Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Undead_Necromancer t1_j82llnj wrote

> The Republican-led Missouri state house on Wednesday voted against banning minors from openly carrying firearms on public land without adult supervision.

this is stupid beyond imagination.

125

BostonDrivingIsWorse t1_j82rd6k wrote

This is pure political horseshit. They’re doing this to explicitly and intentionally hurt St. Louis and Kansas City.

41

onyxblade42 t1_j84f890 wrote

Why does it hurt them?

3

Dagonet_the_Motley t1_j8555ov wrote

Because arming children with guns in a city is incredibly dangerous and pointless?

5

onyxblade42 t1_j855a6x wrote

Why is it worse in a city?

−8

Dagonet_the_Motley t1_j855vab wrote

Because there are lots of people in a small area and more opportunity for conflict. There are also more targets

7

onyxblade42 t1_j8568v0 wrote

So people in rural areas can handle not sitting each other and behaving but that doesn't work in the city. Wonder why that it.

−13

officialbigrob t1_j87lcgm wrote

Well you're gonna be left wondering, since you'll probably throw any evidence out as "woke CRT mind virus propaganda"

2

RaptorPrime t1_j85bk21 wrote

In sorry what part of this law passing or not passing arms children??? Lol your gonna be kinda upset when you learn that I started hunting at 8 years old.

−9

DinoHunter64 t1_j85e4cq wrote

Okay grandpa, back to bed.

1

RaptorPrime t1_j85gfd9 wrote

No i need someone to explain to me the actual backing for this bill that only labels children as criminals. Like, the guns are there. People already own them, this law changes nothing about that. All this law would do, again, is label children as criminals. Why is this necessary. There's no way for children to legally obtain weapons without an adult. There's no reason why a police officer can't already confiscate an illegally obtained weapon. So please, explain, what would this law actually accomplish?

−3

hatersaurusrex t1_j85eqmo wrote

The whole thing is confusing. This quote:

>A Democrat, Donna Baringer, said police in her district asked for the change to stop “14-year-olds walking down the middle of the street in the city of St Louis carrying AR-15s”.

seems to imply that St. Louis is a lawless wasteland where juvenile warlords brazenly and openly carry semiautomatic rifles in broad daylight so often that police are begging lawmakers to do something about it.

But I can't find any evidence of that happening outside this lady's quote.

Meanwhile, back in reality, teenagers hunting on public land with an old Henry .22 can easily wind up with a police record all because somebody in the state capitol decided to grandstand in order to solve a problem that probably doesn't exist.

−4

RaptorPrime t1_j85gzp1 wrote

this is exactly what I'm talking about. there's no reason a police officer can't confiscate an illegally obtained weapon upon discovery. A kid with a 9mm in his pocket or carrying a long gun in a completely inappropriate setting, who is detained by police, already is losing that gun. This new law would do nothing to empower that capability and only serves to harm individuals who may have been doing nothing but trying to look after themselves.

−2

RaptorPrime t1_j85b7vp wrote

How does a child legally obtain the weapon without an adult? If the weapon is legal then the child probably has a legal reason to carry it. If the weapon was obtained illegally then there's no reason a police officer should t confiscate it immediately and permanently if they discover it. All this law would do is label children as criminals when they may have a personally valid reason to carry and have not yet hurt anyone. How do cops treat criminals in America? I don't want targets on kid's backs.

3

Nervous_Project6927 t1_j85tmk6 wrote

public land is in the middle of no where and applies to a hunting sense, im pretty sure it doesnt apply to towns and city limits

1

twrolsto t1_j8304r1 wrote

Catholic priests are going to be very nervous there. Might have to change their dating habits.

85

comfortablyflawed t1_j82qs23 wrote

You can't have birth control, you can't have an abortion, you can't have the morning after pill, it's the law that your kids go to underfunded, under resourced schools, where we will make sure they learn exactly enough to be heartbreakingly ignorant and ill equipped for even normal functioning in the real world, never mind a career, but will ensure they are laughably stupid everywhere outside their own zipcode; we're not going to make it possible for you to afford child care so you can go to the job that won't pay you enough to afford adequate housing or enough food for your kids, never mind sports or enrichment activities, aaaaand... not only are we taking no steps whatsoever to protect your child from being shot, we're actually going to change the law so that the odds of it happening go way, way up.

Family values!! Enjoy parenting! (Oh... hope your kid is CIS/ heteronormative, and white, without any learning disabilities are other challenges, because those are whole other, separate paragraphs of what kind of hell we'll cheerfully inflict on you all. Anyway, again, enjoy parenting!)

The greatest evidence that the Republicans know global warming is real and there is going to be no more planet in the next 20 to 30 years is how unabashedly they keep proving they don't give one shit about how stupid and amoral they look, and make America look on the world stage

68

MrNothingmann t1_j83k2jz wrote

>You can't have birth control, you can't have an abortion, you can't have the morning after pill,

How old does the kid have to be before you can shoot them for trespassing?

13

SatansCouncil t1_j83u6kc wrote

They dont have to be tresspassing, you just have to feel threatened by a child,...

Ask Florida

8

GeneralNathanJessup t1_j82wd7j wrote

I'm fine with children getting sex changes, but carrying guns is a bridge too far.

−36

cutelyaware t1_j82ydno wrote

Children aren't getting sex changes

25

GeneralNathanJessup t1_j82z285 wrote

Ahem, excuse me. I mean to say "gender affirming care." https://apnews.com/article/gender-transition-treatment-guidelines-9dbe54f670a3a0f5f2831c2bf14f9bbb

https://www.childrenshospital.org/programs/center-gender-surgery-program

−36

xrufus7x t1_j82zwqg wrote

The first link isn't actually policy, it is a recommendation from an organization.

The second link has this little bit. "All genital surgeries are only performed on patients age 18 and older."

30

GeneralNathanJessup t1_j830lp2 wrote

That's disappointing, don't you agree?

−38

xrufus7x t1_j836j9r wrote

Can't say I am familiar enough with the science to make a judgement on that one way or another. I can confidently say that the links you provided don't support your claim though.

24

pie_ofthe_cream t1_j83mgf7 wrote

So I’m going to do a slight jump in here and say that hormone blockers are given to kids in certain places. Some of these “hormone blockers” have been known to be used for failing liver treatments. I don’t care what people want to do with their body it’s none of my business really and I could care less but to be giving stuff like that to minors for improper use is dangerous stuff. I believe even Bari Weiss came out with this information too

−18

xrufus7x t1_j85tinj wrote

>Some of these “hormone blockers” have been known to be used for failing liver treatments

Viagra is a heart medication. It is fairly common in medicine for things to have multiple applications. This information alone doesn't prove any particular point.

1

pie_ofthe_cream t1_j867h05 wrote

Say what you want. I have a lot of different opinions on different topics but this is just bad. People getting played by social pressure just so pharmaceutical companies can reap profits off of something else all while laughing in our faces lying about everything

−1

xrufus7x t1_j86jtjy wrote

>Say what you want.

That is generally how that works on public forums but I am glad I have your permission I suppose.

>I have a lot of different opinions on different topics

Yes, that is how humans tend to operate.

>but this is just bad. People getting played by social pressure just so pharmaceutical companies can reap profits off of something else all while laughing in our faces lying about everything

Your comment fails to prove any of the things you are saying. Yes, pharmaceutical companies can be exceptionally shitty but that doesn't mean every use of drugs as treatments is an example of that. If you want to prove that transgender treatments are a scheme by pharmaceuticals the bar for evidence should be a bit higher then your feelings.

1

pie_ofthe_cream t1_j86vylm wrote

Oh please that’s all policy is created on anymore is people’s feelings so what are you on about?

Edit: also your other two points are snarky and useless

−1

xrufus7x t1_j87fwm3 wrote

>Oh please that’s all policy is created on anymore is people’s feelings so what are you on about?

Do you think we should be making important life changing decisions based off of claims where no supporting evidence is provided, or is it just the claims you make?

>also your other two points are snarky and useless

Snarky, yes, useless no. Consider it constructive criticism on your writing style, which uses a lot of words to say nothing in an attempt to sound bipartisan even though I really don't care what your political alignment is. I just want you to support your claims.

1

pie_ofthe_cream t1_j884cu1 wrote

Lol good luck debating with yourself

−1

xrufus7x t1_j8903nv wrote

Just FYI, asking for verification of claims isn't debating.

1

GhostalMedia t1_j82regf wrote

> While it may be intuitive that a 14-year-old has no legitimate purpose, it doesn’t actually mean that they’re going to harm someone. We don’t know that yet

Spoken like someone who hit peak intelligence at 14 and could never look back to realize how fucking dumb they were.

38

JefferyGoldberg t1_j832i8o wrote

I remember when I was 14 we'd drive into the desert after school and shoot stuff. We never harmed anyone with our rifles.

−10

unique_passive t1_j83ezc4 wrote

Sure, but on the other hand I have 14-year olds in my suburb who swerve into oncoming traffic on purpose to try and cause accidents.

Guarantee you they’d be regularly shooting guns in the air/ at moving car tires for entertainment. Because some 14-year olds are sensible, and some are absolute dumbasses. Some freedoms we as a society don’t get to have because too many people are dumbasses who will misuse the right without hesitation, and people will die.

16

GhostalMedia t1_j84ixgs wrote

Fucking around in the middle of nowhere is a wee bit different than downtown Saint Louis. A crowded city with America’s highest murder rate.

4

AdkRaine11 t1_j84kveg wrote

The kid who shot his teacher enters the chat…

3

colbat45 t1_j82vw82 wrote

Lol Missouri. If Alabama didn’t exist you’d be the joke of the nation…..well, actually…

38

Imzadi76 t1_j837zwa wrote

So, they can't drink alcohol until they are 21, but they can openly carry guns? Completely logical.

35

starkyogre t1_j83ym1r wrote

This actually makes perfect sense.

There would be a massive increase of accidental and otherwise shootings if they were permitted to drink as well.

In the end they’re only looking out for us /s

19

spectre_ertceps t1_j86i7xl wrote

if you ban alcohol and guns for toddlers the only drunk toddlers with guns are criminal drunk toddlers with guns

the only thing that's going to stop a bad drunk toddler with a gun is a good drunk toddler with a gun

9

Javasndphotoclicks t1_j82lcsd wrote

But, books a dangerous to children. I’m pretty sick of this timeline.

27

Safety_Drance t1_j82tnz1 wrote

“While it may be intuitive that a 14-year-old has no legitimate purpose, it doesn’t actually mean that they’re going to harm someone. We don’t know that yet"

Better wait until they shoot up a school to be sure. Can't be too careful when it comes to lessening the firearms available to children.

11

Liandan t1_j82slg5 wrote

I can't be reading this right, or there's an error. Because if it says what it looks like, this is unimaginably evil lunacy.

8

onelittleworld t1_j84dop6 wrote

There is no bottom to this pit. The completely insane and overtly evil GOP is a clear and present threat to the human species, and must be stopped. I'm not joking.

5

PenskeReynolds t1_j82v50g wrote

Marketing Ideas;

Pampers-n-pistols

Huggies with holsters

8

ceton33 t1_j82m6y6 wrote

The only thing stops a bad kid with a gun is a good kid with a gun

6

xxDooomedxx t1_j82tnzx wrote

Is this a serious comment?

−8

timodreynolds t1_j8406yq wrote

You do have to ask this question these days... But there's a strong chance it's a joke on most subs on reddit.

5

xxDooomedxx t1_j86eqkv wrote

I've met plenty of redditors who would say this in complete seriousness

1

Its_Helios t1_j840r74 wrote

Do regular conservatives even think this is a good idea?

I get having guns on your own private property to teach kids and whatnot but to have children open carry guns…. does this not seem insane to them either?

Does this not support and promote gang violence even further?

4

CalmCrescendo t1_j82wend wrote

Huh? What? I mean.....huh? What? I mean.....Huh?

3

dravik t1_j841x4t wrote

I can see why they voted against it. Although the article is talking about people walking down the street in town, banning all carrying of guns in public would also ban hunting.

This looks more like a bill designed to create misinformed outrage than to actually accomplish anything. Write a bill banning hunting, market it as if you're addressing something in the city, outrage ensues when it is voted down.

2

argl3bargl3 t1_j84tdw7 wrote

We intentionally govern wrong. As a joke.

2

Self_Hating_Dentist t1_j844nld wrote

Clearly they understand that the only way to stop bad babies with guns is to arm good babies with guns. ‘Murica baby 🇺🇸

1

MeanGreanHare t1_j84v4gc wrote

I understand the part about wanting to ban kids from carrying guns while unsupervised. A kid carrying a gun? questionable. A kid carrying a gun and his or her parents are not around? reckless and potentially dangerous.

My guess is that local governments will pass their own alternatives to this law. Cities and suburban areas, most likely.

I imagine that the article, being from The Guardian, is editorialized with a left-leaning spin on it to make the situation sound a certain way.

1

rikdagimp t1_j85m267 wrote

This is why America is fucked

1

Bwadaboss t1_j85ri6z wrote

This country is going to fcking dogs I tell ya. Where is common sense?

1

IndsaetNavnHer t1_j85rlbs wrote

Non-american here... Are you allowed to be in possession of a gun as a child at all?

1

it_swims t1_j85vlmz wrote

In some places, yes. Many very rural areas have pretty lax gun laws. It isn't uncommon to take a kid hunting or target shooting. I don't know the laws about adult supervision, though.

1

galileotechno t1_j86dobh wrote

Almost everywhere allows children to use firearms in appropriate environments with parental supervision. Many states also authorize children over X age (usually 12 or 14) to carry a gun while on their parent’s property (arguably for guarding cattle or whatnot— not really relevant to most kids today) with authorization from a parent.

The current status of the law in Missouri is insane— pretty sure even the Founding Fathers didn’t let children under drafting age just run around with guns.

1

Sayoria t1_j85vaj2 wrote

Little boys with a doll? 'Massive problem!'

Little boys with a smith and wesson? 'Nothing more American!'

1

Asphodelmercenary t1_j860kqg wrote

Republicans in Missouri want children to have guns and Republicans in Wyoming want to marry the children.

Are we going back to the 1850s when children with guns got married and stole cattle? Feels like it. People been watching too many Westerns. Bonanza and Little House on the Prairie are not realistic.

1

elnath54 t1_j8cdf8j wrote

Maybe the Missouri kids need guns to protect themselves from Wyoming Republican child marriers/ molesters?

1

No-Dragonfruit4014 t1_j861441 wrote

OMG guys, have you noticed how Republicans are clearly intimidated by the NRA's influence? It's a major concern, the NRA can manipulate the media and ruin politicians' careers.

1

Fink665 t1_j87vvls wrote

They can kill adults but can’t terminate a clump of cells?

1

Self_Hating_Dentist t1_j844pq1 wrote

Clearly they understand that the only way to stop bad babies with guns is to arm good babies with guns. ‘Murica baby 🇺🇸

0

Self_Hating_Dentist t1_j844qs8 wrote

Clearly they understand that the only way to stop bad babies with guns is to arm good babies with guns. ‘Murica baby

0

soda-jerk t1_j84g8sc wrote

"... And here's a gun holster for your meth belt."

"Oh, I thought 'meth belt' was just a- "

"Nope."

0

jamkoch t1_j84hd6i wrote

This is so parents can't be charged when their 6 yr old shoots the teacher. I'm wondering if their baptismal sponsors are responsible since they took the child's original sin at baptism.

0

luckylebron t1_j84tt5x wrote

The title of the ages- way to go Missouri 👀

0

nzdennis t1_j84ybi0 wrote

"Donny, don't forget your gun on your way out to school, honey"

0

Soggy_Midnight980 t1_j85ixpw wrote

Missouri politicians crawling over each other for NRA points.

0