4-year-old boy shot dead allegedly by 5-year-old sibling while mom slept in another room: Police

[Scarab]

How do you know what happened? It is just as likely they were all napping and the 5 year old woke up on his own. But don't let your lack of any factual information spoil your witch hunt.

I read the article. You should try it.

 

[TurtleDude]

It really doesn't matter what I like or not. I've challenged you for about a week in many posts to make a coherent argument. Not only have you barely scratched the level of the average DP poster, but you have summarily disgraced the prosecutor's role. I find it unfortunate because I have a feeling that you're trying to make a point. You just can't articulate it for reasons that I find lazy and transparent.

I find your intransigence to be humorous. Factual reality is this-few parents are ever charged for obvious reasons

 

[MSgt]

He's not even reading anymore. "Too long, didn't read." Says a supposed attorney.

I don't see an attorney. He may work in a law office, but an attorney is not obtuse and irrational. An attorney is educated, rational, logical, and is capable of forming an argument around the facts. An attorney will lie to win a case, but he will not lose himself within the lie. This guy consistently denies facts and is fixated on ideological fantasies against the reality. "Too long, didn't read" is the predecessor of "fake news," and is their way of saying that they don't want reality crashing in on them.

 

[MSgt]

I find your intransigence to be humorous. Factual reality is this-few parents are ever charged for obvious reasons

Yes, because they are legally allowed to be irresponsible. It's the difference between the military culture of respecting deadly weapons and the civilian culture of disrespecting their tricked-out toys.

 

[TurtleDude]

Yes, because they are legally allowed to be irresponsible. It's the difference between the military culture of respecting deadly weapons and the civilian culture of disrespecting their tricked-out toys.

I haven't seen anything from you that suggests you have any respect for our constitution. The kind of thinking you exhibit was probably on the minds of the founders when they issued the second amendment.

 

[TurtleDude]

He's not even reading anymore. "Too long, didn't read." Says a supposed attorney.

He posts nothing but crap that is based on his attitude that since he allegedly enlisted, he has more constitutional rights than anyone else. Fortunately, most members of the military don't buy into his fascist cravings and his constantly dishonest attempts to attack pro rights advocates because he supports far left gun banners.

 

[iguanaman]

I find your intransigence to be humorous. Factual reality is this-few parents are ever charged for obvious reasons

You got that right. The obvious reason is that asking gun owners to keep their guns away from children violates the 2nd amendment. Right?

 

[TurtleDude]

You got that right. The obvious reason is that asking gun owners to keep their guns away from children violates the 2nd amendment. Right?

Not at all, and I advocated parents with children too young to be properly trained, keep firearms out of reach or unable to be obtained by children. What I laugh at is watching anti gun posters use these tragedies as excuses to try to bash gun owners in general or when they act as if this rare occurrence is somehow worse than parents who leave their kids in locked cars, or allow their children to access other things that are deleterious to the health and welfare of kids.

 

[iguanaman]

Not at all, and I advocated parents with children too young to be properly trained, keep firearms out of reach or unable to be obtained by children. What I laugh at is watching anti gun posters use these tragedies as excuses to try to bash gun owners in general or when they act as if this rare occurrence is somehow worse than parents who leave their kids in locked cars, or allow their children to access other things that are deleterious to the health and welfare of kids.

Actually parents who's children die in hot cars are prosecuted for homicide. Why shouldn't gun owners get the same treatment? How many children need to die before it is not "rare"? At the very least a felony conviction is needed so these parents cannot have a firearm in the home ever again.

Children were killed more than once a week last year under similarly tragic circumstances – a loaded gun and an adult's attention lapse – presenting prosecutors with a vexing question: Who is to blame, and how should that person be punished?

At least 73 juveniles under age 12 were killed last year, roughly the same pace as the previous five years. What happened next varied widely.

A 2017 USA TODAY and Associated Press investigation of the 152 deaths from 2014 to 2016 found about half ended in a criminal charge, usually of adults who police said should have watched children more closely or secured their guns more carefully.

Child gun deaths: Shooting accidents killed 73 children in 2018

 

[MSgt]

I haven't seen anything from you that suggests you have any respect for our constitution. The kind of thinking you exhibit was probably on the minds of the founders when they issued the second amendment.

Well, that's because you see the Constitution as starting with the Second Amendment and ending with the Second Amendment. This is why you ignore the fact that the rest of the Constitution is not the same document it was in 1785. You see, we are not Islamists who demand that an original source document be preserved in brittle concrete while ignoring the passage of time.

And, no Turtle. The Founding Fathers had tyrannical government, the necessity to hunt, and local security against natives in mind. There is no need to speculate about the Founding Fathers and why they issued the Second Amendment. Given the centuries long relationship between Lords and peons, the context of the historical era, and the words expressed by the Founding Fathers themselves, we all know why they issued the Second Amendment. And we can also all agree that handing out weapons freely so that nutcases can roll up on late-eighteenth century schools and corn festivals wasn't it. The Founding Fathers would be ashamed of what you people have done with the Right. Despite clearly believing in an educated political elite that would at once serve the people and enlighten them, they trusted you all to be responsible with these Rights. Of course, the very notion of a person lining up school children or senselessly murdering masses for the sheer glory of it wasn't as fashionable then as it is in our era, where we have grown quite accustomed. You are failing the Founding Fathers because you are willing to sacrifice the integrity of the nation and the well being of its children over a selfish need to define your liberty through multiple metal objects.

And isn't it funny how you people can declare that a "gun is just an object" and not the problem, yet the object of a gun appears to be the only thing that defines you as a person? When it comes to gun violence, the gun isn't the problem, but when it comes to your notion of liberty, the gun is everything. Not a lot of rationality here. But hey, let's keep this game up until Remington or another joins Colt. And on and on and on...

 

[MSgt]

Actually parents who's children die in hot cars are prosecuted for homicide. Why shouldn't gun owners get the same treatment? How many children need to die before it is not "rare"? At the very least a felony conviction is needed so these parents cannot have a firearm in the home ever again.

Child gun deaths: Shooting accidents killed 73 children in 2018

OH...that was brilliant. And that is less of an offense because that could be an accident. Allowing access to deadly weapons is not an accident. There are no accidents when it comes to weapon's safety. It is a conscious irresponsible decision that has consequences.

 

[TurtleDude]

Well, that's because you see the Constitution as starting with the Second Amendment and ending with the Second Amendment. This is why you ignore the fact that the rest of the Constitution is not the same document it was in 1785. You see, we are not Islamists who demand that an original source document be preserved in brittle concrete while ignoring the passage of time.

And, no Turtle. The Founding Fathers had tyrannical government, the necessity to hunt, and local security against natives in mind. There is no need to speculate about the Founding Fathers and why they issued the Second Amendment. Given the centuries long relationship between Lords and peons, the context of the historical era, and the words expressed by the Founding Fathers themselves, we all know why they issued the Second Amendment. And we can also all agree that handing out weapons freely so that nutcases can roll up on late-eighteenth century schools and corn festivals wasn't it. The Founding Fathers would be ashamed of what you people have done with the Right. Despite clearly believing in an educated political elite that would at once serve the people and enlighten them, they trusted you all to be responsible with these Rights. Of course, the very notion of a person lining up school children or senselessly murdering masses for the sheer glory of it wasn't as fashionable then as it is in our era, where we have grown quite accustomed. You are failing the Founding Fathers because you are willing to sacrifice the integrity of the nation and the well being of its children over a selfish need to define your liberty through multiple metal objects.

And isn't it funny how you people can declare that a "gun is just an object" and not the problem, yet the object of a gun appears to be the only thing that defines you as a person? When it comes to gun violence, the gun isn't the problem, but when it comes to your notion of liberty, the gun is everything. Not a lot of rationality here. But hey, let's keep this game up until Remington or another joins Colt. And on and on and on...

where do you come up with such mendacious BS?

and you are still obfuscating. What is your interpretation of the second amendment? Mine is this-any arm that is useful for self defense is covered. Any firearm is covered-any weapon that civilian police have access to is covered (save SAMs that the SS has access to to protect the WH). Area weapons, mortars, grenades, landmines, flamethrowers, are ordnance or artillery and not covered.

 

[JacksinPA]

No, an adults failure to secure a firearm.

The mother was negligent & essentially let his happen. Leaving loaded handguns around little kids should be a criminal offense, even in TX.

 

[MSgt]

where do you come up with such mendacious BS?

Ah, but you declaring that you "haven't seen anything from [me] that suggests have any respect for our constitution" isn't mendacious BS? The site is full of my posts that entertain many subjects. Yours, however, are basically always about the Second Amendment issue. Thus, your mendacious BS was met with something a bit more accurate. This is what happens when you abandon reason for emotion. If the Second Amendment magically disappeared over night, you would wake up and slash your own throat because you have obnoxiously tied your idea of liberty to an inanimate object.

and you are still obfuscating. What is your interpretation of the second amendment? Mine is this-any arm that is useful for self defense is covered. Any firearm is covered-any weapon that civilian police have access to is covered (save SAMs that the SS has access to to protect the WH). Area weapons, mortars, grenades, landmines, flamethrowers, are ordnance or artillery and not covered.

Obfuscating? I'm the one with the clearest posts here. It's you who keep avoiding the issue and defaulting into your busted ideology for comfort.

Anyway, and once again, there is no need to interpret anything. This would be the core of your problem. You wish to interpret what is clearly written into what is not written. The Second Amendment states:

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

The Second Amendment is clearly about an organized militia. You, and the rest of us, have interpreted beyond the words and we have used the conduct of history to validate that. Though what is necessary for a militia involves far more than a BB gun, nothing here states that you have the Right to any specific weapons. Nothing here states that you even have the Right to store your personal weapons in your home. Thus, if the state declared that your weapons will go to an armory for storage, your Right, as a state citizen, is not infringed. In the late eighteenth century, it was simply practical to allow hunters and home owners to keep their weapons. It remains practical. But the Second Amendment is clear about the militia's purpose, not simply you the individual. But even your interpretation is a busted contradiction. You wish to have all the weaponry of the police force, yet if the tyranny of government comes down on you and your state, you would be facing military grade weaponry. Nothing here states that you can't have military grade weaponry, yet you compromise your "interpretation." But how exactly does your interpretation allow you what is "necessary" to defend against the federal government's armed forces? Where is your .50, M1A1, or F-16? And let's not pretend that a bunch of Wal-Mart employees in a state National Guard would last past the day here. That is a broken argument as much as is your interpretations of the Second Amendment.


And here we get right back to the beginning where I declared that the Constitution starts and stops with the Second Amendment to you. You see, the "interpretation" of the Constitution is subjected to the passage of time. Where once slaves were permitted in Article I, the addition of the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865 corrected it and moved the country forward. This proves that what was written in 1789 is not eternal, nor can it be. But you really, really want that specific Amendment to be fixed in time, and at any cost. You can't even bring yourself to observing how a registered safe doesn't infringe upon your interpreted Right. Your arguments and personal defenses are more about a political ideology, not the actual Right.

 

[TurtleDude]

80 million gun owners would beat the US army easily since the army cannot nuke areas where their own family members live.

 

[Scarab]

I find your intransigence to be humorous. Factual reality is this-few parents are ever charged for obvious reasons

You also don't know what intransigence means? Well, while you're laughing at all the humor of a dead child killed by its mother's negligence, you might review how many times I have agreed with you on various points. My opinion that you are deathly wrong about the woman doesn't make me "instransigent". It just makes me farther thinking than you. And since you have completely abandoned your credibility as an attorney (just to me, I mean), allow me to educate you that I have personally caused dozens of parents to be charged for far less serious crimes than what this woman did. Your missive about "few parents" is deafeningly wrong.

 

[TurtleDude]

You also don't know what intransigence means? Well, while you're laughing at all the humor of a dead child killed by its mother's negligence, you might review how many times I have agreed with you on various points. My opinion that you are deathly wrong about the woman doesn't make me "instransigent". It just makes me farther thinking than you. And since you have completely abandoned your credibility as an attorney (just to me, I mean), allow me to educate you that I have personally caused dozens of parents to be charged for far less serious crimes than what this woman did. Your missive about "few parents" is deafeningly wrong.

really-how so? and I am still trying to figure out how the interests of society are advanced.

 

[Scarab]

I haven't seen anything from you that suggests you have any respect for our constitution. The kind of thinking you exhibit was probably on the minds of the founders when they issued the second amendment.

Oh, jesus. As a "lawyer", you should know that when you start accusing Americans of having no respect for the Constitutition and ****ting your diaper about the Second Amendment in a thread that has nothing to do with the Second Amendment that you have lost your privilege to be taken seriously. Thank you, though, for finally confirming your irrelevant bias related to this tragic news piece.

 

[Scarab]

He posts nothing but crap that is based on his attitude that since he allegedly enlisted, he has more constitutional rights than anyone else. Fortunately, most members of the military don't buy into his fascist cravings and his constantly dishonest attempts to attack pro rights advocates because he supports far left gun banners.

Yeah, I don't see where he triggered your gun rage, yet here we are. You both seem to have reasonable posting histories. I'll leave it at that.

 

[Scarab]

80 million gun owners would beat the US army easily since the army cannot nuke areas where their own family members live.

Um. Whaaa?

 

[Scarab]

really-how so? and I am still trying to figure out how the interests of society are advanced.

By doing my job. Society is advanced when parents don't let their children be killed. Is that really beyond your legal comprehension? Put another way, for the tenth time, you seem to be entirely irrational when a gun shows up. Try to isolate the core of this thread and think about what you're saying.