Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Video & Multimedia

Jenoch

(7,720 posts)

15. First, and this is not imlortant to the discussian,

Reply to jjewell (Reply #14)

Fri May 3, 2013, 03:29 AM

May 2013

but since you brought is up, "Catechism or Confirmation" has nothing to do with five year old children.

Second, it is immateriall who 'OWNED' the .22.rifle. The five year old should not have had access to it outside of the rifle range and adult supervision. Why in the world do you have a problem with that?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

43 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Piers Morgan Clashes With Ben Ferguson Over Background Checks, Infants Getting Their Hands On Guns [View all] Tx4obama May 2013 OP

"...five-year-old infant..."? Jenoch May 2013 #1

The boy was given a gun when he was 4 years old. Related article below Tx4obama May 2013 #2

Of course guns should be locked up Jenoch May 2013 #3

Focusing on the word "infant"... jjewell May 2013 #4

Words have meaning. Jenoch May 2013 #5

That "weak-sister" background check bill... jjewell May 2013 #6

The tragedy did not happen Jenoch May 2013 #7

Must be a difference in upbringing... jjewell May 2013 #8

No. You are completely wrong. Jenoch May 2013 #9

Please don't play stupid... jjewell May 2013 #10

Exactly how much harm Jenoch May 2013 #11

Why don't YOU... jjewell May 2013 #13

On anorher thread I described how Jenoch May 2013 #12

Number one, how... jjewell May 2013 #14

First, and this is not imlortant to the discussian, Jenoch May 2013 #15

First, neither does the age... jjewell May 2013 #16

As long as you are bringing it up, Jenoch May 2013 #17

I thought YOU said... jjewell May 2013 #18

Right back at you. Jenoch May 2013 #19

The point is, YOU brought up baptism... jjewell May 2013 #20

Again, I didn't bring it up in the religious context, but about age, INFANT. Jenoch May 2013 #21

Pointless distraction from the issue and question remains your game, I see... jjewell May 2013 #22

The issue is a 5-year old having Jenoch May 2013 #23

No. The issue is "gifting" a five year old with a deadly weapon in the first place. jjewell May 2013 #24

You are so focused Jenoch May 2013 #25

You are so focused on dodging the point.... jjewell May 2013 #26

Nah, I'm not going back to old posts. Jenoch May 2013 #27

Okay... jjewell May 2013 #28

Sure the guns are theirs. Jenoch May 2013 #29

Oh brother... here we go again... jjewell May 2013 #30

Wow, are you dense. Jenoch May 2013 #31

Calling me "obtuse" and "dense" gains you no credibility, and scores you no points... jjewell May 2013 #32

You are correct. Jenoch May 2013 #33

Very cool. Let the debate continue... jjewell May 2013 #34

1.) I probably should not have Jenoch May 2013 #35

Finally, a decent, cogent, conversational response from you, Jenoch... jjewell May 2013 #36

Actually, Jenoch May 2013 #37

Oh... I thought you said there is no point in continued debate on this matter... jjewell May 2013 #38

I agree that the gun being available Jenoch May 2013 #39

Of course the 2 year old wouldn't be dead if the gun... jjewell May 2013 #40

It is only Jenoch May 2013 #41

Being the paragon of virtue that you apparently are... jjewell May 2013 #42

What is insane Jenoch May 2013 #43