Pistol found in backpack at daycare

DTOM537

NES Member
Rating - 83.3%
5   1   0
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
385
Likes
285
Location
Over there
You just might be dumb enough to really believe that.

But somewhere, somewhen, you've made dumb mistakes that coulda killed somebody but didn't.
That is untrue, do you think that if someone gets arrested for a dui, even tho they did not hurt anyone, should they just walk ? Just based on breaking the law, leave out rights vs privileges.. And have u ever lost a gun ??
 

Dadstoys

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
15,096
Likes
10,815
Location
North Shore
Did he have to leave the gun in the kids bag?
Was it truly, the only possible place he could have put it down, or tucked it away.?
He didnt think, hes an idiot. It's that simple.
If he didnt make a dumb decision, we wouldnt be here talking about it.
He suppose to be a responsible adult, he should know better. But everyone here is blaming everyone else around him, taking all the responsibility away from the idiot himself.
Sounds very leftish.
The idea of taking responsibility for your actions scares the shit out of some people.
 
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
May 7, 2008
Messages
34,344
Likes
18,374
Location
PREM
Please. You don't know the meaning of the word.

If you are incapable of being a responsible person and can't keep track of your firearms, then you have no business owning a firearm as far as I am concerned.
Fortunately for roughly 100% of the gun owners in America, that's not your call.

You don't even comprehend what I was saying, it would appear.
 

commodon

NES Member
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
May 27, 2017
Messages
1,049
Likes
860
Location
Massachusetts
Fortunately for roughly 100% of the gun owners in America, that's not your call.

You don't even comprehend what I was saying, it would appear.
I fully comprehend what you were saying and I understand your view(s) on the Constitution of the United States of America, specifically the 2nd Amendment. And despite what you want to believe I fully agree with the 2nd Amendment as well. Of course you'll likely be unable to restrain yourself and offer a retort that I don't, blah, blah, blah...

IMO I think where you and I differ is that I believe local, state and federal laws have to be adhered to in addition to the 2nd Amendment and you believe that the 2nd Amendment takes precedence and trumps all laws of the local, state and federal government.

Does that make me a traitor? I hardly think so...
 
Last edited:
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
May 7, 2008
Messages
34,344
Likes
18,374
Location
PREM
I fully comprehend what you were saying and I understand your view(s) on the Constitution of the United States of America, specifically the 2nd Amendment. And despite what you want to believe I fully agree with the 2nd Amendment as well. Of course you'll likely be unable to restrain yourself and offer a retort that I don't, blah, blah, blah...

IMO I think where you and I differ is that I believe local, state and federal laws have to be adhered to in addition to the 2nd Amendment and you believe that the 2nd Amendment takes precedence and trumps all laws of the local, state and federal government.

Does that make me a traitor? I hardly think so...
... "levying War against [the United States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." ...
It is quite clear that the gun control crowd is working to subvert the Constitution wrt 2A. That makes them enemies of the state. By supporting their cause (which you ARE) you are committing Treason.

Perhaps I'm overstating a bit for effect but in essence, you are a traitor.
 

drgrant

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
61   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
72,165
Likes
35,446
Please. You don't know the meaning of the word.

If you are incapable of being a responsible person and can't keep track of your firearms, then you have no business owning a firearm as far as I am concerned.
Why do you people want firearms to be treated like nuclear weapons? You've clearly sucked for the antis rhetoric on this.

-Mike
 

drgrant

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
61   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
72,165
Likes
35,446
There is no doubt the level of punishment is being driven by persons against 2a and I agree the punishment should be commensurate with the crime, but between you and I, if someone was hurt or worse killed, especially if it were *my* child, then I expect something a Helluva lot worse than charges. In fact, I would demand a life time prison sentence to keep him safe.
Lol but nobody got killed or injured or even close to injured. "possibly maybe, unicorns could have come and set the preschool on fire" etc.

When I was young and dumber I thought moonbats only engaged in danger hyperbole but quickly discovered this was not the case, and that 75% of the nation tries so hard to scare the shit out of everyone on a whole bunch of largely meaningless crap. Hell that's about 80% of both of the two major party platforms.....

-Mike
 

Picton

NES Member
Rating - 100%
27   0   0
Joined
Sep 17, 2012
Messages
12,268
Likes
12,393
Location
MA
This is beginning to remind me of those threads where people loudly announce that .22 LR is useless for stopping people, until someone challenges them to get shot with one. Or where they get all blustery about how taxes = tyranny until someone tells them to go ahead and stop paying taxes, and see what happens.

If you really think it’s no biggie to chuck a gat in Junior’s bag and hang it on an unsecured hook in a daycare, then go do it.

Report back.
 

DTOM537

NES Member
Rating - 83.3%
5   1   0
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
385
Likes
285
Location
Over there
It is quite clear that the gun control crowd is working to subvert the Constitution wrt 2A. That makes them enemies of the state. By supporting their cause (which you ARE) you are committing Treason.

Perhaps I'm overstating a bit for effect but in essence, you are a traitor.
You sound like a lefty, calling people traitors that don’t agree with you... lol are you going to call him a Racist next ? Lol sad
 

42!

NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Apr 9, 2010
Messages
7,227
Likes
4,725
There are two things in play here. What, if any, responsibility/punishment should be imposed and what, under current MA law and attitudes, will be imposed.

I don't think his actions should result in child services getting involved, or the loss of wife, family, basically a screwed life. Unfortunately this is a possibility in MA.

On the other hand I do not dismiss this as a little accident. It required a deliberate act, putting the gun in the bag, even if he intended but forgot to remove it. It wasn't some magic that put the gun there.

So I would be ok with a punishment that included temporary loss of his LTC. The seriousness of the poor judgement put it, in my mind, somewhere between 2 and 5 years, leaning toward the middle of that. After which, along with a new safety course, he can again get his LTC.

Unfortunately he is in MA, and he knew the consequences of his actions. He may not have thought child services getting involved could happen, so for that he has my sympathy. But he certainly knew what would happen if he failed to keep control of his gun and got caught, no sympathy for that, he was careless.
 

xtry51

NES Member
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Feb 7, 2010
Messages
22,539
Likes
14,282
Location
NH (CT Escapee)
So you support government being able to revoke natural rights when no one is harmed. That's tyranny.

Just supporting the idea that LTCs should exist is tyranny because you're saying rights are in fact not rights at all. They privileges granted and revoked at the whim of the state.
 

Picton

NES Member
Rating - 100%
27   0   0
Joined
Sep 17, 2012
Messages
12,268
Likes
12,393
Location
MA
Follow up question. If this had happened in NH where LTCs don't exist. What exactly would you feel the governments role would be, if any, and doling out punishment?
Me?

No real idea; I don't live in NH. I feel very strongly that any corporate daycare supervisor, when the trembling wage slave brings in the gun she just found in Junior's bag, would in this day and age call the police, whether or not she also calls Dad. If she calls the police in NH? No idea; I assume the police would "investigate," but I'm not familiar enough with NH law to know what happens next.

My point in this whole thing has been that, in the modern corporate-daycare context in which this event happened (and which I happen to be very familiar with), police involvement was probably inevitable. The supervisor has a business to protect, both in terms of physical safety and in terms of the comfort of the customers. She has to worry about how to answer the question her moonbattish customers will ask when they demand to know how she's going to make sure this won't recur.

A lot of you would love her to take a principled stand and tell those other parents to pound sand. I think she'd go out of business if she did.
 

commodon

NES Member
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
May 27, 2017
Messages
1,049
Likes
860
Location
Massachusetts
It is quite clear that the gun control crowd is working to subvert the Constitution wrt 2A. That makes them enemies of the state. By supporting their cause (which you ARE) you are committing Treason.

Perhaps I'm overstating a bit for effect but in essence, you are a traitor.
I do not support the taking of firearms from a responsible owner/s, but once a person demonstrates their irresponsibility or having gone full potato, I am of the opinion the safety of others and for themselves should take precedence.

Aside from stating my stance above, I would like to ask a serious question of you.

Do you completely and blindly support the Second Amendment to the full extent it trumps all other laws, no matter what? If you do, would it be fair to say that you oppose the prohibition of ALL persons from possessing firearms, including felons? Or do you accept (unwillingly I imagine) the 2nd Amendment in concert with local, state and federal laws?

Additionally what is your stance in regards to persons with serious mental deficiencies? I'm talking about persons with a sub 60 IQ who require a caregiver to help them perform daily tasks. Should someone of this caliber (pun intended) be allowed to possess/own firearms?
 
Last edited:

xtry51

NES Member
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Feb 7, 2010
Messages
22,539
Likes
14,282
Location
NH (CT Escapee)
I do not support the taking of firearms from a responsible owner/s, but once a person demonstrates their irresponsibility or having gone full potato, I am of the opinion the safety of others and for themselves should take precedence.

Aside from stating my stance above, I would like to ask a serious question of you.

Do you completely and blindly support the Second Amendment to the full extent it trumps all other laws, no matter what? If you do, would it be fair to say that you oppose the prohibition of ALL persons from possessing firearms, including felons? Or do you accept (unwillingly I imagine) the 2nd Amendment in concert with local, state and federal laws?

Additionally what is your stance in regards to persons with serious mental deficiencies? I'm talking about persons with a sub 60 IQ who require a caregiver to help them perform daily tasks. Should someone of this caliber (pun intended) be allowed to possess/own firearms?
Yes. I support absolute 2A. If you're not in prison, you have a right to own and bear firearms. Because I can protect myself from other irresponsible and evil people and be defended by the law when doing so.

To allow government to make laws about deciding who can and can't own/carry I now have to defend myself from abuse of government, for which my only realistic way to defend my liberty is civil war.

It is easier to defend yourself from the individual than it is to defend yourself from government. So I choose no laws over precrime laws or turning a right into a privilege.

I also support citizens being able to freely purchase and own any weapons a military soldier may be issued. Including mines, grenades, rockets, tanks, etc.
 

42!

NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Apr 9, 2010
Messages
7,227
Likes
4,725
Yes. I support absolute 2A. If you're not in prison, you have a right to own and bear firearms. Because I can protect myself from other irresponsible and evil people and be defended by the law when doing so.
So continuing the hypothetical, if he was charged and convicted for something not specifically about guns, call it reckless endangerment, you'd be OK with the gov locking this guy up. That seems a little extreme to me.
 

42!

NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Apr 9, 2010
Messages
7,227
Likes
4,725
So you support government being able to revoke natural rights when no one is harmed. That's tyranny.

Just supporting the idea that LTCs should exist is tyranny because you're saying rights are in fact not rights at all. They privileges granted and revoked at the whim of the state.
Before we get into a discussion of what is and is not tyranny, please provide a detailed outline of what gov should do, in your opinion.
 

commodon

NES Member
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
May 27, 2017
Messages
1,049
Likes
860
Location
Massachusetts
Follow up question. If this had happened in NH where LTCs don't exist. What exactly would you feel the governments role would be, if any, and doling out punishment?
Well, I found some interesting information in regards...

DESCRIPTION OF STATE CHILD ACCESS PREVENTION LAWS
CAP laws take a variety of forms. The strongest laws impose criminal liability when a minor is likely to gain access to a negligently stored firearm regardless of whether the minor actually gains access (California). The weakest merely prohibit certain persons, such as parents or guardians, from directly providing a firearm to a minor (Utah). There is a wide range of laws that fall somewhere between these extremes, including laws that impose criminal liability for negligently stored firearms, but only where the child uses the firearm and causes death or serious injury. Weaker laws impose penalties only in the event of reckless, knowing or intentional conduct by the adult. State CAP laws also differ on the definition of “minor.

Laws Imposing Criminal Liability when a Child Gains Access as a Result of Negligent Storage of a Firearm
Fourteen states and the District of Columbia have laws that impose criminal liability on persons who negligently store firearms, where minors could or do gain access to the firearm. Typically, these laws apply whenever the person “knows or reasonably should know” that a child is likely to gain access to the firearm.

State Laws Based on Negligent Storage
California
Connecticut
District of Columbia
Florida
Hawaii
Illinois
Iowa
Maryland
Massachusetts
Minnesota
New Hampshire
New Jersey
North Carolina
Rhode Island
Texas
Washington

There are a number of variations in these types of laws, including whether the child must use the firearm, and whether the firearm must be loaded. The most significant variations are described below:

States Imposing Criminal Liability for Allowing a Child to Gain Access
The broadest laws apply regardless of whether the child even gains possession of the firearm. California, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and the District of Columbia impose criminal liability in circumstances where a child may (Massachusetts) or is likely to (California, Minnesota, District of Columbia) gain access to a firearm. The laws in Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, and Texas apply whenever a child gains access to an improperly stored firearm. In these states, it is not necessary for the child to actually use the firearm or cause any injury.

States Imposing Criminal Liability When a Child “May” or “Is Likely To” Gain Access to the Firearm
California
District of Columbia
Massachusetts
Minnesota

States Imposing Criminal Liability for Allowing a Child to Gain Access to the Firearm, Regardless of Whether the Child Uses the Firearm or Causes Injury
California
District of Columbia
Hawaii
Maryland
Massachusetts
Minnesota
New Jersey
Texas

States Imposing Criminal Liability Only if the Child Uses or Carries the Firearm
Seven states require that the child carry or use the firearm in some way before criminal liability attaches. In Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, North Carolina, and Rhode Island, the statute applies when the child uses the firearm to cause death or serious injury. Iowa, Florida, New Hampshire, and North Carolina also impose criminal liability when the minor takes the firearm to a public place, and/or uses the firearm in a threatening manner. The New Hampshire and North Carolina statutes also impose criminal liability when the child uses the firearm in the commission of a crime.

States Imposing Criminal Liability Only if a Child Uses or Carries the Firearm
Connecticut
Florida
Illinois
Iowa
New Hampshire
North Carolina
Rhode Island
Washington

States Imposing Criminal Liability for the Negligent Storage of Unloaded Firearms
Hawaii, Massachusetts, and the District of Columbia impose criminal liability even if the firearm is unloaded. In the case of handguns only, California imposes criminal liability when the child carries a loaded or unloaded handgun off-premises. All other states only impose criminal liability if the firearm is loaded.

States Imposing Criminal Liability for Negligent Storage of Unloaded Firearms
California
District of Columbia
Hawaii
Massachusetts

Excerpted in part from Child Access Prevention | Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence
 
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
May 7, 2008
Messages
34,344
Likes
18,374
Location
PREM
You sound like a lefty, calling people traitors that don’t agree with you... lol are you going to call him a Racist next ? Lol sad
Tons of people don't agree with me on various topics. With the exception of a few people that actually ARE racist I've never called one that. Why would I do that? It's got nothing to do with the topic.

I'm curious - your tone is very... millennial. How old are you?
 

commodon

NES Member
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
May 27, 2017
Messages
1,049
Likes
860
Location
Massachusetts
Tons of people don't agree with me on various topics. With the exception of a few people that actually ARE racist I've never called one that. Why would I do that? It's got nothing to do with the topic.

I'm curious - your tone is very... millennial. How old are you?
I appreciate not being called a racist as I wouldn't view myself as such, but you are a "lefty", aren't you? Not that there's anything wrong with it... ;)

Politically speaking I am pretty much at the center with a bit of a lean to the right...
 

DTOM537

NES Member
Rating - 83.3%
5   1   0
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
385
Likes
285
Location
Over there
Tons of people don't agree with me on various topics. With the exception of a few people that actually ARE racist I've never called one that. Why would I do that? It's got nothing to do with the topic.

I'm curious - your tone is very... millennial. How old are you?
I guess it went over your head.... I am not surprised...
 

tuna

NES Member
Rating - 100%
5   0   0
Joined
Sep 20, 2006
Messages
7,895
Likes
10,307
Location
Far North New Hampshire
I do not support the taking of firearms from a responsible owner/s, but once a person demonstrates their irresponsibility or having gone full potato, I am of the opinion the safety of others and for themselves should take precedence.

Aside from stating my stance above, I would like to ask a serious question of you.

Do you completely and blindly support the Second Amendment to the full extent it trumps all other laws, no matter what? If you do, would it be fair to say that you oppose the prohibition of ALL persons from possessing firearms, including felons? Or do you accept (unwillingly I imagine) the 2nd Amendment in concert with local, state and federal laws?

Additionally what is your stance in regards to persons with serious mental deficiencies? I'm talking about persons with a sub 60 IQ who require a caregiver to help them perform daily tasks. Should someone of this caliber (pun intended) be allowed to possess/own firearms?

Yes. I stated this earlier in the thread. Junkies should be able to protect themselves from dangerous dealers. Hookers should be able to shoot a violent John or pimp. School kids should be able to shoot gangbangers who threaten them.
The truly dangerous should be executed and not released from prison.

As for those that are incompetent. Hmmmm. That’s a tough one. I think the caregiver should exercise discretion in giving them guns just like anything else. But it should be on the basis of those who know the individual. Not a blanket law.

My kids (7 & 11) have demonstrated their trustworthiness around guns. I’ve seen friends simply point out where a pistol was and say be careful it’s loaded. Same guy locks his gun away when his 25 year old grandson comes over. It’s based on the person.

These are my preferences. I’ll be happy to compromise and give up rights of criminals for say universal constitutional carry. But my starting point is “shall not be infringed”, too bad our RINOs don’t understand compromise anymore.
 
Top Bottom