Only in america!

[The Dude]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/15/ap/strange/main2811130.shtml

Baby Issued Illinois Gun ID Card

CHICAGO, May. 15, 2007

(AP) Bubba Ludwig can't walk, talk or open the refrigerator door _ but he does have his very own Illinois gun permit.

The 10-month-old, whose given name is Howard David Ludwig, was issued a firearm owner's identification card after his father, Howard Ludwig, paid the $5 fee and filled out the application, not expecting to actually get one. [more]

What does a 10 Month old need with a GUN card??[/QUOTE]

Also also......

Cat gets credit card

Meow > http://www.wltx.com/FYI/story.aspx?storyid=45629

[Ancient Dragon]

what's even more supprising to me is that the baby's grandfather bought him a shotgun as a gift :S

You know you are a rednick when your 15 month old son has his very own shotgun

[socom(psp)]

wow i live in canada so like we dont here that stuff around here :P

[christina>you]

Yes, that is extremely absurd! I can't believe that!

Oh and...
I recently found out that a boy was arrested for trying to sell guns at his local middle/elementary(?) school in Blacksburg. The same day as the Virginia Tech shootings...

Kind of ironic...

[Aia]

What does a 10 Month old need with a GUN card??

Chew on it?, mulch it with saliva?.

[WaltP]

Oh, this makes perfect sense! I can explain it very easily....

N R A

:icon_wink:

[Aia]

Oh, this makes perfect sense! I can explain it very easily....

N R A

:icon_wink:

Ah, you are talking about the Wild West Religion.

Early indoctrination is the most effective way of preserving the tradition.

[jbennet]

Guns are bad. They should be banned IMHO.

[Aia]

Guns are bad.

Guns don't care if they are called bad or anything else.
People are the responsible ones.

Cars are bad. They kill people.
Sorry I couldn't help myself

[Sturm]

Cars have a useful purpose, guns do not.

[Aia]

Cars have a useful purpose, guns do not.

I won't go there. :)

[jbennet]

Cars arent designed to kill. Killing is a guns main purpouse

[socom(psp)]

yeah guns are made first of all to protect people but if you wanna protect your self ofcourse u gotta pull the trigger, they should make a rule that if you have home guns you should have those rubber bullets that are as string as a real bullet but it doesnt penetrate the human body, i dont know thats what i think other people might think differently from me

[EnderX]

Cars have a useful purpose, guns do not.

You don't consider the ability to defend yourself against an attacker to be a useful, valid purpose?

Note: The main historical reason for keeping weapons away from a people or people group was to ensure they could never rise above their 'betters'. It wasn't just applied to guns; consider that a peasant found with a sword was likely to face severe punishment, if not death, in most of medieval europe.

Those who hold power, or those wishing to do so, will do their absolute best to ensure that others, those outside the 'in' group, will be unable to defend themselves when the time comes. It's written all over history.

[jbennet]

i have never needed a gun to defend myself

[Rashakil Fol]

Thanks for the insightful comment?

[Sturm]

If there were no guns, then you would not need to defend myself with one. And besides, if one lives in a place with high crime,
they should probably move.

[jbennet]

exactly

[Ancient Dragon]

since when did you think that removing guns out of the hands of law abiding people will make the world a safer place? What did people use to kill other people before the gun was invented? Are we also to ban knives, bows & arrows, and rocks? Remember, it was the Chinese who invented gun power, not Americans. And it was in 1718 in London that the pickel gun was invented.

And how about this story of the little old 81-year-old lady who shot off the testicals of a rapist. There have been a lot of similar stores where guns prevent crime. So you think she should have called the police?? The police are not our personal body guards -- its our own jobs to protect ourselves.

[EnderX]

If there were no guns, then you would not need to defend myself with one. And besides, if one lives in a place with high crime, they should probably move.

Two things wrong with that.

1) If someone's determined to harm me, he won't necessarily have to use a gun. A gun is a better weapon than some, as it is a ranged weapon with a high striking velocity and therefore more stopping power, but if someone's seriously determined to stop me, all he really needs is a handful of sand and a willingness to play unfairly. (Sand in eyes followed by a blow to a critical spot) If there were no guns, I'd probably find myself trying to defend myself and those I care about against pistol bows or one-shot springbows (note: probably not the official name), or against swords, spears, or axes. Or even againstthrown rocks. It's not the weapon that's the problem, it's the nature of the person holding it. And from what I've seen, the real nature of the average person is fairly nasty, no matter how well they've learned to supress it in order to fit in with society. Evil lurks within all of us; most of us just cloak it fairly well.

2) Who says I'm talking about crime? The main reason for the second amendment to the United States Constitution was to allow the people of the several states to defend themselves against the federal government should the federal government attempt to use force against them. Remember, the States had just come through something like this with the American Colonies and the British Government. Protecting themselves from letting that kind of situation occur again was probably fairly high on their list. Your statement of 'they should probably just move' becomes pointless, unless you're calling for those wishing to protect themselves to form a new country in their own right, as the Colonies did.

This is one of the reasons I'm not certain that calling the National Guard a militia is valid; the militia was supposed to be for the protection of the state against the federal government; the National Guard, as I understand it, is a part of the federal military structure. This leaves us with a conflict of interest.