Law-Abiding Foster Parents Lose Kids Because They Own A Firearm

[Gameface]

First of all, let me say, what stigmatizes the 2A movement or firearm advocates, whatever you want to call them, is people like yourself. Folks who like to yell smoke, when there isn't even a smoldering. There are laws on the books for a reason and as a gun owner you have to be aware of those laws, regardless of whether you agree with them. If you want to be a conscientious objector, so to speak, then don't cry outrage when you have legal recourse taken against you.

Second, if you're going to be a gun owner AND a foster parent, I think it would behoove you to do your due diligence in regards to whatever restrictions there are in owning a gun with foster kids in the house. Thankfully, the law referenced in the story was changed and I'm sure these parents will get their day in court and hopefully things will work out in their favor.

Please, Butchy, do us firearm advocates a favor and please shut it. Please.

Completely agree.

Nothing has turned me off of the pro-gun movement more than pro-gun idiots who want to be the biggest ignorant loudmouths anytime a fellow gun owner is held accountable for their actions. I'm very pro gun rights, but want to have nothing to do with the pro-gun community at this point.

 

[moevillini]

I know this will be an unpopular opinion with many of you, but given the behavioral and other issues that can be typical in children in the foster care system, I don't think it's that outrageous to restrict them from placement in a home where firearms are present.

 

[BabyPeterzz]

I know this will be an unpopular opinion with many of you, but given the behavioral and other issues that can be typical in children in the foster care system, I don't think it's that outrageous to restrict them from placement in a home where firearms are present.

Think about the children!

 

[babe]

Think about the children!

There's an ad being played a lot nowadays about the need for foster parents.

"Kids don't need perfection. . . . they need you."

it cites parents who throw their daughters' diary into the bin for donation to the library, dads who drive into the garage with a kid's bike mounted on top of the car, and other lapses of good judgment. . . . and claims the kids need parents so much that even moderate or marginal failing humans should consider fostering. . . .

 

[babe]

And until you get it that they agreed and it was changed then you'll continue to be wrong.

Have fun waxing on about some grand conspiracy.

well, I sometimes take you on like a bull by the horns because I think you might be susceptible to reform somehow. My manners are not all that nice sometimes, either.

I don't think some liberal petty officials within a government agency who want to write rules for foster parents amount to a conspiracy, either grand or petty. I think it amounts to prejudice and denial of equal treatment under the law for people who chose to exercise their rights of self defense and protection of their homes, property and family.

I think the rules as they were written were "illegal" and unenforceable under the law because they did deny those equal rights.

beyond that, I think the action of the officials constituted abuse of the children and were bad judgment, with negative effects on the lives of those children.

 

[babe]

Yup. I looked into the scenario and, of course, Butchy and I guess babe in this case, did their best to manufacture outrage. I think this case is cut and dry.

What I do have an issue with is this part of the article which may or may not be accurate:

I think Dutch does things sometimes deliberately to provoke those whom he considers to be liberals somehow, but I don't think he was "mad", nor was I. I thought Stokes crossed the line with that assertion by making the discussion a personal sort of attack.

Honestly, folks, I thought this was about discussing ideas on their merits.

I crossed the line myself, though, in giving Stoked a pos rep while falling into a family sort of style of rhetoric that dresses up shoddy little ideas with grandiose exaggerations. I thought it was funny, but that just proves how spectacularly stupid I can be sometimes.. Apologies to all.

 

[Stoked]

I think Dutch does things sometimes deliberately to provoke those whom he considers to be liberals somehow, but I don't think he was "mad", nor was I. I thought Stokes crossed the line with that assertion by making the discussion a personal sort of attack.

Honestly, folks, I thought this was about discussing ideas on their merits.

I crossed the line myself, though, in giving Stoked a pos rep while falling into a family sort of style of rhetoric that dresses up shoddy little ideas with grandiose exaggerations. I thought it was funny, but that just proves how spectacularly stupid I can be sometimes.. Apologies to all.

Why are you apologizing? I was not offended. I even gave you a little rib back. We are both men and we can take it.

Loosen up a little my friend.

 

[franklin]

Why are you apologizing? I was not offended. I even gave you a little rib back. We are both men and we can take it.

Loosen up a little my friend.

Gay marriage thread asap

 

[franklin]

Think about the children!

Not gonna 'touch' this one...

 

[Stoked]

Gay marriage thread asap

It's legal now.

 

[babe]

Why are you apologizing? I was not offended. I even gave you a little rib back. We are both men and we can take it.

Loosen up a little my friend.

well, alright.

So I went over my own lines of decency a bit, and I'm self-correcting. That's the way I roll.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

The question I have about this is whether the issue is not just that they owned a gun, but that they used it in an inappropriate or dangerous way.

For example, were my neighbors to be involved in a domestic dispute, my first instinct would not be to grab a gun to 'protect myself', and I'm guessing that's true of many if not most people. So, was the context appropriate to arm oneself with a firearm, or was this on overreaction that put people unecessarily into harm's way?

I'm guessing that there's a bit of the latter involved here, and it was about more than just owning a gun. Just guessing though.

 

[Stoked]

The question I have about this is whether the issue is not just that they owned a gun, but that they used it in an inappropriate or dangerous way.

For example, were my neighbors to be involved in a domestic dispute, my first instinct would not be to grab a gun to 'protect myself', and I'm guessing that's true of many if not most people. So, was the context appropriate to arm oneself with a firearm, or was this on overreaction that put people unecessarily into harm's way?

I'm guessing that there's a bit of the latter involved here, and it was about more than just owning a gun. Just guessing though.

That's certainly possible. It's also possible that the dispute became life threatening to someone and he used the firearm appropriately. Unfortunately we don't have enough facts to really know.

I think either are plausible assumptions.

 

[babe]

The question I have about this is whether the issue is not just that they owned a gun, but that they used it in an inappropriate or dangerous way.

For example, were my neighbors to be involved in a domestic dispute, my first instinct would not be to grab a gun to 'protect myself', and I'm guessing that's true of many if not most people. So, was the context appropriate to arm oneself with a firearm, or was this on overreaction that put people unecessarily into harm's way?

I'm guessing that there's a bit of the latter involved here, and it was about more than just owning a gun. Just guessing though.

I wasn't there. . . so I understand your question, and it is a reasonable issue. The DFS officials viewed his actions as "inappropriate" and that's their reason for taking the kids back, not stating the presence of gun in the home contrary to their policy/parental agreement directly.

I would not go to the door to confront a noisy/violent disturbance in the street brandishing a gun. I have a pretty convincing voice and that's about all I would need to move them along, sometimes. But he was scared, his wife was scared, and he wasn't taking "chances" with the possibility of someone there being just defiant and aggressive and willing to assault him.

However, I did not see any remark about his unwarranted use of the weapon. He did not fire it. The cops did not cite him for any such "endangerment of a child" or unlawful use of the weapon. They responded to his wife's 911 call and showed up, and talked it all down and let all the people go home without any citations for unlawful activity, not even "disturbing the peace."

I think that is a positive example of how good "peace officers" can do their jobs when dealing with ordinary citizens having some personal problems.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

I wasn't there. . . so I understand your question, and it is a reasonable issue. The DFS officials viewed his actions as "inappropriate" and that's their reason for taking the kids back, not stating the presence of gun in the home contrary to their policy/parental agreement directly.

I would not go to the door to confront a noisy/violent disturbance in the street brandishing a gun. I have a pretty convincing voice and that's about all I would need to move them along, sometimes. But he was scared, his wife was scared, and he wasn't taking "chances" with the possibility of someone there being just defiant and aggressive and willing to assault him.

However, I did not see any remark about his unwarranted use of the weapon. He did not fire it. The cops did not cite him for any such "endangerment of a child" or unlawful use of the weapon. They responded to his wife's 911 call and showed up, and talked it all down and let all the people go home without any citations for unlawful activity, not even "disturbing the peace."

I think that is a positive example of how good "peace officers" can do their jobs when dealing with ordinary citizens having some personal problems.

Yep, this makes sense. A very reasonable response.

I tend to think that just owning a gun should not be sufficient reason to terminate an otherwise effective foster parent arrangement; if that's the case, then it seems (regulations or not) a not very reasonable policy---unless there's some valid reason to believe that it increases the risk level, e.g., foster children might be more apt to get gun and use it or past bad experiences. But I have no idea whether these are valid concerns.

If they were indeed loving, nurturing foster parents, then this is a very unfortunate outcome and one would hope that they could reach an understanding to keep acting as such.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

As a total diversion to this thread, I came across an interesting story that made me think of the discussion a couple weeks back about false confessions and the incredulity some expressed that someone would confess to a crime he/she didn't commit.

Here's an example from American history. In this case, we can be pretty sure that the confession is false. While the article doesn't go into why this man would have confessed to impregnating a sow, we can infer that, for whatever reason, he succumbed to the pressure he was being put under and saw confession as the best way out of it. Not too different, I imagine, than what happens with alarming frequency still today.

https://www.slate.com/articles/news...he_twisted_puritan_origins_of_our_modern.html

Sorry for the thread derail, but I didn't want to start a new thread for this, nor did I feel like digging up the old thread.

 

[babe]

As a total diversion to this thread, I came across an interesting story that made me think of the discussion a couple weeks back about false confessions and the incredulity some expressed that someone would confess to a crime he/she didn't commit.

Here's an example from American history. In this case, we can be pretty sure that the confession is false. While the article doesn't go into why this man would have confessed to impregnating a sow, we can infer that, for whatever reason, he succumbed to the pressure he was being put under and saw confession as the best way out of it. Not too different, I imagine, than what happens with alarming frequency still today.

https://www.slate.com/articles/news...he_twisted_puritan_origins_of_our_modern.html

Sorry for the thread derail, but I didn't want to start a new thread for this, nor did I feel like digging up the old thread.

I don't see how this is unrelated to this thread. Every thread I post in gets so muddled with divergent facts and assertions nobody can keep track of what the topic is.

I have a incomparable talent for bringing it all to the point, though.

Owning a gun in today's PC climate is just as reprehensible to the sensitivities of magistrates and bureaucrats as this act with a pig was back then. Of course, today we are enlightened folks with no antiquated notions of propriety, and we treat our pets' rights with greater respect than our own.