How do we protect kids in school?

Jan 8, 2013 Full story: Ruidoso News 6,103

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

Full Story
Tray

Saltillo, MS

#4576 Jun 23, 2013
xando wrote:
<quoted text>
So you really have no noble aspirations about fighting for your rights; you just want what you want even if you have to break laws to have it. Kinda makes you a low class criminal.
How does it matter HOW I exercise my rights. As long as I can the end result is the same. Kinda makes you a failure at infringing on my rights. Reminds me of a speech during the civil RIGHTS movement. "It does not matter how we retain our rights as long as we do". Care to guess who said that?
xando

United States

#4577 Jun 23, 2013
Couple of things here--do you see a distinction between exercising and retaining?

Doesn't matter how you exercise your rights? If you steal a gun, are you exercising your right?
Tray wrote:
<quoted text> How does it matter HOW I exercise my rights. As long as I can the end result is the same. Kinda makes you a failure at infringing on my rights. Reminds me of a speech during the civil RIGHTS movement. "It does not matter how we retain our rights as long as we do". Care to guess who said that?
Wondering

Concord, CA

#4578 Jun 23, 2013
Squach wrote:
<quoted text>That's as real as it gets. Do you really think having to ignore one more law on his way to commit a heinous crime would have stopped him? It is you who needs to get real.
I confess that I gave you too much credit. I thought even you could see my point. I will make it easy. YOU STATE SEVERAL LAWS THAT THE SANDY HOOKS KILLER BROKE IN THE HOURS OR EVEN MINUTES BEFORE HE ENTERED THE SCHOOL. YOU MAINTAIN THAT HAD HE BEEN ARRESTED FOR THOSE CRIMES, HE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO KILL THE 26 PEOPLE IN THE SCHOOL. MY MENTION OF THE MOVING VEHICLE VIOLATIONS WERE TO SHOW THAT HE WAS MUCH MORE LIKELY TO HAVE BEEN OBSERVED BY POLICE DRIVING HIS VEHICLE THAN THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN TO HAVE KNOWN OF A MURDER AND THEFT IN A PRIVATE RESIDENCE ONLY MINUTES BEFORE. Who is it that that likes to say "TRY AGAIN"?
xando

United States

#4579 Jun 23, 2013
Forgot to ask the obvious--who said it?
Marauder

Fairbanks, AK

#4580 Jun 23, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Justice Scalia
Writing for the majority of the real Supreme Court
Based on the real US Constitution
This century
[United States v.] Heller... 2008
AND...what's your point...?

"This century"...DUH, really...?

"[United States v.]" Heller... 2008

WRONG!
Marauder

Fairbanks, AK

#4581 Jun 23, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Not loyal to the revolution- loyal to the king? You mean Tories?
Wow...think of that yourself...and really had to ask that question...?

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#4583 Jun 24, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
You told us that the founding fathers who owned slaves released them.
Still waiting.
Right after you prove that less than 1/3 of American homes have weapons.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#4584 Jun 24, 2013
xando wrote:
The founding fathers instituted strict gun laws that would drive you gunnutters even nuttier if they were in place today.
Not only were guns denied to slaves, they were denied to law abiding white people who were not loyal to the revolution.
Then, of course, there were those intrusive mandated gun inspections.......
BTw,so nice how they loved to own people.
What point do you wish to make?
People are imperfect?
OK.
That IS the only point you made.

Puzzle me this:
Did the words that they wrote, which contain principles of freedom to strive for, allow for imperfect human beings to accept other imperfect human beings as fellow citizens, voters, and equals under the law?
Well?

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#4585 Jun 24, 2013
xando wrote:
The founding fathers instituted strict gun laws that would drive you gunnutters even nuttier if they were in place today.
Not only were guns denied to slaves, they were denied to law abiding white people who were not loyal to the revolution.
Then, of course, there were those intrusive mandated gun inspections.......
BTw,so nice how they loved to own people.
Why is it that dumbshits like you are never capable of taking down the points of your opposition, and focus instead on trying to take down another imperfect human being through slander?

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#4586 Jun 24, 2013
factologist wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, Reagan did say that. Referring to leaving the Dem to party Circa 1962. Now did that happen because the Dem party changed or because Reagan changed or both.
Hint: Ronald Reagan started out as a registered Democrat and New Deal supporter. An F.D.R. fan, the Gipper campaigned for Helen Gahagan Douglas in her fruitless 1950 Senate race against Richard Nixon and encouraged Dwight D. Eisenhower to run for President as a Democrat in 1952. While he was working as a spokesman for General Electric, however, his views shifted right.
But any attempt in the years after he switched to claim he was a liberal, will surely fall on deaf ears. But I encourage you to try.
Interesting.
You need your eyes checked.
You see a mouse and think it an elephant.

Reagan was an actor.
A good one.

What else ya got?

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#4587 Jun 24, 2013
factologist wrote:
<quoted text>Hell, man, "naturally born" is not even a natural born right. There is no such thing in the non- sense you nut-jobs talk about it!
Rattle,rattle,rattle.
Yes there is kid.
Try taking down a grizzly bear and you'll find out what natural rights the bear has.
Who wrote into existance the natural rights of the grizzly?
You?
Your masters?

Try picking up a baby chick from the nest and find out what natural rights the chicken has. I suggest using a little antibacterial on the hole in your hand which you will acquire.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#4588 Jun 24, 2013
factologist wrote:
<quoted text>
Rattle, rattle, rattle!
<quoted text>Not much in the context you reference. Just a bunch of hollow words that sounded good to the writer. But literally it means these rights can't be sold- or bought in the case of slaves.
What do you think it means?
Rattle, rattle, rattle.
It means you failed reading comprehension.

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#4589 Jun 24, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>I confess that I gave you too much credit. I thought even you could see my point. I will make it easy. YOU STATE SEVERAL LAWS THAT THE SANDY HOOKS KILLER BROKE IN THE HOURS OR EVEN MINUTES BEFORE HE ENTERED THE SCHOOL. YOU MAINTAIN THAT HAD HE BEEN ARRESTED FOR THOSE CRIMES, HE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO KILL THE 26 PEOPLE IN THE SCHOOL. MY MENTION OF THE MOVING VEHICLE VIOLATIONS WERE TO SHOW THAT HE WAS MUCH MORE LIKELY TO HAVE BEEN OBSERVED BY POLICE DRIVING HIS VEHICLE THAN THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN TO HAVE KNOWN OF A MURDER AND THEFT IN A PRIVATE RESIDENCE ONLY MINUTES BEFORE. Who is it that that likes to say "TRY AGAIN"?
The point is that people who commit crimes are not going to pay any more attention to the new law than they did the ones we already have. I'm being serious here. When something is banned by law it doesn't become unavailable, it just becomes unavailable LEGALLY. It will still be available to those who ignore the law and don't care if it is illegal for them to possess it. The people who are disturbed enough to commit crimes like Sandy Hook are not going to be deterred by a new law either. Will there be an official at the next mass shooting to blow a whistle and tell the psycho that he can't use that weapon 'cause it's banned? My point is that the problem is the people (the criminals and the psychos) who commit the crimes, not which tools they choose to use. Until we address the problem at its root it's not going to go away. How drastically do you think the honest law abiding citizenry needs to be restricted and have their rights infringed before it is impossible for a psycho to find something to hurt people with? The pathological mind will find a means to its end.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#4590 Jun 24, 2013
Squach wrote:
<quoted text>The point is that people who commit crimes are not going to pay any more attention to the new law than they did the ones we already have. I'm being serious here. When something is banned by law it doesn't become unavailable, it just becomes unavailable LEGALLY. It will still be available to those who ignore the law and don't care if it is illegal for them to possess it. The people who are disturbed enough to commit crimes like Sandy Hook are not going to be deterred by a new law either. Will there be an official at the next mass shooting to blow a whistle and tell the psycho that he can't use that weapon 'cause it's banned? My point is that the problem is the people (the criminals and the psychos) who commit the crimes, not which tools they choose to use. Until we address the problem at its root it's not going to go away. How drastically do you think the honest law abiding citizenry needs to be restricted and have their rights infringed before it is impossible for a psycho to find something to hurt people with? The pathological mind will find a means to its end.
Why am I now thinking about Paul Watson.
Dammit Squach, I was having a good day too.
<wink>
xando

Scottsdale, AZ

#4591 Jun 24, 2013
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
Why is it that dumbshits like you are never capable of taking down the points of your opposition, and focus instead on trying to take down another imperfect human being through slander?
If you are referring to yourself, quite frankly, I pretty much ignore you because you rarely have anything valid to say. It's hard to consider you "the opposition"

Meanwhile, whom have I "slandered"? And you need to learn the difference between slander and libel.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#4592 Jun 24, 2013
xando wrote:
<quoted text>
If you are referring to yourself, quite frankly, I pretty much ignore you because you rarely have anything valid to say. It's hard to consider you "the opposition"
Meanwhile, whom have I "slandered"? And you need to learn the difference between slander and libel.
I see.
So then you were "Libeling" the founders.
Got it.

I see.
So your definition of ignoring someone is to ask them questions immediately after saying you ignore the other person.
Got it.

It's OK for you to think me no match for you. I'm glad you think me beneath your efforts. Tis always the beginning of the end for fools like you.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#4593 Jun 24, 2013
xando wrote:
<quoted text>
If you are referring to yourself, quite frankly, I pretty much ignore you because you rarely have anything valid to say. It's hard to consider you "the opposition"
Meanwhile, whom have I "slandered"? And you need to learn the difference between slander and libel.
So, according to yourself, one form of defamation of character is preferrable to another form of defamation of character.
Got it.
xando

Phoenix, AZ

#4594 Jun 24, 2013
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
So, according to yourself, one form of defamation of character is preferrable to another form of defamation of character.
Got it.
You're exceedingly ignorant. One is written; one is the spoken word. Surely you can google from here and figure out why I slandered no one, you dumb pos.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#4595 Jun 24, 2013
xando wrote:
<quoted text>
You're exceedingly ignorant. One is written; one is the spoken word. Surely you can google from here and figure out why I slandered no one, you dumb pos.
Yeah you said you defamed their character in another fashion other than slander. We know that. You told us that already.
Now you have a memory problen too? Oh my.
xando

Phoenix, AZ

#4596 Jun 24, 2013
Whose character did I defame? You think anything you disagree with is defamation.

LOL. Can't tolerate your brand of stupidity. Obtuse as they come.
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah you said you defamed their character in another fashion other than slander. We know that. You told us that already.
Now you have a memory problen too? Oh my.

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
Texas law professor calls for repeal of Second ... (Nov '13) 22 min Here Is One 11,290
Ferguson, Clive Bundy, and the Second Amendment 30 min So sad 437
Eric Frein manhunt turns up explosives 11 hr FreinGATE 14
My God Wed Jimmyok 1
Open carry supporters walk through downtown St.... Wed aztimberwolf 1
Woman Posts Yard Sign To "Out" Neighbor As Conc... Tue Squach 19
D.C. Will Appeal Court Decision Overturning Con... Tue Tory II 1

Guns People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE