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

#621 Mar 2, 2013
factologist wrote:
<quoted text>It was the m-16 and berreta m9. How's that. Does that make her "combat ready"?
Wow. You can use Google. Good for you. And I don't know is she is combat ready or not. She's your daughter...ask her.{rolls eyes}
factologist

Farmington, NM

#622 Mar 2, 2013
Squach wrote:
<quoted text>I thought it was pretty clear. "Arms" means weapons......period. They didn't feel the need to restrict the people to any specific type. Guns are weapons, synonymous with arms.
More of you lies.

From the Heller decision:

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.

Millerís holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those
ďin common use at the timeĒ finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

You're just a lying dog. Your lies are an attempt to deny the right of the people to ban certain firearms that are NOT "in common use for lawful purposes". Shame on you. You want the "rights" you want and will lie to keep them while at the same time you will lie to keep other people from enjoying the "rights" they want.
You are indeed a lying DOG!

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#623 Mar 2, 2013
factologist wrote:
<quoted text>Get out! She was in communications, not the friggin infantry.
So is my nephew, and he carries both FOR COMBAT. He is getting ready to deploy again....soon.
factologist

Farmington, NM

#624 Mar 2, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow. You can use Google. Good for you. And I don't know is she is combat ready or not. She's your daughter...ask her.{rolls eyes}
No matter, she won't be joining your little imaginary militia group anyway.(shoots finger)
Seriously, do you even have an A looking R?

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#625 Mar 2, 2013
Get Out wrote:
<quoted text>
Then you truly donít understand warfare on the modern battlefield. The Forward Edge of the Battle Area (FEBA) is 360 degrees to include from above. Troops in the FEBA are typically support troops to include Communications troops. The Forward Line of Troops (FLOT) is where the Infantry troops are located. When attacked even communications troops become infantry in a firefight. Jessica Lynch was in a Supply Unit Convoy when she was taken POW.
Spot on!!!

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#626 Mar 2, 2013
factologist wrote:
<quoted text>No matter, she won't be joining your little imaginary militia group anyway.(shoots finger)
Seriously, do you even have an A looking R?
WTF is an "A looking R"?

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#627 Mar 2, 2013
factologist wrote:
<quoted text>
More of you lies.
From the Heller decision:
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.
Millerís holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those
ďin common use at the timeĒ finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
You're just a lying dog. Your lies are an attempt to deny the right of the people to ban certain firearms that are NOT "in common use for lawful purposes". Shame on you. You want the "rights" you want and will lie to keep them while at the same time you will lie to keep other people from enjoying the "rights" they want.
You are indeed a lying DOG!
But semi-auto rifles ARE in common use at this time and they DO have a lawful purpose. Shrieking LIAR does nothing to change the facts. At some point you should educate yourself on the nomenclature of the firearms you want to ban. It's becoming pretty obvious the you know very little about firearms and their legitimate uses.
factologist

Farmington, NM

#628 Mar 2, 2013
Squach wrote:
<quoted text>Evidently you haven't been reading my comments. The majority of us do feel infringed and want to stop the erosion of our rights. I believe I said that more than once on this thread. The "arms" referred to in the second amendment are clearly meant to be sufficient for defense against an army. Then and now. We have already sacrificed some of our rights in the name of "reasonable restrictions" but the anti-gun lobby keeps coming back for more and "reasonable" keeps becoming more and more restrictive.
MORE GD lies. Will you ever stop? Try to read this, but I know you already know this.

From Heller (AGAIN)

"It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful
in military serviceóM-16 rifles and the likeómay be
banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely
detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said,
the conception of the militia at the time of the Second
Amendmentís ratification was the body of all citizens
capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of
lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia
duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as
effective as militias in the 18th century, would require
sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at
large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small
arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right."

What of this statement don't you understand?
Fact is, you understand all of it and are just lying about it.
You are a big fat liar.
factologist

Farmington, NM

#629 Mar 2, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
WTF is an "A looking R"?
Are you really as dense as you pretend? Guess so.(shakes head)
factologist

Farmington, NM

#630 Mar 2, 2013
Get Out wrote:
<quoted text>
Factologist, pretend you and your anti-gun buddies have 30 round magazines and an AR15 in your possession. An AWB is restored for these types of magazines and weapons, is Factologist or his anti-gun buddies required to turn in or register the magazine or weapon?
NO, the ban has no effect on the millions of weapons and magazines already owned by law abiding citizens.
But it does prohibit the sale of the next billion; now doesn't it. Then, one by one, as law enforcement nabs the bad guys and take away their ARs And, if you and the rest of the nutjobs like you, will keep your AR15s locked up, the bad guys will have a harder time getting them. DON"T YOU SEE?
See if you can get this. Nobody wants to take away the good guys ARs but in order to stop the availability of them to the bad guys, the good guys can't have any more. The ones in the hands of the bad guys will then attrition off the streets.
But don't worry, as long as we have an NRA controlled congress, ARs won't be banned.
factologist

Farmington, NM

#631 Mar 2, 2013
Get Out wrote:
<quoted text>
Then you truly donít understand warfare on the modern battlefield. The Forward Edge of the Battle Area (FEBA) is 360 degrees to include from above. Troops in the FEBA are typically support troops to include Communications troops. The Forward Line of Troops (FLOT) is where the Infantry troops are located. When attacked even communications troops become infantry in a firefight. Jessica Lynch was in a Supply Unit Convoy when she was taken POW.
And you think Jessica was "combat trained"?(Get out!) And are you saying she's counted in your imaginary militia?
Were you a snipe?
Tray

Saltillo, MS

#632 Mar 2, 2013
factologist wrote:
<quoted text>If you consider universal gun registration one of your "rights" then you better hurry and get your brave arse to Washington and fight till your death, cause that very thing subject is in serious debate as we speak. Now I know you will find some excuse to not go because all your chest thumping is just hot air. You ain't about to do die to keep that or any other law laws relating to gun-control for being passed.
So go tell your brave boasts to someone who will buy that crap cause I don't.
*I have placed my life on the line for the freedoms in this country and have no problem doing it again.How about you? I have my guns and they are NOT registered. Come get them. I bet your coward tail will be leading the front. I stand waiting for you. Step up.
xando

Tempe, AZ

#633 Mar 2, 2013
More Americans own MORE guns than ever. Please explain this. Are your rights being infringed by not owning nuclear weapons?
Squach wrote:
<quoted text>Evidently you haven't been reading my comments. The majority of us do feel infringed and want to stop the erosion of our rights. I believe I said that more than once on this thread. The "arms" referred to in the second amendment are clearly meant to be sufficient for defense against an army. Then and now. We have already sacrificed some of our rights in the name of "reasonable restrictions" but the anti-gun lobby keeps coming back for more and "reasonable" keeps becoming more and more restrictive.
Tray

Saltillo, MS

#634 Mar 2, 2013
xando wrote:
So, if so few guns are registered, how is the evil gubment going ti take your guns??
You gun nuts have such a kneejerk, reactionary mindset, and you contradict yourselves. One minute, your gun ownership is being threatened; next minute, you give stats showing how many guns you have, blah, blah, blah.
I think you just want a reason to use your gun.
<quoted text>
Your coward self will never give me a reason. I never said the government COULD. People like you just want them to do it for you. To bad even many government groups know it is impossible. I'm sure like people like you think laws change the world. The only thing laws do is provide a punishment for not follow it. Police will tell you don't even solve %10 of crime and arrest and prosecute even less and even less will ever spend time in jail. To refresh your brain, this has all been tried before and failed.(Brady bill)(Assault weapons bill). Both just increased gun sales and put MORE guns on the streets. Failures just like you. Seems you would remember your past failures. Obama = best gun salesman ever.
Tray

Saltillo, MS

#635 Mar 2, 2013
xando wrote:
Let's see.........Tray, GetOut, Marauder, Squach.......uh.....CN.
All the same person? I think so.
Let's see. xanado, turd in bowl the same? I think so.
xando

Tempe, AZ

#636 Mar 2, 2013
If we really had a tyrannical government that wanted your guns, you and your little gun(s) would be no match for current military might.
Tray wrote:
<quoted text> Your coward self will never give me a reason. I never said the government COULD. People like you just want them to do it for you. To bad even many government groups know it is impossible. I'm sure like people like you think laws change the world. The only thing laws do is provide a punishment for not follow it. Police will tell you don't even solve %10 of crime and arrest and prosecute even less and even less will ever spend time in jail. To refresh your brain, this has all been tried before and failed.(Brady bill)(Assault weapons bill). Both just increased gun sales and put MORE guns on the streets. Failures just like you. Seems you would remember your past failures. Obama = best gun salesman ever.
Tray

Saltillo, MS

#637 Mar 2, 2013
xando wrote:
More Americans own MORE guns than ever. Please explain this. Are your rights being infringed by not owning nuclear weapons?
<quoted text>
But a NUKE can not be used without collateral damage. The killing of innocent Americans in defense is called murder making that "ARM" illegal. If you could target ONLY your intended target with no American citizens being harmed then the weapon would be useful and legal. Any weapon not controllable by the operator would not be protected be cause it would violate the rights of innocent bystanders. You can drop your useless nuke argument now.
factologist

Farmington, NM

#638 Mar 2, 2013
Tray wrote:
<quoted text> *I have placed my life on the line for the freedoms in this country and have no problem doing it again.How about you? I have my guns and they are NOT registered. Come get them. I bet your coward tail will be leading the front. I stand waiting for you. Step up.
Yadadadada! When are going to Washington, brave con? You're nothing but hot air.
Tray

Saltillo, MS

#639 Mar 2, 2013
xando wrote:
If we really had a tyrannical government that wanted your guns, you and your little gun(s) would be no match for current military might.
<quoted text>
Just how will they remove 3,000,000 guns with the military without military action thus violating YOUR rights by invading ALL homes searching for illegal guns? Are they going to roll tanks down the street to combat individuals who refuse to surrender their guns? Are you wanting tanks on your street just to take out a few gun owners? Talk about collateral damage. That would cause many many more deaths than the gun owners you fear so much. You can't fight street to street with the full power of the military on domestic soil without massive innocent loses. Does Vietnam or Iraq ring a bell? History is not your strong suit is it? Plus as with the Civil war you forget the active military personal that would defect WITH those powerful weapons. Does the USSR losing control over their own NUKES during the breakup ring a bell? WOW you have absolutely NO idea of the reality of a real war do you? As I said before I am willing to place my life on the line for my rights, are you willing to do the same to take them? Are you willing to chance that tank on your street blasting the right house? Do you trust that young man in charge of those NUKES who's father was killed by your ATF defending his rights? Do you trust the General whose son was arrested by the ATF for owning a gun given to him by his General father? Lincoln thought a war with the south would be easy. The north lost twice as many men as the south and the President ended up with a bullet to the brain. Not as easy as he thought.
Tray

Saltillo, MS

#640 Mar 2, 2013
factologist wrote:
<quoted text>Yadadadada! When are going to Washington, brave con? You're nothing but hot air.
Blaa Blaa Blaa. When are YOU going to come and take them?

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 BOOM: DC Forced to Issue Concealed Carry Permit... Fri Zzznorch 1
Stop white on white crime Fri Truth and Facts 32
News Concealed Carry Shot Down-- Supporters Will Giv... (Mar '06) Fri Denny CranesPlace 4
News D.C. chief: 'We will arrest armed protesters' (May '13) May 27 Truth and Facts 639
News COD Offers Classes Promoting Firearm Safety thi... May 25 Dr David 1
News No wedding for Bristol Palin May 24 Tazo 9
News Concealed Carry Reduced Crime But NOT on Chicag... May 18 Truth and Facts 3
More from around the web