

 

[2aguy]

If a person accidentally runs over a child with a car, an investigation is conducted, and depending on the circumstances, the driver can at the very least be fined, or, they can be put in jail and have their license taken away.

If a gun owner accidentally shoots someone, an investigation is done, but they are mostly allowed to keep their guns and don't face jail time or any other serious consequences.

Two different accidents.........running over someone means you were behind the wheel in control of the vehicle.

If you accidentally shoot someone, you don't get to keep your gun and you likely will go to jail....depending on the situation. You can also be sued civilly for the damage just like the car accident.

You just don't know what you are talking about.

 

[2aguy]

Well, considering the OP's linked article, a 3 year old definitely did.

And.................fwiw...................there are 2 year olds out there who are just as big with the same amount of strength as a 3 year old.

No......not really, the investigation is still under way......most of these shootings happen in homes where you have a criminal living in them.....

 

[progressive hunter]

Thanks for answering like I said someone would.

how about you give a good question instead of that stupid anti 2nd A shit???

of course you could tell me the process the government uses to determine if a person is responsible enough to exercise their rights???

I look forward to your expected non-answer,,,

 

[Whodatsaywhodat.]

Three-year-old shoots and kills baby sister in California

An investigation is underway to determine how the toddler got hold of the firearm.

news.sky.com

The incident was reported at 7.30am local time on Monday when the San Diego County Sheriff's Department received a call about a shooting at a home in Fallbrook, about 56 miles north of San Diego.

They said that deputies arrived and confirmed a toddler had managed to get hold of an "unsecured handgun" and the one-year-old had sustained a head injury.

These events seem to be happening more and more. And yet nothing ever gets done. There doesnt even appear to be punishment for the parents. It appears to be an acceptable risk in the fight to retain guns.

I wonder if this type of incident is what the founders envisaged ?

Guns in kalifornia, is that even allowed in democrat heaven.

 

[ABikerSailor]

how about you give a good question instead of that stupid anti 2nd A shit???

of course you could tell me the process the government uses to determine if a person is responsible enough to exercise their rights???

I look forward to your expected non-answer,,,

Well, currently it's the courts system, because if a person commits a felony and is convicted of it, then their gun rights are revoked and they cannot own a gun until they have demonstrated they are able to comply with the laws and they ask for them back.

Nope. I gave you an answer. Sorry to disappoint.

 

[ABikerSailor]

No......not really, the investigation is still under way......most of these shootings happen in homes where you have a criminal living in them.....

If most shootings happen in homes that have criminals living in them, then does this mean the case the OP brought up is the exception? I ask, because there was nothing in the OP's article about anyone in the household being a criminal.

 

[progressive hunter]

Well, currently it's the courts system, because if a person commits a felony and is convicted of it, then their gun rights are revoked and they cannot own a gun until they have demonstrated they are able to comply with the laws and they ask for them back.

Nope. I gave you an answer. Sorry to disappoint.

youre running away from what you said,,,
what you just said is after they commit a crime,,

how does the government determine who is responsible enough to have their 2nd A rights???

 

[miketx]

Three-year-old shoots and kills baby sister in California

An investigation is underway to determine how the toddler got hold of the firearm.

news.sky.com

The incident was reported at 7.30am local time on Monday when the San Diego County Sheriff's Department received a call about a shooting at a home in Fallbrook, about 56 miles north of San Diego.

They said that deputies arrived and confirmed a toddler had managed to get hold of an "unsecured handgun" and the one-year-old had sustained a head injury.

These events seem to be happening more and more. And yet nothing ever gets done. There doesnt even appear to be punishment for the parents. It appears to be an acceptable risk in the fight to retain guns.

I wonder if this type of incident is what the founders envisaged ?

The kid was prolly a criminal.

 

[ABikerSailor]

youre running away from what you said,,,
what you just said is after they commit a crime,,

how does the government determine who is responsible enough to have their 2nd A rights???

The government gave you those rights, they can take them away if circumstances warrant.

 

[progressive hunter]

The government gave you those rights, they can take them away if circumstances warrant.

no the government didnt give me those rights,, we are born with them,,

what the government did is swear an oath to protect those rights,,

I am glad to see you be honest instead of that chickenshit deflection you said yesterday,,

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The government gave you those rights, they can take them away if circumstances warrant.

The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. — United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)​

 

[miketx]

The government gave you those rights, they can take them away if circumstances warrant.

Still lying. Scum

 

[progressive hunter]

The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. — United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)​

its only lawful to use against a tyrannical government if you win,,

and if that same government makes self defense against the law,, well what can I say,,

we need to be careful adding words on to things,,

best to leave no survivors,,