How do we protect kids in school?

How do we protect kids in school?

There are 6103 comments on the Ruidoso News story from Jan 8, 2013, titled How do we protect kids in school?. In it, Ruidoso News reports that:

During a newsroom discussion about guns about a decade ago, a woman piped up: "I don't understand what the big deal is.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Ruidoso News.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#5125 Jul 1, 2013
factologist wrote:
<quoted text>One thing for sure, I wouldn't be caught dead mimicking you.
we know you dont like facts which you wouldnt want to mimick the facts.

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#5126 Jul 1, 2013
factologist wrote:
<quoted text> Monkey see, monkey do.Now, little monkey, run go find a source that you can C&P that says "The 2nd was written because the authors DIDN'T trust government,... they were creating", as you wrote. Now, Hurry back!
You do realize that you're just making a bigger fool of yourself with each new outburst of stupidity, don't you? It's called "research" you silly barefoot booby wann-a-be, do your own. It's not hard at all, just Google the ratification of the bill of rights and read. Or you could actually go to a public library and pick up some books on the subject.(You do know what a book is, don't you?) Pay special attention to discussion of the second amendment. Consider this YOUR assignment.......now go study and try to become a real American. You'll thank me for this if you ever manage to come to your senses and shake off the yoke of your commie masters.
factologist

Farmington, NM

#5128 Jul 1, 2013
Squach wrote:
<quoted text>You do realize that you're just making a bigger fool of yourself with each new outburst of stupidity, don't you? It's called "research" you silly barefoot booby wann-a-be, do your own. It's not hard at all, just Google the ratification of the bill of rights and read. Or you could actually go to a public library and pick up some books on the subject.(You do know what a book is, don't you?) Pay special attention to discussion of the second amendment. Consider this YOUR assignment.......now go study and try to become a real American. You'll thank me for this if you ever manage to come to your senses and shake off the yoke of your commie masters.
I do reasearch on what I assert to be true, you should do the same. Especially after you assert that what you write are not your own thoughts but someone else's. So,Monkey see, monkey do, run go find a source that you can C&P that says "The 2nd was written because the authors DIDN'T trust government,... they were creating", as you previously wrote. If you can't show the source, then we will all know you pulled the statement out of your dirty little ass and that you are no more than a big fat liar about "research".(Your use of the word in your above screed didn't exactly say YOU did the research and found where the FFs didn't trust the gov. they had just created. You might clear that little omission up,Monkey see).
So which is,boy, researcher or big fat liar?(fart, aaah).
factologist

Farmington, NM

#5129 Jul 1, 2013
Squach wrote:
<quoted text>You do realize that you're just making a bigger fool of yourself with each new outburst of stupidity, don't you? It's called "research" you silly barefoot booby wann-a-be, do your own. It's not hard at all, just Google the ratification of the bill of rights and read. Or you could actually go to a public library and pick up some books on the subject.(You do know what a book is, don't you?) Pay special attention to discussion of the second amendment. Consider this YOUR assignment.......now go study and try to become a real American. You'll thank me for this if you ever manage to come to your senses and shake off the yoke of your commie masters.
Since all you want to do is insult and not research, I'll do your job and give you the benefit of my research on the subject.

It just doesn't make sense that the FFs would go to all the time and risk to put together the blue print for a brand new government, with checks and balances and limits on powers and such, that they would not trust and then to put in a safeguard to give to the people the personal tools of combat so that they may overthrow said government. But that is exactly what they did.
"First, it must be recalled that the founding generation had a deep and widespread mistrust of peacetime standing armies. Many Americans believed, on the basis of English history and the colonial experience, that central governments are prone to use armies to oppress their own". people." http://www.virginiainstitute.org/publications...

Primarily demanded by the anti-federalist coalition to include such a statement as the 2nd amendment, "The Anti federalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved." http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/...

You get the point.
Anti-Fascism

United States

#5130 Jul 1, 2013
factologist wrote:
<quoted text>I do reasearch on what I assert to be true, you should do the same. Especially after you assert that what you write are not your own thoughts but someone else's. So,Monkey see, monkey do, run go find a source that you can C&P that says "The 2nd was written because the authors DIDN'T trust government,... they were creating", as you previously wrote. If you can't show the source, then we will all know you pulled the statement out of your dirty little ass and that you are no more than a big fat liar about "research".(Your use of the word in your above screed didn't exactly say YOU did the research and found where the FFs didn't trust the gov. they had just created. You might clear that little omission up,Monkey see).
So which is,boy, researcher or big fat liar?(fart, aaah).
If they *did* trust the government "they just created" then, why even write a Bill of Rights with the clear context and intent on being skeptical of, and seeking to, limit said government power?

They created a FORM of [Constitutionally-limited Republican] government! That's not implying that they now "fully and blindly trusted everyone who therefore becomes apart of that government."

Don't tell me that you actually think this is not true?

/facepalm

-

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." - The Declaration of Independence; IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
Anti-Fascism

United States

#5131 Jul 1, 2013
Without ARMS in their hands back in those days, they would've had no way "to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

The intent behind the 2nd Amendment is *crystal clear* to those with *actual* brains that are *not* drugged up, that are *not* brainwashed by criminals and, that are *not* led by traitorous thoughts deep within their tyrannical minds.

-

"That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power." - 13th Amendment, Virginia Bill of Rights, 1776.

That Amendment goes into more detail, showing how the PEOPLES ARMED MILITIA is to protect THEIR OWN freedom!

That [DOMESTIC] GOVERNMENT STANDING ARMIES are DANGEROUS to the liberty of We The People!

I do enjoy stomping on traitorous trolls.:-)
factologist

Farmington, NM

#5132 Jul 1, 2013
Anti-Fascism wrote:
<quoted text>
If they *did* trust the government "they just created" then, why even write a Bill of Rights with the clear context and intent on being skeptical of, and seeking to, limit said government power?
They created a FORM of [Constitutionally-limited Republican] government! That's not implying that they now "fully and blindly trusted everyone who therefore becomes apart of that government."
Don't tell me that you actually think this is not true?
/facepalm
-
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." - The Declaration of Independence; IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
(fart, aaah!)Wish you were here to have smelled that one.
Anti-Fascism

United States

#5133 Jul 1, 2013
factologist wrote:
<quoted text>(fart, aaah!)Wish you were here to have smelled that one.
Good thing we're not talking face to face, lest I smell something similar coming from your mouth every time you breathe out.
factologist

Farmington, NM

#5134 Jul 1, 2013
Anti-Fascism wrote:
Without ARMS in their hands back in those days, they would've had no way "to throw off such Government
So can we assume that you believe that nowadays, we,the everyday citizen, with the weapons available to us today, could throw off our government with it's modern army of today?
-
"That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed;
What is the relevance of this sentence today?
that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power." - 13th Amendment, Virginia Bill of Rights, 1776.
That Amendment goes into more detail, showing how the PEOPLES ARMED MILITIA is to protect THEIR OWN freedom!
That [DOMESTIC] GOVERNMENT STANDING ARMIES are DANGEROUS to the liberty of We The People!
Are you advocating overthrow of our standing army?
I do enjoy stomping on traitorous trolls.:-)
You are stomping your own foot there stupio!(Aaaaaah, fart)!

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#5135 Jul 1, 2013
factologist wrote:
<quoted text>I do reasearch on what I assert to be true, you should do the same. Especially after you assert that what you write are not your own thoughts but someone else's. So,Monkey see, monkey do, run go find a source that you can C&P that says "The 2nd was written because the authors DIDN'T trust government,... they were creating", as you previously wrote. If you can't show the source, then we will all know you pulled the statement out of your dirty little ass and that you are no more than a big fat liar about "research".(Your use of the word in your above screed didn't exactly say YOU did the research and found where the FFs didn't trust the gov. they had just created. You might clear that little omission up,Monkey see).
So which is,boy, researcher or big fat liar?(fart, aaah).
The entire constitution and bill of rights was written to "RESTRICT" government. Why? Because NONE of the founders trusted government and felt that it needed to be on a well defined leash. You can try to deny that fact all you wish but that FACT stands unalterable by your foolish efforts. Try again.......

BTW, is stupider a word? If not, it should be.....because that's what you become with every one of these idiotic little rants.
factologist

Farmington, NM

#5136 Jul 1, 2013
Anti-Fascism wrote:
<quoted text>
Good thing we're not talking face to face, lest I smell something similar coming from your mouth every time you breathe out.
Me too! Breathe deep.(Aaaah, fart). Did you get it?
old

Clovis, NM

#5137 Jul 1, 2013
what's this world coming to
Marauder

Fairbanks, AK

#5138 Jul 1, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
follow the thread, spooge breath.
Carrying a firearm includes leaving the firearm unattended in the car and unless he was passed out in the car (which I grant in his case is possible and even frequent), the firearms were stolen from a parked car; the firearms were unattended.
Try reading your own quote with no source again. It doesn't say you can't leave a loaded gun unattended in a car.

Read and comprehend much...?
Marauder

Fairbanks, AK

#5139 Jul 1, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
As I QUOTED from the EXACT law (one of many), it is illegal to leave it there when you get out of the car.
The MORON in question left not ONE but on TWO occasions: left loaded guns in the car and that was presuming he has a right to carry the guns IN THE FIRST PLACE.
"... it is illegal to leave it there when you get out of the car."

Liar...go read your quote again dumbarse.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#5140 Jul 1, 2013
Squach wrote:
<quoted text>The entire constitution and bill of rights was written to "RESTRICT" government. Why? Because NONE of the founders trusted government and felt that it needed to be on a well defined leash. You can try to deny that fact all you wish but that FACT stands unalterable by your foolish efforts. Try again.......
BTW, is stupider a word? If not, it should be.....because that's what you become with every one of these idiotic little rants.
Just think for years the states were allowed to restrict the 2nd amendment of the Bill of Rights until 2010.
Anti-Fascism

Pioneer, CA

#5141 Jul 1, 2013
factologist wrote:
<quoted text>So can we assume that you believe that nowadays, we,the everyday citizen, with the weapons available to us today, could throw off our government with it's modern army of today?
-
<quoted text>What is the relevance of this sentence today?
<quoted text>Are you advocating overthrow of our standing army?
<quoted text>You are stomping your own foot there stupio!(Aaaaaah, fart)!
Today, it'll be much harder with such limited armament. I never said that I believe we're only limited to the right to keep and bear small rifles and tiny pistols, did I?

Whatever it takes to create MAD - Mutually Assured Destruction

I bet the 'founders' would agree, wholeheartedly.

Thanks for making the argument for us that we should not downsize but, rather, upgrade. And so, you're implying that, in light of the truth I just spoke, that by you seeking to downsize what we have already, you're therefore making us all-the-more vulnerable to a possible fascist government military overthrow of our liberties and rights in the future... thus you're a traitor?

Interesting.

I'm advocating that We The People arm ourselves for our defense vs. a possible future tyrannically led military, just like the founders wanted us. Too bad all other peoples didn't do this - if they did, those tyrannical, fascist governments just within the last 100 years wouldn't have ruled over them, enslaved them or slaughtered them nearly as easily as they did while those peoples were unarmed.

DEFENSIVE! Not offensive. So long as they do not attack us first, We The People have the much better option of protesting peaceably, for redress of grievances... just like the 'founders' also spoke, and which I prefer as well; as our first act of changing things for the better. I don't seek violence of any sort, but only as absolute last resort, in worst case scenario.

However, I will fight [with words]'til I die to stomp traitors [in debate] who seek to destroy ways with which we might have to use said arms as last resort to protect our liberty and life one day.
Marauder

Fairbanks, AK

#5142 Jul 1, 2013
xando wrote:
The beginning of the conversation was about leaving guns in a vehicle and having them stolen.
You always misinterpret and then try to re-define the conversation to fit your misinterpretation. In fact, you alluded to such in this post.
You are a backpeddler. But mostly, you're just disingenuous.
<quoted text>
Oh the little puppet is back wanting to defend her puppet master.

The beginning of MY conversation with her was in regards to the legal transport of a loaded firearm. I said it was legal for CCW holders in 49 States.

I didn’t misinterpret or re-define my conversation at all. You once again show your inability to comprehend.

Contrary to your belief as a “control freak”…YOU can not control the exercise of my 1st Amendment rights anymore than YOU can control my 2nd Amendment rights. YOU don’t run the thread…YOU don’t control what people can or can not say…YOU can not control the arguments put forth by others. Just because I will not allow you to try and direct my conversation does not mean that I am misdirecting anything. I refuse to allow you to direct me or my conversation.

BTW...her quote doesn't say it's illegal to leave a loaded firearm in a car unattended. Go back to reading class. Maybe YOU can learn about that simple word "OR".
Marauder

Fairbanks, AK

#5143 Jul 1, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Obviously you don't read your posts.
Maybe you make fewer spelling errors and you'd get perspective on moronic statements.
(quote... exactly)
Carrying firearms.
(1)(a) Except in the person's place of abode or fixed place of business, a person shall not carry a pistol concealed on his or her person without a license to carry a concealed pistol.
(b) Every licensee shall have his or her concealed pistol license in his or her immediate possession at all times that he or she is required by this section to have a concealed pistol license and shall display the same upon demand to any police officer or to any other person when and if required by law to do so. Any violation of this subsection (1)(b) shall be a class 1 civil infraction under chapter 7.80 RCW and shall be punished accordingly pursuant to chapter 7.80 RCW and the infraction rules for courts of limited jurisdiction.
(2)(a) A person shall not carry or place a loaded pistol in any vehicle unless the person has a license to carry a concealed pistol and:(i) The pistol is on the licensee's person,(ii) the licensee is within the vehicle at all times that the pistol is there, or (iii) the licensee is away from the vehicle and the pistol is locked within the vehicle and concealed from view from outside the vehicle.
(b) A violation of this subsection is a misdemeanor.
(3)(a) A person at least eighteen years of age who is in possession of an unloaded pistol shall not leave the unloaded pistol in a vehicle unless the unloaded pistol is locked within the vehicle and concealed from view from outside the vehicle.
(b) A violation of this subsection is a misdemeanor.
(4) Nothing in this section permits the possession of firearms illegal to possess under state or federal law.
(end)
"Carry" firearm laws include conditions where the firearm isn't "carried".
WRONG. Even your own “QUOTE” with no source, did NOT say it was “illegal” to leave it in the car...ROTFLMAO.
Marauder

Fairbanks, AK

#5144 Jul 1, 2013
factologist wrote:
<quoted text>Weapons are furnished 100% to today's organized militia. If we have a "call up" of the unorganized militia, their weapons will be furnished also.
No need to ask the Swiss, ask our Pentagon.
“If we have a "call up" of the unorganized militia, their weapons will be furnished also.”

Really…? Where are they…?
Marauder

Fairbanks, AK

#5145 Jul 1, 2013
factologist wrote:
<quoted text>Guess my question went over your head.
Hardly…you mean this question…?

“But give me the bottom line, what did your cause win with the Heller decision?(Besides the obvious of overturning the DC law).”
Our “cause”…supporting and defending the Constitution and our rights…? Some cause…I guess those are things you don’t support.

Heller – The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes…

Squelched the argument that it was a “collective” right.

Heller – The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part…

Squelched the argument that the right was for the militia.

Heller – Reiterated: United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.

Shows the right applies to those type of weapons used by the militia. What “type” weapons do you think that might apply to…?

Heller – Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way.

Squelched the argument that the 2nd Amendment only protects “muskets”.

Heller – Defined “bear arms” as ; In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “[s]urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment ... indicate[s]:‘wear, bear, or carry ... upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose ... of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’”(quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 214 (6th ed. 1998)). We think that JUSTICE GINSBURG accurately captured the natural meaning of “bear arms.” Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of “offensive or defensive action,” it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization.

Does that answer your question…? But then I must ask once again…why can’t you read and comprehend…?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Flora Vista Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Who still takes global warming seriously? (Jan '10) 1 hr Patriot AKA Bozo 30,872
News Blanco man charged with molesting 13-year-old r... Jun 29 Angel 3
Barack Obama COUNTDOWN Clock 1000 days left & c... (Apr '14) Jun 23 XabdO 443
Worse place I've ever lived Jun 21 Youhavenoidea 45
News New Mexico girl critically hurt after accidenta... Feb '15 bloom 1
News Police search for alleged beating suspects (Oct '09) Jan '15 XandO 42
News 1 dead in officer-involved shooting near Farmin... (Nov '14) Dec '14 Horace 8
More from around the web

Flora Vista People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Flora Vista Mortgages