Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Javasndphotoclicks t1_j82lcsd wrote

But, books a dangerous to children. I’m pretty sick of this timeline.

27

Undead_Necromancer t1_j82llnj wrote

> The Republican-led Missouri state house on Wednesday voted against banning minors from openly carrying firearms on public land without adult supervision.

this is stupid beyond imagination.

125

ceton33 t1_j82m6y6 wrote

The only thing stops a bad kid with a gun is a good kid with a gun

6

comfortablyflawed t1_j82qs23 wrote

You can't have birth control, you can't have an abortion, you can't have the morning after pill, it's the law that your kids go to underfunded, under resourced schools, where we will make sure they learn exactly enough to be heartbreakingly ignorant and ill equipped for even normal functioning in the real world, never mind a career, but will ensure they are laughably stupid everywhere outside their own zipcode; we're not going to make it possible for you to afford child care so you can go to the job that won't pay you enough to afford adequate housing or enough food for your kids, never mind sports or enrichment activities, aaaaand... not only are we taking no steps whatsoever to protect your child from being shot, we're actually going to change the law so that the odds of it happening go way, way up.

Family values!! Enjoy parenting! (Oh... hope your kid is CIS/ heteronormative, and white, without any learning disabilities are other challenges, because those are whole other, separate paragraphs of what kind of hell we'll cheerfully inflict on you all. Anyway, again, enjoy parenting!)

The greatest evidence that the Republicans know global warming is real and there is going to be no more planet in the next 20 to 30 years is how unabashedly they keep proving they don't give one shit about how stupid and amoral they look, and make America look on the world stage

68

GhostalMedia t1_j82regf wrote

> While it may be intuitive that a 14-year-old has no legitimate purpose, it doesn’t actually mean that they’re going to harm someone. We don’t know that yet

Spoken like someone who hit peak intelligence at 14 and could never look back to realize how fucking dumb they were.

38

Liandan t1_j82slg5 wrote

I can't be reading this right, or there's an error. Because if it says what it looks like, this is unimaginably evil lunacy.

8

Safety_Drance t1_j82tnz1 wrote

“While it may be intuitive that a 14-year-old has no legitimate purpose, it doesn’t actually mean that they’re going to harm someone. We don’t know that yet"

Better wait until they shoot up a school to be sure. Can't be too careful when it comes to lessening the firearms available to children.

11

PenskeReynolds t1_j82v50g wrote

Marketing Ideas;

Pampers-n-pistols

Huggies with holsters

8

colbat45 t1_j82vw82 wrote

Lol Missouri. If Alabama didn’t exist you’d be the joke of the nation…..well, actually…

38

CalmCrescendo t1_j82wend wrote

Huh? What? I mean.....huh? What? I mean.....Huh?

3

twrolsto t1_j8304r1 wrote

Catholic priests are going to be very nervous there. Might have to change their dating habits.

85

Imzadi76 t1_j837zwa wrote

So, they can't drink alcohol until they are 21, but they can openly carry guns? Completely logical.

35

unique_passive t1_j83ezc4 wrote

Replying to JefferyGoldberg (#1,777,565)

Sure, but on the other hand I have 14-year olds in my suburb who swerve into oncoming traffic on purpose to try and cause accidents.

Guarantee you they’d be regularly shooting guns in the air/ at moving car tires for entertainment. Because some 14-year olds are sensible, and some are absolute dumbasses. Some freedoms we as a society don’t get to have because too many people are dumbasses who will misuse the right without hesitation, and people will die.

16

pie_ofthe_cream t1_j83mgf7 wrote

Replying to xrufus7x (#1,777,711)

So I’m going to do a slight jump in here and say that hormone blockers are given to kids in certain places. Some of these “hormone blockers” have been known to be used for failing liver treatments. I don’t care what people want to do with their body it’s none of my business really and I could care less but to be giving stuff like that to minors for improper use is dangerous stuff. I believe even Bari Weiss came out with this information too

−18

starkyogre t1_j83ym1r wrote

Replying to Imzadi76 (#1,777,777)

This actually makes perfect sense.

There would be a massive increase of accidental and otherwise shootings if they were permitted to drink as well.

In the end they’re only looking out for us /s

19

Its_Helios t1_j840r74 wrote

Do regular conservatives even think this is a good idea?

I get having guns on your own private property to teach kids and whatnot but to have children open carry guns…. does this not seem insane to them either?

Does this not support and promote gang violence even further?

4

dravik t1_j841x4t wrote

I can see why they voted against it. Although the article is talking about people walking down the street in town, banning all carrying of guns in public would also ban hunting.

This looks more like a bill designed to create misinformed outrage than to actually accomplish anything. Write a bill banning hunting, market it as if you're addressing something in the city, outrage ensues when it is voted down.

2

Self_Hating_Dentist t1_j844nld wrote

Clearly they understand that the only way to stop bad babies with guns is to arm good babies with guns. ‘Murica baby 🇺🇸

1

Self_Hating_Dentist t1_j844pq1 wrote

Clearly they understand that the only way to stop bad babies with guns is to arm good babies with guns. ‘Murica baby 🇺🇸

0

Self_Hating_Dentist t1_j844qs8 wrote

Clearly they understand that the only way to stop bad babies with guns is to arm good babies with guns. ‘Murica baby

0

soda-jerk t1_j84g8sc wrote

"... And here's a gun holster for your meth belt."

"Oh, I thought 'meth belt' was just a- "

"Nope."

0

jamkoch t1_j84hd6i wrote

This is so parents can't be charged when their 6 yr old shoots the teacher. I'm wondering if their baptismal sponsors are responsible since they took the child's original sin at baptism.

0

argl3bargl3 t1_j84tdw7 wrote

We intentionally govern wrong. As a joke.

2

luckylebron t1_j84tt5x wrote

The title of the ages- way to go Missouri 👀

0

MeanGreanHare t1_j84v4gc wrote

I understand the part about wanting to ban kids from carrying guns while unsupervised. A kid carrying a gun? questionable. A kid carrying a gun and his or her parents are not around? reckless and potentially dangerous.

My guess is that local governments will pass their own alternatives to this law. Cities and suburban areas, most likely.

I imagine that the article, being from The Guardian, is editorialized with a left-leaning spin on it to make the situation sound a certain way.

1

nzdennis t1_j84ybi0 wrote

"Donny, don't forget your gun on your way out to school, honey"

0

RaptorPrime t1_j85b7vp wrote

Replying to Undead_Necromancer (#1,776,779)

How does a child legally obtain the weapon without an adult? If the weapon is legal then the child probably has a legal reason to carry it. If the weapon was obtained illegally then there's no reason a police officer should t confiscate it immediately and permanently if they discover it. All this law would do is label children as criminals when they may have a personally valid reason to carry and have not yet hurt anyone. How do cops treat criminals in America? I don't want targets on kid's backs.

3

hatersaurusrex t1_j85eqmo wrote

Replying to RaptorPrime (#1,781,724)

The whole thing is confusing. This quote:

>A Democrat, Donna Baringer, said police in her district asked for the change to stop “14-year-olds walking down the middle of the street in the city of St Louis carrying AR-15s”.

seems to imply that St. Louis is a lawless wasteland where juvenile warlords brazenly and openly carry semiautomatic rifles in broad daylight so often that police are begging lawmakers to do something about it.

But I can't find any evidence of that happening outside this lady's quote.

Meanwhile, back in reality, teenagers hunting on public land with an old Henry .22 can easily wind up with a police record all because somebody in the state capitol decided to grandstand in order to solve a problem that probably doesn't exist.

−4

RaptorPrime t1_j85gfd9 wrote

Replying to DinoHunter64 (#1,781,851)

No i need someone to explain to me the actual backing for this bill that only labels children as criminals. Like, the guns are there. People already own them, this law changes nothing about that. All this law would do, again, is label children as criminals. Why is this necessary. There's no way for children to legally obtain weapons without an adult. There's no reason why a police officer can't already confiscate an illegally obtained weapon. So please, explain, what would this law actually accomplish?

−3

RaptorPrime t1_j85gzp1 wrote

Replying to hatersaurusrex (#1,781,900)

this is exactly what I'm talking about. there's no reason a police officer can't confiscate an illegally obtained weapon upon discovery. A kid with a 9mm in his pocket or carrying a long gun in a completely inappropriate setting, who is detained by police, already is losing that gun. This new law would do nothing to empower that capability and only serves to harm individuals who may have been doing nothing but trying to look after themselves.

−2

Bwadaboss t1_j85ri6z wrote

This country is going to fcking dogs I tell ya. Where is common sense?

1

IndsaetNavnHer t1_j85rlbs wrote

Non-american here... Are you allowed to be in possession of a gun as a child at all?

1

xrufus7x t1_j85tinj wrote

Replying to pie_ofthe_cream (#1,778,260)

>Some of these “hormone blockers” have been known to be used for failing liver treatments

Viagra is a heart medication. It is fairly common in medicine for things to have multiple applications. This information alone doesn't prove any particular point.

1

Sayoria t1_j85vaj2 wrote

Little boys with a doll? 'Massive problem!'

Little boys with a smith and wesson? 'Nothing more American!'

1

Asphodelmercenary t1_j860kqg wrote

Republicans in Missouri want children to have guns and Republicans in Wyoming want to marry the children.

Are we going back to the 1850s when children with guns got married and stole cattle? Feels like it. People been watching too many Westerns. Bonanza and Little House on the Prairie are not realistic.

1

No-Dragonfruit4014 t1_j861441 wrote

OMG guys, have you noticed how Republicans are clearly intimidated by the NRA's influence? It's a major concern, the NRA can manipulate the media and ruin politicians' careers.

1

pie_ofthe_cream t1_j867h05 wrote

Replying to xrufus7x (#1,782,757)

Say what you want. I have a lot of different opinions on different topics but this is just bad. People getting played by social pressure just so pharmaceutical companies can reap profits off of something else all while laughing in our faces lying about everything

−1

galileotechno t1_j86dobh wrote

Replying to IndsaetNavnHer (#1,782,633)

Almost everywhere allows children to use firearms in appropriate environments with parental supervision. Many states also authorize children over X age (usually 12 or 14) to carry a gun while on their parent’s property (arguably for guarding cattle or whatnot— not really relevant to most kids today) with authorization from a parent.

The current status of the law in Missouri is insane— pretty sure even the Founding Fathers didn’t let children under drafting age just run around with guns.

1

spectre_ertceps t1_j86i7xl wrote

Replying to starkyogre (#1,778,872)

if you ban alcohol and guns for toddlers the only drunk toddlers with guns are criminal drunk toddlers with guns

the only thing that's going to stop a bad drunk toddler with a gun is a good drunk toddler with a gun

9

xrufus7x t1_j86jtjy wrote

Replying to pie_ofthe_cream (#1,783,557)

>Say what you want.

That is generally how that works on public forums but I am glad I have your permission I suppose.

>I have a lot of different opinions on different topics

Yes, that is how humans tend to operate.

>but this is just bad. People getting played by social pressure just so pharmaceutical companies can reap profits off of something else all while laughing in our faces lying about everything

Your comment fails to prove any of the things you are saying. Yes, pharmaceutical companies can be exceptionally shitty but that doesn't mean every use of drugs as treatments is an example of that. If you want to prove that transgender treatments are a scheme by pharmaceuticals the bar for evidence should be a bit higher then your feelings.

1

xrufus7x t1_j87fwm3 wrote

Replying to pie_ofthe_cream (#1,784,840)

>Oh please that’s all policy is created on anymore is people’s feelings so what are you on about?

Do you think we should be making important life changing decisions based off of claims where no supporting evidence is provided, or is it just the claims you make?

>also your other two points are snarky and useless

Snarky, yes, useless no. Consider it constructive criticism on your writing style, which uses a lot of words to say nothing in an attempt to sound bipartisan even though I really don't care what your political alignment is. I just want you to support your claims.

1

Fink665 t1_j87vvls wrote

They can kill adults but can’t terminate a clump of cells?

1