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.

Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#5146 Jul 1, 2013
factologist wrote:
<quoted text>What you seem to be to stupid to understand is that all my points at the fed level gun control were shot down when the Rep Senate killed the Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act back in April of this year.(It would have been DOA in the house anyway). Shot down for partisan reasons. Same reason Scilia cherry picked his way through the issues to rationalize his conclusion for DC v Heller. So a belated congrats is in order.
Congratufuckinglations to you pricks. We'll try again soon.
You gun nuts are safe from any more fed gun control- save a few EOs from Obama- till the pendulum completes it's swing back toward a simultaneous liberal controlled presidency, legislature and high court.
Now city and state control legislation is a different matter.
“…to stupid to understand is that all my points at the fed level gun control were shot down when the Rep Senate killed the Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act back in April of this year.”

No, I understand it perfectly well. They were shot down just as they should have been.

“So a belated congrats is in order.”

Sorta gets you more “frustrated” huh…?…lol

”Now city and state control legislation is a different matter.”

Not really. As a result of the McDonald v Chicage decision, there will be more battles in the local and State courts. Watch, they are coming.
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#5147 Jul 1, 2013
factologist wrote:
<quoted text>Why should I? You have the answers to everything and I really don't give a shit what they are.
More and more frustration…I like it.
Anti-Fascism

San Jose, CA

#5148 Jul 1, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>Just think for years the states were allowed to restrict the 2nd amendment of the Bill of Rights until 2010.
The government(s) only get away with mainly what the masses of complacent, ignorant people let them get away with. The masses of people in each State could've protested day and night to change things yet, they chose not to; they're way too distracted, emotionally lulled and thus way too trusting of their governments today.

"Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves, therefore, are its only safe depositories. And to render them safe, their minds must be improved to a certain degree." - Thomas Jefferson

"if a nation expects to be ignorant & free, in a state of civilisation, it expects what never was & never will be." - Thomas Jefferson
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#5149 Jul 1, 2013
xando wrote:
Mr. NaughtyBits; If wishes were horses; Aquarius WY; Anti-Fascism......all aliases used by marauder. There are probably several more. Funny how they materialize then.....poof....they're gone.
Lol
POOF…I’m back…lol.

Hold on a minute...let me get my foot out of barefoot's arse.
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#5150 Jul 1, 2013
xando wrote:
People who use multiple nicks (the way you do) are trying to bolster weakly stated points and ideas. They're also cowards.
<quoted text>
“…weakly stated points and ideas.”

Really…so why haven’t you refuted or proven them wrong…?

Isn’t it amazing that those that can’t refute the facts and the truth come up with this hairbrained scheme that there is only one person here posting 24/7 just with diferent names. Of course they have no proof that this is infact happening and no way they can prove it…but it’s like passing some hairbrained gun control law. It doesn’t really answer the question of controlling the crime they want to control…but it does make them feel good.

Ignorant, lying, POS, "frustrated control freaks".
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#5151 Jul 1, 2013
xando wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, a lot goes right over your head.
What leads you to be Anti-Fascism tonight instead of Marauder?
The problem YOU have with trying to manage more than one nick is that you're too dumb to realize your identical spelling mistakes, similar phrasing, and general similar tone.
“What leads you to be Anti-Fascism tonight instead of Marauder?”

Ummm….work and/or sleep…DUH.

Sling some more…you can’t fight the facts and the truth so you do make believe of people using an alias just to make you feel better…ROTFLMAO.
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#5152 Jul 1, 2013
factologist wrote:
<quoted text>That's right, all you're all monkey see, monkey do. You're just a C&P Huh?
As far as reading goes, I said, "You have the answers to everything and I really don't give a shit what they are". But since you don't read well, you thought I meant they were your answers. But dumb asses like you, don't have answers.I know that.
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." Hurry back!
Here it is “frustrated control freak”. Don’t remember much about your history of the “Bill of Rights” do you…?

Source, National Archives and the preamble to The Bill of Rights;

Bill of Rights - During the debates on the adoption of the Constitution, its opponents repeatedly charged that the Constitution as drafted would open the way to tyranny by the central government. Fresh in their minds was the memory of the British violation of civil rights before and during the Revolution. They demanded a "bill of rights" that would spell out the immunities of individual citizens. Several state conventions in their formal ratification of the Constitution asked for such amendments; others ratified the Constitution with the understanding that the amendments would be offered.
On September 25, 1789, the First Congress of the United States therefore proposed to the state legislatures 12 amendments to the Constitution that met arguments most frequently advanced against it. The first two proposed amendments, which concerned the number of constituents for each Representative and the compensation of Congressmen, were not ratified. Articles 3 to 12, however, ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures, constitute the first 10 amendments of the Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bil...

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.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bil...

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#5153 Jul 1, 2013
Squach wrote:
It didn't make sense to YOU because there are no johnsons involved.
It makes perfect sense to you because they are.

Circle jerk and you are the pivot man.

Wipe your chin, dear.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#5154 Jul 1, 2013
[QUOTE who="Marauder"
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…
[/QUOTE]

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.[United States v.] 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."

Justice Scalia
Heller
This Century
The rest of the story, MOOCH.
factologist

Huntsville, AL

#5155 Jul 1, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
“If we have a "call up" of the unorganized militia, their weapons will be furnished also.”
Really…? Where are they…?
"Where are they…?" Who/what are/is they?
factologist

Huntsville, AL

#5156 Jul 1, 2013
Anti-Fascism wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Most of this this bullshit is too silly to discuss. Besides, you're a nutjob.
Anti-Fascism

United States

#5157 Jul 1, 2013
factologist wrote:
<quoted text>Most of this this bullshit is too silly to discuss. Besides, you're a nutjob.
falsologist,

If you can't handle the truth, then stop bathing in lies.
factologist

Huntsville, AL

#5158 Jul 1, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I understand it perfectly well. They were shot down just as they should have been.
Why should the expanded background check have been shot down?
Sorta gets you more “frustrated” huh…?…lol
Sure! But I've been frustrated at a lot of things that have occurred in the House and Senate since the 2010 elections.
As a result of the McDonald v Chicage decision, there will be more battles in the local and State courts. Watch, they are coming.
Yes, I know.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#5159 Jul 1, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
“…to stupid to understand is that all my points at the fed level gun control were shot down when the Rep Senate killed the Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act back in April of this year.”
No, I understand it perfectly well. They were shot down just as they should have been.
“So a belated congrats is in order.”
Sorta gets you more “frustrated” huh…?…lol
”Now city and state control legislation is a different matter.”
Not really. As a result of the McDonald v Chicage decision, there will be more battles in the local and State courts. Watch, they are coming.
You got that right and just look how long Chicago has resisted change until last week when Chicago announced that Chicago is now getting ready to issue CCW permits and it has been 3 years since SCOTUS ruling in McDonald v Chicago(2010) was handed down which struck down Chicago's Hand gun ban.

McDonald v. Chicago

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

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#5160 Jul 1, 2013
factologist wrote:
<quoted text>Why should the expanded background check have been shot down?
<quoted text>Sure! But I've been frustrated at a lot of things that have occurred in the House and Senate since the 2010 elections.
<quoted text>Yes, I know.
have you ever heard of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System that the Modern Pseudo Liberals Mandated along with Background checks on gun purchases in the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 and was launched by the FBI on November 30, 1998 which said this was the answer.

National Instant Criminal Background Check System

The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) is a point-of-sale system for determining eligibility to purchase a firearm in the United States of America. Federal Firearms License (FFL) holders are generally required by law to use the NICS to determine if it is legal to sell a firearm to a prospective purchaser. Mandated by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 and launched by the FBI on November 30, 1998, NICS determines if the buyer is prohibited from buying a firearm under the Gun Control Act of 1968. It is linked to the National Crime Information Center and the Interstate Identification Index among other databases maintained by the FBI.

The National Instant Criminal Background Check System is applicable to sales from federally licensed dealers. Sales of firearms by private sellers are allowed to proceed without a background check unless required by state law. These regulations remain in place at gun shows, where no special leniency is granted to licensed sellers, and no additional requirements are placed upon private sellers.

NICS is accessed by an FFL, on the firearm buyer's behalf, by phone or computer. When contacted by phone, the communication is either with an FBI/NICS Examiner, who directly receives the information submitted by the FFL, or by proxy through a Call Center representative, who forwards the information electronically to the NICS. Whether an Examiner or a Call Center representative is contacted depends on the state in which the sale is conducted. When using a computer, an FFL representative can submit the buyer's information using the E-Check system which is a web interface to the NICS. An FFL can be an individual or an organization such as a retail store. An organization registered as an FFL minimizes the overhead involved in managing identification for multiple individuals who are employed by the organization.

By law, an FFL must receive a response from the NICS within 3 days or the firearm sale can proceed, although the FFL seller is not required to do so. If, after 3 days, the sale is completed and later it is determined the buyer should not have received the firearm, then the firearm must be retrieved.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Instant...

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#5161 Jul 1, 2013
Anti-Fascism wrote:
<quoted text>
falsologist,
If you can't handle the truth, then stop bathing in lies.
You live a lie in your multiple aliases, fascist NAZI.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#5162 Jul 1, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>have you ever heard of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System that the Modern Pseudo Liberals
Modern Pseudo Liberals SQUALK! dirty commies Marxist, Leninists, Marxists... SQUALK! Karl Rove is a Modern Pseudo Liberal SQUALK! SQUALK! Lenonist! SQUALK! SQUALK! Modern Pseudo Liberals SQUALK! dirty commies Marxist, Leninists- Marxists... SQUALK! Karl Rove is a Modern Pseudo Liberal SQUALK! SQUALK! Lenonist! SQUALK! Karl Rove is a Modern Pseudo Liberal SQUALK! SQUALK!

SQUALK!

AnalOriface wanna cracker?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#5163 Jul 1, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Modern Pseudo Liberals SQUALK! dirty commies Marxist, Leninists, Marxists... SQUALK! Karl Rove is a Modern Pseudo Liberal SQUALK! SQUALK! Lenonist! SQUALK! SQUALK! Modern Pseudo Liberals SQUALK! dirty commies Marxist, Leninists- Marxists... SQUALK! Karl Rove is a Modern Pseudo Liberal SQUALK! SQUALK! Lenonist! SQUALK! Karl Rove is a Modern Pseudo Liberal SQUALK! SQUALK!
SQUALK!
AnalOriface wanna cracker?
there you go again referring to yourself wanting a cracker.
xando

Tempe, AZ

#5164 Jul 1, 2013
I've never seen so much cut and paste in my life.
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#5165 Jul 1, 2013
factologist wrote:
<quoted text>"Where are they…?" Who/what are/is they?
The weapons that YOU say will be provided to the unorganized militia. What type of weapons are they...? Where are they stored...? Where is this documented...?...have a source...?

It's really here nor there anyway. "The people" still retain the right to keep and bear arms unassociated with the militia.

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 Melania Trump will address immigration controve... 5 min JohnInLa 234
News Clinton blames Republican leaders for a 'paraly... 7 hr swampmudd 1,440
News George Soros, Other Democratic Megadonors Plowi... Aug 21 Heath Ledger Suic... 2
News New Dating Site Aims to Pair Concealed Carry Si... Aug 21 RobertM 1
News Psychiatrists Reminded To Refrain From Armchair... Aug 20 lorr d 4
News In Several States, Trump's Poll Monitors May Be... Aug 17 Marauder 9
News Hillary Clinton wavers on Second Amendment righ... Aug 15 combat veteran 1,973
More from around the web