Why must the Anti's lie AND exploit this tragedy?

[Clodbuster]

Why would you need a "law" to "allow" someone...even a child to posses a machine gun? Laws limit people's rights to do something not give them. A DA should understand that...unless he's operating under a different form of government.

Clod



<<Hampden County District Attorney William Bennett said Tuesday he hasn't been able to find any law that would authorize a child to possess or fire a machine gun.>>

[ENTHUSIAST]

So what lies are the anti's spouting?

They're being reactionary, which is perfectly understandable.

According to his father, who's the head of an emergency room at a Mass. hospital, the boy had three years of handgun and rifle training. He was a bright and responsible third-grader.

And the use of machine guns by private gun clubs was grandfathered in after Mass. passed a law banning the sale and purchase of them. No current Mass. law exists to ban children under 18 from firing a machine gun (source).

Accidents happen. Could this one have been prevented? Most likely. The instructor was standing next to the boy. Presumably he should have been the one to have had steadied the Uzi from coming up.

Poor Christopher Bizilj. Gone too soon. And his father, who was 10 feet behind his boy when the machine gun shot off his face.

Did you read the original post?

V I was refering to this statement V

'they are used on a battleground for a very good reason," said Jerry Belair, a spokesman for Stop Handgun Violence, based in Newton, Mass. "It's to shoot as many times as you possibly can without having to reload at an enemy that's approaching.'