Originally Posted by Tvflguy (Post 2367720)

Finally, irresponsible parent(s) are being held liable and charged. Hopefully this may affect these horrible shootings by troubled kids.

BTW Dr Phil had a wonderful episode on this topic. He, and other leaders may have an impact to alleviate these shootings. His stats show that 94% of these shooters had told other students or posted their plans.

Originally Posted by Tvflguy (Post 2367720)

Finally, irresponsible parent(s) are being held liable and charged. Hopefully this may affect these horrible shootings by troubled kids.

BTW Dr Phil had a wonderful episode on this topic. He, and other leaders may have an impact to alleviate these shootings. His stats show that 94% of these shooters had told other students or posted their plans.

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725 (Post 2367737)

We need to approach this terrible problem from every angle and get local communities very much involved in preventing them. My Villages' former neighbors lost their 14 year old granddaughter in the Parkland shooting. They moved from the Villages but it is now like almost everyone knows someone who has loved ones involved in these tragedies.

Originally Posted by Chellybean (Post 2367746)

Although i agree with this, it is also becoming dangerous to our 2nd amendment, if they start holding gun manufactures liable as well.
They are chipping away of our rights as legal gun owners!

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725 (Post 2367774)

2nd Amendment says right to a well armed militia and not the individual's right to own military style weapons.

Originally Posted by Tvflguy (Post 2367720)

Finally, irresponsible parent(s) are being held liable and charged. Hopefully this may affect these horrible shootings by troubled kids.

...

Originally Posted by taltarzac725 (Post 2367774)

2nd amendment says right to a well armed militia and not the individual's right to own military style weapons.

Originally Posted by Rainger99 (Post 2367782)

It says that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State and then goes on to state that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

It doesn't say anything about the right to a well armed militia.

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.

The Militia and Minute Men of 1775 - Minute Man National Historical Park (U.S. National Park Service)

Originally Posted by manaboutown (Post 2367786)

Wrong!

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725 (Post 2367751)

I do not see any practical reason to own the kind of gun used in the Georgia shooting. But there are so many of these weapons out there that it would be impractical to remove them. Criminals would sell them as well, etc.

Originally Posted by Bill14564 (Post 2367785)

That slippery slope ought to be very frightening.

1. If parents can be held responsible for the actions of their children when committing firearm violations then what else can they be held responsible for? If a child gets into a fight can the parents be charged with assault? If the 16 year old has an accident and someone is killed, can the parents be charged too? There should be consistency in holding parents accountable - watch out for unintended consequences.

2. If a parent comes into a gun store with their child to purchased a firearm and the child then uses it to commit a crime, can the store owner now be charged? He should have known the there was a chance the child would get their hands on the weapon that he provided.

3. If the theory is the parent should have reasonably expected the child might commit a crime if provided a weapon and is therefore responsible for providing the weapon then is the manufacturer any less responsible for producing and providing the #1 weapon used in these crimes?

Once the mob picks up the pitchforks they are hard to put down again.

Originally Posted by phylt (Post 2367792)

--------------------

Sorry - I am a Conservative and see the validity of the Second Amendment.

But - enough is enough - we MUST act in this country, despite the 'slippery slope'. We MUST hold parents responsible - especially in the case of the last two shootings (MI & GA). In MI the parents were convicted, and the recent GA case is pretty cut and dry. Parents MUST accept responsibility. Even for minor offenses such as robbery, driving, etc. The buck must stop somewhere. Kids AND parents must be RESPONSIBLE for their actions.

Originally Posted by Bill14564 (Post 2367785)

That slippery slope ought to be very frightening.

1. If parents can be held responsible for the actions of their children when committing firearm violations then what else can they be held responsible for? If a child gets into a fight can the parents be charged with assault? If the 16 year old has an accident and someone is killed, can the parents be charged too? There should be consistency in holding parents accountable - watch out for unintended consequences.

2. If a parent comes into a gun store with their child to purchased a firearm and the child then uses it to commit a crime, can the store owner now be charged? He should have known the there was a chance the child would get their hands on the weapon that he provided.

3. If the theory is the parent should have reasonably expected the child might commit a crime if provided a weapon and is therefore responsible for providing the weapon then is the manufacturer any less responsible for producing and providing the #1 weapon used in these crimes?

Once the mob picks up the pitchforks they are hard to put down again.

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725 (Post 2367737)

We need to approach this terrible problem from every angle and get local communities very much involved in preventing them. My Villages' former neighbors lost their 14 year old granddaughter in the Parkland shooting. They moved from the Villages but it is now like almost everyone knows someone who has loved ones involved in these tragedies.

We need to encourage our younger generation members to befriend the loners and misfits so that these kids do not resort to violence.

Originally Posted by Rainger99 (Post 2367820)

I just heard on television that the judge told the shooter that he faced the death penalty or life in prison. Apparently the judge didn't know the law. He had to bring the shooter back into the courtroom and tell him that he was not facing the death penalty.

Judge Mingledorff initially told the suspected shooter that he could face the death penalty as a result of his actions. He later called Gray back into the court room to clarify that, as a minor, he is not eligible for the death penalty.

I would think a judge that is on national tv would know that in 2005 the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that people who are under 18 at the time of the crime can't be executed for their crimes.

https://cfsy.org/wp-content/uploads/...ns-Opinion.pdf

Not sure if the court need 87 pages to write the decision.

Originally Posted by Rainger99 (Post 2367800)

As far as I can tell, they only go after the parents in a school shooting. Have they gone after parents when the kid kills someone while robbing a gas station or shoots another person on the street? Or just mugs someone?

Originally Posted by Chellybean (Post 2367831)

Our whole legal system is up side down. Unbelievable. If he is tried as an adult I wonder if that still applies. I personally think It should!

Originally Posted by Pugchief (Post 2367859)

Excellent point. Charging the parents of gangbangers would go a long way to reducing inner city violence.

Many cities have chosen the alternate option: charge and prosecute no one. How's that working?

Originally Posted by Pugchief (Post 2367859)

Excellent point. Charging the parents of gangbangers would go a long way to reducing inner city violence.

Many cities have chosen the alternate option: charge and prosecute no one. How's that working?

Originally Posted by retiredguy123 (Post 2367744)

I would just point out that thousands of murders with firearms are committed every day by teens, and the parents are almost never charged with any crime. There should be a more consistent application of the laws.

Originally Posted by Caymus (Post 2367801)

Times have changed. My High School had a rifle team which practiced on site with live ammo.

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725 (Post 2367774)

2nd Amendment says right to a well armed militia and not the individual's right to own military style weapons.

Originally Posted by Rainger99 (Post 2367782)

It says that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State and then goes on to state that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

It doesn't say anything about the right to a well armed militia.

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.

The Militia and Minute Men of 1775 - Minute Man National Historical Park (U.S. National Park Service)

Originally Posted by Number 10 GI (Post 2367985)

Yes, let's do like the North Korean government, jail the entire family for what one family member does. It is the "guilt by association" system that punishes relatives of the perpetrator, even if they did not commit the crime. This punishment can extend up to 3 generations.
If your alcoholic, black sheep uncle robs a bank, you as his nephew/niece will accompany him in jail also. Even a child born in prison to a woman sentenced under this system can possibly stay in prison for it's entire life.

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby (Post 2368018)

It also doesn't specify what kinds of arms the people have the right to keep and bear. That means the government can clarify, and it wouldn't violate the constitution.

The government can say "you can have pellet guns, cap guns, crossbows, longbows, muskets, and any Smith and Wesson manufactured prior to 1947. Those are all the arms you have the right to keep and bear."

The government can also say "yes you can keep and bear arms. And we can impose a National universal background check that spans all 50 states and all US territories. If you fail the check - you can keep and bear a cap gun and a shortbow, with no more than 10 arrows."

That'd satisfy the Constitutional amendment. But I'm guessing no one really cares about the law, they just care about their freedoms. If they really cared about the law, they'd try for restrictions (not banning) of who can and cannot keep and bear arms, what kinds of arms they can and cannot keep and bear, and how they may acquire those arms that they have the right to keep and bear.

No civilian needs semi-automatic weapons, unless they're hoping to shoot a lot of people. That is the purpose of semi-automatic weapons. They aren't for hunting, they're not for self-defense. They are for attacks. And if you need to fire a whole clip to hit the target, then you need to just give up and try darts for awhile. So no - it's not even for target practice.

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby (Post 2368018)

It also doesn't specify what kinds of arms the people have the right to keep and bear. That means the government can clarify, and it wouldn't violate the constitution.

The government can say "you can have pellet guns, cap guns, crossbows, longbows, muskets, and any Smith and Wesson manufactured prior to 1947. Those are all the arms you have the right to keep and bear."

The government can also say "yes you can keep and bear arms. And we can impose a National universal background check that spans all 50 states and all US territories. If you fail the check - you can keep and bear a cap gun and a shortbow, with no more than 10 arrows."



That'd satisfy the Constitutional amendment. But I'm guessing no one really cares about the law, they just care about their freedoms. If they really cared about the law, they'd try for restrictions (not banning) of who can and cannot keep and bear arms, what kinds of arms they can and cannot keep and bear, and how they may acquire those arms that they have the right to keep and bear.

No civilian needs semi-automatic weapons, unless they're hoping to shoot a lot of people. That is the purpose of semi-automatic weapons. They aren't for hunting, they're not for self-defense. They are for attacks. And if you need to fire a whole clip to hit the target, then you need to just give up and try darts for awhile. So no - it's not even for target practice.

Originally Posted by TheWarriors (Post 2368042)

I don’t think you quite understand why the Second Amendment exists. Perhaps you would like to apply the same logic to all the other Amendments?

Originally Posted by retiredguy123 (Post 2367744)

I would just point out that thousands of murders with firearms are committed every day by teens, and the parents are almost never charged with any crime. There should be a more consistent application of the laws.