lfcrule1972 Posted May 16, 2007 Posted May 16, 2007 From: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6662213.stm Illinois baby obtains gun permit Bubba Ludwig may only be 10 months old, but he has already successfully obtained a gun licence in the US state of Illinois. Bubba's father, Howard Ludwig, applied on his behalf after his grandfather gave him a shotgun as an heirloom. Mr Ludwig said he had not expected to succeed, but he filled in the online form, paid $5 and the licence was his. US gun laws are regularly the subject of fierce debate, renewed recently after April's Virginia Tech killings. Gunman Cho Seung-hui was able to exploit a loophole in Virginia state law and obtain weapons despite having a history of mental illness. The loophole was later closed. Technical problems The licence includes a picture of a toothless Bubba and a squiggle that represents his best attempt at a signature. It makes an adorable addition to his baby book Howard Ludwig In an article in the Chicago Sun-Times, Mr Ludwig, 30, said that he expected the application to be turned down. Two rejections did in fact come, he said, but both related to technical problems - on one application he forgot to tick a box stating his son was a US citizen - rather than Bubba's youth. His third attempt was rewarded with a state firearm owner's identification card (FOID), complete with details of Bubba's height, weight and date of birth. 'No age restrictions' Illinois gun laws are said to be among the strictest in the US. But Illinois State Police, who oversee the application process, said that they had followed the law in this case. "Does a 10-month-old need a FOID card? No, but there are no restrictions under the act regarding age of applicants," the Associated Press news agency quoted Lt Scott Compton as saying. Mr Ludwig said Bubba's gun would likely remain at his grandfather's house until he was 14. "I'm not about to approve any unsupervised hunting or trap shooting for Bubba," he wrote in the Chicago daily. "Still, I'm glad he was able to get his FOID card. It makes an adorable addition to his baby book."
clink Posted May 16, 2007 Posted May 16, 2007 And the politicians wonder why there are so many shootings each year in America. This is so sad.
blutach Posted May 17, 2007 Posted May 17, 2007 Totally un-fucking-believeable. And that's the strict State, eh? My son (age 13) wanted to go (target) shooting with his mate (and the other boy's father). Showing all the maturity of a killer, my stupid son said "you have the power of God in your hands". What a shocking thing for me to hear! Needless to say, the kid is going nowhere near a firearm. Regards
lfcrule1972 Posted May 17, 2007 Author Posted May 17, 2007 To be fair the baby had no previous convictions or history of mental illness so in that sense he was probably better qualified for the licence than others who apply... It is hard to believe that a baby could be passed for a gun licence...
spinningwheel Posted May 18, 2007 Posted May 18, 2007 Totally un-fucking-believeable. And that's the strict State, eh? And the politicians wonder why there are so many shootings each year in America. This is so sad. Please do not loose sight of the fact that gun ownership in the States is guaranteed under our Constitution. I know of no other nation that has that as part of it's national ethic. I can understand other nationalities not understanding our basic affection for things that go boom, but from our Revolution in the 1700's through the cold war with the Soviets and with whatever is coming in the near future, the fact that we are an armed nation has served us well. Most of you know me pretty well and understand that I'm not saying that changes do not have to happen, but, for right now, it is one of our guaranteed rights, not simply a government granted priviledge, for those of us without criminal backgrounds or mental problems and we need to not loose sight of that. A baby getting a permit is a little out of the ordinary, but if the father legally obtained it for his son through the proper channels then there is no problem that I can see with it. The fact that he then reported it to the news makes his entire action of obtaining it questionable....maybe he was more interested in getting his '15 minutes of fame' than he was in asserting the 'right to keep and bear arms'.
blutach Posted May 19, 2007 Posted May 19, 2007 Well explained spinner and thank you, but let's not get into whether the rights drawn up more than 225 years ago to protect people from domineering and intrusive government are even relevant today or whether the guy just wanted his time in the sun. Change needs to be had (and you agree). But how many more innocent Americans need to die at the hands of ruthless people who love their right to bear arms before such changes are made? What you say about the love of things that go boom may be true, but no less true is clink's post - This is so sad. Regards
lfcrule1972 Posted May 21, 2007 Author Posted May 21, 2007 I understand the basic constitutional right to bear arms, (altho our leftist History teacher at School claimed it was not meant to mean individuals bearing firearms) but from my point of view I can't see the USA being invaded by any army that would be repelled by citizens with their personal weapons.... I guess when the Constitution was drawn up it was much more likely and obviously the times they lived in were more lawless.
blutach Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 @LFC Maybe a pincer movement from an allied Canada and Mexico??? Got 'em circled! =)) Regards
cathater Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 The framers of our constitution, meant it for the people to prevent an oppresive government. "king of England" "democrats" They wrote it immediatly following the revolution, they meant the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms. A couple of legally armed citizens could have taken the virginia tech lunatic out right away. But legally armed citizens aren't allowed to take guns to school. Guns don't kill people, criminals kill people. Buy the way, hows the pointy knife ban doing in England????
spinningwheel Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 I can't see the USA being invaded by any army that would be repelled by citizens with their personal weapons.... Just a little bit to consider... Years ago I had the opportunity to meet a guy who had been a commander in the Czech army during the height of the cold war. He emigrated to the States in the 80's and started a boat service company...hence how I came to meet him...We got to talking about what it was like to be in the service and such and the conversation turned to the bad old days when the U.S. and Soviets were at each others throats and WW III wasn't something for Hollywood; but a reality facing us seriously from time to time. He explained to me that he was a commanding officer in some kind of ground unit and that they had run various scenarios about how to invade the U.S. (Similar to way that the Soviets invaded Afghanistan) and they were all abandoned/discarded due, not to the National Guard, Army, Air Force or Coast Guard, but due to the fact that there was a realization that they would have to overcome the armed citizenry and police in the U.S. This was their biggest problem. They didn't worry about the Armed Services because of the time that they would have taken to deploy troops to a given area with a major airport. They were more afraid that a police and armed civilian population would stop their attack in it's infancy once word got out in the cities and therefore the whole physical invasion idea was scrapped. Now...This was thought of and abandoned in the late 60's early 70's, had nothing to do with the Crown, Canadians or Mexicans, and represents that there were some good thinkers back when the Constitution was framed and that their wisdom, although aimed at other situations, served us well 200 years after they wrote it. ........
lfcrule1972 Posted May 21, 2007 Author Posted May 21, 2007 Buy the way, hows the pointy knife ban doing in England???? Oh you know, it's about as effective as allowing citizens to bear arms to keep the number of violent deaths down....
lfcrule1972 Posted May 21, 2007 Author Posted May 21, 2007 Hi spinner, I like you cos you are always a reasoned and intelligent debater I take on board your points and research as well, that said I still think that the laws around gun ownership don't reduce the amount of danger or crimes in the US. What they appear to do is maybe allow citizens to dispatch immediate (and fatal) force to someone they perceive as being in the wrong. I am not going to debate about whether that is a good thing or not, here in England for example our jails are overcrowded and criminals are let off from serving sentences cos we don't have the space to house them. Perhaps if we killed more of our criminals (and the odd member of Joe Public) we wouldn't have this concern ? Regards
cathater Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 here in England for example our jails are overcrowded and criminals are let off from serving sentences cos we don't have the space to house them. Perhaps if we killed more of our criminals (and the odd member of Joe Public) we wouldn't have this concern ? Ermmm Lets overcrowd them, 3 to a bed, work them in 3 8 hr shifts, only one shift to a bed. No reason the have to have more room then a sailor on a ship. Damn their cival rights. The more the crowded the jails, the less on the street!! QUOTE(cathater @ May 21 2007, 12:00 PM) Buy the way, hows the pointy knife ban doing in England???? Oh you know, it's about as effective as allowing citizens to bear arms to keep the number of violent deaths down.... OK 1 point for you, but I only shot him in the foot to stop him, in the knee to get his attention, in the groin to castrate him rotfl, 6 shots to the torso to dispatch him mercifully. Notice I still have 11 rnds left in my magizine in case he brought a budy. Police here show up after the criminal leaves your house, but read our papers for how fast they case solve crimes against them or a politition.
spinningwheel Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 I still think that the laws around gun ownership don't reduce the amount of danger or crimes in the US. I agree lfc, the laws are impotent as far as controls are concerned. But the solution here is not more inept laws, but enforcement of the ones we have on the books now. The U.S. has better than 1500 gun control laws spread out among the States, and every time something horrendous happens that involves a firearm, the far right conservatives holler for more and more laws without looking at what they have created already...then the cameras and reporters move on to another story and the coppers are stuck with more laws that make no sense. We're experiencing 2-3 fatal shootings a week around the Metro area right now. Most of it can be blamed on the ex-mayor who cut back 250+ police in her lame duck term. That action ended the gang unit, strike force, fugitive squad and many other crime specific units from the department. Now we're 2-3 years on down the road and all hell has broken loose in the city, ...stupid assed woman she was.
blutach Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 She mighta been stupid assed but did her ass look good spinner? Dat is da question! Regards
spinningwheel Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 She mighta been stupid assed but did her ass look good spinner? Dat is da question! Regards Nahhh Blu, not my style....
lfcrule1972 Posted May 21, 2007 Author Posted May 21, 2007 Fair enough cathater/spinner I don't pretend to know enough about you crimes involving guns but I do have one huge piece of respect for you penal system and that is the work gangs ! Here our prisoners do f'all to improve the society they have damaged and instead get 3 meals a day, heated accomodation and better facilities than a lot of people who actually work for a living. Apparently we would infringe the crims civil rights if we dressed them in orange to maintain roads or collect litter etc. For fucks sake it really is a messed up world....
blutach Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 Sounds like I should come to pommieland and commit crime. Living condx better than here with Firey! Regards
cathater Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 one huge piece of respect for you penal system and that is the work gangs ! Here our prisoners do f'all to improve the society they have damaged and instead get 3 meals a day, heated accomodation and better facilities than a lot of people who actually work for a living. sorry to dissapoint you, thats just one sheriff down south somewhere, pink uniform, and tents in the desert, heard he doesn't get many repeat customers either. Here in michigan, we have a bleeding heart judge in Lansing, that makes sure they have airconditioning and color cable tv. No cruel and unusual punishment here. (maybe his ma's locked up??)
blutach Posted May 22, 2007 Posted May 22, 2007 OK - travel itinerary's changed - I'm off to Michigan. Bit cold tho' isn't it? Regards
lfcrule1972 Posted May 22, 2007 Author Posted May 22, 2007 Nah they have ac in the cells blu, you can always set it to heat ! Ah shame cathater, I have seen plenty of them whilst travelling in FL and assumed it was a policy all across the USA ?
cathater Posted May 22, 2007 Posted May 22, 2007 well I've only read about the one didn't see any chain gangs when I was in florida- god awful hot and humid hell in august wouldn't want to live there except in the winter- wait a minute- isn't that hurricane season?
Recommended Posts