Gun Control Debate - 3 Questions

[Humble2drive]

A increasing number of House Democrats are bringing people affected by gun violence as their guests to next week's State of the Union, with the list now including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.).

Pelosi announced Friday that she plans to bring a fourth grader from Newtown, Conn., along with her mother, as her guests to President Barack Obama's annual address to the nation. A Pelosi spokesman said the student does not attend Sandy Hook Elementary School, the site of a December mass shooting, but attends another elementary school in Newtown. Her office is not releasing the names of the girl or her mother.

The girl sent Pelosi a letter explaining how she has been affected by gun violence. "What everyone in Newtown wants, is for you to ban semi automatic weapons and large capacity magazines and to make everyone use gun safes. This is important so that a person cannot shoot many people at once, and/or injure people badly," the girl wrote. "This ban will help prevent individuals, families and communities from suffering the way we are in Newtown."
Nancy Pelosi Bringing Newtown Child To State Of The Union

Questions:

1) When a random person has a family member subjected to a random act of gun violence, does that qualify that person as "knowledgable" regarding the effects of gun legislation on future acts of gun violence?

2) If a fourth grade Student is considered incapable of making adult decisions regarding complicated matters, should their opinion on the relationship between gun laws and gun violence be featured in the debate?

3) If parents influenced a child's thoughts, helped write and send a letter to a Congressperson and agree to parade the unknowing child in public in order to promote an adult agenda could it be considered a form of abuse?

 

[LDB]

Let's go with no, no and yes.

 

[Humble2drive]

Let's go with no, no and yes.

This will be a day to remember! We agree on all 3.

 

[paullud]

1) No, it makes them react emotionally which removes knowledge from their decision making.

2) No, it is the sign of a politician trying to get people to react emotionally.(See #1)

3) It could be considered abuse but the sad part is it shows the mother(who obviously told the kid what to write) cares more about her political views than her daughter.

 

[Humble2drive]

3) It could be considered abuse but the sad part is it shows the mother(who obviously told the kid what to write) cares more about her political views than her daughter.

The mothers poor judgement is only exceeded by Pelosi who eagerly took advantage of the situation.

This drops my approval rating of Pelosi from zero into the the negatives.

 

[LDB]

Well, you had to eventually be correct. The time finally arrived.

 

[layoutshooter]

No, No and yes. This is typical of what is going on with the debate. No truth and a TON of exploitation by the anti-Constitutionalists. It is SO blatant and, of course, the media is lapping it up and helping. What a very sick bunch.

There is no debate, it is a very scripted move to undermine the Constitution. Planned, no accident. These people have no shame.

 

[xiggi]

No no and no it is not abuse. Is it abuse at all.

Sent from my Fisher Price - ABC 123

 

[xiggi]

No no and no it is not abuse at all.

Sent from my Fisher Price - ABC 123

Sent from my Fisher Price - ABC 123

 

[Humble2drive]

Is it abuse at all.

Characteristics of psychological abuse include belittling, exploiting, terrorizing, ignoring, isolating or rejecting the child, according to Steven W. Kairys and Charles F. Johnson of the Committee on Child Abuse and Neglect.

It is a reach; however, exploiting a child is a form.
Setting a child up for ridicule, isolation and/or teasing from other children and adults in their community leans that direction also.
Keep in mind that there are many grown adults who shy away from stating their views publicly out of fear of offending friends and neighbors or getting involved in unfriendly debates.
This child had no choice and now could be harassed by gun advocates and their children at school, church etc.

I may be reaching a bit here, but with children why take a chance?

 

[layoutshooter]

Children should NEVER be used a pawns, when they are used as political pawns it is ten times as bad. It is abuse and exploitation in my book. Children should be allowed to be children. It is a very short step from using children as pawns to using them as weapons.

 

[xiggi]

Children should NEVER be used a pawns, when they are used as political pawns it is ten times as bad. It is abuse and exploitation in my book. Children should be allowed to be children. It is a very short step from using children as pawns to using them as weapons.

Exploitation yeap, abuse not even close. As for your last sentance where do you come up with this stuff?

Sent from my Fisher Price - ABC 123

 

[cheri1122]

Questions:

1) When a random person has a family member subjected to a random act of gun violence, does that qualify that person as "knowledgable" regarding the effects of gun legislation on future acts of gun violence?

When it comes to the effects of potential legislation on future acts, no one is really "knowledgeable", or there wouldn't be half as many laws with unintended consequences as there are.
Also, legislation shouldn't be based upon emotion. Neither should a judge's decision, but affected family members are given the opportunity to tug at the court's heartstrings nonetheless.

2) If a fourth grade Student is considered incapable of making adult decisions regarding complicated matters, should their opinion on the relationship between gun laws and gun violence be featured in the debate?



3) If parents influenced a child's thoughts, helped write and send a letter to a Congressperson and agree to parade the unknowing child in public in order to promote an adult agenda could it be considered a form of abuse?

Maybe, but that's a lot of assumptions to make. Parents influence their child's thoughts constantly, whether deliberately or not.
I've always felt it's wrong to involve children in adult debates and public displays of opinion, but plenty of parents feel otherwise without ever being considered abusive.

 

[layoutshooter]

Exploitation yeap, abuse not even close. As for your last sentance where do you come up with this stuff?

Sent from my Fisher Price - ABC 123

First off, my personal belief. Second, the left as a history of strapping explosives to their children and sending them out to die. I put NOTHING past a leftist and I believe this entire thing is being driven by a leftist president and government.

I believe every form of exploitation is abuse as well. You don't have too.

 

[LDB]

It is a very short step from using children as pawns to using them as weapons.

Exploitation yeap, abuse not even close. As for your last sentance where do you come up with this stuff?

Where was it, Vietnam?, where children, some even in diapers, were fitted with explosives and then sent to beg chocolate etc. from U.S. GI's to blow them up? That last sentence isn't far fetched at all.

 

[scottm4211]

Will the exploding kids be happening in the next 4 yrs too?

 

[xiggi]

We are not in Vietnam, Germany or any of those other places some on here like to put forth as proof.

Sent from my Fisher Price - ABC 123

 

[EASYTRADER]

Ziggi - You're right both in Vietnam and Germany only party members were allowed to own guns.

Its one of the myths that in Bolshevik and Socialist totalitarian regimes that all the guns are taken away. THe fact is ALL the guns are not taken away, only the guns belonging to the opposition are taken away. Party members are always armed.

Its very telling that Dianne Fienstien has a CCW.

 

[layoutshooter]

We are not in Vietnam, Germany or any of those other places some on here like to put forth as proof.

Sent from my Fisher Price - ABC 123

Don't ever think that it cannot happen again because that is when it well. Evil is always with us. The ONLY way it can take hold is to assume it can't.

 

[layoutshooter]

Ziggi - You're right both in Vietnam and Germany only party members were allowed to own guns.

Its one of the myths that in Bolshevik and Socialist totalitarian regimes that all the guns are taken away. THe fact is ALL the guns are not taken away, only the guns belonging to the opposition are taken away. Party members are always armed.

Its very telling that Dianne Fienstien has a CCW.

Fienstien has a CCW. All of the proposed bans and restrictions EXEMPT the police and government. How better to set up a police state? Only a fool believe this is about controlling gun crime. It is not. It is about controlling the People. The first step is to ensure that the People cannot fight back. That is what they are working on now.

Our Constitution is under attack as are we.