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.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#4416 Jun 21, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
I do find it interesting that you provide a link to a source that YOU believe supports your position:
http://www.nydailynews.com/amendment-don-arti...
What I find really funny is how they try and use history to justify what they say…when THEY…and YOU…fail to follow history.
They make several references to “Shay’s Rebellion”…the last one quoted as follows;
“Many people think that we have the Second Amendment so that we can take up arms against the government if it overreaches its authority. If that interpretation were correct, it would mean that the Second Amendment had repealed the Constitution’s treason clause, which defines this crime as taking up arms against the government. In reality, in the first decade after the Constitution, the government put down several rebellions similar to Shays - and nobody claimed that they were merely asserting their Second Amendment rights.”
They make it sound so matter of fact…that “…nobody claimed that they were merely asserting their Second Amendment rights.”
Maybe YOU and the author should wonder “WHY” and do a little more research. Maybe if you ask a fifth grader about American History, they will be able to help you. If you don't know why, or are afraid to ask them, ask me. I'll be glad to show your ignorance across the board.
Do you by chance belong to “Mayors Against Illegal Guns”…? That would be the same organization that says that TERRORIST, Tamerlan Tsarnaev and an unknown number of other criminals killed by police officers and civilians under justifiable conditions, are “gun victims”.
Well, look what the cat dragged in. How you been Marauder? Good to see you back.
Anti-Fascism

New York, NY

#4417 Jun 21, 2013
xando wrote:
I agree......times were different then. Things have changed; you're absolutely right.
For instance, weapons are much different now and capable of so much more destruction. Also, millions and millions of Americans own guns, and that wasn't the case then. America leads the world by FAR in gun ownership and gun homicide. Not the case back then.
So, since cicumstances change--as you pointed out--maybe the 2nd isn't as relevant as it was then?
Or would it just depend on whether or not you like it?
<quoted text>
And I'm quite sure that there are people out there who [idiotically] trust the government so much that they propose we throw out the entire Bill of Rights (and/or Constitution). Do you agree with them on that one, o' clueless one?

If you deem handguns and hunting rifles as "not good enough" for what the founders of this nation thought would be, you're therefore arguing that we're entitled to more powerful weaponry. Interesting!:-)

And/or We The People should be protesting the government to downsize on their weaponry? Again: Interesting idea! I agree with this one, too!:-)

If you people seek to take our weaponry away, or deny us the right to own other certain types because it's just *so destructive* compared to what it was 200+ years ago then, you must also be consistent in looking at the governments' weaponry and how destructive that is and, how it could be used against the people if/when a dictator (or group of tyrants working together) comes into power and blatantly uses and abuses it. So get rid of it!

The 2nd Amendment is clear, in that they wanted the body of people armed so as to protect their rights and liberties by force of arms.

Things need to change then, and whoever doesn't like it can freely move to another country whose [fascist, tyrannical] government doesn't trust the citizens there with power.
Atomic Cafe

Albuquerque, NM

#4418 Jun 21, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think "blanket licenses" are allowed anymore. What if one of the employees isn't eligible to hold an FFL?
Dicks Sporting Goods does the same thing. Bought a Mossberg there a couple years ago, and I wasn't allowed to carry it in the store.
You could be right about that. We've got several local gun shops in the area, if I think of it, I'll ask next time I stop in just to satisfy my own curiosity.

I guess I can see why Wal Mart wouldn't want someone carrying a rifle in a cart around women's wear or the grocery department..but for Dick's Sporting Goods to not let you carry your own gun out..that's crazy. Guess they don't want folks scaring the granola-eatin' REI types hanging out around the hydration packs and MSR stoves! LOL!
Anti-Fascism

New York, NY

#4419 Jun 21, 2013
xando wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not in the constitution.
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." - 9th Amendment, U.S. Bill of Rights / Constitution

-

In other words: "The number of rights, which are found in the Constitution, shall not be *interpreted* in order to use as a foundation to then infringe upon *other* rights which We, The People, also have, naturally."

The right to be happy, and/or the pursuit thereof, is real. Being happy is what makes us live a lot longer (constant stress can literally kill us); therefore, being happy is actually a form a self-defense.

As most of us (who're intelligent) know: Self-defense is a RIGHT which we have today.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#4420 Jun 21, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think "blanket licenses" are allowed anymore. What if one of the employees isn't eligible to hold an FFL?
Dicks Sporting Goods does the same thing. Bought a Mossberg there a couple years ago, and I wasn't allowed to carry it in the store.
They used to hand you the weapon at an auction too right after the successful bid. NOt anymore. They sell it to you, and then after the auction is complete, you go to the "gun" room and claim your newly aquired property by jumping through the hoops and then paying for it.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#4421 Jun 21, 2013
Anti-Fascism wrote:
<quoted text>
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." - 9th Amendment, U.S. Bill of Rights / Constitution
-
In other words: "The number of rights, which are found in the Constitution, shall not be *interpreted* in order to use as a foundation to then infringe upon *other* rights which We, The People, also have, naturally."
The right to be happy, and/or the pursuit thereof, is real. Being happy is what makes us live a lot longer (constant stress can literally kill us); therefore, being happy is actually a form a self-defense.
As most of us (who're intelligent) know: Self-defense is a RIGHT which we have today.
And we have had that right ever since we exited the birth canal and became "viable" legal human beings.

I see that the starting line for becoming legally "viable" has been moved closer to the real point of where human life begins ... at conception.
"legally" protected human beings are being protected in the womb these days. Won't be long before they get that one legally completely right, and take it all the way to it's scientific beginning ... conception. Only 20 more weeks to go to get there.
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#4422 Jun 21, 2013
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
Good to see you M. Good stuff ^.
Thanks...been busy with family visits. Fun to be back.
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#4423 Jun 21, 2013
Aquarius-WY wrote:
BTW, Mr. FactofProtologist,
When the Constitution was penned, they had some serious trouble getting the individual states on board. One of the big reasons was that they all had just placed their lives on the line as branded traitors to the crown, and won. They were very leary to delve right back into becoming subjects of another tryannical oppressive government.
That's where the Bill of Rights came to be as those ten amendments deal SOLELY with RESTRICTING the powers of the central government. They do NOT grant anyone any rights. They speak of rights that already exist and set about to preserve and protect them FROM THE GOVERNMENT for the good of the people or the individual states respectively.
They had just fought a war for independence and won. They could not have done it if not for taking it upon themselves with the authority of their natural born right (as layed out in the Declaration of Indeoendence) to self defense and preservation, and had to take up arms against their own government at the time to become free, breathe free, and become soverign.
No one in their right mind would ever think that they would regulate away, in any way shape or form, the right to individually keep and bear arms.
Those firearms saved their very lives both individually and collectively. They wrote to ensure that if the need ever rise again to free a people from an oppressive government, even if it is their own government, and do it at the peril of being branded a traitor, that they retain the weaponry to do so.
"SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"
Your point is defeated sir.
Have a good evening.
good night.
Outstanding!!
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#4424 Jun 21, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, look what the cat dragged in. How you been Marauder? Good to see you back.
Hey AV...good to be back, thanks. The cat may have dragged me in...but I'm just tired...NOT dead..yet. Have had some family visits going on so been busy.
factologist

Huntsville, AL

#4425 Jun 21, 2013
Squach wrote:
<quoted text>“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”- Thomas Jefferson -(Quoting Cesare Beccaria)
Well if Cesare Beccaria said it and Jefferson repeated it, it must be gospel. Hmmm, I wonder what research tools- statistics, sample size,demographics, etc-ole Beccaria used to make his ascertains. Or did he just pull them out of his butt.
factologist

Huntsville, AL

#4426 Jun 21, 2013
If wishes were horses wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, are you that stupid?
I might ask you the same.

sabre rattling - the ostentatious display of military power (with the implied threat that it might be used).
factologist

Huntsville, AL

#4427 Jun 21, 2013
Aquarius-WY wrote:
Try again.
Since you asked, I will.
http://www.common-place.org/vol-01/no-01/armi...

BTW, old dude, your lengthy screeds are wasted on me as I don't care what your opine is regarding the linkss I send you.Consequently, I don't read them. The two I have sent are basically research papers and you can refute them or accept them, as you please and you don't need to explain it to me either way. Further, I have no vested interest in these articles at all. The serve only as example's of Xanado's assertion.
xando

Phoenix, AZ

#4428 Jun 21, 2013
Today's gun nutters don't have an admirable or noble origin:

http://m.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/201...
xando

Phoenix, AZ

#4429 Jun 21, 2013
Very good window into historical perspective.
factologist wrote:
<quoted text>Since you asked, I will.
http://www.common-place.org/vol-01/no-01/armi...
BTW, old dude, your lengthy screeds are wasted on me as I don't care what your opine is regarding the linkss I send you.Consequently, I don't read them. The two I have sent are basically research papers and you can refute them or accept them, as you please and you don't need to explain it to me either way. Further, I have no vested interest in these articles at all. The serve only as example's of Xanado's assertion.
If wishes were horses

New York, NY

#4430 Jun 21, 2013
factologist wrote:
<quoted text>I might ask you the same.
sabre rattling - the ostentatious display of military power (with the implied threat that it might be used).
Anyone can copy and paste...

sabre-rattling (British, American & Australian) also saber-rattling (American)
threatening behavior which is intended to frighten someone.

You pound on your chest and do your saber rattling about the "2nd".
Understand?
Funny how you ignore the rest of my post, no surprise.

Sorry, you liberal boobs do not know whats best for the whole of the USofA. Too bad, if you were to figure this out the country would not be as polarized.

Good luck with your war against the Bill of Rights.
Why Dat

Farmington, NM

#4431 Jun 21, 2013
xando wrote:
Today's gun nutters don't have an admirable or noble origin:
http://m.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/201...
Great link, everyone should read.
factologist

Huntsville, AL

#4432 Jun 21, 2013
If wishes were horses wrote:
<quoted text>
Anyone can copy and paste...
sabre-rattling (British, American & Australian) also saber-rattling (American) threatening behavior which is intended to frighten someone.
You pound on your chest and do your saber rattling about the "2nd".
Understand?
Whatever. I'm surprised, you being such an advocate for the American system and all, that you would be "frightened" by using the power of the vote to amend the Constitution.After all, the amendment process is explained in the Constitution itself.(In case you didn't know).
Sorry, you liberal boobs do not know whats best for the whole of the USofA. Too bad, if you were to figure this out the country would not be as polarized.
I bet you are sorry.
Good luck with your war against the Bill of Rights.
Thank you. But exercising my opine against the 2nd could hardly be called a war against the entire Bill of Rights.Either legislative or shooting war.
How about you? Are you ready to have a war over any changes made to the BoR?
Atomic Cafe

Albuquerque, NM

#4433 Jun 21, 2013
xando wrote:
Today's gun nutters don't have an admirable or noble origin:
http://m.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/201...
Today's Democrat Party doesn't have an admirable or noble origin. The Ku Klux Klan was the militant wing of the Democrat Party back in the days of Jim Crow:
http://www.humanevents.com/2011/07/10/democra...
factologist

Huntsville, AL

#4434 Jun 21, 2013
Atomic Cafe wrote:
<quoted text>
Today's Democrat Party doesn't have an admirable or noble origin. The Ku Klux Klan was the militant wing of the Democrat Party back in the days of Jim Crow:
http://www.humanevents.com/2011/07/10/democra...
It's true. Ain't it strange how things end up. The Republican Party started out as the anti-slave party, a very noble cause and look where the are today; against minorities,old people, women, the middle class, blaming rape victims and the list goes on and on and...on.AND the party, via their plank, encourage it's members to lie, distort, employ dirty tricks,gerrymander, etc, anything to get votes.
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#4435 Jun 21, 2013
factologist wrote:
<quoted text>Whatever. I'm surprised, you being such an advocate for the American system and all, that you would be "frightened" by using the power of the vote to amend the Constitution.After all, the amendment process is explained in the Constitution itself.(In case you didn't know).
<quoted text>I bet you are sorry.
<quoted text>Thank you. But exercising my opine against the 2nd could hardly be called a war against the entire Bill of Rights.Either legislative or shooting war.
How about you? Are you ready to have a war over any changes made to the BoR?
"I'm surprised, you being such an advocate for the American system and all, that you would be "frightened" by using the power of the vote to amend the Constitution."

The process, as you stated, is already enshrined in our Constitution.

The Constitutional Amendment Process

“A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States).”

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cons...

The first hurdle would be getting the proposal agreed upon by the Congress before going to the States. If you wish to hang your hat on that possibility, I support you. That is the law of the land. IF a proposal makes it thru Congress and is sent to the States to Amend the Bill of Rights...BIG "IF"...I hardly believe the States will ratify it.

What we do see from the States is more of this;

Federal nullification efforts mounting in states

“An Associated Press analysis found that about four-fifths of the states now have enacted local laws that directly reject or ignore federal laws on marijuana use, gun control, health insurance requirements and identification standards for driver's licenses. The recent trend began in Democratic leaning California with a 1996 medical marijuana law and has proliferated lately in Republican strongholds like Kansas, where Gov. Sam Brownback this spring became the first to sign a measure threatening felony charges against federal agents who enforce certain firearms laws in his state.”

http://www.kboi2.com/news/national/Federal-nu...

The 2nd Amendment is NOT going away.

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 2nd Amendment still poses issues 15 hr FormerParatrooper 4
News How will President Trump shape crime and polici... (Nov '16) Tue Scott Lane 7
Safe carry Mon payme 24
News Reader Reaction Forum: Will concealed carry mak... (Jun '11) Jan 17 Hendo 45
News Secret sting operation by the GAO blows away th... Jan 12 Say What 3
News Malloy: Bump stocks should be banned in Connect... Jan 12 Say What 3
News NJ's new governor could sue feds over concealed... Jan 5 jimwildrickjr 2
More from around the web