Pro gun mom got shot by her 4 years old son

[TECSHARE]

True.

Because there is nothing to learn here. Two ideals are opposed:
The one of people believing nothing can excuse the restriction of freedom
The one of people believing the state should always make the choice the most beneficial for the society as a whole

Pick your team, and kill the other. Because no compromise can be done.

The emboldened text is about the only true thing I have ever read from you. The 100% indisputable fact is, nothing can excuse the restriction of freedom because the STATE IS THE NUMBER 1 MURDERER OF THE PEOPLE BY FAR. Do I need to prepare a list of state genocides? Open any history book. You keep telling yourself they have your best interest at heart tho, until they march you into those unmarked mass graves. The state isn't going to protect you from itself.

Just because you are a vulnerable disarmed subject of your state does not mean the world wants to join you. You keep that to that hellhole you call a state, well keep our freedom.

[mainpmf]

True.

Because there is nothing to learn here. Two ideals are opposed:
The one of people believing nothing can excuse the restriction of freedom
The one of people believing the state should always make the choice the most beneficial for the society as a whole

Pick your team, and kill the other. Because no compromise can be done.

The emboldened text is about the only true thing I have ever read from you. The 100% indisputable fact is, nothing can excuse the restriction of freedom because the STATE IS THE NUMBER 1 MURDERER OF THE PEOPLE BY FAR. Do I need to prepare a list of state genocides? Open any history book. You keep telling yourself they have your best interest at heart tho, until they march you into those unmarked mass graves. The state isn't going to protect you from itself.

Just because you are a vulnerable disarmed subject of your state does not mean the world wants to join you. You keep that to that hellhole you call a state, well keep our freedom.

It seems you don't understand that gun freedom will not protect you from your government...

But no problem, go on with your 19th century mentality.

[TECSHARE]

It seems you don't understand that gun freedom will not protect you from your government...

But no problem, go on with your 19th century mentality.

And your proof for this is...what? Because they have tanks and jets? It seems to me that Afghanistan did just fine holding off the most powerful military in the world with just small arms, and they certainly don't have any fucking tanks or jets.

The government is made of people. People are some times criminals and murderers. People are susceptible to bullets. The point of firearm ownership is not to stop the government from bombing the shit out of everyone, but to prevent a totalitarian state that oppresses the people with targeted violence meant to terrorize and control. Its not as easy to terrorize individuals when they can fight back.

You know what else won't protect you from your government? Trusting it to protect you.

[mainpmf]

It seems you don't understand that gun freedom will not protect you from your government...

But no problem, go on with your 19th century mentality.

And your proof for this is...what? Because they have tanks and jets? It seems to me that Afghanistan did just fine holding off the most powerful military in the world with just small arms, and they certainly don't have any fucking tanks or jets.

The government is made of people. People are some times criminals and murderers. People are susceptible to bullets. The point of firearm ownership is not to stop the government from bombing the shit out of everyone, but to prevent a totalitarian state that oppresses the people with targeted violence meant to terrorize and control. Its not as easy to terrorize individuals when they can fight back.

You know what else won't protect you from your government? Trusting it to protect you.

Cause you ever brought any proof for your claims? Never saw one.

Anyway. It's just that when the people wants to get rid of their government, they manage to do it by convincing the army to fight on their side, not by fighting a well trained and well equiped army...

[TECSHARE]

It seems you don't understand that gun freedom will not protect you from your government...

But no problem, go on with your 19th century mentality.

And your proof for this is...what? Because they have tanks and jets? It seems to me that Afghanistan did just fine holding off the most powerful military in the world with just small arms, and they certainly don't have any fucking tanks or jets.

The government is made of people. People are some times criminals and murderers. People are susceptible to bullets. The point of firearm ownership is not to stop the government from bombing the shit out of everyone, but to prevent a totalitarian state that oppresses the people with targeted violence meant to terrorize and control. Its not as easy to terrorize individuals when they can fight back.

You know what else won't protect you from your government? Trusting it to protect you.

Cause you ever brought any proof for your claims? Never saw one.

Anyway. It's just that when the people wants to get rid of their government, they manage to do it by convincing the army to fight on their side, not by fighting a well trained and well equiped army...

Or maybe they don't have to fight because the government knows better than to start a war with its own armed populace. What exactly would you like me to prove? I gave a good proof of why your argument was false, what claim exactly do you want proof for, or are you just going to make a generalized argument then shift the goal posts when I provide a good logical argument like every other gun control freak?

[BADecker]

It seems you don't understand that gun freedom will not protect you from your government...

But no problem, go on with your 19th century mentality.

And your proof for this is...what? Because they have tanks and jets? It seems to me that Afghanistan did just fine holding off the most powerful military in the world with just small arms, and they certainly don't have any fucking tanks or jets.

The government is made of people. People are some times criminals and murderers. People are susceptible to bullets. The point of firearm ownership is not to stop the government from bombing the shit out of everyone, but to prevent a totalitarian state that oppresses the people with targeted violence meant to terrorize and control. Its not as easy to terrorize individuals when they can fight back.

You know what else won't protect you from your government? Trusting it to protect you.

Cause you ever brought any proof for your claims? Never saw one.

Anyway. It's just that when the people wants to get rid of their government, they manage to do it by convincing the army to fight on their side, not by fighting a well trained and well equiped army...

The army is people. People have guns. Army of the people will always put the government down. Self-evident. No proof needed. But history is full of proof.

[TECSHARE]

2nd amendment is too broad. We are not equal.  We have lots of morons.  Morons should not have access to guns, ever!

BTW, if you think you can win with the present day US army with your rifles and handguns, you should make an appointment to see a psychiatrist.

And who gets to decide who should get to have guns? You?

Also I never said anything about "winning" against the US army. I am not talking about a head to head battle (as if that would ever even happen), I am talking about defending one's self and one's community from state sponsored terror in the form of individual peoples representing the state. That is most certainly attainable.

[mainpmf]

It seems you don't understand that gun freedom will not protect you from your government...

But no problem, go on with your 19th century mentality.

And your proof for this is...what? Because they have tanks and jets? It seems to me that Afghanistan did just fine holding off the most powerful military in the world with just small arms, and they certainly don't have any fucking tanks or jets.

The government is made of people. People are some times criminals and murderers. People are susceptible to bullets. The point of firearm ownership is not to stop the government from bombing the shit out of everyone, but to prevent a totalitarian state that oppresses the people with targeted violence meant to terrorize and control. Its not as easy to terrorize individuals when they can fight back.

You know what else won't protect you from your government? Trusting it to protect you.

Cause you ever brought any proof for your claims? Never saw one.

Anyway. It's just that when the people wants to get rid of their government, they manage to do it by convincing the army to fight on their side, not by fighting a well trained and well equiped army...

The army is people. People have guns. Army of the people will always put the government down. Self-evident. No proof needed. But history is full of proof.

Exactly. which is why you don't need average citizen to be armed

[mainpmf]

It seems you don't understand that gun freedom will not protect you from your government...

But no problem, go on with your 19th century mentality.

And your proof for this is...what? Because they have tanks and jets? It seems to me that Afghanistan did just fine holding off the most powerful military in the world with just small arms, and they certainly don't have any fucking tanks or jets.

The government is made of people. People are some times criminals and murderers. People are susceptible to bullets. The point of firearm ownership is not to stop the government from bombing the shit out of everyone, but to prevent a totalitarian state that oppresses the people with targeted violence meant to terrorize and control. Its not as easy to terrorize individuals when they can fight back.

You know what else won't protect you from your government? Trusting it to protect you.

Cause you ever brought any proof for your claims? Never saw one.

Anyway. It's just that when the people wants to get rid of their government, they manage to do it by convincing the army to fight on their side, not by fighting a well trained and well equiped army...

Or maybe they don't have to fight because the government knows better than to start a war with its own armed populace. What exactly would you like me to prove? I gave a good proof of why your argument was false, what claim exactly do you want proof for, or are you just going to make a generalized argument then shift the goal posts when I provide a good logical argument like every other gun control freak?

No you didn't. You didn't gave any argument.
Please prove your claim "guns for everyone is better than no gun and makes the society safer".

[mainpmf]

2nd amendment is too broad. We are not equal.  We have lots of morons.  Morons should not have access to guns, ever!

BTW, if you think you can win with the present day US army with your rifles and handguns, you should make an appointment to see a psychiatrist.

And who gets to decide who should get to have guns? You?

Also I never said anything about "winning" against the US army. I am not talking about a head to head battle (as if that would ever even happen), I am talking about defending one's self and one's community from state sponsored terror in the form of individual peoples representing the state. That is most certainly attainable.

Yeah and we're saying you can't...

Let's imagine one of your neighboor didn't obey a law. He should go to prison. You think the law is dumb. Your whole village gather and decide to protect your "community" from government. So what? You're going to fight the army?

[BADecker]

2nd amendment is too broad. We are not equal.  We have lots of morons.  Morons should not have access to guns, ever!

BTW, if you think you can win with the present day US army with your rifles and handguns, you should make an appointment to see a psychiatrist.

And who gets to decide who should get to have guns? You?

Also I never said anything about "winning" against the US army. I am not talking about a head to head battle (as if that would ever even happen), I am talking about defending one's self and one's community from state sponsored terror in the form of individual peoples representing the state. That is most certainly attainable.

Yeah and we're saying you can't...

Let's imagine one of your neighboor didn't obey a law. He should go to prison. You think the law is dumb. Your whole village gather and decide to protect your "community" from government. So what? You're going to fight the army?

The only time someone should go to prison is if he hurts someone in such a way that he won't stop, or if the threat of him hurting someone is real. Most of the people in prison are there for nothing.

[BADecker]

Giving access to all citizens because of 2nd amendment is just too broad so you allow all people to own guns, people who should not be trusted with screwdrivers, never mind guns.

So you want some people to stop other people from having guns? How would they do it? By using guns?

Since the enforcers are the ones who are showing the gun violence, let them prove their peaceful intent by voluntarily disarming themselves. If they don't, you need your guns to protect yourself from them.

[TECSHARE]

Yeah and we're saying you can't...

Let's imagine one of your neighboor didn't obey a law. He should go to prison. You think the law is dumb. Your whole village gather and decide to protect your "community" from government. So what? You're going to fight the army?

Hey look more shifting goal posts! Sorry but the Army doesn't enforce domestic law here. Additionally we aren't talking about ignoring laws. I am talking about defending the law, people's lives, and freedoms from criminals within the government, not the entire fucking army, but you gun control freaks love to bring everything to its most extreme possible interpretation don't you?

No you didn't. You didn't gave any argument.
Please prove your claim "guns for everyone is better than no gun and makes the society safer".

Actually I did. You tried to state that the people could never resist the government by implying they have such superior weaponry we wouldn't have a chance. I refuted that argument by giving an example of a place where people still live in caves and only have small arms and still managed to hold back the most powerful military on earth. You keep moving those goalposts tho when you have to avoid the flaws in your own arguments. As far as your demand I prove "guns for everyone is better than no gun and makes the society safer", I never actually said that, so I am not going to waste my time. Try picking a statement I actually made instead of speaking for me then expecting me to defend your interpretation of my words.

[TECSHARE]

Giving access to all citizens because of 2nd amendment is just too broad so you allow all people to own guns, people who should not be trusted with screwdrivers, never mind guns.

So you want some people to stop other people from having guns? How would they do it? By using guns?
...

You pass the laws.  If someone breaks guns laws, it is a matter for police and courts.

If the existing gun owners don't meet the new legal requirements, their guns would be confiscated by police and sold at auctions.  Proceeds can be used to pay off some of US 19T+ debt  

You are so focused on your own righteousness that you can't even see the nose on your face. His point is gun control MUST be enforced, you guessed it, by using guns. Armed police with guns will be required to enforce your anti-gun policy, but hey lets not let something minor like hypocrisy get in the way of a good antigun hysteria eh?

[designerusa]

I won't add anything to the irony of this situation. It's just incredible that she doesn't realize how lucky she was to have a second chance. Most never had it.
30 000 deaths every year by guns in the USA. The highest murder rate of the Western world. Maybe start to think about it?
Anyway, seems at least her son can't aim well!

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/parenting/progun-mum-jamie-gilt-will-never-give-up-her-guns-despite-being-shit-by-son-family-say/news-story/36303137d00bab41c3e8eaa936e3319f


A MUM who was accidentally shot by her four-year-old son “will never give up her guns”, her family have announced.
Family members said Jamie Gilt will still be pro-gun — despite being almost killed in an accidental shooting in her truck.
Ms Gilt, 31, is in a stable condition and faces criminal charges after her son found a fully loaded .45 handgun next to his child booster seat and pulled the trigger.
The boy’s grandmother Jane Bramble told The Sun the youngster has no idea that he had almost killed his mum.
And she insisted her daughter would not change her opinion about owning guns — and will keep the semi automatic gun fired in the incident.
“This was an accident and nothing more,” said the 71-year-old from Palaka, Florida.
“All the gun control people are jumping on this, but it will not change her opinion about owning guns.
“She is very pro-gun and will not change her opinion about owning them.
“She will keep her guns and I’m happy that she will.”

Ms Bramble said her grandson was unaffected by the shooting.
“He is sitting opposite me eating pancakes and has no idea what he did. It was an accident, that is all it was.”
Ms Bramble refused to say how her grandson got hold of the loaded weapon.
“I don’t want to go into that now,” she said.
“I want to thank everyone for their support and prayers in this difficult time.
“The family wants to remain private and focus on the long road of healing ahead.”
Days before the shooting Ms Gilt had used social media to support the right to own guns and boasted that her son knew how to shoot.
“All of ours know how to shoot too. Even my 4-year-old gets jacked up to target shoot the .22,” she wrote in a Facebook posting.
As well as a personal account Ms Gilt has a Facebook page called “Jamie Gilt for Gun Sense”
The four-year-old boy has not been named and is in the care of his grandmother while social services launch an investigation. Police said he will not face any charges.
Ms Gilt was driving to her sister’s home near Jacksonville, Florida, when the youngster fired a single shot into the driver’s seat.

The bullet passed through her back and exited out of her stomach.
A police officer saw the driver waving at him frantically and when he approached the vehicle Ms Gilt said her son had shot her in the back.
Police found a handgun on the floor of the vehicle and the boy was unrestrained in the child booster seat.
Ms Gilt was flown by air ambulance to the UF Hospital in Gainesville where she remains in a stable condition.
She has yet to be interviewed by police as doctors have said she is not medically fit to make a statement.
The Putnam County Sheriff’s Office said Ms Gilt could face a negligence charge if it was found the boy had easy access to the gun.
However, a former state prosecutor said it was unlikely Ms Gilt would be charged as she had suffered enough.
Harry Shorstein said “You have to put great weight on the fact that the person who is criminally liable is the one who was shot.
“I’d be very reluctant to prosecute in this situation.”

he who lives by the sword, shall die by the sword .. it is really hard to  understand those pro gun people and this woman still insist on having a gun inside of her house .. this is so insane.. if i were her shoes , i would completely get rid of all the guns i have. for sure..

[TECSHARE]

he who lives by the sword, shall die by the sword .. it is really hard to  understand those pro gun people and this woman still insist on having a gun inside of her house .. this is so insane.. if i were her shoes , i would completely get rid of all the guns i have. for sure..

If you were her shoes you would sit in her closet in the dark. BTW that parable of living by the sword is from the bible as well as other Greek classics. It means those who live by violence die by violence. Guns are not violent. People are. No matter how much you want to personify an inanimate object with your stigmas and misconceptions, you still will not change the fact that guns don't make people violent. People CHOOSE to be violent, and guns and laws against guns are not part of the considerations of violent people no matter how much you try to wish it so.

[TECSHARE]

Giving access to all citizens because of 2nd amendment is just too broad so you allow all people to own guns, people who should not be trusted with screwdrivers, never mind guns.

So you want some people to stop other people from having guns? How would they do it? By using guns?
...

You pass the laws.  If someone breaks guns laws, it is a matter for police and courts.

If the existing gun owners don't meet the new legal requirements, their guns would be confiscated by police and sold at auctions.  Proceeds can be used to pay off some of US 19T+ debt  

You are so focused on your own righteousness that you can't even see the nose on your face. His point is gun control MUST be enforced, you guessed it, by using guns. Armed police with guns will be required to enforce your anti-gun policy, but hey lets not let something minor like hypocrisy get in the way of a good antigun hysteria eh?

Laws are enforced using guns.  What is your point? 

You pass the laws, if you are on the wrong side, you face a long arm of the law.  Not sure what are you arguing?  You want to break the law?  Go rob a bank with your guns, see what happens.

I'm saying you should screen people and allow gun ownership to sane people who would store and use guns safely.  Not give guns to a 4 year old.  That family should be banned (forever) from owning guns.

Anything else is just irresponsible.

...and even more shifting goal posts! We are arguing you are a hypocrite demanding the use of guns to disarm people. Your inability to have this contradiction enter your brain doesn't invalidate the argument.

[BADecker]

I won't add anything to the irony of this situation. It's just incredible that she doesn't realize how lucky she was to have a second chance. Most never had it.
30 000 deaths every year by guns in the USA. The highest murder rate of the Western world. Maybe start to think about it?
Anyway, seems at least her son can't aim well!

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/parenting/progun-mum-jamie-gilt-will-never-give-up-her-guns-despite-being-shit-by-son-family-say/news-story/36303137d00bab41c3e8eaa936e3319f


A MUM who was accidentally shot by her four-year-old son “will never give up her guns”, her family have announced.
Family members said Jamie Gilt will still be pro-gun — despite being almost killed in an accidental shooting in her truck.
Ms Gilt, 31, is in a stable condition and faces criminal charges after her son found a fully loaded .45 handgun next to his child booster seat and pulled the trigger.
The boy’s grandmother Jane Bramble told The Sun the youngster has no idea that he had almost killed his mum.
And she insisted her daughter would not change her opinion about owning guns — and will keep the semi automatic gun fired in the incident.
“This was an accident and nothing more,” said the 71-year-old from Palaka, Florida.
“All the gun control people are jumping on this, but it will not change her opinion about owning guns.
“She is very pro-gun and will not change her opinion about owning them.
“She will keep her guns and I’m happy that she will.”

Ms Bramble said her grandson was unaffected by the shooting.
“He is sitting opposite me eating pancakes and has no idea what he did. It was an accident, that is all it was.”
Ms Bramble refused to say how her grandson got hold of the loaded weapon.
“I don’t want to go into that now,” she said.
“I want to thank everyone for their support and prayers in this difficult time.
“The family wants to remain private and focus on the long road of healing ahead.”
Days before the shooting Ms Gilt had used social media to support the right to own guns and boasted that her son knew how to shoot.
“All of ours know how to shoot too. Even my 4-year-old gets jacked up to target shoot the .22,” she wrote in a Facebook posting.
As well as a personal account Ms Gilt has a Facebook page called “Jamie Gilt for Gun Sense”
The four-year-old boy has not been named and is in the care of his grandmother while social services launch an investigation. Police said he will not face any charges.
Ms Gilt was driving to her sister’s home near Jacksonville, Florida, when the youngster fired a single shot into the driver’s seat.

The bullet passed through her back and exited out of her stomach.
A police officer saw the driver waving at him frantically and when he approached the vehicle Ms Gilt said her son had shot her in the back.
Police found a handgun on the floor of the vehicle and the boy was unrestrained in the child booster seat.
Ms Gilt was flown by air ambulance to the UF Hospital in Gainesville where she remains in a stable condition.
She has yet to be interviewed by police as doctors have said she is not medically fit to make a statement.
The Putnam County Sheriff’s Office said Ms Gilt could face a negligence charge if it was found the boy had easy access to the gun.
However, a former state prosecutor said it was unlikely Ms Gilt would be charged as she had suffered enough.
Harry Shorstein said “You have to put great weight on the fact that the person who is criminally liable is the one who was shot.
“I’d be very reluctant to prosecute in this situation.”

he who lives by the sword, shall die by the sword .. it is really hard to  understand those pro gun people and this woman still insist on having a gun inside of her house .. this is so insane.. if i were her shoes , i would completely get rid of all the guns i have. for sure..

You miss the point. "he who lives by the sword, shall die by the sword" has to do with living. Two things:
1. He who lives by the gun (sword) may become a murder and lose his soul, if he is not careful;
2. He who lives not by the gun, will die by whatever he lives by....

... and it just might be the gun that he dies by if he is not prepared to do self-defense in a way that works.

Let's hope that people who live, whether it be by the gun or not, get some better sense about the way that they live.

[BADecker]

Giving access to all citizens because of 2nd amendment is just too broad so you allow all people to own guns, people who should not be trusted with screwdrivers, never mind guns.

So you want some people to stop other people from having guns? How would they do it? By using guns?
...

You pass the laws.  If someone breaks guns laws, it is a matter for police and courts.

If the existing gun owners don't meet the new legal requirements, their guns would be confiscated by police and sold at auctions.  Proceeds can be used to pay off some of US 19T+ debt  

You are so focused on your own righteousness that you can't even see the nose on your face. His point is gun control MUST be enforced, you guessed it, by using guns. Armed police with guns will be required to enforce your anti-gun policy, but hey lets not let something minor like hypocrisy get in the way of a good antigun hysteria eh?

Laws are enforced using guns.  What is your point? 

You pass the laws, if you are on the wrong side, you face a long arm of the law.  Not sure what are you arguing?  You want to break the law?  Go rob a bank with your guns, see what happens.

I'm saying you should screen people and allow gun ownership to sane people who would store and use guns safely.  Not give guns to a 4 year old.  That family should be banned (forever) from owning guns.

Anything else is just irresponsible.

In America, the Preamble to the Constitution is supreme law. This means that if the Constitution and ANY or ALL of the laws that flow out of it are not a benefit to a person (except when he harms his neighbor) then the laws do not stand, if they go against the Preamble. The Preamble says that government was created to be a benefit to the people.

If you steal my gun, you steal my property. If you are the government of laws and you steal my property by law or any other way, you are not being a benefit to me. You are not doing the thing you were created for in the Preamble. You are acting outside of government and foundational law. You are a wrongdoer. You deserve punishment.

Go ahead and screen people. But you better do it by being a benefit to them in their own thinking. If you are not a benefit to them according to their own thinking, you are a wrongdoer, except if you are stopping them from harming someone else. But you better be sure about what you are doing.

This governmental set-up has the same effect in Canada, the U.K., Australia, India, Bangladesh, and a few other countries, even though these countries may not have the same structure as the United States.

[BADecker]

Giving access to all citizens because of 2nd amendment is just too broad so you allow all people to own guns, people who should not be trusted with screwdrivers, never mind guns.

So you want some people to stop other people from having guns? How would they do it? By using guns?
...

You pass the laws.  If someone breaks guns laws, it is a matter for police and courts.

If the existing gun owners don't meet the new legal requirements, their guns would be confiscated by police and sold at auctions.  Proceeds can be used to pay off some of US 19T+ debt  

You are so focused on your own righteousness that you can't even see the nose on your face. His point is gun control MUST be enforced, you guessed it, by using guns. Armed police with guns will be required to enforce your anti-gun policy, but hey lets not let something minor like hypocrisy get in the way of a good antigun hysteria eh?

Laws are enforced using guns.  What is your point? 

You pass the laws, if you are on the wrong side, you face a long arm of the law.  Not sure what are you arguing?  You want to break the law?  Go rob a bank with your guns, see what happens.

I'm saying you should screen people and allow gun ownership to sane people who would store and use guns safely.  Not give guns to a 4 year old.  That family should be banned (forever) from owning guns.

Anything else is just irresponsible.

...and even more shifting goal posts! We are arguing you are a hypocrite demanding the use of guns to disarm people. Your inability to have this contradiction enter your brain doesn't invalidate the argument.

It is very simple.  Some people should not be allowed to own or use guns.  Guns should be confiscated from those people as they are endangering themselves and others around them.  Yes, guns will be used to confiscate guns from them.  How in the world you got to the hypocrite part?  Do you even know what the word means?

How do you disarm a lunatic with a gun in a theater?  With other guns.  No sure what is your point?

If you change the laws, that 2nd amendment right will not apply to you if you don't meet new legal requirements.  So your guns would be confiscated from you.  If you resist, guns will be used to force you
to comply with the law.  If you confront police with fire, you'll be dead.  Just like today, if you try to fire at a cop, you'll be dead within minutes, hours or days.

Which part of my argument you don't understand?

The part that isn't understandable is how to not allow. Whoever does the not allowing, will need to do it with guns.

It should be the other way around. The people should all have guns so that they can disallow others from taking their guns - and anything/everything else - away.