0

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.

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

Also also......

Cat gets credit card

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

Edited by Dani: Formatting fixed

14
Contributors
37
Replies
38
Views
10 Years
Discussion Span
Last Post by joshSCH
Featured Replies
  • 1
    WaltP 2,905   10 Years Ago

    Oh, this makes perfect sense! I can explain it very easily.... N R A :icon_wink: Read More

  • 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 … Read More

0

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

0

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...

0

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.

0

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

0

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

0

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.

1

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.

Votes + Comments
;)
1

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.

Votes + Comments
Nicely put, and interesting link.
0

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 against thrown 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.

0

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.

Not just our own federal government but proect us from foreign invadors too. I don't see our federal government being any sort of threat any more, so being a conflist of interest of not anything to be concerned about. But I do think using the National Guard to supplement our federal military troops to fight wars in foreign land is wrong. It might be leval, but its wrong.

0

Not just our own federal government but proect us from foreign invadors too. I don't see our federal government being any sort of threat any more, so being a conflist of interest of not anything to be concerned about. But I do think using the National Guard to supplement our federal military troops to fight wars in foreign land is wrong. It might be leval, but its wrong.

You raise a valid point regarding your second statement, and I thank you for bringing it up.

0

I have never needed a gun to defend myself either, but people in large cities where criminals/drug dealers live do need them. I don't even own a gun, but I don't object to others owning and carrying them.

I hope non-Americans have the idea that all Americans carry a pistal on the hips and have shoot-outs in the streets like they do in old western movies. We may be nuts, but we aren't crazy. Hollywood gives Americans a bad reputation for that, and makes non-Americans think that all we do all day is shoot at each other.

0

i have never needed a gun to defend myself

Question is: Have you ever been attacked or robbed?. Has your
life ever been put in jeopardy?.

0

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.

exactly

Yeah my family and I are trying to get a piece of real estate in the moon, now that the interest is low.

Don't know who said: It is better to be quiet and let everyone think that you are
a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubts.

0

i have never needed a gun to defend myself

I thought you were still a teen. :icon_rolleyes:

I have never needed a gun to defend myself either, but people in large cities where criminals/drug dealers live do need them.

I grew up in Detroit and now live in Minneapolis. Both big cities (the former known as the murder city for a while) and I've never needed a gun either.

Don't know who said: It is better to be quiet and let everyone think that you are
a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubts.

I believe it was Mark Twain

[footnote]
Just as I was typing this, someone smashed my neighbor's car window and drove off in a rush! Hmmmmm...
[/footnote]

0

[footnote]
Just as I was typing this, someone smashed my neighbor's car window and drove off in a rush! Hmmmmm...
[/footnote]

Oh my gosh! ... that's ridiculous.

1

I don't see anything wrong with having a gun for self defense. We can't and we shouldn't rely on the government to protect us. The government failed to protect the citizens of New Orleans after Katrina. They were left to fend for themselves.

Regulating gun laws doesn't help any. Those that want a gun to do harm will break the law to get a gun. Adding more laws won't do any good.

Votes + Comments
hear, hear
This topic has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.