Please explain to me "My first gun."

[flipper35]

Originally Posted by Hoots

Each year more kids are killed by swimming pools than by firearms, but you don't hear anyone screaming for the banishment of deadly assault pools.

They are working on the wording for that bill: What constitutes a splash supressor, black hardware...

[1-ev.com]

knifes are sharp too, but every kitchen has set...
same with guns, people have a responsibilities that they ignore sometimes...

Originally Posted by Jferr006

Whether it s a gun marketed for 5 y/o's or adults it the parents' resonsibility to make sure guns are secured!

[Racerbvd]

Originally Posted by foxpaws

Firearms should not be marketed to appeal to 5-year-olds.

Bull Sheet, you keep screaming marketing, please show of the major media campaign, you can't can you, the best you have is logos in a company catalog And since you still don't understand the simple FACT that a Child can not legally go into a store and buy a gun, we also know that you spend a lot of time enabling losers who make bad decisions, well the rest of us are tired of being punished because people like you want to lower the bar lowest levels (like you have done in schools) instead of teaching personal responsibilities, something liberals like you are against.
Did you buy your kids everything they asked for, do you let your kids do what ever they want??? Maybe should should stop spending so much time with losers & coke whores and spend time with responsible people who make good life decisions.. If you are so worried about children, why do you support late term abortion?? Why is it that liberals are against the NRA and teaching gun safety to 5 year olds, but for teaching & promoting sexual behavior to them??

Why is it ok to use children to market a sexual behavior??
Go to the link for full content
MSNBC

MSNBC’s Krystal Ball exploits own 5-year-old daughter on TV to promote gay marriage
by Howard Portnoy


If you find those commercials insufferably cute, you’ll probably adore MSNBC’s ‘Political Playground,’ in which host Krystal Ball interviews her 5-year-old daughter, Ella, on hot button issues of the day.

Interview is perhaps the wrong word, since it implies spontaneity, and one gets the distinct sense that these conversations — if not out-and-out rehearsed — have occurred before. If she wanted, Ball could achieve genuine objectivity and candor by interviewing someone else’s child, but wishing that on a stranger might be cruel.

To understand why, take Friday’s episode, which focused on same-sex marriage. In the video, which appears below, Ball carefully steers the conversation first to a consideration of whom (or what) you can’t marry (a tree, for example) and ultimately the conclusion that marriage is between two people in love. Why the institution is limited to two people Ball never clarifies (and apparently never inculcated into the child).


ELLA: [Animated, clapping rhythmically]: Um-hm. ‘Cause girls can marry girls and boys can marry boys in New York, and girl can marry a boy in New York, too.

BALL: That’s a nice thing, because you want people to be able to marry who they’re in love with, right?

Hot Air’s Allahpundit writes of the segment:

The idea here, I take it, was to show that supporting gay marriage is so obvious that even a five-year-old can arrive at the right conclusion if left to reason her way through it. That’s not how it comes off; you get the sense that this segment would have run for 20 minutes, with Krystal Ball nudging all the way, if that’s how long it would have taken to arrive at the favored result.


Exploiting children to score political points is nothing new for liberals. One of the most disgraceful examples of using children as propagandistic pawns came in January of this year, when a video of children reading aloud anti-gun letters they had written was released. The source of the video? The White House.

Related Articles

For second time, MSNBC’s Harris-Perry calls fetuses ‘things’
Obama exploiting innocent kids to promote gun control: The movie (Photos)

Comic books, again, is this OK in your mind, a sexual behavior is OK to market to children, but not the 2nd Amendment??

Are Comic Books Marketing Homosexuality to Children? A Troubling Sign of the Times

Green Lantern is gay announces DC Comics.



Marketing a homosexual equivalency aganda has no place in the pages of entertainment material marketed towards young children.



LOS ANGELES, CA (Catholic Online) - The bad news is homosexual activity is becoming mainstream and is now being introduced to children in their comic books as morally equivalent and even commendable. What sexuality ever has to do with comic books is a fine question, but one that remains outside the scope of this reporting. What is understood is, DC comics has come out of the closet, announcing that the original Green Lantern character is gay.

The homosexual character will be appearing on "Earth 2" in a fictional parallel universe from ours. However, kids will read about him in our world, the real world, everyday.

Comic book characters are fictional constructs, so it's not like someone needs to save Green Lantern from his own deviant ways, but these fictional stories are sold to both children and adults as mainstream reading material. Superheroes can make desirable role models for children, often exemplifying character traits we'd like our children to emulate. Examples include patriotism, loyalty, integrity, justice, righteousness, self sacrifice, heroism and, yes, other virtues. Remember when we wanted our children to be virtuous?

Now thanks to an editorial decision, we are somehow expected to add homosexual practice to that list?

Meanwhile it's not just DC Comics. Marvel Comics announced last month that the pages of the X-Men comic book would soon feature a homosexual "wedding".

Superheroes should be protecting the innocent, catching bad guys, and serving up justice. Overt homosexual practice, and promoting the agenda related to promoting it, should have no place or in the pages of comic books especially when they are marketed towards children. The fact that it does is just one more sign that the homosexual equivalency agenda is rolling full steam through the fabric of our nation.

© 2012, Distributed by NEWS CONSORTIUM.

And there is a pretty good difference in the weight of a real gun and a toy one, so, with proper parenting, the difference is very real, not just a pretty color (and I know a 40 year old Woman who owns a "Hello Kitty" AR, so cartoons aren't just for kids.. And, since you just can't seem to provide any major marketing (net work TV, prime time kids hours, billboards, major comic books who are targeting children (a product, protected by the 2nd Amendment) and still don't seen to understand that even if there was the mass marketing that you claim a CHILD can not BUY a Gun from a store on their own, of course, the people you associate with don't buy things (they steal) so maybe that is why you just can't get it through your head that a child can't buy a gun..

And since if comes down to parenting..



Little-Known Danger: Vehicles Backing Over Kids - CBS News

By CBSNEWS / CBS/ April 7, 2010, 1:32 PM
Little-Known Danger: Vehicles Backing Over Kids

It's estimated that dozens of children are backed over by vehciles every week in parking lots and driveways.

Just this Easter Sunday in Texas, a 1-year-old boy was killed when he was backed over in the family driveway.

Experts want parents to be on alert.

"Early Show" Consumer Correspondent Susan Koeppen points out that, so far this year, at least 17 children have died after being backed over.

April, she notes, is typically the peak month for these accidents, because the weather is turning nice and more kids are outside playing.

Koeppen shared the story of 16-month-old Alec Nelson, who lost his life in his family's driveway.

His mother, Adriann Raschdorf-Nelson, told Koeppen, "He was endlessly happy. He always had a smile on his face."

Bill Nelson, the boy's father, said, "There are a lot of great memories of him. We think about what he would be doing today."

Raschdorf-Nelson found her son. He'd been backed over by an SUV. His grandfather was behind the wheel.

Adriann Raschdorf-Nelson said, "By the time I got to Alec, I already knew he was gone."

Rashdorf-Nelson explained, "There was a little dip in the driveway where there was a hill, and that's what he thought he had hit when he felt a bump. It's been very, very tough for him."

In 70 percent of back-over accidents, it's a family member who's driving. In Alec's case, his grandfather had no idea the little boy was behind the car -- even after he had checked his mirrors.

Rashdorf-Nelson said, "My father wakes up every morning thinking about what happened."

Bill said, "We live in a dead-end street purposely. We thought it was a very safe place for our kids to raise them, and never in my wildest nightmares would I think that we would lose a child on our property."

According to Kids and Cars, a non-profit safety organization which tracks back over accidents, 50 children a week are backed over by cars -- among that number two children die. Most victims are between 12 and 23 months old.

Copyright 2010 CBS. All rights reserved.

Course, if the driver would just do a walk around before leaving, many of these kids wouldn't die every year..

[foxpaws]

racer - it doesn't need to be a 'major campaign' - they are a tiny company - if you go by percentages I would imagine most of their advertising budget is tied up in their catalog, their website and the videos they produce to promote their product (oh, and some for the beanie babies too).... The don't run commercials on TV, they depend on other marketing venues, they aren't Budweiser. However they market guns to children. I am sorry if you don't seem to grasp that concept - but they do. And it is wrong. Just like marketing booze to children is wrong. Again - do you think we should allow Budweiser to market beer to children, kids can't buy it, but they sure can legally drink it. Just like kids can't buy guns, but they can have them. Why one and not the other? Is it because the whole gunapalooza here is being mistaken for something to do with the 2nd?

Homophobia much? You have consistently brought up homosexuality in this thread about guns and children, probably at least 1/2 dozen times now, maybe more. It seems rather odd.

[winders]

foxpaws,

You keep equating guns/children to alcohol/children. It's not even close to being the same thing.......

Scott

[Racerbvd]

Originally Posted by foxpaws

racer - it doesn't need to be a 'major campaign' - they are a tiny company - if you go by percentages I would imagine most of their advertising budget is tied up in their catalog, their website and the videos they produce to promote their product (oh, and some for the beanie babies too).... The don't run commercials on TV, they depend on other marketing venues, they aren't Budweiser. However they market guns to children. I am sorry if you don't seem to grasp that concept - but they do. And it is wrong. Just like marketing booze to children is wrong. Again - do you think we should allow Budweiser to market beer to children, kids can't buy it, but they sure can legally drink it. Just like kids can't buy guns, but they can have them. Why one and not the other? Is it because the whole gunapalooza here is being mistaken for something to do with the 2nd?

Homophobia much? You have consistently brought up homosexuality in this thread about guns and children, probably at least 1/2 dozen times now, maybe more. It seems rather odd.

I bring it up because it shows just how big a hypocrite you are , you clearly have no problems with children being used to promote & taught a sexual behavior, even though it is very unhealthy and the fact it does cause death, but that is OK with you, but teaching children the proper use of a fire arm, something PROTECTED by the 2nd Amendment, you are against. I don't know why you can't get it through your head, it doesn't matter how much marketing (and you still haven't given a legitimate answer, because you can't) is put out, it doesn't change the fact that A CHILD CAN NOT LEGALLY BUY A REAL GUN , so once again, it still comes down to Parental & personal responsibility, the enemy of liberal enablers like yourself.. If you were really as worried about childrens welfare as you try and convince yourself and others, you wouldn't defend late term abortion, brain washing children in schools and more worried about kids drowning & being backed over.. The fact that schools are teaching kids about homosexuality while banning the 2nd Amendment is why I bring it up. One belongs in schools, the other doesn't and that doesn't bother you one bit...

[foxpaws]

Originally Posted by winders

foxpaws,

You keep equating guns/children to alcohol/children. It's not even close to being the same thing.......

Scott

It is very much the same thing in the world of marketing - products that we don't allow children to buy, products that children can use with adult supervision. We make darn sure that corporations can't market one to children, yet, every gun toting, 2nd amendment whiner on this site wants to make sure that we continue to allow the other to be marketed to 5-year-olds?

Why would anyone think that marketing guns to 5-year-olds is a good thing? Why would anyone think that making small guns that look like toys, are marketed like toys, whose marketing is directed at 5-year-olds like toys, is something we should just turn a blind eye. Yet if Coors made drinks that tasted like soda, were marketed like soda, and directed marketing that alcoholic laden drink to 5-year-olds they would be hauled to court, with (I would imagine) not a peep out of anyone on this site claiming that it really would be good if 5-year-olds learn to hold their liquor.

Almost all 5-year-olds are no more able to fully process that the Crickett you just handed them isn't a toy than if you set a grape flavored alcoholic drink in front of them and expected them to realize it isn't Grape Crush.

[winders]

I have no problem with rifles being marketed to younger people that cannot buy them without a parents help. I have a problem with an 8 year drinking alcohol or smoking cigarettes, supervised by an adult or not. I have no problem with an 8 year old shooting a gun, supervised by an adult.

Scott

[Az911]

Gun crime has plunged, but Americans think it's up, says study

Gun crime has plunged in the United States since its peak in the middle of the 1990s, including gun killings, assaults, robberies and other crimes, two new studies of government data show.

The number of gun killings dropped 39% between 1993 and 2011, the Bureau of Justice Statistics reported in a separate report released Tuesday. Gun crimes that weren’t fatal fell by 69%.

Gun crime has plunged, but Americans think it's up, says study - latimes.com

[foxpaws]

Originally Posted by winders

I have no problem with rifles being marketed to younger people that cannot buy them without a parents help. I have a problem with an 8 year drinking alcohol or smoking cigarettes, supervised by an adult or not. I have no problem with an 8 year old shooting a gun, supervised by an adult.

Scott

Why should children who have a little glass of watered down wine with dinner (very common in other parts of the world) be a problem if they have proper adult supervision? It is the parent's choice, the wine isn't going to harm anyone if handled properly. Why do you have a problem with that. Isn't teaching children how to handle adult items, like guns and liquor responsibly a good thing? Or, why is a good thing for guns, but a bad thing for booze?

I find it interesting that you have no problem with marketing guns to children, but even, in the privacy of their own home, letting a child have a little drink is a problem. So I assume marketing booze to children would be a problem on planet winders.... But marketing guns to 5-year-olds, that is just fine...

[ZOA NOM]

At some point, Fox, you're going to have to admit you are completely wrong. It's interesting that you NEVER answer my specific questions. You skip over them and move to parry with another poster that you think you can dominate.

Question 1 - Do you think that a child who is taught about guns will be more or less likely to do harm with one?

Question 2 - Do you think a parent should be the one teaching the child, or do you think the government should legislate it?

I don't want to hear a tangential diatribe, just answer the simple questions.

[foxpaws]

At some point, Fox, you're going to have to admit you are completely wrong. It's interesting that you NEVER answer my specific questions. You skip over them and move to parry with another poster that you think you can dominate.



Question 1 - Do you think that a child who is taught about guns will be more or less likely to do harm with one?

depends on the age of the child, I think that 5-year-olds don't have the processing power to understand what is going on, but a 10-year-old probably would be less likely to harm themselves or others if they had some basic firearm safety instruction.

Question 2 - Do you think a parent should be the one teaching the child, or do you think the government should legislate it?

Just like getting a ccp in many states requires some hours of instruction I think before you hand a firearm to a minor both parents and child have to attend gun safety classes. I don't care who provides the classes, or if the parent is doing the instruction, so long as the can pass the basic NRA safety test, with perhaps some addition emphasis on the 'responsible parenting' aspect.

[ZOA NOM]

Originally Posted by foxpaws

depends on the age of the child, I think that 5-year-olds don't have the processing power to understand what is going on, but a 10-year-old probably would be less likely to harm themselves or others if they had some basic firearm safety instruction.

Just like getting a ccp in many states requires some hours of instruction I think before you hand a firearm to a minor both parents and child have to attend gun safety classes. I don't care who provides the classes, or if the parent is doing the instruction, so long as the can pass the basic NRA safety test, with perhaps some addition emphasis on the 'responsible parenting' aspect.

Interesting... would you wait until a child was ten to begin teaching them about the stove being hot, or that drinking Drano is a bad idea? If not, why is a firearm different? I suppose I should ask the obvious, have you raised a child?

Interesting you cite an NRA safety course, since the NRA isn't affiliated with the government. You manage to retain your need for a nanny state to control this issue, but you've somehow separated the government and legislative process. Are you expecting folks to just obey your advice, or do you propose they pass a law?