10 month-old, gets gift of gun and has to register it in Illinois!!!

[red-beard]

Stangely enough, the FOID card was issued. Why? Because the parent followed the law.

How long until the anti-gun media jumps on this one?

[legion]

Link?

[HardDrive]

I'm not sure how following the law is news worthy...

Lots of kids 'own' guns before they are 18. So what? This kid just happens to be very young. Move along, nothing to see here folks.....

[red-beard]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,272074,00.html

[legion]

Is the point of the story that I'm supposed to be shocked and outraged? I knew plenty of kids growing up who owned guns and had FOID cards.

[svandamme]

that's just stupid
if you give a 10 month old a gun
then why not give the dog one
or the cat

same difference

nothing like a baby with a Locked and loaded Glock stuffed down it's Pampers to ward of potential evil-doers...preferably one of those really light squeezing triggers and wadcutters... and let's not forget the backup snubnose Colt Python 357 strapped to the ankle...

if this is legally possible, then those laws are just laughable...

[legion]

Stijn, did you even read the article?

I can give a baby a car, a house, a pencil and a variety of other things they can't use. Why is a gun any different? The fact is, the kid's grandfather gave the kid a shotgun for use many years in the future. In order to be in compliance with the law, he has to be a valid FOID card holder.

If you think anyone is going to hand a baby a loaded shotgun, well, you should stay out of the U.S. Not all of the bulges in the back of babies' diapers may be a load...

[tabs]

Looks like my Little Chichuahua doesn't have the brains of a Chichuahua.

[red-beard]

The article is meant to shock you, that a toddler was issued a FOID card. And yes, it was a shotgun, not a pistol. The initial headline on the front page of the site was "Pistol Packing Baby".

[Chocaholic]

Stijn is right on. I can think of a lot of meaningful gifts to bestow on a young child for future use. A gun isn't one of them. I'm no liberal...quite the opposite, but have never bought into all the NRA logic. Why encourage a child to kill (anything) by providing a weapon as a birth gift? Just don't get it.

[Jim Bremner]

It's done so when the guns are outlawed, but current guns are grandfathered in the PERSON can still own his/her firearm

[svandamme]

Originally posted by legion
Stijn, did you even read the article?

I can give a baby a car, a house, a pencil and a variety of other things they can't use. Why is a gun any different? The fact is, the kid's grandfather gave the kid a shotgun for use many years in the future. In order to be in compliance with the law, he has to be a valid FOID card holder.

If you think anyone is going to hand a baby a loaded shotgun, well, you should stay out of the U.S. Not all of the bulges in the back of babies' diapers may be a load...

it's called sarcasme

and as to why a gun is different:
guns can kill
the kid may grow up to be a high school shooter, and allready have his gun from birth and as such, completely bypass all the sanity checkups a gun owner should have before aquiring a gun...
and then what...

OH MAAY GAAWD HOW WAS THIS POSSIBLE?!? A 12 YEAR OLD LUNATIC SHOOTING UP HIS CLASSMATES!!

nobody knows if this little bugger will grow up to be responsible let alone mentally stable, there is no way to predict it, and yet he allready has the paperwork to legally own weaponry

hell, he can't even piss straight, let alone shoot straight

[Normy]

Stijn,

There's nothing wrong with removing guns from certain members of society. Criminals and mentally unstable persons come quickly to mind. But what is completely wrong is banning them outright. Trust me, "bans" can be tricky things.

-Giving a child ANYTHING earns for the parent some responsibility; responsibility to teach the child not only how to use the gift, but also responsibility to teach that child right from wrong. I had a .22 caliber rifle when I was 10, and a shotgun when I was 12; I was only allowed to shoot them when my father was around until I turned 16- that was his rule, and believe you me...I had no notion of ever breaking it!

In this situation, apparently the child is being properly prepared for the ownership of this device, since the parent has made sure the child has the proper paperwork. I think it is safe to assume that the child will have proper training on how to use it, and when NOT to.

Surely, it is possible for the child to become mentally unstable and for him to now cause considerable damage. I might point out that many children own hockey sticks and baseball bats which can also be quite lethal if used improperly.

So answer this question: If you can ban guns....then why can't you ban other things? You know, things like hockey sticks, baseball bats...high performance sports cars?

[svandamme]

this pushing principle is just silly when it comes to baby's
one should not use an infant that can't even walk or talk to make a point
a parent should be busy feeding , caring and cleaning up the baby
making sure it's not harmed, doesn't die in it's crib, doesn't get sick, making sure it is warm, safe , has a roof over it's head and financially is taken care off and so on
most parents of babies i know that young are to tired for anything else

there's not one other country where this sort of thing is possible
not even in Iraq or Afhanistan do you see parents with these sort of urges

it's a baby.

[red-beard]

The parents didn't buy the gun. It was a gift from his grandfather. The father followed the law and filled out the paper work. My point of bringing this up, is that I believe it will be used by the Anti-gun lobby to push for legislation in Illinois to restrict ownership of firearms to some specific age, say 18 or 21.

[Chocaholic]

Originally posted by red-beard
I believe it will be used by the Anti-gun lobby to push for legislation in Illinois to restrict ownership of firearms to some specific age, say 18 or 21.

And jeeeez...it just wouldn't be right if guns weren't readily available to post-adolescent kids. That 18-21 demographic should certainly be able to pack heat on their way to school.

Makes more sense...thanks for clarifying.

[red-beard]

Readily available? He can't purchase a gun in Illinois.

[svandamme]

Originally posted by red-beard
Readily available? He can't purchase a gun in Illinois.

he doesn't have to buy one, he allready has it on his name and everything taken care off

[legion]

Stijn, what if his parents bought him a car to use in 20 years. Is that setting him up for mowing down a crowd? Your argument is essentially that guns MAKE people kill. If that were true, tabs would have taken out this whole BBS.

[svandamme]

that's not the same, gun has only one use , to fire
you can't drive your gun from A to B


i'm not making the arguement that he'll turn out to be a killer, never did
i'm saying that it's pointless and silly in a big way

babies can't even poop without needing somebody to wipe for them
babies don't need guns
babies can't use guns

that gun , should then be in the name of the parents of the baby, because no matter what that paperwork says, practically the parents own the gun, the parents take care of the gun, not the baby.

what if the dad ends up doing 6 months in jail over something
legally he would have lost his right to bear arms, right?

what about the baby's gun?

the gun should be in the name of the actual person who is mature enough to take care of it and it's use.