The poll at this link sways in an obvious direction...
But if you could take away the link, and see the context inside the story, what do you think???
I know its a loaded question, pardon the pun...

Moderator: carlson1
seamusTX wrote: IMO there should be no fixed limit at either end of the age spectrum. Only criminal history or mental incompetence should be disqualification for having weapons.
Jim
A valid point, and of course I don’t want any child to get hurt, but how many students have you had in that seven year time span? 2 out of how many had accidents?Venus Pax wrote: As a school teacher, I can tell you that I have a serious problem with younger adolescents having guns w/o adult supervision. In my seven years teaching, two of my students have experienced gun shot wounds while they were students of mine.
IMHO, it's a family issue, not a legal one.Venus Pax wrote:As a school teacher, I can tell you that I have a serious problem with younger adolescents having guns w/o adult supervision.
Yes, under most circumstances you need a FOID to even touch a gun.seamusTX wrote:The poll question is too vague to be meaningful, except for propaganda purposes.
The story (in case it goes away) was about a man in Illinois who got a Firearms Owners Identification card (FOID) for his newborn baby. In Illinois, you need an FOID to possess a firearm or ammunition. (I think you might need a FOID to touch a firearm legally, but I'm not sure.)
- Jim
What fraud? He properly filled out the FOID application in the boy's name, and then signed as the parent, as required by the form for all children under 15.jimlongley wrote:Yes, under most circumstances you need a FOID to even touch a gun.
OTOH, I think the father is now eligible for arrest for the fraud he committed.
Good point!!!jimlongley wrote:I voted no because I don't want anyone telling me I am too OLD.