Boston.com 'asking about guns in a playmate's home"

Count on gun ownership being a question in the 2010 Census.

The Obama admin. is asking about this on job applications etc. They HAVE AN AGENDA.

Gun owners who say 'NO' will play into the interpretation that 'most people don't feel the need to own a gun'.

Gun owners who say 'YES' will play into the interpretation that 'too many homes with children also have guns......Inherently unsage and wreckless'.

Gun owners who decline to answer, will be interpreted as fanatics and zealots, and enumerated as an implied 'YES'.

....LOSE/LOSE!

.

what's a census? oh yeah, that envelope I threw away said something about census...
 
Me too. Not all that long ago this phrase was uttered:

"You cannot invade the mainland United States.
There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."

- Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto
(Japanese Navy)

And just look at us now [sad2]

Actually that's a bogus quote. He never said it.

Besides, it's not the 20 million rednecks with guns and pickup trucks that would be the issue. It's the 10,000-mile supply line that makes us pretty well immune to a land invasion....Oh, and the several thousand nuclear warheads.
 
How about just putting an NRA sticker on your car or leaving a copy of America's 1st Freedom, American Rifleman or Guns & Ammo lying around and let them do the math? [wink]

I've had several people find out that way and they've been pretty cool with it.

I agree with this one, I have a frontsight sticker on my car, and a GOAL and NRA sticker (NRA sticker from my land lord) on both of my outside doors. they'll figure it out. Hell, I even have a front sight sticker on my cube at work, lol.
 
I'm a mom and my kids have friends over fairly often. I don't have any guns yet, working on the license still. I'm debating about what to do with this problem. I don't plan on telling anyone I have a handgun (when I get it) but I have the strong feeling that if I did, none of my kids' friends would be allowed to come to this house, period. I'd be treated like a leper and a dangerous nutcase around the school. I'm pretty sure when I went to the school some would be staring at me the whole time, wondering if I was carrying while I was at the school. Now it's one thing to say that they aren't people I want to know or want my kids to know but I am not so sure there's any other sort around here.

On the one hand, I wonder if I should tell them upfront, because I'm pretty sure they'd want to know that kind of thing and would immediately take their child away from the influence of the dangerous nutcase, or if I don't say anything and they find out later (as they are sure to do, it's a small town) then they might be even more outraged and frightened and feel even more threatened that I never said anything.

It's one thing to say these are idiot moonbat morons (which they are) and they can do as they please (somewhere else) but it's another thing when they are your neighbors, your kids' freinds' parents, and your town is FULL of them.

Just some thoughts, hope it's not too much off topic.

Somebody please write something very witty and very snarky in the comments on that article!!!

I never volunteered anything, but if the parent asked I would tell them, but also tell them they were locked up. If they had an issue with it it was their problem. I only had one parent that wouldn't let their kids come over and play, when our son was growing up.
 
Last edited:
du.com = democraticunderground. com

Do not go there unless you want your head to explode. I used to read there once in a while to see what the other side was thinking......

At du, the requirement is that you DON'T think.

Thinking, and expressing what you think, will get you banned in a New York minute. DUers can't handle reason. It hurts their feeeelings.
 
At du, the requirement is that you DON'T think.

Thinking, and expressing what you think, will get you banned in a New York minute. DUers can't handle reason. It hurts their feeeelings.
It is fun to watch them squirm as Barry fails to turn wine into water on a daily basis [rofl2]

They were convinced he could cure baldness and halitosis as well prior to the election and I really enjoy watching their hearts break as he continues the Un-Patriot Act, Wire tapping, torture, war... All the best things in life...

We had to suffer through a RINO, I guess they get a DINO or is that a LINO? Of course he's worse than a liberal, he's a power grabber who evidently can sweet talk large crowds of dullards (i.e. 50% of the electorate) at once...
 
Originally Posted by Lilorfnannie View Post I'm a mom and my kids have friends over fairly often. I don't have any guns yet, working on the license still. I'm debating about what to do with this problem. I don't plan on telling anyone I have a handgun (when I get it) but I have the strong feeling that if I did, none of my kids' friends would be allowed to come to this house, period. I'd be treated like a leper and a dangerous nutcase around the school. I'm pretty sure when I went to the school some would be staring at me the whole time, wondering if I was carrying while I was at the school. Now it's one thing to say that they aren't people I want to know or want my kids to know but I am not so sure there's any other sort around here. On the one hand, I wonder if I should tell them upfront, because I'm pretty sure they'd want to know that kind of thing and would immediately take their child away from the influence of the dangerous nutcase, or if I don't say anything and they find out later (as they are sure to do, it's a small town) then they might be even more outraged and frightened and feel even more threatened that I never said anything. It's one thing to say these are idiot moonbat morons (which they are) and they can do as they please (somewhere else) but it's another thing when they are your neighbors, your kids' freinds' parents, and your town is FULL of them. Just some thoughts, hope it's not too much off topic. Somebody please write something very witty and very snarky in the comments on that article!!!

I never volunteered anything, but if the parent asked I would tell them, but also tell them they were locked up. If they had an issue with it it was their problem. I only had one parent that wouldn't let their kids come over and play, when our son was growing up.


I can't be certain, but I believe that a good number of home owners on my street also own firearms. (or once did) Just a hunch based on their views toward guns. Then again, I live in "Sopranoville" where most peoples last names end with a vowel.

My neighbors are quick to wave hello as they drive by, but they also cherish their privacy. This became clear to me when I first moved in and was welcomed by one neighbor after another, each making the point that it was a good neighborhood and that "everyone minds their own business." [wink]

I got the message. Actually, I was delighted! I said to myself, "I'm home." [grin]

But I'm digressing.

Parents not only have a right to know if the people with whom they are entrusting their child's care to are worthy of that trust; they have a responsibility to make certain.

Does that give them a right to demand to see your gun safe or ask how many weapons you own or how much ammo you keep in your house? I don't think so.

It seems to me that before a parent asks the question of whether or not you own firearms, they should first educate themselves about firearms and the laws governing "lawful" ownership.

I think that if I were asked the question, I would answer it with a question of my own. I would ask them what they know about firearms, firearms safety and the laws governing the ownership of firearms. I think it would be the perfect opportunity to educate a parent and maybe even gain a convert. Once a full discussion of firearms, safety and the laws had been discussed, only then would I answer the question.

Just my .02
 
Last edited:
It is fun to watch them squirm as Barry fails to turn wine into water on a daily basis [rofl2]

They were convinced he could cure baldness and halitosis as well prior to the election and I really enjoy watching their hearts break as he continues the Un-Patriot Act, Wire tapping, torture, war... All the best things in life...

We had to suffer through a RINO, I guess they get a DINO or is that a LINO? Of course he's worse than a liberal, he's a power grabber who evidently can sweet talk large crowds of dullards (i.e. 50% of the electorate) at once...

Unfortunately, all those dullards are members in good standing on DU. [wink] They still think the Usurper doesn't defecate anything but ice cream.



.
 
Years ago my late uncle and I discussed disclosing gun ownership. He felt that you should never tell anyone that you own a gun. Even if you are asked. His view was that people might break in to get to the guns, especially if you had a valuable collection. Made sense to me at the time and still makes sense now.

If a parent asked me I don’t know what I’d say. I’d want to say no, but I’m a parent and I don’t know if I could do that.
 
It is fun to watch them squirm as Barry fails to turn wine into water on a daily basis [rofl2]

They were convinced he could cure baldness and halitosis as well prior to the election and I really enjoy watching their hearts break as he continues the Un-Patriot Act, Wire tapping, torture, war... All the best things in life...

We had to suffer through a RINO, I guess they get a DINO or is that a LINO? Of course he's worse than a liberal, he's a power grabber who evidently can sweet talk large crowds of dullards (i.e. 50% of the electorate) at once...

Actually no, the sane people among us never expected water into wine. We just expected a lot more sane approach than McCain/Palin offered.

It's always fun on these forums when 99.9% of the people are of similar political persuasion to use the Ad Hom/straw man fallacy, but it is, nevertheless, a logical fallacy.

I certainly never expected to agree with Obama on everything. Gun control in particular. It's always an issue I knew I would have to fight over. I don't like some of the directions of Federal bailout monies. Then again, I didn't like the ones proposed by Bush, and I didn't see any of you chuckleheads raising Hell about the Medicare prescription drug benefit which added 1 trillion dollars a year to unfunded Federal mandates.

What we DID NOT want to see was an uneducated ignorant buffoon as VP to a 72 year-old Pres with a history of heart trouble and a President who's great thoughts on the current struggle for more freedom in Iran is more bellicose GW Bush B.S. which will hand Khameinei a giant stick with which to beat the opposition.

If you ACTUALLY care about the middle east, instead of being a shill for Likud, or you ACTUALLY give a rat's ass about democracy happening (in whatever limited way it works out) in a keystone state in the ME, then prudence would dictate to keep your f***ing mouth shut and not hand the hardliners a reason to shut down the opposition because they are agents of "The great Satan."

It's exactly this kind of shit that makes me glad I voted for the other guy. One person is serious, the other one is more concerned about scoring political points than furthering the giant progress we may see in Iran.

Gun control I can fight. Foreign policy decisions that get made in the course of hours is not something I can fight.

**Waits for the anonymous neg-reps**
 
Last edited:
Actually no, the sane people among us never expected water into wine. We just expected a lot more sane approach than McCain/Palin offered. It's always fun on these forums when 99.9% of the people are of similar political persuasion to use the Ad Hom/straw man fallacy, but it is, nevertheless, a logical fallacy. I certainly never expected to agree with Obama on everything. Gun control in particular. It's always an issue I knew I would have to fight over. I don't like some of the directions of Federal bailout monies. Then again, I didn't like the ones proposed by Bush, and I didn't see any of you chuckleheads raising Hell about the Medicare prescription drug benefit which added 1 trillion dollars a year to unfunded Federal mandates. What we DID NOT want to see was an uneducated ignorant buffoon as VP to a 72 year-old Pres with a history of heart trouble and a President who's great thoughts on the current struggle for more freedom in Iran is more bellicose GW Bush B.S. which will hand Khameinei a giant stick with which to beat the opposition. If you ACTUALLY care about the middle east, instead of being a shill for Likud, or you ACTUALLY give a rat's ass about democracy happening (in whatever limited way it works out) in a keystone state in the ME, then prudence would dictate to keep your f***ing mouth shut and not hand the hardliners a reason to shut down the opposition because they are agents of "The great Satan." It's exactly this kind of shit that makes me glad I voted for the other guy. One person is serious, the other one is more concerned about scoring political points than furthering the giant progress we may see in Iran. Gun control I can fight. Foreign policy decisions that get made in the course of hours is not something I can fight. **Waits for the anonymous neg-reps**


Though I completely disagree with you and believe that you are either woefully uninformed, or suffering from cognitive dissonance, you won't get any neg reps from me.

I only give positive reps because I believe that giving neg reps to a person who honestly expressed their opinion is a way of punishing that person for their beliefs, and that is a form of censorship which violates our Constitutional tenets of freedom of speech. So too is banning a person from a message board such as the so-called "Democratic" Underground site.

There is nothing "democratic" about that site, nothing. Its loyal membership consists of nothing but non thinking, feeeeling driven, raving lunatics who are so indoctrinated with radical left dogma that they are incapable of realizing that they have become total fascists.

They do not welcome opposing views no matter how well and how polite those views are presented. They do not welcome any challenge to their radical left opinions or agenda. To call themselves and their site "democratic" is hilarious in its hypocrisy. But then, it is to be expected from a group of useful idiots who have been told "what" to think, rather than "how" to think.

One of them signed onto this site a short while back and during a debate I asked him to give me a simple example of a basic syllogism. Not only could he not provide it, I don't believe he even knew what a syllogism was.

I blame our alleged educational system for this. I believe that from grade 1, children should not only be taught reading, writing and arithmetic, but just as important, they need to be taught "how" to think (for themselves). To teach children how to think requires that they also receive an education in the basics of logic, and it should be continued to be taught straight through to grade 12.

Only then will our children learn that their thoughts are not controlled by how they feel, but rather, how they feel is controlled by "how they think!"

Unfortunately, the complete dimwits on DU were denied this basic tool of self preservation and they turned out in droves to vote for a fraud, a usurper, a violator of our Constitution and a man and his party who are in the process of destroying our Constitutional freedoms and our nation. Why did they do that? Because like you, they voted their feelings, not their minds.



.
 
Last edited:
Unfortunately, this article doesn't point out the simple fact that the house you know has a gun is much safer than the house you think doesn't have a gun. Picture the situation Mommy takes Junior to friend's house to play for the afternoon. Mommy(M) and friend's mom(FM) have a conversation about if there are guns in the house...

M: "Do you have any guns in your house?"
Now if the friend's parents are responsible gun owners the conversation might go something like this:
FM: "Yes, me and my husband both enjoy <insert firearms sport here>. We've raised our children to never touch a gun unless one of us is present, and all our guns are locked up when not in use."
OR
FM: "Yes, my husband is a cop..."

Whereas you'd never hear the response:
FM: "Yes, my older son is a big time gang banger so he's got a few weapons just lying around the house"

On the news at least, we hear more often about a child injured or killed at a playmate's home with an illegal gun than one in the possession of a responsible owner. Educating children on what to do if they ever encounter a gun will save more lives than simply locking up guns. Child proof your guns for sure, but also gun proof your children.
 
It's exactly this kind of shit that makes me glad I voted for the other guy. One person is serious, the other one is more concerned about scoring political points than furthering the giant progress we may see in Iran.

You are f-ing delusional if YOU think that Ohomie is serious about peace in the middle east. I guess if you consider throwing Israel under the bus being serious, then you would be correct.

Iran's freedom movement will be crushed and your boy will issue a strongly worded statement of displeasure.

You got taken for a fool.
 
It's exactly this kind of shit that makes me glad I voted for the other guy. One person is serious, the other one is more concerned about scoring political points than furthering the giant progress we may see in Iran.

Yes, because twiddling your thumbs as president is soooo much of an improvement over whatever "the other guy" was talking about. [laugh]

Now, if obama would twiddle his thumbs on -everything- (including not signing bills) we'd be getting somewhere.


-Mike
 
Yes, because twiddling your thumbs as president is soooo much of an improvement over whatever "the other guy" was talking about. [laugh]

Now, if obama would twiddle his thumbs on -everything- (including not signing bills) we'd be getting somewhere.


-Mike

And what precisely would you suggest he say Mike? Should he come out and say that America stands with Mousavi? That would be the stupidest f***ing thing imaginable. they used that shit in 2003 to quash the democracy movement, thanks very much to Mister "Axis of Evil."

This isn't our fight. We can express solidarity with people peacefully protesting for democratic rule, but that's about it. Anything else will be used as a club against the movement.

Iran is a unique case in the mideast. They had an empire straddling the known world when our european ancestors were painting themselves blue in their pre-literate societies.

They've been screwed hard in succession by the Russians, the British and the US. They remember that. It's burned into the national psyche.

A comment by an American president in support of a dissident movement inside Iran will result in a LOSS of support for that movement.

Obama is straddling an extremely dangerous line. He's doing a pretty good job on this.

YOUR guy, on the other hand, wants to weigh in full-on with support for the opposition. Something that will guarantee it's failure. Maybe that's the whole point of these Neocon a**h***s who would rather bomb Iran and make WW3 REALLY happen rather than attempt to have some kind of rapprochement with 1/5 of the world's population.

One person gives a shit about the issues. The other only cares about scoring political points.
 
You are f-ing delusional if YOU think that Ohomie is serious about peace in the middle east. I guess if you consider throwing Israel under the bus being serious, then you would be correct.

Iran's freedom movement will be crushed and your boy will issue a strongly worded statement of displeasure.

You got taken for a fool.

I got taken for nothing. If you think Israel is EVER going to have peace with the settlements and continuing incursions into Arab lands, you're high.

Withdraw to the 1967 borders. They can keep Jerusalem. Once they've done that they can counter-battery any opposition mortar/rocket fire and I'll stand right there with them. Until they withdraw, it's an illegal occupation. period, end of story. And it is NOT America's fight.
 
Withdraw to the 1967 borders. They can keep Jerusalem. Once they've done that they can counter-battery any opposition mortar/rocket fire and I'll stand right there with them. Until they withdraw, it's an illegal occupation. period, end of story. And it is NOT America's fight.

It's illegal how? Because the UN said so? [laugh]
 
A comment by an American president in support of a dissident movement inside Iran will result in a LOSS of support for that movement.

Huh? This is doublespeak nonsense.

Obama does not want to piss off Ahmajeniblowjob. God only knows why......
 
Huh? This is doublespeak nonsense.

Obama does not want to piss off Ahmajeniblowjob. God only knows why......

This shows your utter ignorance on the subject. It's been written about to death but I guess if your only source of news is Sean Hannity you might have missed it.

Look genius, the Iranian PEOPLE, not just the government, have a long memory of a long history of being f***ed over by outside intervention.

If the current administration in Iran can successfully paint the opposition as being tools of foreign powers, their base of support inside the country will evaporate.

The regime is already trying to do this. If the USA etc add to this, it will HURT, not HELP, the dissidents.

I relaize that in your tiny Manichean brain this might be hard to fathom, but the world is actually a complicated place. If you're tooo stupid to grasp that STFU and let the grownups talk politics. Seriously Jose, your commentary is juvenile and woefully ignorant. When you have something of substance to add, please feel free until then I'm done talking to you.
 
Look genius, the Iranian PEOPLE, not just the government, have a long memory of a long history of being f***ed over by outside intervention.
Hold on, welling up with tears for the fallen Persian Empire[thinking][laugh] Nope, I got nothin'... [rofl2]

There isn't much to do at this point, I agree with you on that, but I will refrain from giving dear leader a massage with a happy ending for well done at this point[laugh]

There may come a time in the near future that we need to "act", but we need to understand where they are going to go with this and let them do it on their own for now. You can't "give" freedom to a people - heck, we are proving that even Americans cannot be "given" freedom, they are pissing it away for lack of understanding what its worth...

That said, I am not exactly handing a "well played" to Obama on this either. The typical weak willed response of his kind (Democrats) to this sort of thing is "wait and see and wait and see and wait and wait and let a few more million die and then maybe, no, wait some more, ok, a few more million - ok, NOW, now we jump in - after everyone else has already... "

So, the stopped clock was right for the second time today...

Much like they did with the Somali hostage crisis, but there a bold leader on the scene did the dirty work and Barry sat back and took the credit for dragging his feet...

I think we agree that we can't help the Iranian people right now. They have to help themselves... We can play our small part in the propaganda game and make the Clerics look like the tyrants they are, but for the most part the right play IS to "wait and see" here...
 
This shows your utter ignorance on the subject. It's been written about to death but I guess if your only source of news is Sean Hannity you might have missed it.

Look genius, the Iranian PEOPLE, not just the government, have a long memory of a long history of being f***ed over by outside intervention.

If the current administration in Iran can successfully paint the opposition as being tools of foreign powers, their base of support inside the country will evaporate.

The regime is already trying to do this. If the USA etc add to this, it will HURT, not HELP, the dissidents.

I relaize that in your tiny Manichean brain this might be hard to fathom, but the world is actually a complicated place. If you're tooo stupid to grasp that STFU and let the grownups talk politics. Seriously Jose, your commentary is juvenile and woefully ignorant. When you have something of substance to add, please feel free until then I'm done talking to you.

Actually, I don't much care what happens to Iran. Regardless of who wins, there will be war with them in my lifetime. May as well get it on now.
 
I can't think of one of my guns that a child would actually be able to load, whether trying to get the bullet into a magazine with a stiff spring, actually getting the correct size bullet for the correct magazine to put in the correct gun, etc. Even my bolt actions, a little kid could never push that bolt up. There are so many variables to cause an "accident" it's incredible.

Now if there was a loaded gun, out and about, with no safety on it...that's another story.


I'd be far more concerned about a swimming pool.
 
+1 tough arguing with reality.[thinking]

Actually, the infantile little children are those who want to play and make nice with a regime that committed an over act of war against us in 1979 and that by all rights should have been vaporized our of existance long ago.

F-ing putzes....
 
If there are no children or adults that are not capable of using a firearm in the house, then I have no qualms if a homeowner doesn't want to keep his guns outside of a safe without a lock.

However, if that's not the case, and there are children and/or adults that are incapable of operating a firearm safely, then the gun-owner ought to consider mitigating risk to injury by using locks or safes. I think the larger question is: Should this be mandated?

Current Massachusetts law makes no exception for the previous group, unfortunately.

Remember...

Gun control? It's the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If I'm a bad guy, I'm always gonna have a gun. Safety locks? You will pull the trigger with a lock on, and I'll pull the trigger. We'll see who wins. -- Former Mafioso Sammy "the Bull" Gravano
 
Back
Top Bottom