Parents of Michigan high school shooter Ethan Crumbley will go to trial, judges rule

Indeed, it will. Sometimes I ask things that people assume mean things they do not mean. When I ask what statute these folk violated, that is not my smart-ass way of saying I think they are, or should be untouchable. Not true. But when people go off half-cocked, like our resident gun hater, just popping off that what law they violated doesn't matter, it serves to demonstrate the mindset that goes with most gun haters. "1It's my way, or the highway, and if you feel your freedoms are impinged, tough. You only have whatever freedom you are lucky enough for me to give you, until I change my mind."

 

Because I was responding to your claim in which you appeared to imply the popular but incorrect assumption that the 2nd A had ANYTHING to do with banning gun ownership. The link points to a series of threads that demonstrate it doesn't. Any discussion about that topic belongs there.

 

"...not stranger on stranger..." Hah! That is SOME funny caveat! I have no idea if the people who shoot each other are acquaintances or not. I just know that if they didn't have a gun, there would be no shooting.

Oh God! THAT is your response? I have no idea how many are legal carriers but... who cares? There are too many guns in the street, and guns are TOO easy to obtain. Legally or illegally. Solution: RESTRICT the number of guns in the street.

Pro gun-epidemic fans are running out of rational arguments.

 

Actually, we're not. I would bet that same $100 that you won't watch this, but for your educational needs, that you desperately need:

 

You would be correct. Forum rules state that if you have a point to make, you need to make it yourself. Forwarding a video is easy. Making a case... .not so much. The latter requires research. This is why people who have no arguments and are too lazy to research prefer the former.

If it's about the 2nd A (leaving aside for now the fact that it's off-topic), I have done enough research about the Historical and Linguistic arguments that Scalia made up, that I could easily take on Scalia himself. Which wouldn't be as big a feat as it sounds because he clearly did very POOR research on those topics before he wrote his legislation based on them. But he too would have to be in this forum.

 

Exactly what I expected. I've already said everything in that video, probably a dozen times a dozen over again. But he is a bit more concise than my rambling tends to be, and he has parchments I do not have, so... I tried. But you keep praying to the forum gods to save you from a set of facts you don't like, in the meantime Court after Court after Court is shooting down every single infringement your team is attempting, and I'm guessing once SCOTUS reiterates one more time that they meant what they said, if they have to stop the car again, they're gonna give some lefty gun grabbers something to cry about.

 

Correct the 2A does not ban guns, I never said or implied that it did.. its stops the banning of guns..

 

Good point. Many ISPs now provide strong parental controls over what kids can see on home internet connections. Is looking at ammo a sign? I doubt it. But if its part of a pattern, then maybe its worth the parent taking a look into...this is where parenting really becomes the true responsible party...its not easy being a parent.

 

We ban all kinds of arms from the general population. I bet if Monroe or Hamilton saw an AK in action they would have been scared shitless to let the average yahoo own one.

 

Not likely. Given time to acclimate to the 21st Century, I believe he would heartily support the Second Amendment ... still.

 

This was a debate about banning all guns so the 2A stops that. And no I dont think they would be scared shitless because Thomas Jefferson had an "assault rifle" it was a .46cal rifle had a 22 round tubular magazine, "semi auto" and could shoot all 22 shots out before a typical musket would be on its 2nd or 3rs shot. They knew first hand the power that technology could create.. There was a bigger gap in firepower back then vs a hand gun of today and an AK or AR..this anti gun taking point has been debunked 100s of times..

 

I have pictures of my kids with guns. Does that make me a bad parent?

 

We don’t need to ban guns at all. We need to teach about guns. We need to advocate for more gun ownership along with more gun bearers. We need to start gun clubs in schools again. Have more shooting competitions in schools again. This will help lead to more respect for guns than fear of them. It’s the fear these kids cause that these kids want to be known for. We need to change perceptions

 

His parents did nothing wrong. My kids have researched ammo back when ammo was hard to find and let me know when they found the type of ammunition needed for upcoming events/hunts. Researching ammo is not indicative of a murderer. That’s a moronic claim. In fact nothing he done was indicative of a murderer. The drawing is disturbing but I’m sure there are kids out there that drew disturbing stuff without ever committing a crime.

If I’m remembering correctly the parents also claimed the gun was kept in a locked drawer.

 

It's not the individual pieces that stand out but the sum of all the evidence. The most damning, to my mind, is her brushing off the ammo research by telling her son "don't get caught". The should have taken time to talk this drawings and ammo research out with him; not just turn him loose. It would be a hard jury to sit on but, IMHO, these parents were not on top of raising their child. We all know how hard it is to raise a child, but how the inevitable bumps along the way are handled makes a huge difference.

 

If my boy got caught researching ammo and the teacher threw a fuss over it, I would jump down that teachers throat and tell them to mind their own business. The teacher doesn’t need to approve of his extracurricular activities anyway. The ammo research is literally nothing to me. My kids have researched ammo plenty of times

 

Well there ya go.

 

So you think ammo research is indicative of a killer?

 

No, it doesn't

 

I think doing it in class, in today's "school shooting" environment, is unwise and it shouldn't have been brushed off by his parents.

 

I doubt that would help. There have been mass shooters who probably know more about guns than anybody in this forum. That didn't stop them. In fact, it might have encouraged them.

 

The OP explains what irresponsible parents could end up facing. So anybody whose kids are not yet adults should pay close attention to what these are going through and why. It's the reason why I started this thread.

 

Why can’t a kid research ammo? They can’t even legally buy it so why would that even be a big deal? Like I said, my kid has looked up ammo plenty of times. Specially when hunts are coming up and he will let me know if he finds what we’re looking for. I would promote him looking specifically when ammo is hard to find. Does that make me a bad parent?

 

What specifically did his parents do that was irresponsible. I let my kids look for ammo, is that irresponsible? You can say if you think so. I won’t report you. I just want to know if that makes me irresponsible in your opinion

 

it actually does, Guns where banned in Chicago.. the supreme Court determined that the law in Chicago that banned guns was unconstitutional. If there was no 2nd A then guns would still be banned in Chicago.. The 2A protects the blanket banning of guns.

You want to ban guns? your arguments should 100% be on an amendment of the Constitution, anything short of that is a waste of time