How do we protect kids in school?

Jan 8, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Ruidoso News

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

Comments
541 - 560 of 6,103 Comments Last updated Sep 4, 2013
Get Out

Jacksonville, NC

#561 Mar 1, 2013
xando wrote:
<quoted text>
A special interpretation? Nowhere in the Constitution or its amendments are "arms" defined.
So what's with the "inividual" thing? There are certain arms we are not allowed; our rights have been infringed.
26 u.s.c. 5845
Arms are carried in the hands.
Donít confuse arms with destructive devices that most anti-gun proponents do, i.e., grenades, rockets.
xando

Phoenix, AZ

#562 Mar 2, 2013
Get Out wrote:
<quoted text>
26 u.s.c. 5845
Arms are carried in the hands.
Donít confuse arms with destructive devices that most anti-gun proponents do, i.e., grenades, rockets.
Yeah? Youl're quoting from the National Firearms Act? I said nowhere in the CONSTITUTION OR ITS AMENDMENTS are arms defined. It was not illegal AT THE TIME THE CONSTITUTION WAS WRITTEN for citizens to arm themselves with the same weapons military used. Since then, some weapons are not available to citizens and ARE banned (which the NFA) stipulates.

Now, my point (which swooooooooshed right over your head) was--you nuts pull out the 2nd to prove your right to arm yourselves can't be infringed, and yet, they already have been, according to your selective interpretation of the 2nd. But you don't seem to get that. How come you're ok with wmd and grenades, etc being illegal for you to purchase, when it was clearly the intent of the 2nd that citizens have equal access to the same weapons as did the military? Seems a bit contradictory.

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#563 Mar 2, 2013
xando wrote:
An individual right is not the same as an individual weapon. Nor is a call to arms relevant to defining the term--as it is NOT defined in the Constitution.
You don't understand what you read. Copying and pasting as if the words belong to you is easily detected....tsk tsk.
<quoted text>
I didn't cut and paste anything. The phrase was relevant and I didn't claim the words, I just used them. You are the one who can't seem to understand the English language. Even when you are given the definition and examples of it's use you still refuse to acknowledge the meaning of the word. The education system in AZ seems to have deteriorated since I left......tisk....tisk.
xando

Phoenix, AZ

#564 Mar 2, 2013
What you COPIED was totally irrelevant to what I said.

You still don't get that.
Squach wrote:
<quoted text>I didn't cut and paste anything. The phrase was relevant and I didn't claim the words, I just used them. You are the one who can't seem to understand the English language. Even when you are given the definition and examples of it's use you still refuse to acknowledge the meaning of the word. The education system in AZ seems to have deteriorated since I left......tisk....tisk.
xando

Phoenix, AZ

#565 Mar 2, 2013
Get Out wrote:
<quoted text>
26 u.s.c. 5845
Arms are carried in the hands.
Donít confuse arms with destructive devices that most anti-gun proponents do, i.e., grenades, rockets.
Still LMAO at your use of a major gun control law to support your position of no gun control. LOL!

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#566 Mar 2, 2013
xando wrote:
What you COPIED was totally irrelevant to what I said.
You still don't get that.
<quoted text>
It wasn't addressed to you, it was an open comment. Get over yourself, will ya?

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#567 Mar 2, 2013
xando wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah? Youl're quoting from the National Firearms Act? I said nowhere in the CONSTITUTION OR ITS AMENDMENTS are arms defined. It was not illegal AT THE TIME THE CONSTITUTION WAS WRITTEN for citizens to arm themselves with the same weapons military used. Since then, some weapons are not available to citizens and ARE banned (which the NFA) stipulates.
Now, my point (which swooooooooshed right over your head) was--you nuts pull out the 2nd to prove your right to arm yourselves can't be infringed, and yet, they already have been, according to your selective interpretation of the 2nd. But you don't seem to get that. How come you're ok with wmd and grenades, etc being illegal for you to purchase, when it was clearly the intent of the 2nd that citizens have equal access to the same weapons as did the military? Seems a bit contradictory.
Well, at least you've got one thing right. The majority of "gun control" laws on the books today ARE infringements of our second amendment rights. That's what happens when you allow a precedent to be set. We allowed our individual rights to be infringed in the interest of that nonexistent beast the socialist "common good". The mantra even back then was "it's a reasonable restriction and that's all we want". However, ever since that precedent was set, those who would disARM the American people have continuously returned for more and more restrictions. We should have never let that precedent be made. Total disarmament is the ultimate goal, make no mistake. There are a very large number of Americans who think "Enough is enough, how much of my individual freedom do you want me to surrender before you start addressing the real problem? It stops here!" If we allow the continued erosion of our rights they will eventually be gone. Like I said before, people like you won't understand the importance of the second amendment (or the rest of the constitution for that matter) until it's too late.

Here's another quote for ya, unfortunately I don't remember who said it but it goes like this;
"The beauty of the second amendment is that it won't be needed until they try to take it away."
Get Out

Jacksonville, NC

#568 Mar 2, 2013
xando wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah? Youl're quoting from the National Firearms Act? I said nowhere in the CONSTITUTION OR ITS AMENDMENTS are arms defined. It was not illegal AT THE TIME THE CONSTITUTION WAS WRITTEN for citizens to arm themselves with the same weapons military used. Since then, some weapons are not available to citizens and ARE banned (which the NFA) stipulates.
Now, my point (which swooooooooshed right over your head) was--you nuts pull out the 2nd to prove your right to arm yourselves can't be infringed, and yet, they already have been, according to your selective interpretation of the 2nd. But you don't seem to get that. How come you're ok with wmd and grenades, etc being illegal for you to purchase, when it was clearly the intent of the 2nd that citizens have equal access to the same weapons as did the military? Seems a bit contradictory.
Okay letís go there and I expect you to support that we should have access to any weapon on the planet at all times. I would love to have a M79 Grenade Launcher aka the Blooper and you can get one starting at $15,000 with proper paperwork. It would be the ultimate home defense weapon with flechette or buckshot rounds, donít you agree? We ďGun nutsĒ define ďarms shall not be infringedĒ to be rifle, pistol or shotgun. We can own cannons, silencers and fully automatic weapons with the proper paperwork already if youíre willing to deal with the requirements to obtain the weapon. Bans of any weapon arenít going to stop gun violence. Arming school faculty and staff is a start to stop an active shooter in that school ďGUN FREE ZONEĒ.
Get Out

Jacksonville, NC

#569 Mar 2, 2013
xando wrote:
<quoted text>
Still LMAO at your use of a major gun control law to support your position of no gun control. LOL!
That would be the reason that we gun owners arenít giving you anti-gun advocates another inch when it comes to bans on more weapons, magazines and accessories in the name of ďitís for the public safetyď farce.
xando

Tempe, AZ

#570 Mar 2, 2013
Squach wrote:
<quoted text>It wasn't addressed to you, it was an open comment. Get over yourself, will ya?
Really? Well you QUOTED my post, so I just assumed......
xando

Tempe, AZ

#571 Mar 2, 2013
Aaaahh, so ya see there??? Your rights have not been infringed at all by gun laws passed since the 2nd was written. You can have any weapon you can afford.

So you gun nuts are getting your panties in a wad for no reason???

LOLOLOL
Get Out wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay letís go there and I expect you to support that we should have access to any weapon on the planet at all times. I would love to have a M79 Grenade Launcher aka the Blooper and you can get one starting at $15,000 with proper paperwork. It would be the ultimate home defense weapon with flechette or buckshot rounds, donít you agree? We ďGun nutsĒ define ďarms shall not be infringedĒ to be rifle, pistol or shotgun. We can own cannons, silencers and fully automatic weapons with the proper paperwork already if youíre willing to deal with the requirements to obtain the weapon. Bans of any weapon arenít going to stop gun violence. Arming school faculty and staff is a start to stop an active shooter in that school ďGUN FREE ZONEĒ.
xando

Tempe, AZ

#572 Mar 2, 2013
Get Out wrote:
<quoted text>
That would be the reason that we gun owners arenít giving you anti-gun advocates another inch when it comes to bans on more weapons, magazines and accessories in the name of ďitís for the public safetyď farce.
But.....but.....but.......you used a major gun law to support your definition of "arms" when I pointed out to you that "arms" was not defined in the Constitution. You quoted a section of that law to counter my statement, as if it were FROM the Constitution.

LOL.....oh never mind. You're going around in circles and about to twist yourself into the ground. You're a riot. Lol!

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#573 Mar 2, 2013
xando wrote:
Aaaahh, so ya see there??? Your rights have not been infringed at all by gun laws passed since the 2nd was written. You can have any weapon you can afford.
So you gun nuts are getting your panties in a wad for no reason???
LOLOLOL
<quoted text>
You really need to look up the definition of "infringed".

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#574 Mar 2, 2013
xando wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? Well you QUOTED my post, so I just assumed......
What the hell are you talking about? I've been referring to post #544 which was an open comment, addressed to no one in particular. I don't recall ever having "quoted" you.
factologist

Farmington, NM

#575 Mar 2, 2013
Squach wrote:
<quoted text>Wow! Talk about lies, you're on a roll. Show me where I said anything about locking people up before they commit a crime? Funny you should use a MONUMENTAL FAILURE at trying to ban something by popular demand as an example. Prohibition did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to stop drinking just as your gun ban will do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to stop criminal/psycho violence. When will you get it through your thick skull that LAWS DON'T HAVE ANY IMPACT ON THE LAWLESS.
You tell so many you can't keep track. Your words:
"The answer is detecting and controlling or eliminating psycho killers BEFORE they strike. The vast majority of psycho dirt bags give signs and exhibit behavior that are precursors to their heinous acts. You can bet your last dollar that SOMEONE knew Lanza was unhinged and dangerous but did nothing about it. The wacko at Ft. Hood had been exhibiting behavior and signs that should have been heeded before he acted. We need to develop a way of defusing or eliminating such individuals BEFORE anyone gets hurt or killed. That is where we should direct our efforts."
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/farmington-nm... #

AND
"We NEED to start working on a way to detect and defuse or eliminate the psychos BEFORE they act and stop wasting time, effort, and money on an agenda that is doomed to failure while it punishes the wrong people."
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/farmington-nm... #

AND ONE MORE
" I would rather stop the killing before it happens by attacking the source. "
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/farmington-nm... #

Now of course you'll try and lie your way out of this cause that's what LIARS do.
factologist

Farmington, NM

#576 Mar 2, 2013
Squach wrote:
<quoted text>BTW, banning any individual weapon is NOT in line with the second amendment. What part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED don't you understand? You stop lying!
Liar! And you know it. The court held that AR's or arms typically used for mil. purposes, could be banned. And you know this. BIG FAT LIAR!
factologist

Farmington, NM

#577 Mar 2, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
Please point out the part of the 2nd Amendment that says the govt has the right to ban anything???? What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand???
NO! But I'll give you a hint- Heller and McDonald decisions.Look it up for your self. The research may do you some good. OR just stay stupid. I could care less.
factologist

Farmington, NM

#578 Mar 2, 2013
Get Out wrote:
<quoted text>
Criminal with a RAP Sheet has a gun? Thatís illegal!
Chief said criminals get guns with high cap magazines, thatís illegal too isnít it?
Solution, letís ban weapons because prosecuting criminals is too hard.
BTW, Chief told Anderson Cooper that the weapon used was an AR15 Chinese knockoff. He needs to get his facts correct since it was an AK 47 knockoff and not an AR15. BTW, AR isnít an acronym for Assault Rifle.
You should sue him.
factologist

Farmington, NM

#579 Mar 2, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
Still waiting for you to answer the question I posted to you. You claim your daughter was qualified on a "17". And what the hell is a "17"? If you are referring to the M17, that was a rifle grenade used during WWII. If you are referring the M17-S bullpup rifle....those were never issued as rifles for the US Infantry, and only had a production run of 13 years. Or are just trying to sling shit and see what will stick?
Hell, I don't know what it was then. I'll call her and ask her if you really need to know.It was what ever was commonly issued in Desert Storm. How's that?
My point was/is that just because the mil qualed someone for a particular firearm that doesn't mean combat training. Further, I believe your Rambo-like dream of fighting against some bad guys who are trying to take over the gov from within is a bullshite reason for owning a firearm. You own firearms because you want to and you can. Spin it however you want, but that's the bottom line.
factologist

Farmington, NM

#580 Mar 2, 2013
Get Out wrote:
<quoted text>Both sides share the blame for that blunder, we had no business going into Iraq and both parties share the fault. Politicians from both sides signed the bill taking us to war that didnít even read it. Hillary Clintonís stupid comment saying she wouldnít have signed taking us to war had she known then what she knows now about the situation! I wasnít privy to the intelligence they had at their disposal except what was in the news papers and I knew there wasnít enough evidence to take us to war in Iraq.
But Bush lied and the rest of the people didn't know it. I suppose that's ok with you since All you cons live on lies and distortions.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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
Katy Burns: Locked and loaded - " and only 9 ye... 50 min Jan 1
Texas law professor calls for repeal of Second ... (Nov '13) 8 hr Here Is One 10,314
3 year old shoots AR and survives 10 hr Here Is One 2
A 9-year-old girl, a fatal Uzi accident and a r... 10 hr Here Is One 5
Ferguson, Clive Bundy, and the Second Amendment 13 hr Here Is One 177
Joe Miller: 'If 20 million illegals vote, you c... 17 hr Julio Diaz 105
First Grade Primer Aug 27 Cry Ola 2
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Guns People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••