Perhaps he ought to have made it far more clear that it was just a stupid punk kid joke. That and maybe “too soon” for those kinds of “jokes”.
I would have thought the investigation would have disclosed more than that the father had a hunting rifle. That’s hardly grounds for any arrest without finding out what the child was like and interviewing parties to see if he had issues. That’s awfully weak grounds for a felony arrest doncha think?
If you click on the link above, you’d have seen that a 5 year old was suspended from Kindergarten for telling his teacher his backpack would explode if she made him take it off.
The last official with a sense of humor might have been Everett Dirksen. For common sense we might have to go back a lot farther.
I agree. It should have been more easily resolved and the times play a roll, unfortunately. But police are supposed to thoroughly investigate and not the easy CYA route.
Contrast to the actual Florida shooter who had multiple calls to law enforcement expressing serious concerns. That even included the FBI.
Who knows if the kid got a gun from a friend or stole one. Hopefully after Florida and the multiple failures on the local and federal law enforcements part, other PD’s will start taking these threats seriously and not think of all of them as pranks. You ere on the side of caution and perhaps all the kids that went to school that day come home that night.
These days just saying that could get you taken off the flight list and interrogated. My daughter flew to the USA on a school trip to space camp last year. They received stern warnings from the accompanying teachers that there were to be no jokes about bombs/guns/luggage etc. Apparently a previous group years ago had made a similar joke to yours which saw the group seriously delayed and in threat of cancelling the trip.
Yes I’m well aware of that nowadays. Not giving my age away so we’ll just say it was a while ago. I can well understand the responses to those kinds of jokes. Of course as with all of these protections and losses of freedoms and liberties…the terrorists win.
Ok. I am an nra life member, have been for many years, and plan on remaining so. I have hunted since before i really should have been allowed to, and have shot .22 rifle competitively for a couple of years. I own a few guns, and will until i either start losing my marbles (more) or they get taken away by someone. Our household has arms available for fast response, and we hope we never need them. Now… am i “with” the nra on everything? No. I oppose their position on bump stocks (which trump will apparently take care of soon). Ditto for their resistance to raising the age to legally buy a gun. If a kid needs one for hunting or target practice, his parents can buy one and (hopefully) have some say in when it gets used, and how. As for “assault” weapons, i have no real need for one, and see them more as expensive toys than an instrument that provides any particular level of security 99.999% of the time; not a fact, just my opinion. Too, i see no reason to use any semi-automatic weapon for hunting. The name of the game is hunting, not slaughtering. A pump, bolt action, or even single shot gun is sufficient advantage over game 99.999% of the time. If you can’t hit a moose with three shots, either say “&^&%$#” (insert what word you chose) or tell the moose it’s his lucky day. There is no shame in coming home empty handed. Wolves have about a 10% kill ratio, and no one sees them as failures or wimps. Can we stink-can civilians owning guns that fire a round every 1/2 second, or whatever they do, and that have 98-bullet clips? Sure. There really is no practical, redeeming value to them. Fun? Sure. A blast, literally, but there are various other weapons that will work in their place; just slower. Too, there is at least one other sensual pleasure that society has deemed illegal (in most places) and we have all survived without it. (Ok, some of us cry about it sometimes, but…) “The gov’t” is not coming to get us, and if they do our puny little cache of weapons is going to do virtually nothing to stop them. The military has weapons so far beyond shoulder-fired arms that it would be nothing but a slaughter. I ain’t worried about a gun fight at the ok corral. I know many people who have many, many guns, including full-auto ones, and they love and cherish them. I don’t want to advocate taking their toys away, but we at least need to be a little bit more careful and controlling them, and perhaps pass laws that (may) deter the use of firearms in criminal activity. Brutal, first-testament type laws. Maybe that will help. Dunno. And, of course, the real issue is social mentality. Are violent video games and hollywood blow-up-and-shoot everyone movies any help to calming young minds? I think not. Are we doing all we can for mentally off-bubble people? I think not. There is more to “gun violence” than guns. We need a multi-pronged approach to strike a balance among all the wants and wishes associated with this problem, and we need to keep in mind that people die by the droves on a daily/weekly basis via other means that would be avoided in an ideal world, and those means should be addressed at the same time, or before. We have a lot of work cut out for us.
make that “…about controlling…”
You can directly edit your original post rather than post a correction by the way.
I agree and like many of your positions, but I don’t believe for a second Trump will go against the NRA on anything. After his strong language during the meeting with lawmakers the other day, he is already back in bed with the NRA.
Here are a couple of last nights tweets.
(I know I said I wasn’t going to post more on this thread, but that is easier said than done )
When everything is said and done, nothing will come out of this latest shooting and we will wait a few months until the next one happens and then it will start all over again. Number 45 will do nothing to upset any organization, business or his base, nor will the majority of Republicans, so we will be back at square one. Perhaps/hopefully the mid terms will bring about some change.
In the absence of the US military in the south pacific, eventually Australia would have fallen. Your supply routes would have been cut off. Or like the forces that were calling for a peace treaty in the United Kingdom with Hitler before Churchill took over as Prime minister, Australia would be flying the Nazi flag along with the rising sun. lol
Australia lacked the industrial and technological strength compared to Germany and Japan by a factor of 10.
Well it al boils down to even if the Aussies had civilian arms (which they did), the AU would have fallen anyway… eventually. Not so in the US. Thats what started this argument on guns in the hands of civilians.
Please separate your anti trump ideology from your opinions. You would be more resourceful and respected.
Sorry, but I’m with the roughly 60% who knows what he stands for and who he cares about and sooner or later you will hopefully see the light.
After his meeting last night with the NRA for dinner, he’s already backtracked from everything he said the day before or wait it might of even been earlier yesterday. The only thing that I can’t figure out is how the WH is hiding the strings and the puppeteers controlling him!
Sorry…Friday, March 02, 2018
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows that 49% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Trump’s job performance.
Better than Obama at this point in his administration.
Wow, it took you three days to come up with a what if theory? Yes, and if the AR 15 ban had not been lifted after the ten years some of these shootings might not of happened! Oh wait, they would most likely have happened, we just wouldn’t of had the number or wounded or dead people we ended up having.
Was absent of this BS. I wanted to see how the BS was flowing and I saw you doing exactly that. Just forget the total weapons ban in the US. Not going to happen.
I would suggest a fact check on the Rasmussen Reports Tracking Poll. If you did you would find that they have the lowest reliability rating of all the polling agencies with a margin of error plus/minus 5.8% factor and they have been shown to have a very conservative slant. They are kinda the OAN or Fox News of the polling agencies. How do you explain the other polling agencies putting his approval at the 39-40% range? Rasmussen is right and all the others are wrong?
You do realize that Australia sent troops to help in Dessert Storm in 1990/91 and again after 9/11. That’s what allies do, they help each other when they are threatened or attacked!