This could have been prevented if there was a good toddler with a gun.
The toddlers need gun training. If every toddler had a gun, stuff like this wouldn’t happen.
The solution is obviously to try toddlers as adults.
Another opportunity to talk to your toddler about good trigger discipline.
“Aim at the head, shoulders, not the toes, not the toes.”
Now remember kids, for a jam you put the magazine in, you take the magazine out… in out, in out, shake it all about.
Instructions unclear. I now have strawberry jam in my magazine.
Now now, Timmy… in an active shooter situation you’d be dead, you silly billy.
That’s why my new bill would mandate that all babies receive in-womb gun-safety training. New borns are expected to complete a gun-safety test. If they fail, they’re shot and killed. We only care about life until birth.
Or if we just had mental health programs for toddlers, we wouldn’t have any issues with giving toddlers guns!
Needs to be changed to negligent discharge.
There are no accidents, just negligence.
Unless there is hardware failure, but that’s a different story
Sorry… you think letting a toddler get ahold of your loaded gun isn’t child endangerment?
deleted by creator
Okay, but she’s been charged with child endangerment…
deleted by creator
Yeah, but they’re not talking about the legal charge. They’re talking about the use of the word “accidently” in the title. It’s not an accident, it’s negligence.
…well regulated…
Since when did USA become so anti freedom?
The toddler is clearly part of a militia, to prevent government oppression.
So he has every right to carry and fire whatever weapon in whichever place and direction he chooses.Meant something different back then.
Evidently. If this is what people call “well-regulated” these days…
It’s why they push so hard to have that ignored
Back in the day “well regulated” meant “well armed and equipped”.
So, in order to form a proper defense of the country, any able bodied man could be called up (the militia), and it was necessary this body of men be well armed and equipped.
Well, that’s the TEXTUAL reason. There’s a SUB-TEXTUAL reason as well:
https://www.npr.org/2021/06/02/1002107670/historian-uncovers-the-racist-roots-of-the-2nd-amendment
“It was in response to the concerns coming out of the Virginia ratification convention for the Constitution, led by Patrick Henry and George Mason, that a militia that was controlled solely by the federal government would not be there to protect the slave owners from an enslaved uprising. And … James Madison crafted that language in order to mollify the concerns coming out of Virginia and the anti-Federalists, that they would still have full control over their state militias — and those militias were used in order to quell slave revolts. … The Second Amendment really provided the cover, the assurances that Patrick Henry and George Mason needed, that the militias would not be controlled by the federal government, but that they would be controlled by the states and at the beck and call of the states to be able to put down these uprisings.”
If you go with that reading, then one could argue that the 2nd amendment doesn’t require the allowance of privately owned/held firearms at all, but would be satisfied by state, and/or local governments organizing their own “militias”, with arms purchased, stored and controlled in much the same way as our national military does, but managed by said militia organization. In such a reading, banning the private ownership and use of firearms could conceivably be enacted without running afoul of the second amendment.
I’m not saying that I propose this or that I think it’s a good idea, just that one could make the case.
That’s where the current Supreme Court comes in:
2008: “Private citizens have the right under the Second Amendment to possess an ordinary type of weapon and use it for lawful, historically established situations such as self-defense in a home, even when there is no relationship to a local militia.”
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/
2010: “The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment extends the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms to the states, at least for traditional, lawful purposes such as self-defense.”
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/561/742/
2016: “The Second Amendment covers all weapons that may be defined as “bearable arms,” even if they did not exist when the Bill of Rights was drafted and are not commonly used in warfare.”
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/577/14-10078/
2022: "New York’s requirement that an applicant for an unrestricted license to “have and carry” a concealed pistol or revolver must prove “a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community” is unconstitutional.”
deleted by creator
Federalist 46 as well:
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed46.asp
“a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence.”
I think the biggest difference between then and now in that regard isn’t the meaning of “well regulated”. It’s “being necessary to the security of a free State”. The expectation at the time was that we wouldn’t have a standing professional army to defend the nation in times of war, and we’d have to conscript militias. This was the norm at the time, and the US being a new, and therefore poor, nation, that is what the plan was. However, that isn’t the case anymore. The whole second amendment hinges on militias being necessary, and since it isn’t its moot.
I’m fine with “gun rights” and ownership of firearms, with reasonable expectations. I think they’re fun to use, and they have a purpose. A certain level of training and competency should be required though (training paid by taxes so poor people can also own them), and should include proper storage lessons.
Oh, it’s way deeper and messier than that…
https://www.npr.org/2021/06/02/1002107670/historian-uncovers-the-racist-roots-of-the-2nd-amendment
“It was in response to the concerns coming out of the Virginia ratification convention for the Constitution, led by Patrick Henry and George Mason, that a militia that was controlled solely by the federal government would not be there to protect the slave owners from an enslaved uprising. And … James Madison crafted that language in order to mollify the concerns coming out of Virginia and the anti-Federalists, that they would still have full control over their state militias — and those militias were used in order to quell slave revolts. … The Second Amendment really provided the cover, the assurances that Patrick Henry and George Mason needed, that the militias would not be controlled by the federal government, but that they would be controlled by the states and at the beck and call of the states to be able to put down these uprisings.”
that the 2-year-old boy took her Taurus 9mm firearm from her purse
Right, so the safety was off then, because there’s no way that a two-year-old could release the safety on their own. The movies make it look like you just flick it with your finger but seriously that thing does not move without a reasonable around a force.
A Taurus 9mm likely has a trigger pull between 5 and 9 pounds and kiddo did that…
https://www.guns.com/news/reviews/taurus-g2c-best-seller
Of course mom could have modified it to reduce the trigger pull too…
As a victim of a toddler pinch I have no doubt they can pull a trigger.
Many modern pistols don’t have safeties. Either way it shouldn’t have been loose in the purse and not in a holster.
Not a super knowledgeable gun guy, but I think a fairly common example is for the “safety” to be part of the trigger. Safety’s traditionally weren’t meant to prevent someone from shooting the gun, they were there to prevent the gun from going off if you dropped it.
You can put a lot more force on any part of a gun if you’re not concerned about proper grip and aiming and just use your whole hand.
Tbh not entirely, it could be possible, however unlikely. Honestly imo the bigger issue is off body carry in general is unsafe. Case in point your 2yo can grab it from the purse (and so can anyone else) but it’s harder to grab and easier to retain it from a real, good holster, either CCW or active retention (like cop holsters with the button) for open carry (I also generally advise against OC, but whatever.)
ohio, the florida of the northeast.
As an Ohioan, I’ve been calling it “Cold Florida” for years.
GUNS N AMMO FUCK YEA. MURICA #1
This sounds about right for a Taurus owner.
Imagine being able to narrow it down that much when the rest of us go “That sounds right for an American” 🙄
Not a gun person. Is that the Karen gun or something?
Taurus, and this model in particular, is known as a cheap piece of shit probably purchased and carried by someone lacking intellect and sophistication… You know, the type who would have the thing sloshing around unattended in a purse, with no holster.
I thought it was about the Ford Taurus. Lol
Second verse same as the first?
It’s no hunnit dolla’ problem solva tho.
“Accidentally.”
That boar population is outta control, huh?
It’s a good thing that Toddler had a gun! Imagine if a gunman had decided to shoot up that Wal Mart! The Toddler could Protect itself!
Kimderguadians!
almost, dude
She gave him the wrong pacifier
How does that shit even happen?
