• If you would like to get your account Verified, read this thread
  • Check out Tickling.com - the most innovative tickling site of the year.
  • The TMF is sponsored by Clips4sale - By supporting them, you're supporting us.
  • >>> If you cannot get into your account email me at [email protected] <<<
    Don't forget to include your username

8-Year-Old Accidentally Exercises Second Amendment Rights

Biggles of 266

1st Level Red Feather
Joined
Apr 26, 2001
Messages
1,126
Points
36
from The Onion...

NORFOLK, VA—Gun owners nationwide are applauding the patriotic, though accidental, exercise of Second Amendment rights by 8-year-old Timothy Cummings Tuesday.

"Timothy is a symbol of American heroism," said NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre from Cummings' bedside at Norfolk General Hospital, where the boy is in serious but stable condition from a self-inflicted gunshot wound. "While praying for his recovery, we should all thank God that his inalienable right to keep and bear arms has not been infringed."

The incident occurred shortly after Cummings returned from school and found that his parents were absent from the house. Displaying what Second Amendment-rights groups are calling "good old-fashioned American ingenuity," Cummings placed a pair of phone books on a stool to retrieve his father's loaded .38-caliber revolver from its hiding place on a closet shelf. After a preliminary backyard investigation of his constitutional rights claimed the life of Pepper, the family's cocker spaniel, Cummings fell on the weapon, causing it to discharge into his left thigh.

"The framers of the Constitution would be so proud of what my boy did yesterday," said Cummings' father Randall, 44, who originally purchased the handgun for home defense. "If 8-year-old boys discharging loaded firearms into their own legs isn't necessary to the maintenance of a well-regulated militia, I don't know what is."

Doctors worked for six hours to reconstruct Timothy Cummings' femur, which shattered from the impact of the high-velocity teflon-coated slugs, and to graft his remaining muscular and circulatory tissue over the fist-sized exit wound below his left buttock. Although the boy lost a great deal of blood, attending physicians say they are confident that he will recover sufficiently to resume active use of firearms, though his chances of walking again are slim.

"For years, the people who want to take away our freedoms have said that we're not smart enough or responsible enough to own handguns," Randall added. "Timothy is proof that even a child is capable of using a handgun for its intended purpose."

Gun owners nationwide have flooded Cummings' hospital room with flowers, letters of congratulations and invitations to "come shooting." Area firearms enthusiast and family friend Lloyd Stone showed his support by donating 18 inches of vascular material to help rebuild Cummings' left femoral artery.

"He may be just a boy, but this use of the Second Amendment was a man-sized undertaking," Stone said. "Timothy may need a wheelchair for the rest of his life, but with every step he doesn't take, he'll realize what the Constitution really means."

Although Cummings has yet to deliver an official statement on the incident, he regained consciousness long enough to discuss his immediate plans.

"Please, I want to run and play again," Cummings told doctors Tuesday night. "My leg hurts bad. Please make it stop."

Although gun-control advocates have criticized the boy's gun use, the NRA was quick to respond, calling Cummings' use of much-protested, teflon-coated "cop-killer" bullets "a victory for America."

"Timothy should be held up as an example to people who think we don't need these bullets—or fully automatic assault weapons, or concealable handguns which are impervious to metal detectors, for that matter," said NRA president Charlton Heston, who plans to congratulate Cummings in person as soon as he is through lobbying for Senate repeal of recently passed legislation mandating background checks for gun buyers.

"If we ban teflon-coated bullets, automatic weapons would be next," Heston said. "Then all handguns. Next thing you know, the law would deny our citizens' children the personal freedom to blow holes through their own legs."

NRA lobbyist Tom Korologos agreed. "Timothy's heroic accident happened because we live in the greatest country in the world," he said. "Had he grown up in Japan, England or Russia, he wouldn't be where he is today."

"Restrictive laws would have kept him 'safe' at home—and they would have justified it by telling us it was for his own good," Korologos added. "That's not the type of country I'd want my children to grow up walking normally in."

"Timothy is a shining example to gun-owning families everywhere," Cummings' mother Suzanne told reporters. "I am proud that my boy has followed in the footsteps of the many thousands of patriotic children who have already demonstrated their commitment of the U.S. Constitution in this same way."
 
LOL


As Mick Foley said in his second autobiography............(I'm paraphrasing here!)



"Is it no simple coincidence that Canada and Japan have significantly lower crime and gun specific crimes, while having more stringent laws on gun ownership?"

Before anyone tattoos the second amendment on my arse for being so opposed to an inalienable right, is that such a leap of logic? Those who know me, know how much I love America for it's diversity of simply everything; but isn't it a little bit fucked up to have laws that allow a 16 year old to own a gun, but regard him or her as being too young and immature to buy a beer for another 5 years?


I think I'm correct in saying that the second amendment was chiefly designed to give normal people some sort of armed protection should the marauding redcoats plunge over the Canadian border. Last time I checked, no one save The Duchess Of York had any intention of invading the continental USA.
 
Actually, the only thing that worries me is this part:

Biggles of 266 said:
(...)Doctors worked for six hours to reconstruct Timothy Cummings' femur, which shattered from the impact of the high-velocity teflon-coated slugs, and to graft his remaining muscular and circulatory tissue over the fist-sized exit wound below his left buttock.(...)

Um, isn't that kind of ammo strictly military and police-issue?

As for the rest - it's law in the U.S. of A. Live with it or don't go there. I personally don't agree with it, but hell, if I ever become an American citizen of the United States (as I hope I will someday), I'll accept it as law, outdated or not.

Besides, once again, the old "right to bear arms" discussion won't be solved on a fetish forum. It's been going on for wayyyy too long. All it does is rise tempers. Where's the use of that?

Next up: Discussing the Death-Penalty, Corporate Punishment, and Abortion (not to mention different religious catechisms).
 
We don't need gun control...

We need to control stupidity!

It's that simple!
 
Quoting Marauder:
"Besides, once again, the old "right to bear arms" discussion won't be solved on a fetish forum. It's been going on for wayyyy too long."

Right you are, and I won't even try. You all know my views on the topic anyway.

Again quoting Marauder:
"Um, isn't that kind of ammo strictly military and police-issue?"

There's been an enormous amout of misinformation dispensed on this topic by the anti-gun crowd, either through ignorance or (more likely) a disinformation campaign. The so-called "cop-killer" bullet is a myth.

But even if it was true, it's immaterial. The most common weapon used here to hunt deer is a lever action rifle in .30 caliber. Winchester alone has manufactured over 4.5 million of these rifles over the past 100 years. It's by no stretch of the imagination "high powered". Yet it will shoot through both sides of police body armor without appreciably slowing down.

Strelnikov

(BTW welcome back, Jim.)
 
Re: Re: 8-Year-Old Accidentally Exercises Second Amendment Rights

Marauder said:


Next up: Discussing the Death-Penalty, Corporate Punishment, and Abortion (not to mention different religious catechisms).

Corperate punishment? Is that a mixture of capital and corporal punishment Marauder? Sounds baaaaaaaaaaad! 😛
 
ForgottenTcklr said:
We don't need gun control...

We need to control stupidity!

It's that simple!

Well spoken ForgottenTicklr, guns don't kill people, people kill people. This is really a sad story, but there are so many stories just like this one where a child by accident finds a loaded gun! What's wrong with that picture?
 
BTW, am I the only one who noticed the source of this story?

Quoting Biggles:
"from The Onion... "

It's POLITICAL SATIRE, folks. It never happened. This time they're roasting the NRA. They've roasted plenty of others in the past, left right and squishy center.


Strelnikov
 
Strelnikov said:
BTW, am I the only one who noticed the source of this story?

Quoting Biggles:
"from The Onion... "

It's POLITICAL SATIRE, folks. It never happened. This time they're roasting the NRA. They've roasted plenty of others in the past, left right and squishy center.


Strelnikov

True Strel, but satire is sourced from versions of thing that are plausible; even if only in America. I mean where else in the civillised world do you get McCarthy-ised for saying you believe that lethal weapons issuing to the populace should be better regulated?
 
Jim...

I'm not about to debate gun control on the TMF again. Based on past experience, it will eventually degenerate into a flame war.

I'd be happy to discuss the matter with you privately if you like. Email me at [email protected].

Strelnikov
 
Re: Jim...

Strelnikov said:
I'm not about to debate gun control on the TMF again. Based on past experience, it will eventually degenerate into a flame war.

I'd be happy to discuss the matter with you privately if you like. Email me at [email protected].

Strelnikov

I remember a film that had Joe Pesci playing a bum who'd been to Harvard and Brendan Fraser playing a student. Somewhere in the movie Pesci got up and made an empassioned speech about how one of the great things about the founding fathers was that they knew that they were no perfect and that times and political needs would change; so they left gaps in the constitution so it could be reformed as society evolved. As far as I can see, there is no need for any citizen to be armed as heavilly as some NRA enthusiasts believe they should have the right to be.

I do believe in gun ownership and furthermore I believe the then goverments reaction to the Dunblaine massacre was blatant vote hunting spurred by popular mass-hysteria. It was a filthy piece of political chicanery. I do also believe however, that the current legislation in America was devised to counter a threat that ceased to exist slightly less than 200 years ago. (Japan would never have had the logisitcs for any sort of amphibious invasion.)

That's my opinion in a nutshell. I believe in stricter gun laws, not a mass eradication of citizen's rights and property, like we had in Britain. That's my only opinion Strel. Without wishing to appear like an arse licker, I appreciate your note of decorum mate. Point taken.
 
Last edited:
Strelnikov said:
BTW, am I the only one who noticed the source of this story?

It's POLITICAL SATIRE, folks. It never happened. This time they're roasting the NRA. They've roasted plenty of others in the past, left right and squishy center.

Thank god somebody noticed this before I got called names again... I can't believe how many things are posted on here in jest and end up being taken in a dead serious way. Thanks Strel, for saving me (yet another) explanation.

Biggles
 
Yet another brilliant piece of satire from The Onion, Biggles! Thanks for posting it. 😀

P.S. In the future, put THIS STORY IS NOT TRUE! or something like that before the article. 😛
 
Just to be accurate,the 2nd amendment was meant to provide the citizens with protecton from their own government becoming tyrranical. Some of our founding fathers saw no problem with revolts every 20 years just to keep the government in line.

A foreign invasion would be handled by the army themselves,and citizens called up as needed.Such a power is there,and considering that governments have no rights in US law,the 2nd amendment would not apply.

Someone enlighten me as to which states allow a 16 year old to own a gun.In PA,it's 18 for rifles and 21 for handguns.

As far as anyone ever investigated,there have been NO incidents of policemen being killed with teflon-cased ammo in the US.As a matter of fact,possession of it is a felony.

If one believes that this satire is based on plausible events,try to imagine what other satires could be written about alot of other topics,people,religions,nationalities,etc.,using the same logic.

Considering past experience,the decision to refrain from debating this issue is certainly wise.
 
shark said:
Just to be accurate,the 2nd amendment was meant to provide the citizens with protecton from their own government becoming tyrranical. Some of our founding fathers saw no problem with revolts every 20 years just to keep the government in line.

A foreign invasion would be handled by the army themselves,and citizens called up as needed.Such a power is there,and considering that governments have no rights in US law,the 2nd amendment would not apply.

Someone enlighten me as to which states allow a 16 year old to own a gun.In PA,it's 18 for rifles and 21 for handguns.

If one believes that this satire is based on plausible events,try to imagine what other satires could be written about alot of other topics,people,religions,nationalities,etc.,using the same logic.

The state which allows gun ownership at 16 is North Carolina. There might be others, but that is the only one I'm aware of right now.
Satire is satire Strel, but it's like the holes in a fishing net: it would'nt exist without something to hang itself on.

As for the 2nd amendment being needed to help against a tyrannical home government, does anyone seriously believe that a bunch of citizens in any particular state with no training and in a lot of cases no common sense (check my other post in another thread about the tourist being shot in New York) would stand up to the NAtional Guard, the Air Force, the Army and the US Navy if it was a coastline state? Does anyone believe that it would be any way effective? Would it bollocks. Trying to use guns to object to US domestic policy would only give the people who did it bad publicity and make their local undertakers rich! Citing that as the main reason for leaving the 2nd amendment unchanged is a very weak argument. Besides which, a government can only survive a maximunm of 4 years without being illegal right? Or has anyone seen througgh THAT charde yet?
 
Again,Big Jim,your lack of reliable information shows.

It doesn't matter that you believe the argument about the citizens' self-defense against the government argument is very weak or not.It is fact,so deal with it.

If not for armed resistance,how many would have even heard of Randy Weaver in Ruby Ridge?

No matter what one thinks of the Branch Davidians,the government was pulling all kinds of crooked stuff there,and are still under investigation for it.How well known would this be,except for armed resistance?

You also neglect to recognize that a large number of US civilians have past experience in the military and/or police.Gun control laws are highly unpopular among rank and file police officers,and past
"surveys" of US military personnel have shown a very large number would refuse to enforce things like gun confiscation,as is their right.Their oath is to support and defend the Constitution.

Looking at the 4 years government sentence,I have no idea what you mean.Could you clarify?

The 2nd amendment isn't a guarantee for civil diturbance,it is a tool to empower the citizens against government abuse.FBI stats show the US crime rate dropping every year for the past 20 some years, with the exceptions of inner city gangs and drug related crimes.Yet,there is still pushing for more laws to regulate lawful owners,laws that criminals don't obey,hence the reason they are criminals.One has to wonder what someone has in mind,and a number of people are preparing already.
 
normally i shut up because i don't want to sound uneducated...but i think (had this story been true) the biggest question i would ask is why the hell an 8 year old feels the need to arm himself??? ehh well when i was 8 never really had to worry about stuff like that...simpler time...god who would've thought 17 years ago would be considered a simpler time lol

edited for simple math error oopsie 🙄
 
NRA, Second Amendment and personal responsibility...

NRA was founded in 1871 by Northern veterans of the Civil War. Its purpose throughout most of its existence was to encourage civilians to become proficient with firearms, thereby speeding up the training cycle in wartime. It has only been in the past 35 years that NRA became a political player, and then only in self defense. For the record, I am a Life Member.

Following both World Wars, the US Govt encouraged veterans to take home captured enemy weapons - actually gave them away (since they were spoils of war and therefore Govt property.) Later, they sold surplus US military arms to NRA members at the Govt's production cost. Once again, the idea was to let the men maintain proficiency and teach their sons to shoot. Obviously, at that time the US Govt believed that the Second Amendment guaranteed a PERSONAL right.

These programs had many participants. The neighborhood I grew up in was populated by WW-II veterans and their families. If my friends were typical (and I have no reason to doubt it) then something like 50% of the households had firearms of some sort. In the 18 years I lived there, there were NO murders, NO suicides, and only one accidental discharge that resulted in an injury. So much for the theory that guns breed violence.

In my youth, NRA affiliated shooting clubs were common in American high schools - again for reasons of military readiness. The US Govt provided .22cal target rifles and discount priced ammunition. I had my own rifle, on range days I went home and got it on the way to the range. Some times, though, to save time I took the cased rifle to school and stored it in my locker. I got a lot of shit about "Daniel Boone" etc. but it never occurred to anyone that this could present a problem. It was UNTHINKABLE that a student would shoot up a school.

Know why? Because we all had resident fathers, and mothers who were willing to spend time raising us properly. They taught us RESPONSIBILITY.

My father and grandfather taught me to shoot when I was a kid. I've had access to firearms my whole life. I knew as a kid that if I took a rifle without permission, or misused it, my ass was grass and Pop was the narc. That being the case, he trusted me to use it responsibly, unsupervised, from my early teens.

And that's the approach I've taken with my own kids.

Strelnikov
 
shark said:
Again,Big Jim,your lack of reliable information shows.

It doesn't matter that you believe the argument about the citizens' self-defense against the government argument is very weak or not.It is fact,so deal with it.
Again shark, your lack of ability to read and digest English shows. I am fully aware of the fact that it is an erm.......fact. If I wasn't I'd hardly be here debating would I? I might have the occasional dream about it, but that's all.

shark said:

No matter what one thinks of the Branch Davidians,the government was pulling all kinds of crooked stuff there,and are still under investigation for it.How well known would this be,except for armed resistance?
The pen is mightier than the sword. It's a fact, deal with it. I would'nt say that armed resistence created no publicity, but it wasn't showers of roses from all quarters.

shark said:
You also neglect to recognize that a large number of US civilians have past experience in the military and/or police.Gun control laws are highly unpopular among rank and file police officers,and past
"surveys" of US military personnel have shown a very large number would refuse to enforce things like gun confiscation,as is their right.Their oath is to support and defend the Constitution.
Do I? How do you know? Because I didn't mention it in this particular thread? A large number of UK civillians are ex military and police as well. Given that It'd be pretty strange if the same didn't apply in the US as well. Anyway.............

So their oath may be. The constitution's greatest strength (some would say) is it's potential flexibility. Societies change and evolve, so do people. I don't think defending and upholding the constitution to an extent where you give your mind away and keep it vacuum sealed so it can't change by so much as a single grain of dust settling on it, is in anyone's interests. In fact it's the biggest sign of a mindless fool who's stuck in the dark ages. I'm not referring to you specifically shark, or even to the 2nd amendment. I'm talking about politics in general. In it's time the Magna Carta was a huge step forward for civil rights, but any land-lord trying to apply it's rules in the UK today would quickly find his ass in a sling. It evolved, it adapted, it changed, it overcame. (Clint Eastwood eat yer heart out! 😀) Until last year it was still legal for a man to beat his children and WIFE!!!! with a stick, so long as it wasn't thicker than his thumb. (That's where the expression "a rule of thumb" comes from.) This was highlighted when a guy beat his missus and his daughter black and blue and then got off the charges because he said he was legally allowed to do it. An old law that some forgetful civil servant had forgotten to change.

shark said:
Looking at the 4 years government sentence,I have no idea what you mean.Could you clarify?
Federal election are held every four years, I think? I gather that the elections for the houses are staggered by 2 years for the presidential ones though. Different system to us, because our leader is the dude in charge of whichever party wins the main house election. Something to do with us having a born head of state instead of an elected one.

shark said:
The 2nd amendment isn't a guarantee for civil diturbance,it is a tool to empower the citizens against government abuse.FBI stats show the US crime rate dropping every year for the past 20 some years, with the exceptions of inner city gangs and drug related crimes.Yet,there is still pushing for more laws to regulate lawful owners,laws that criminals don't obey,hence the reason they are criminals.One has to wonder what someone has in mind,and a number of people are preparing already.
If US citizens tried to genuinely use it, then all they would do is destroy themselves. Even if they won the battle they'd not gain anywhere near as much credibility as the could've. There's a romantic notion about a band of farmers being able to overturn the most feared army in the world, with only a few pop guns because they had "right" on their side, but it won't work today. Not with Apache gunships, A10's and christ knows what else at the military's disposal. and make no mistake, they'd use it! And the public would cheer them for doing so.

I'm not against gun ownership. But I do believe that posession of something like firearms is a privillege, not a right. I KNOW that the 2nd amendment makes it a right, I don't dispute that.(That is after all, the point of this discussion.) But the 2nd amendment also gives a man the right to have almost a battalion's worth of ammo abnd weapons so long as he has the storage space to keep them safe. No matter how ingrained gun culture is into American society, no-one has the need to own fuck-knows how many assault rifles, shotguns, hand guns, carbines and so on. There is no point. There is no need. There is no justification. Owning a gun is very necessary for home defence, at least in some parts it is. But owning about 10 of each type isn't.


However, I am but an Englishman with a long nose and a loud opinion. There is no chance in hell of my opinion ever counting for anything in the debate about the 2nd amendment. And don't forget shark, being a serving or ex police officer doesn't automatically shape your opinion on guns. I'm not only a police officer, I'm firearms trained as well, which isn't automatic in the UK. My opinion on gun laws in the UK, is that they're too strict and what the government did after Dunblaine was illegal, unfair and unjustifiable. It didn't bring down gun crime in the UK one iota. As you said before, criminals will always get guns. My whole point about the US, is that guns are as much a part of the culture as the right to free speech. If you've got a handful of cash, you could have an illegal gun to do a crime in under 10 minutes in some parts. You can still get illegal weapons here, but they're usually specially imported by criminals who do it as a business. Not just left circulating because there are more guns in the country than there are people. At least when it's part of organised crime, you can limit it somewhat.
 
Last edited:
If you call your never-ending babble English.....

There are a large number of conflicts between citizenry and government officials in the Us that you rarely hear of.The pen doesn't work unless there is something the writer knows exists,and is willing to call newsworthy.

You mentioned the bunch of citizens with no training etc.It's called an inference.I believe you still have it in dictionaries over there.

I am fully aware of our election terms.You still didn't explain what you were babbling about,and I really don't care.

What I happen to own is none of your business,one way or the other.
What you like, or don't like,about that is not my problem. I suggest you stay in England if that is a problem for you.

The police interrogation thread has posts that are very similar to those in this thread.If one wants to, one can view both and get further input, rather than having them repeated.
 
Re: If you call your never-ending babble English.....

shark said:
The pen doesn't work unless there is something the writer knows exists,and is willing to call newsworthy.
Or the news netwoks aren't suppressed from reporting. We do get CNN too you know shark, or did you think merry ol' england was stuck in a time warp?

shark said:
You mentioned the bunch of citizens with no training etc.It's called an inference.I believe you still have it in dictionaries over there.
Oddly enough, yes we do. We regard them with great awe and keep them in glass cases. Every now and again, someone as intelligent as you visits our benighted shores and we ask them to translate the wisdom from them.

shark said:
I am fully aware of our election terms.You still didn't explain what you were babbling about,and I really don't care.
So why did you ask then? 😀 To break it down into words anyone can understand I meant that democracy is such a wonderful and fair invention, that surely being able to put your cross on a piece of paper every 4 years to vote for whichever puppet you want guarentees that no particular government is in power long enough to abuse too much power...........doesn't it? :scared:

shark said:
What I happen to own is none of your business,one way or the other.
What you like, or don't like,about that is not my problem. I suggest you stay in England if that is a problem for you.
Correct my dear old chap, and if you'd bothered to remember what I've already written on about 8 different threads, you'd already be aware that I am perfectly aware of this fact. You seem to resort to the "little American" stance whenever someone challenges you. Which is basically, "we're more powerful than anyone else. We don't have to ask permission from anyone, so you can all fuck off if you don't like and live in Russia/China/England/Cuba/Mars etc." Well in a sense it's perfectly true, you are the most powerful and you seem to have gained a lot by asking no-ones permission or approval. (A la' Britain in the 19th century before you try to point it out.) But putting that forward in a debate is kind of like being the boy who owns the football and running off home with it because the rest of the boys won't play to his rules. Perfectly do-able, utterly practical and childish and tantrum-like in the extreme. I get the sense you're trying to offend or antagonise me shark, but IF that was your intention it hasn't worked, because I really can't be bothered to get angry every time a baby throws it's rattle out of it's pram.
 
I always thought that right stated we have the right to arm bears? Isn't that right?

heheheheh
 
Don't you all GET it! The original post was a JOKE! The Onion is notorious for outrageous stories like this. It's hysterical. Check it out sometime.

Lighten Up already! Life is too short!
 
At least the replies get smaller....

I do have to disappoint you,but four years is plenty of time to abuse power. It just depends on the level of organization involved.

To be accurate,my reply about what "I" do means I. You posted about no point,need,or justification concerning whichever gun,or guns, a person owned. I replied. The "little American" stance you mentioned isn't what I had in mind,but it's fine with me if you see that.

Antagonizing or offending you might well be how you interpret my posts,but realize one thing:

We have already gone through this type of exchange. You mentioned that you liked being cheeky. My response was, more or less, to point out that cheekiness will get cheekiness back in the course of time.
If you can't cope with that, it's your problem again.
 
What's New

2/8/2025
Curious about your favorite Celebrities ticklishness? Visit the Ticklish Celebrities sub forum and see if they are listed!
Door 44
Live Camgirls!
Live Camgirls
Streaming Videos
Pic of the Week
Pic of the Week
Congratulations to
*** brad1701 ***
The winner of our weekly Trivia, held every Sunday night at 11PM EST in our Chat Room
Back
Top