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: May 13

Location hidden

#3037 May 25, 2013
He doesn't have a clue what you mean by this. LOL
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
{click}
Not part of the US Constitution, GayDavy.
If you don't like the Second Amendment the way it is, GayDavy, why don't you try to change it to your version?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#3038 May 25, 2013
x-and-o wrote:
He doesn't have a clue what you mean by this. LOL
<quoted text>
It's a Topix problem that requires Topix solution, e.g., just screen out posts that are (essentially) identical, I'm all for the first post, free speech, etc., but (as you know) the spammers that cut & paste the same post across two dozen threads should be removed.

Since: May 13

Location hidden

#3039 May 25, 2013
This spammer's efforts are such an exercise in futility. His target audience does not even read his "contributions."
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
It's a Topix problem that requires Topix solution, e.g., just screen out posts that are (essentially) identical, I'm all for the first post, free speech, etc., but (as you know) the spammers that cut & paste the same post across two dozen threads should be removed.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#3040 May 25, 2013
x-and-o wrote:
This spammer's efforts are such an exercise in futility. His target audience does not even read his "contributions."
<quoted text>
Hahahaha! he doesn't even read them, many of his own posts refute his previous posts...

Well... it keeps the people who make the scroll button employed...

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#3041 May 25, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
It's a Topix problem that requires Topix solution, e.g., just screen out posts that are (essentially) identical, I'm all for the first post, free speech, etc., but (as you know) the spammers that cut & paste the same post across two dozen threads should be removed.
From YOU on MANY MANY occasions: "Not part of the US Constitution, GayDavy.

If you don't like the Second Amendment the way it is, GayDavy, why don't you try to change it to your version?"

Hypocrite much???

Since: May 13

Location hidden

#3042 May 25, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>

From YOU on MANY MANY occasions: "Not part of the US Constituti
If don't like the Second Amendment the way it is, GayDavy, why don't you try to change it to your version?"
Hypocrite much???
LOLOL

Gunshow spammer is not the only dense gun nut to miss the point, I see.

Lord.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#3043 May 25, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
From YOU on MANY MANY occasions: "Not part of the US Constitution, GayDavy.
I have never had a problem listing EXACTLY the ENTIRE Second Amendment.

Here's a hint, Spoogebreath: it doesn't start with "The..."

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#3044 May 25, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes...the SINGLE gunshot wound does prove he was shot. Nothing to dispute there. Now Prove it WASN'T done in self-defense.
You are not familiar with Florida statute.

It isn't up to the prosecution to prove it wasn't in self-defense.

And since the pedophile had to run three blocks to put himself (armed) in front of a boy who had every right to be where he was at, it doesn't look good for the defense.

Especially since the pedophile has already lied to the court.
Wondering

Farmington, NM

#3045 May 25, 2013
Does anyone else think that GunShow1 is a lot like the Jodi Arias of the FORUM? He/She thrives on attention......

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#3046 May 25, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Kentucky enacted the first carrying concealed weapon statute in the United States in 1813.
"The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed".

UNCONSTITUTIONALLY enacted. As the amendment is utterly silent as to how arms are to be carried. The people of Kentucky have a right to carry their arms of defense in any manner they choose.

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#3047 May 25, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
I have never had a problem listing EXACTLY the ENTIRE Second Amendment.
Here's a hint, Spoogebreath: it doesn't start with "The..."
United States Constitution: Second Article of Amendment; Restrictive Clause;

"The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed".

United States Constitution:

Article. IV.

Section. 1.

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Section. 2.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Article. VI.: 2nd and 3rd clauses;

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

The declaratory clause,(common defense), is a moot point at this juncture. Unless We The People demand our state and federal government to restore it as Constitutionally intended.

All of which just goes to prove, yet again. Just how much of a pathetic, blind, and vile LOSER that >you< really are.

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#3048 May 25, 2013
x-and-o wrote:
He doesn't have a clue what you mean by this. LOL
<quoted text>
Not quite, traitor-troll. I have far more knowledge on the subject than >you< EVER will.

U.S. Constitution: Article. V.;

"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case,

>>>>>>> >>>shall be VALID to ALL Intents and Purposes, as PART of this Constitution,<<< <<<<<<<

when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress..."

The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to PREVENT MISCONSTRUCTION or ABUSE of its powers, that further DECLARATORY and RESTRICTIVE clauses should be added: And as EXTENDING the ground of PUBLIC CONFIDENCE in the Government, will BEST ENSURE the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, ALL, or any of which Articles, when RATIFIED by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be VALID to ALL INTENTS and PURPOSES, as PART of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution....

Amendment II

DECLARATORY clause;

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,

RESTRICTIVE clause;

the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms, shall NOT be infringed.

"An amendment of the constitution is of still higher authority, for it has the effect of controlling and repealing the express provisions of the constitution authorizing a power to be exercised, by a declaration that it shall not be construed to give such power. 3 Dall 382."

- U.S. Supreme Court Justice BALDWIN, Circuit Court of The United States,[PENNSYLVANIA APRIL TERM 1833 BEFORE Hon. HENRY BALDWIN, Associate Justice of the [U.S.] Supreme Court, Hon JOSEPH HOPKINSON District Judge, Johnson v Tompkins,(13 F. Cas. 840 (C.C.E.D. Pa. 1833)), and others.]

Why don't you go off to see the wizard to get a brain. And take 'bare[ly] thinking' with you.

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#3049 May 25, 2013
x-and-o wrote:
<quoted text>
LOLOL
Gunshow spammer is not the only dense gun nut to miss the point, I see.
Lord.
Who is the "dense" one now, traitor-troll? Why don't you go file that "point" on your head down?

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#3050 May 25, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
It's a Topix problem that requires Topix solution, e.g., just screen out posts that are (essentially) identical, I'm all for the first post, free speech, etc., but (as you know) the spammers that cut & paste the same post across two dozen threads should be removed.
Not quite traitor-troll. They are posted on different threads because each thread is to a different news articles from ALL AROUND the country. And not everyone reading the comments actually comes on the Topix site to do it.

Go crawl back in your hole, troll.

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#3051 May 25, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
I have never had a problem listing EXACTLY the ENTIRE Second Amendment.
Here's a hint, Spoogebreath: it doesn't start with "The..."
Really? Then you should know that there are two parts to that sentence. Allow me to parse it for you since you seem to be confused. Part one: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" this indicates why the right is identified. Part two: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." This is the supreme law of the land stating that because part one is true the government is strictly forbidden from infringing on the identified right. Please note that part two does NOT say the right of the militia, it says the right of the PEOPLE. See? It's really not that difficult to understand. Those who are attempting to corrupt the true meaning, through creative interpretation, to suit their agenda are the source of your confusion methinks.

This one was free. If you need further instruction I offer a remedial English course at very reasonable hourly rates. Just google "Tutors for the Tea Bag Fixated". You'll find my courses offered in the "How to be a Real American" section.

Have a nice day.
Wondering

Farmington, NM

#3052 May 25, 2013
Where did Gunshow1 come up with "traitor-troll"? If it was in one of his many C&Ps I would have missed it, because like everyone else, I NEVER read them. I wish he would come up with something original.

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#3053 May 25, 2013
Wondering wrote:
Where did Gunshow1 come up with "traitor-troll"? If it was in one of his many C&Ps I would have missed it, because like everyone else, I NEVER read them. I wish he would come up with something original.
"If any man attempts to strike me, the law allows me to anticipate the blow. If I cannot prevent his making use of his strength, the law of nature and the law of reason justify me, not in applying to extremes, but if it becomes necessary to my safety, I am to make use of the weapon to prevent the blow, and even to take his life, if necessary to my own safety...."

"...The times are altered, or party violence has become less serious; we see indeed that the spirit of party yet preserves a disposition to assassination, in the threats against Dr. R's life, and that he at the present time has occasion to act on the defensive as every one did at these periods; there is no danger to be apprehended from a man who carries a sword cane or other weapon of defence; there is no law in Pennsylvania to prevent it; every man has a right to carry arms who apprehends himself to be in danger. If every man has a right, was not this gentleman justifiable in putting arms in his pocket, when so special an occasion commanded him?"

- Alexander J. Dallas, TRIAL OF DUANE, REYNOLDS, MOORE AND CUMING, FOR SEDITIOUS RIOT. IN THE COURT OF OYER AND TERMINER FOR THE COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA. PHILADELPHIA, 1799.[STATE TRIALS OF THE UNITED STATES DURING THE ADMINISTRATIONS OF WASHINGTON AND ADAMS. WITH REFERENCES, HISTORICAL AND PROFESSIONAL, AND PRELIMINARY NOTES ON THE POLITICS OF THE TIMES. BY FRANCIS WHARTON, AUTHOR OF "A TREATISE ON AMERICAN CRIMINAL LAW," ETC. PHILADELPHIA: CAREY AND HART 126 CHESTNUT STREET. 1849.]

(Alexander James Dallas,(June 21, 1759 January 16, 1817), was admitted to the Pennsylvania bar in 1785. When the United States Supreme Court came to Philadelphia in 1791, he would become their first reporter of decisions starting with West v. Barnes (1791). Pennsylvania Governor Thomas Mifflin named Dallas Secretary of the Commonwealth, a post he held from 1791 to 1801. He was then named United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in 1801, and served until 1814. Dallas also functioned as de facto governor for much of the late 1790s due to the alcoholism of Gov. Mifflin. He helped found the Democratic-Republican party in Pennsylvania, and was an advocate of strict construction of the new Constitution. And replaced Albert Gallatin as the U.S. Treasury Secretary, under President James Madison. Where he reorganized the Treasury Dept., and brought the government budget back into surplus, and advanced the creation of the Second Bank of the United States).

Since: May 13

Location hidden

#3054 May 25, 2013
http://www.guninformation.org/secondamendment...

A restrictive clause limits the meaning of the preceding subject.

"......the right of the people to keep and bear arms...." is more of a military phrase of terms. "Bear arms"? What does that mean? Is it talking about military bearing if arms or hunting?

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#3055 May 25, 2013
x-and-o wrote:
http://www.guninformation.org/ secondamendment.html
A restrictive clause limits the meaning of the preceding subject.
"......the right of the people to keep and bear arms...." is more of a military phrase of terms. "Bear arms"? What does that mean? Is it talking about military bearing if arms or hunting?
"Is it a fact that they had the liberties of their country within their grasp? that the troops then in command, even if led on by their illustrious chief, and backed by the apostates from the revolutionary cause, could have brought under the yoke the great body of their fellow-citizens, most of them with arms in their hands, no inconsiderable part fresh from the use of them, all inspired with rage at the fratricidal attempt, and not only guided by the federal head, but organized and animated by their local Governments, possessing the means of appealing to their interests as well as other motives, should such an appeal be required?"

- James Madison, Aug. 25th, 1825 letter to Henry Coleman.[LETTERS AND OTHER WRITINGS OF JAMES MADISON. FOURTH PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. IN FOUR VOLUMES. PUBLISHED BY ORDER OF CONGRESS. VOL. III. 1816-1828. PHILADELPHIA: J.B. LIPPINCOTT & CO. 1865. Pg. 495]

Since: May 13

Location hidden

#3056 May 25, 2013
http://www.guninformation.org/secondamendment...

A restrictive clause limits the meaning of the preceding subject.
"......the right of the people to keep and bear arms...." is more of a military phrase of terms.

"Bear arms"? What does that mean? Is it talking about military bearing of arms or hunting?

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.

Guns Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Top StoryTrump says more must be done to protec... 41 min Say What 98
News Jimmy Kimmel Blames Trump, GOP After School Sho... 2 hr Shelly Bl 11
News Your Views Friday, Feb. 23 4 hr blindasabat 1
News Republican Congresswoman claims most mass shoot... 7 hr Shelly Bl 1
News Trump raises the question again: Could armed te... 21 hr Wadopotato 2
Defense for the kids 21 hr Wadopotato 1
News State witness turning point in Netanyahu corrup... Thu Left wing Israeli 2
More from around the web