Sunday, February 1, 2015

In Virginia, Tykes Have Gun Rights, Too

Local news reports

You may not have noticed, but on Tuesday huge cheers boomed out of every nursery school classroom in the commonwealth.

Four-year-old boys and girls wept in happiness and relief. They’d been so scared of losing their gun rights they couldn’t concentrate on learning their ABCs. Thankfully, the National Rifle Association came through for them again.

The source of their fear was a nasty bit of legislation introduced by (who else?) a liberal lawmaker from (where else?) Northern Virginia. His name is Sen. Adam Ebbin. He’s from Alexandria and obviously, he’s a Democrat.

Existing Virginia law allows a child younger than 12 to use a gun under adult supervision. Had Ebbin’s bill passed, it would have been illegal for an adult to allow a child under 5 to use a gun under any circumstances.

In other words, Ebbin wants to limit tykes’ gun rights. From this we can conclude either that 1) he’s against hunting, the shooting sports and self-defense for preschoolers; or 2) he dumbly forgot to consider those factors at all — in a state where hunting is a constitutional right.

What the heck is a 4-year-old supposed to do when a child molester comes after him? Run? That won’t work. The predator’s legs are longer.

Tattle to an adult? That’ll increase chances the kid will grow up a sissy. He’ll be an object of scorn and bullying when he gets to high school.


  1. The NRA stopped the passage of an unnecessary bill put forth by busybodies. How Horrible!

    1. Tis sad that the busybodies who long to tell others what they may or may not do so rarely are able to see that this is what they're doing.

      Mike, For most people, we don't see any need for the government to pass silly laws like this--we see it as a waste of time by a bunch of meddlesome individuals like yourself who wish to stick their noses in other people's business and tell them what to do on a wide variety of topics. Whether it's soda bans or laws telling parents "X is the youngest age at which you are allowed to decide that your children are ready to learn to shoot," these laws ought to be opposed for being outside the scope of what the government needs to be concerned with.

      Are there kids too young to teach to shoot? Sure. And drinking lots of soda, smoking cigarettes, and eating tons of McDonald's are bad for you too. This doesn't mean we need a law on any of these.

    2. Laws are for public safety. There is no public safety issue here? Cigarette laws became stricter when there was proof second hand smoke was dangerous. Gun loons have proven they are dangerous by their behavior, or we wouldn't have so many needless gun shot deaths and injuries. If they aren't smart enough in their behavior to stop hurting innocent citizens, then yes, they need laws to be told how to act.

  2. Hmm . . . so this whining piece of silly propaganda is "news"?

    I see Casey has still not grown up enough to match the maturity of the armed four-year-olds.

  3. That's one powerful paper tiger.

    1. You're for 4-year-olds using guns?

    2. Nice false choice you offer there--either for or against 4 year olds using guns.

      No, Mike. We're in favor of leaving such decisions where they have always been--with parents rather than in the hands of nanny state types.

    3. You're only reinforcing my point, Mike. If this is such a popular and reasonable proposal, how in the world was it stopped by a paper tiger organization?

    4. "We're in favor of leaving such decisions where they have always been--with parents rather than in the hands of nanny state types."

      Oh, is that right? Then the "nanny state" should leave it up to parents when their kids can drive and vote and drink and go to war?

    5. Non-sequitur argument, Mike.

      My comment was about an area that has been, traditionally, left up to parents and which the government was wanting to step in and regulate.

      You grabbed a bunch of things that have been long regulated, some of them for non-paternalistic reasons, and tried to make my position sound absurd by stretching it to cover this list.

      Couldn't come up with an argument on topic?

    6. My argument is on topic. Just because some things have long been regulated and others haven't should have nothing to do with the validity of such things. Idiot gun loving parents obviously need the government to step in and tell them what's right - exactly the way it does for speed limits and countless other things.

    7. Driving age and speed limits are set because the state builds and maintains the roads and therefore tells when and how people may use them--it's not a case of the government telling parents when they may teach their children to drive--they can do that at any age on their own property, so we can safely toss out that one of your examples and being non-analogous.

      Voting ages are also not a function of the paternalistic state telling parents when they may let their children vote. Instead, they're a simple part of setting up an orderly system of elections by setting out who may vote. Again, we see this isn't on topic.

      As for the age for going to war, while some may have a paternalistic desire to not see too young a person going to war, the age for enlistment isn't a matter of the government telling parents when they can ship their child off to battle. It is, again, based on the need of the government to make sure that it has a military made up of people capable of defending the nation. Again: this was off topic.

      The drinking age is the only one of four things you threw out that has part of its application in telling parents that they can't allow their children to drink at home. This is the only one of the four categories you threw out that was not a complete non-sequitur. I could have pulled it out and argued on it, but what would have been the point? You had already shown that you either didn't care (because you included 3 other examples off the topic) or that you didn't grasp the distinction (because you couldn't see the difference and only included this one item with the three non sequitures on accident).

    8. I mentioned four things off the top of my head. There are others. The point is the only one you gun nuts object to is the minimum age for gun handling.

    9. At this point the only explanation is that you are willfully ignoring that 3 of your 4 things had completely different rationales behind them.

      As for your final sentence, why are you assuming any of our positions on the drinking age and any other age limits that are actually similar to the one proposed in this bill?

    10. Forget about the three you don't like. Is there something wrong with the government setting the minimum age for anything? Are you opposed to all government interference or just this one about guns?

      And for you personally, what age is the right one to teach a kid to shoot real guns?

    11. Mike,

      To answer your first question, I'd point back to those other three items which have pretty compelling reasons for them to include age as one of the qualifying factors. Another I can think of is age requirements for holding certain offices. I am open to hearing a case be made for other restrictions, but convincing me will take a similarly compelling case.

      One major thing I find to not be compelling are paternalistic age restrictions like this, the drinking age, etc.

      To answer your next question, of course I don't care only about guns. I dislike any government interference in issues I believe should be left up to individuals. In the case of parents, I think they should retain the broad authority they've always had in the past to train their children and direct their education as they see fit, with the government only stepping in as needed to protect the children from abuse and neglect.

      As for your final question, I don't make decisions based on age. Instead, what I would look at is maturity level. Can the child follow orders; are they attentive; are they able to understand safety rules enough or are we still at the Never Touch stage, etc. Some children may have the maturity level early on. On the other hand, I've seen adults that I would never take to the range and who I took even toy guns from on a student film set because I didn't trust them with even those.

      After maturity there's the issue of strength and size, selecting something appropriate, and keeping your hands on them, the gun, or preferably both, and keeping things safe as you teach.