"eleven-year-old girl with an AK-47" Not that it matters but it's an AR-15, the U.S. military's primary rifle.
"This has been coming for a while. The video was the last straw." I have debated the same thing many times with John. He doesn't seem to know where the line of polite discussion is.
"to find a child playing with them while she is much too young for any kind of responsibility anything but a repulsive image is even sicker."
(disclaimer: I don't mean any of this as sarcastic, angry, etc. It is meant as calm, sincere discussion. My email and blogs writing is often misinterpreted) I can understand your view. The video doesn't bother me really. I am not a gun nut at all like John. I don't currently own one. I would like to see sensible restraints on them here in the U.S. (like requiring people to report them lost or stolen). I do support the right to bear arms. I do not see the video in the same context as you though. I think it is because I spent so many hours doing exactly the exercise she is doing (on the same weapon) as a soldier. It is an exercise to create competency. From the comments above, I assume you have no problem with an 11 year old using a rifle for hunting. I assume also you have no problem with them being trained to use it (that just wouldn't make sense). So I have to assume the line here is that this weapon is for defense (or offense) against people. I'm not sure I have a problem with 11 year olds being trained to defend the house. Where is the line? 13, 15, 18? Or if you are ok with 11 year old being trained on a weapon, is it the 'glorification' of the act the issue?
As an aside, I think the line about citizenship is just a joke.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-09-17 08:03 pm (UTC)Not that it matters but it's an AR-15, the U.S. military's primary rifle.
"This has been coming for a while. The video was the last straw."
I have debated the same thing many times with John. He doesn't seem to know where the line of polite discussion is.
"to find a child playing with them while she is much too young for any kind of responsibility anything but a repulsive image is even sicker."
(disclaimer: I don't mean any of this as sarcastic, angry, etc. It is meant as calm, sincere discussion. My email and blogs writing is often misinterpreted)
I can understand your view. The video doesn't bother me really. I am not a gun nut at all like John. I don't currently own one. I would like to see sensible restraints on them here in the U.S. (like requiring people to report them lost or stolen). I do support the right to bear arms.
I do not see the video in the same context as you though. I think it is because I spent so many hours doing exactly the exercise she is doing (on the same weapon) as a soldier. It is an exercise to create competency.
From the comments above, I assume you have no problem with an 11 year old using a rifle for hunting. I assume also you have no problem with them being trained to use it (that just wouldn't make sense). So I have to assume the line here is that this weapon is for defense (or offense) against people.
I'm not sure I have a problem with 11 year olds being trained to defend the house. Where is the line? 13, 15, 18?
Or if you are ok with 11 year old being trained on a weapon, is it the 'glorification' of the act the issue?
As an aside, I think the line about citizenship is just a joke.