Seriously? You want people investigated for doing LEGAL things now?
I'm not saying she should or should not be investigated, but just because an action is, on its own, legal, it does not mean it can't also constitute child endangerment.
I can get blackout drunk and pass out in my own house. That's legal. When I have a child at home and doing that puts that child in potential danger, then I can be investigated for that.
Owning a gun is legal. Heck, leaving a loaded gun on my coffee table in my house is legal. That doesn't mean that doing so when there's a toddler around couldn't be child endangerment.
Presumably this is a group of "good guys with guns" - so what happens when that one bad guy shows up? Does it turn into the OK Corral with them all shooting at each other, I mean, the bad guy, with the gun?
Seriously? You want people investigated for doing LEGAL things now?
I'm not saying she should or should not be investigated, but just because an action is, on its own, legal, it does not mean it can't also constitute child endangerment.
I can get blackout drunk and pass out in my own house. That's legal. When I have a child at home and doing that puts that child in potential danger, then I can be investigated for that.
Owning a gun is legal. Heck, leaving a loaded gun on my coffee table in my house is legal. That doesn't mean that doing so when there's a toddler around couldn't be child endangerment.
It's not so simple as legal vs. illegal.
All you have here is a picture of a woman legally carrying a gun at a protest. She's not holding it, nor does she have her finger on the trigger. We have no way of knowing how long she held the kids with the gun. She is doing nothing wrong here. Yet, just because she has a gun, and is at the protest, some people want her investigated. No. Just because you disagree with her, and have your own prejudice about what *might* happen, doesn't mean you get to call CPS on her. Because that's where all this lies. Not because of a concern of safety for the children, but because you (general) don't like her and her guns.
Anyone with half a fucking brain and an ounce of common sense can see what the fuck is wrong with this photo and I hope Children Welfare Services or whatever it is in Texas goes knocking on this woman's door.
Seriously. I mean, how is she going to shoot a bad guy with TWO babies in her arms? She'll have to drop one. Maybe both.
OK i fail at reading because I first thought she just had one really really fat baby.
Seriously? You want people investigated for doing LEGAL things now?
Yes, if the situation called for it. Yes I do. Maybe that's a little extreme in this situation but that picture portrays a whole lot of what if scenerios that do not end well to put it mildly.
While I don't think she should be investigated by CPS for this, I do think that this kind of behavior still makes her a shitty parent up there with the ones who named their kids Adolf Hitler and Aryan Nation.
I'm not saying she should or should not be investigated, but just because an action is, on its own, legal, it does not mean it can't also constitute child endangerment.
I can get blackout drunk and pass out in my own house. That's legal. When I have a child at home and doing that puts that child in potential danger, then I can be investigated for that.
Owning a gun is legal. Heck, leaving a loaded gun on my coffee table in my house is legal. That doesn't mean that doing so when there's a toddler around couldn't be child endangerment.
It's not so simple as legal vs. illegal.
All you have here is a picture of a woman legally carrying a gun at a protest. She's not holding it, nor does she have her finger on the trigger. We have no way of knowing how long she held the kids with the gun. She is doing nothing wrong here. Yet, just because she has a gun, and is at the protest, some people want her investigated. No. Just because you disagree with her, and have your own prejudice about what *might* happen, doesn't mean you get to call CPS on her. Because that's where all this lies. Not because of a concern of safety for the children, but because you (general) don't like her and her guns.
No, I wouldn't mind if she got investigated because she had a deadly weapon within easy reach of her kids. If her kids hadn't been in the picture. I wouldn't have said a word about CPS. But there is photographic proof so its a different story. If it was a protest for whatever...legalized pot and someone was smoking a joint with their children right there, I'd be saying the same thing.
All you have here is a picture of a woman legally carrying a gun at a protest. She's not holding it, nor does she have her finger on the trigger. We have no way of knowing how long she held the kids with the gun. She is doing nothing wrong here. Yet, just because she has a gun, and is at the protest, some people want her investigated. No. Just because you disagree with her, and have your own prejudice about what *might* happen, doesn't mean you get to call CPS on her. Because that's where all this lies. Not because of a concern of safety for the children, but because you (general) don't like her and her guns.
No, I wouldn't mind if she got investigated because she had a deadly weapon within easy reach of her kids. If her kids hadn't been in the picture. I wouldn't have said a word about CPS. But there is photographic proof so its a different story. If it was a protest for whatever...legalized pot and someone was smoking a joint with their children right there, I'd be saying the same thing.
I'm not saying she should or should not be investigated, but just because an action is, on its own, legal, it does not mean it can't also constitute child endangerment.
I can get blackout drunk and pass out in my own house. That's legal. When I have a child at home and doing that puts that child in potential danger, then I can be investigated for that.
Owning a gun is legal. Heck, leaving a loaded gun on my coffee table in my house is legal. That doesn't mean that doing so when there's a toddler around couldn't be child endangerment.
It's not so simple as legal vs. illegal.
All you have here is a picture of a woman legally carrying a gun at a protest. She's not holding it, nor does she have her finger on the trigger. We have no way of knowing how long she held the kids with the gun. She is doing nothing wrong here. Yet, just because she has a gun, and is at the protest, some people want her investigated. No. Just because you disagree with her, and have your own prejudice about what *might* happen, doesn't mean you get to call CPS on her. Because that's where all this lies. Not because of a concern of safety for the children, but because you (general) don't like her and her guns.
Ok, but the argument should be that the children aren't in any danger and that this is a political witch hunt, not that it's legal for her to carry that.
The standard for investigators would be whether the welfare of the children is endangered, not whether the underlying act is legal. So if you don't think she should investigated, then the argument that supports that position is that the welfare of these children has not been endangered.
I also think people should have to pass tests before being able to procreate so feel free to jump on me for that one too.
How about to vote? I had to have a lot of investigations to become a parent, but I'm ok with it....but I feel this borders on the prolife wacky doodle comments on "just adopt"
I also think people should have to pass tests before being able to procreate so feel free to jump on me for that one too.
How about to vote?
After the stupidity I have dealt with over the last few weeks I am tempted to say yes. However, no, I don't believe people should have to pass a test to vote.
Post by decemberwedding07 on Jun 2, 2014 21:28:01 GMT -5
Also, it doesn't look like the lady in the picture has any sights on her rifle, so It's kind of useless. I mean, it could kill someone, just not necessarily the person she MEANT to kill. She'd definitely be a useless "good guy with a fun."
I saw something ... somewhere (fb? reddit? no clue) that suggested gun lovers who felt very strongly about the second amendment ought to only be able to own the guns available when the constitution was written. So ... like, a musket. NOT an AK-47 or whatever the hell the gun is in that photo. That is a LOT of gun. Why does she need a gun like that? What does she think is going to happen to her?