She is in no way to young, but would you care to point out every thing that is wrong. With teach her how to shoot? Better then being a victim. But then again you claimed a child who was being taught, to use a .22 was child abuse with a gun. Mike I have seen six year old's use a .22 Ruger AR style rifle. She was scared as first but then she loved it even put the magazine in her self. Teaching kids young is the best way not wait till they are much older or for them to try and teach them self's.
The Federal minimum age for the purchase (not possession however) of any modern powder firearm is 18 years, for a long arm and 21 years for handguns, provided that such handguns are sold at a FFL dealer, otherwise the minimum age is only 18. One must be at least 21 to register a NFA item. Similar restrictions apply to all modern powder based ammunition, as such rifle and shotgun shells are restricted to those who are at least 18, while handgun ammunition must be sold to persons over 21. There is no federal prohibition against children (such as the ones described in Mike's post) possessing long arms (the minimum age for handgun possession is 18).
The minimum age for possession of any firearms under any circumstances ought to be raised to 21 (or preferably 25) years. In accordance with such, the age of majority and age of consent should also follow suit, all to be set at 21 (or 25). Adult children (American rednecks) with guns is bad enough. Allowing their intolerable offspring to be armed is even worse. How could anyone disagree? Such a prohibition would have no effect on any of those involved in the discussion, so why would anyone oppose such a "ban"?
You have one error, two false impressions, and one deceptive motive in your comment:
1. The error: The girl is not the owner of the gun. She's with an adult, anyway.
2. False impressions: Disagreeing with your idea is easy. See the next item. The other false impression is that gun owners are "rednecks." Gun owners are come from all subcultures in America.
3. Deceptive motive: Teaching children to shoot helps sustain America's gun culture. Clearly, you oppose this, so you want to put as many barriers to shooting as possible.
Fortunately, this idea of yours will be treated with the same contempt as all your others.
" In accordance with such, the age of majority and age of consent should also follow suit, all to be set at 21 (or 25)." Does that mean anyone under the age of 21 (or 25) that is sexually active is a victim of statutory rape in your opinion?
You are not teaching the 13th grade (which is referred to in America as "community college"). You are commenting on Mikeb302000. If you wish to be heard in an intelligent forum, you ought to put on the pretense of intelligence.
1. The Federal Statute refers to mere possession, not ownership. Even if the abuse occurred while under parental supervision, such may still violate the statutes of the State that they were present in at the time of the filming. Many (mostly conservative) States prohibit the possession of handguns by juvenile parties under ANY circumstances.
2. Most Americans belong to the subculture of degeneracy which is known as "Redneck".
3. I don't believe that the act of shooting (for sport) is in any way a nefarious or malicious deed, as such is a joyous occasion. The use of firearms procures such distinct enjoyment, that it ought to be reserved exclusively for those worthy of such privilege.
You probably feel disdain towards the bearing of arms by juvenile parties (those who are under 21 or 25). Nobody who is involved in this debate would be affected by such a prohibition, so why not ban it?
In response to the above Anonymous:
The enactment of such legislation would (in accordance with enforcing such minors right to celibacy, as applied to those of common origin or caste ) determine not only those who engage in such behavior as victims, (if they are somehow involved with an elder party) but also as perpetrators (rapists) themselves if they are such involved with other youthful parties (or those of similar age). So long as astute persons who convey public authority are excepted (so as to avoid confusion and undue interference with the natural behavior of both celebrities and public officials) such would be conducive to a more productive and orderly society, as it would create a new (and larger) class of criminals. Feminist-oriented liberals, as well as most conservatives (who you presumably identify with) ought to agree, and subsequently support such measures, as such would not affect anyone who would be likely to comment here, as well as satisfying the desires of all major political fronts.
Just when I think that E.N. can't get any worse, he displays new depths of tyranny. If you can't be a shining example, you can always be a dire warning, I suppose.
I don't know how long it will take to permeate your scull, into the pathetic lump of cranial fat within, but I am not a second-rate lawyer who has an affinity for his fellow canines.
so whats wrong with this
ReplyDeleteWell, several things. She's too young, for one.
DeleteShe is in no way to young, but would you care to point out every thing that is wrong. With teach her how to shoot? Better then being a victim. But then again you claimed a child who was being taught, to use a .22 was child abuse with a gun. Mike I have seen six year old's use a .22 Ruger AR style rifle. She was scared as first but then she loved it even put the magazine in her self. Teaching kids young is the best way not wait till they are much older or for them to try and teach them self's.
DeleteRemember Christopher Bizilj? He was 8 when he died.
DeleteGood for him, and good for her.
ReplyDeleteNicely done
ReplyDeleteAwwwwww...... how sweet, that girl made Mikeyb, Jadegold, Laci, DogGone, and a whole bunch of other pant wetting liberals cry!!!!!
ReplyDeleteGood work little girl....
The Federal minimum age for the purchase (not possession however) of any modern powder firearm is 18 years, for a long arm and 21 years for handguns, provided that such handguns are sold at a FFL dealer, otherwise the minimum age is only 18. One must be at least 21 to register a NFA item. Similar restrictions apply to all modern powder based ammunition, as such rifle and shotgun shells are restricted to those who are at least 18, while handgun ammunition must be sold to persons over 21. There is no federal prohibition against children (such as the ones described in Mike's post) possessing long arms (the minimum age for handgun possession is 18).
ReplyDeleteThe minimum age for possession of any firearms under any circumstances ought to be raised to 21 (or preferably 25) years. In accordance with such, the age of majority and age of consent should also follow suit, all to be set at 21 (or 25). Adult children (American rednecks) with guns is bad enough. Allowing their intolerable offspring to be armed is even worse. How could anyone disagree? Such a prohibition would have no effect on any of those involved in the discussion, so why would anyone oppose such a "ban"?
You have one error, two false impressions, and one deceptive motive in your comment:
Delete1. The error: The girl is not the owner of the gun. She's with an adult, anyway.
2. False impressions: Disagreeing with your idea is easy. See the next item. The other false impression is that gun owners are "rednecks." Gun owners are come from all subcultures in America.
3. Deceptive motive: Teaching children to shoot helps sustain America's gun culture. Clearly, you oppose this, so you want to put as many barriers to shooting as possible.
Fortunately, this idea of yours will be treated with the same contempt as all your others.
" In accordance with such, the age of majority and age of consent should also follow suit, all to be set at 21 (or 25)." Does that mean anyone under the age of 21 (or 25) that is sexually active is a victim of statutory rape in your opinion?
DeleteIn response to Greg:
DeleteYou are not teaching the 13th grade (which is referred to in America as "community college"). You are commenting on Mikeb302000. If you wish to be heard in an intelligent forum, you ought to put on the pretense of intelligence.
1. The Federal Statute refers to mere possession, not ownership. Even if the abuse occurred while under parental supervision, such may still violate the statutes of the State that they were present in at the time of the filming. Many (mostly conservative) States prohibit the possession of handguns by juvenile parties under ANY circumstances.
2. Most Americans belong to the subculture of degeneracy which is known as "Redneck".
3. I don't believe that the act of shooting (for sport) is in any way a nefarious or malicious deed, as such is a joyous occasion. The use of firearms procures such distinct enjoyment, that it ought to be reserved exclusively for those worthy of such privilege.
You probably feel disdain towards the bearing of arms by juvenile parties (those who are under 21 or 25). Nobody who is involved in this debate would be affected by such a prohibition, so why not ban it?
In response to the above Anonymous:
The enactment of such legislation would (in accordance with enforcing such minors right to celibacy, as applied to those of common origin or caste ) determine not only those who engage in such behavior as victims, (if they are somehow involved with an elder party) but also as perpetrators (rapists) themselves if they are such involved with other youthful parties (or those of similar age). So long as astute persons who convey public authority are excepted (so as to avoid confusion and undue interference with the natural behavior of both celebrities and public officials) such would be conducive to a more productive and orderly society, as it would create a new (and larger) class of criminals. Feminist-oriented liberals, as well as most conservatives (who you presumably identify with) ought to agree, and subsequently support such measures, as such would not affect anyone who would be likely to comment here, as well as satisfying the desires of all major political fronts.
Just when I think that E.N. can't get any worse, he displays new depths of tyranny. If you can't be a shining example, you can always be a dire warning, I suppose.
Delete"The use of firearms procures such distinct enjoyment, that it ought to be reserved exclusively for those worthy of such privilege"
Deleteserious question. who is "worthy" and how does one acquire said status?
im trying to understand your POV.
Awwwwww shucks, I forgot all about the busted va-jay-jay E.N., let us not forget you..... go on have a great cry you great big puss.....
ReplyDeleteYou already said Laci, so you're being redundant unless you want to start counting each of his personalities individually.
DeleteI don't know how long it will take to permeate your scull, into the pathetic lump of cranial fat within, but I am not a second-rate lawyer who has an affinity for his fellow canines.
DeleteJesus Christ.
ReplyDeleteHey, Mike. See that over there? That's a bridge. Now get over it.