The
Joyce Puppet for
Oregon left a comment over at
Weer'd's claiming that we really don't care about kids' safety but he's an expert. What he really shows is that
he's a hypocrite.
The friends I’m thinking of were truthful when I asked, and my kids still play there because I was wise enough to ask about how they were stored (in a locked safe).
Well that sounds like good parenting, right? What makes him a hypocrite then? Why this
professed belief:
No home with children should have a gun, even if it's locked up
So even though he believes NO home w/ children and firearms can be safe, he allows his children to play in one. Does he ask every time they go over to the 'friends' if all the firearms are locked up? Does he personally inspect the home? I doubt it. So he's going on blind trust of certain individuals he's decided are 'safe' but anyone else is 'sick'. And the final kicker to just nail down his need to disassociate himself no matter the mental maneuvering involved ?
And you *always* downplay the dangers of guns in the home, scoffing at careful parents who ask critical questions, including about guns, trusting that gun owners are always going to be responsible with their weapons, yet you are so paranoid that the people you don’t know well could be sex abusers or heroin addicts or whatever.
Pot meet kettle.
8 comments:
So, is it the gun that they are so paranoid about or is it the person?
It is obvious that child molesters and heroin addicts are dangers to children by their perversion or by inattention/bad environment. The gun owner does not present this clear and present danger to kids.
Maybe we should we do a criminal background check before every play date? [sarcasm]
Clearly, the parents would like to have a reasonable feeling that the other adults are responsible, but it is an imperfect situation. If an adult seems weird, then the low risk of your kids being molested, finding drugs and/or firearms will all become more of a concern.
Why again is it only firearms that have the stigma that requires the interrogation of adults? Due to the bias of the anti-rights crowd, they can only see the gun and not the other problems so noted.
Thanks for that. I follow Weer'd, but I've been busy lately and missed that one. What a maroon and Weer'd took pretty good care of him.
Baldr is of no concern. I'm from Oregon and have tried many times to contact OCF under the guise of sincere support.
They haven't replied once in 5 years.
Baldr is just some dude blogging from his mom's basement.
Yes, Kaveman, we saw through your guise each time.
But I'll think of you the next time I post from Mom's basement.
Baldr didn't even know his org. was affiliated w/ the Joyce Foundation. His claims of omnipotence regarding firearm owners is suspect at best.
Markie Marxist sez: "Of course, no home with a child should have a gun and vice versa. That's a perfectly good ruse for disarming people. We'd disarm a lot of people with that one. After all, we Marxists own their children and their homes too, so we get to decide every detail of their lives, whether they like it or not. We own everything via the Marxist state, so we get to make any rules we want to make. We want to make life as safe and easy as possible for our Marxist/warrior/hero/criminals, so if they want to rob, rape or murder somebody, all they have to do is find a house with children, and they can be pretty sure that the people there are unarmed. Also, if they do get shot, they can sue, because the person was committing a crime by having the gun illegally. Baldr is correct about not allowing guns in homes with children, it's just a common communist sense gun law."
Yet another Troll comment!
Antis are ALL the same.
Once again, Baldr demonstrates his marked inability to defend his own positions/actions, instead choosing to focus on an unrelated comment from Kaveman.
Really, that inability - born out of a combination of cowardice and a genuine lack of debating skills - is about the only consistent thing Baldr can claim...
Post a Comment