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.

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#5023 Jun 29, 2013
factologist wrote:
<quoted text>What did DC v Heller say about background checks and banning of certain military style weapons? Did DC v Heller also say if the 2nd like all "rights" had limits, I wonder? Could you read and comprehend those things.
Yep. The second was written with "military style" weapons in mind because it was written for defense against "military style" weapons and reasonably intelligent people know that the limit is the standard weapon the individual infantry soldier would use. Considering the intent, anything else is just illogical. Reading and comprehension aren't your forte, eh?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#5024 Jun 29, 2013
factologist wrote:
<quoted text> What did DC v Heller say about background checks and banning of certain military style weapons? Did DC v Heller also say if the 2nd like all "rights" had limits, I wonder? Could you read and comprehend those things.
Whatsa matter, ole slug, too stupid to comprehend? Bwhahahahah!
Read SCOTUS case of Mcdonald V Chicago(2010) since the ruling pretains to the states not like District of Columbia v Heller(2008) which dealt with Federal Enclaves like Washington DC which go by a whole different set of rules & laws compared to the states under the US Constitution.

McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that determined whether the Second Amendment applies to the individual states. The Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.

Initially the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit had upheld a Chicago ordinance banning the possession of handguns as well as other gun regulations affecting rifles and shotguns, citing United States v. Cruikshank, Presser v. Illinois, and Miller v. Texas. The petition for certiorari was filed by Alan Gura, the attorney who had successfully argued Heller, and Chicago-area attorney David G. Sigale. The Second Amendment Foundation and the Illinois State Rifle Association sponsored the litigation on behalf of several Chicago residents, including retiree Otis McDonald.

The oral arguments took place on March 2, 2010. On June 28, 2010, the Supreme Court, in a 5–4 decision, reversed the Seventh Circuit's decision, holding that the Second Amendment was incorporated under the Fourteenth Amendment thus protecting those rights from infringement by local governments. It then remanded the case back to Seventh Circuit to resolve conflicts between certain Chicago gun restrictions and the Second Amendment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chic...

Incorporation of the Bill of Rights

Amendment II

Right to keep and bear arms

This right has been incorporated against the states. See McDonald v. Chicago (2010).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of...
factologist

Farmington, NM

#5025 Jun 29, 2013
Squach wrote:
<quoted text>Yep. The second was written with "military style" weapons in mind because it was written for defense against "military style" weapons and reasonably intelligent people know that the limit is the standard weapon the individual infantry soldier would use. Considering the intent, anything else is just illogical. Reading and comprehension aren't your forte, eh?
I see, So why did DC vs Heller disassociate the 2nd from what the FFs intended by allowing banning of today's military style weapons?
Why wouldn't this place unconstitutional limits on the 2nd?

And what did DC v Heller say about backgroung checks?
And what did it say about limits placed on "rights"?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#5026 Jun 29, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
So basically you have no proof...no law to site...
I have many I can site.

If I site one, are you going to stop posting?

Hasn't worked before.

No matter how many times I shove it up your colon, you come back for more.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#5027 Jun 29, 2013
Marauder wrote:
Legal where I'm at...
Ah... legal to transport loaded guns in the welfare state.

So what?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#5028 Jun 29, 2013
Marauder wrote:
Legal for CCW holders in 49 States.
Not even close.

EG:

(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.

So: say your goodbyes, eh?
factologist

Farmington, NM

#5030 Jun 29, 2013
Squach wrote: Yep. The second was written with "military style" weapons in mind because it was written for defense against "military style" weapons and reasonably intelligent people know that the limit is the standard weapon the individual infantry soldier would use. Considering the intent, anything else is just illogical. Reading and comprehension aren't your forte, eh?
I see, So why did DC vs Heller disassociate the 2nd from what the FFs intended by allowing banning of today's military style weapons? Why wouldn't this place unconstitutional limits on the 2nd? And what did DC v Heller say about backgroung checks? And what did it say about limits placed on "rights"?
factologist

Farmington, NM

#5031 Jun 29, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>Read SCOTUS case of Mcdonald V Chicago(2010) since the ruling pretains to the states not like District of Columbia v Heller(2008) which dealt with Federal Enclaves like Washington DC which go by a whole different set of rules & laws compared to the states under the US Constitution.
McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that determined whether the Second Amendment applies to the individual states. The Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.
Initially the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit had upheld a Chicago ordinance banning the possession of handguns as well as other gun regulations affecting rifles and shotguns, citing United States v. Cruikshank, Presser v. Illinois, and Miller v. Texas. The petition for certiorari was filed by Alan Gura, the attorney who had successfully argued Heller, and Chicago-area attorney David G. Sigale. The Second Amendment Foundation and the Illinois State Rifle Association sponsored the litigation on behalf of several Chicago residents, including retiree Otis McDonald.
The oral arguments took place on March 2, 2010. On June 28, 2010, the Supreme Court, in a 5–4 decision, reversed the Seventh Circuit's decision, holding that the Second Amendment was incorporated under the Fourteenth Amendment thus protecting those rights from infringement by local governments. It then remanded the case back to Seventh Circuit to resolve conflicts between certain Chicago gun restrictions and the Second Amendment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chic...
Incorporation of the Bill of Rights
Amendment II
Right to keep and bear arms
This right has been incorporated against the states. See McDonald v. Chicago (2010).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of...
What does your response have to do with my questions?
xando

United States

#5032 Jun 29, 2013
factologist wrote:
<quoted text>What does your response have to do with my questions?
Are gunshow's incessant cut and pastes EVER relevant?
factologist

Farmington, NM

#5033 Jun 29, 2013
Squach wrote:
<quoted text>Yep. The second was written with "military style" weapons in mind because it was written for defense against "military style" weapons and reasonably intelligent people know that the limit is the standard weapon the individual infantry soldier would use. Considering the intent, anything else is just illogical. Reading and comprehension aren't your forte, eh?
I see, So why did DC vs Heller disassociate the 2nd from what the FFs intended by allowing banning of today's military style weapons? Why wouldn't this place unconstitutional limits on the 2nd? And what did DC v Heller say about backgroung checks? And what did it say about limits placed on "rights"?

Whatsa matter, cat got your tongue?
Or maybe Reading and comprehension aren't your forte, eh? Bwhahahahaha!
Marauder

Valdez, AK

#5034 Jun 29, 2013
factologist wrote:
<quoted text>What did DC v Heller say about background checks and banning of certain military style weapons? Did DC v Heller also say if the 2nd like all "rights" had limits, I wonder? Could you read and comprehend those things.
“background checks”– NOTHING…what do YOU think they said…? Can’t YOU read and comprehend…? Try this statement …Heller,“… or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

Can YOU comprehend the “commercial sale of arms”…? A business…an FFL dealer that sells guns. Doesn’t say a word about private sales.

“banning of certain military style weapons?”– Heller,“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.”

Heller,“Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.”

“…dangerous and unusual weapons.”– Refers to automatic arms and other items; explosives, silencers, hand grenades…etc. Class 3 license, permits and background check required.

“…the 2nd like all "rights" had limits, I wonder?”– Why do you wonder..?..oh I know…YOU can’t read and comprehend.

Heller,“…longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of fire¬arms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

Gee…felons and mentally ill…don’t have a problem with that…it’s called “due process of law”…certainly don’t need to expand a system that they are failing to run properly now.
Marauder

Valdez, AK

#5035 Jun 29, 2013
factologist wrote:
<quoted text>
What did DC v Heller say about background checks and banning of certain military style weapons? Did DC v Heller also say if the 2nd like all "rights" had limits, I wonder? Could you read and comprehend those things.
Read more at
That frustration level must getting up there when you're so impatient...lol. You think I'm just hanging around for you to ask some stupid question...?..lol

See above.
Marauder

Valdez, AK

#5036 Jun 29, 2013
factologist wrote:
<quoted text> What did DC v Heller say about background checks and banning of certain military style weapons? Did DC v Heller also say if the 2nd like all "rights" had limits, I wonder? Could you read and comprehend those things.
Whatsa matter, ole slug, too stupid to comprehend? Bwhahahahah!
"...too stupid to comprehend?"

Yes, apparently you are as you have proven above.
Marauder

Valdez, AK

#5037 Jun 29, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
I have many I can site.
If I site one, are you going to stop posting?
Hasn't worked before.
No matter how many times I shove it up your colon, you come back for more.
You've done niether so far.
Marauder

Valdez, AK

#5038 Jun 29, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Not even close.
EG:
(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.
So: say your goodbyes, eh?
YOU stupid, ignorant, non-reading, non-comprehending, lying, POS, "frustrated control freak"...Does the meaning and usage of the simple word "unless" escape you...?

YOU fail...again.
Marauder

Valdez, AK

#5039 Jun 29, 2013
factologist wrote:
<quoted text> I see, So why did DC vs Heller disassociate the 2nd from what the FFs intended by allowing banning of today's military style weapons? Why wouldn't this place unconstitutional limits on the 2nd? And what did DC v Heller say about backgroung checks? And what did it say about limits placed on "rights"?
Asked and answered. Go read it yourself.
Marauder

Valdez, AK

#5040 Jun 29, 2013
xando wrote:
<quoted text>
Are gunshow's incessant cut and pastes EVER relevant?
Only if you can read and comprehend. Guess that leaves you...factologist...and your puppet master, barefoot OUT.
Atomic Cafe

Rio Rancho, NM

#5041 Jun 29, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah... legal to transport loaded guns in the welfare state.
So what?
So you are full of shit.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#5042 Jun 29, 2013
factologist wrote:
<quoted text>What does your response have to do with my questions?
you are the one that keep bringing up and referencing the District of Columbia vs Heller(2008) and it has nothing to do with the states and even Dianne Feinstein was one of the first to come out mentioned that when the SCOTUS sided with Dick Heller in 2008.

District of Columbia v. Heller

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home and within federal enclaves and I repeat Federal Enclaves.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Col...

Second Amendment Hero Dick Heller Offers Searing Indictment Of Media Coverage Of Guns

By Elizabeth Flock
June 5, 2013

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-w...

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#5043 Jun 29, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
YOU stupid, ignorant, non-reading, non-comprehending, lying, POS, "frustrated control freak"...Does the meaning and usage of the simple word "unless" escape you...?
Dog molester: what part of not left in the car untended do you not understand?

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
stewardess dies from Ebola 7 hr ebola 1
Sign petition to NOT extradite Dr Palmer (Dentist) 16 hr Here Is One 2
News The new Wild West: Sacramento's sheriff issues ... Jul 31 RayOne 1
News Packing pistols: Is Texas safer with more licen... (Jul '11) Jul 30 Public farts 6
News Suspect in Louisiana theatre rampage had histor... Jul 28 El Chapo 56
News Local Jews upset by Holocaust references in cam... (Jun '12) Jul 27 swedenforever 123
News Louisiana Moms, Aurora Theater Shooting Survivo... Jul 25 payme 2
More from around the web