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.

xando

United States

#661 Mar 2, 2013
Tray wrote:
<quoted text> Just in case you missed it again, people from all walks of life and every profession are arming themselves in record numbers and it's not just so they can hand these weapons over to the first SS officer that comes along trying to take them.
So, I will ask this question again.

Why do you people act so paranoid about your guns when it's obvious gun ownership in the US is not now, nor has it ever been threatened.

If more people own guns than ever, how have your rights been infringed?

Paranoia.
Tray

Tupelo, MS

#662 Mar 2, 2013
xando wrote:
<quoted text>
So, I will ask this question again.
Why do you people act so paranoid about your guns when it's obvious gun ownership in the US is not now, nor has it ever been threatened.
If more people own guns than ever, how have your rights been infringed?
Paranoia.
Once again you fail to realize it has nothing to do with guns but the government TRYING to infringe on rights. The first action to oppress a people is to disarm them. Ships have life boats and few will ever need them but you don't wait till you are treading water to get in one. Just what is "you people"? Millions in this country from all walks of life and professions owns guns so just which ones are you implying are "you people"?
xando

United States

#663 Mar 2, 2013
Tray wrote:
<quoted text> Once again you fail to realize it has nothing to do with guns but the government TRYING to infringe on rights. The first action to oppress a people is to disarm them. Ships have life boats and few will ever need them but you don't wait till you are treading water to get in one. Just what is "you people"? Millions in this country from all walks of life and professions owns guns so just which ones are you implying are "you people"?
You. Have. Not. Been. Disarmed. More. People. Have. Guns. Now. Than. Ever.
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#664 Mar 2, 2013
factologist wrote:
<quoted text>Before go running your mouth about what's unconstitutional, you might want to learn what you're talking abot.
For example:
The McDonald Court stated that:
It is important to keep in mind that Heller, while striking down a law that prohibited the possession of handguns in the home, recognized that the right to keep and bear arms is not ‘a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.’ We made it clear in Heller that our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as ‘prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,’‘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.’ We repeat those assurances here. Despite municipal respondents’ doomsday proclamations, incorporation does not imperil every law regulating firearms.
The Court ... concluded that the Second Amendment is also consistent with laws banning “dangerous and unusual weapons” not in common use at the time, such as M-16 rifles and other firearms that are most useful in military service. In addition, the Court declared that its analysis should not be read to suggest “the invalidity of laws regulating the storage of firearms to prevent accidents.
“…or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

NOTE they stated “commercial sale of arms”…NOT private sales.

“The Court ... concluded that the Second Amendment is also consistent with laws banning “dangerous and unusual weapons” not in common use at the time, such as M-16 rifles and other firearms that are most useful in military service.”

You are twisting a few different passages trying to get it to say what you want…not working.

First, this part is NOT from McDonald…it’s from Heller, sort of, and here’s what they actually said;

The Heller court referred to and quoted the Miller decision from 1939;

“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.”

The term “dangerous and unusual weapons” are those identified as NFA arms listed in the NFA. That would include fully automatic weapons, sawed off shotguns, silencers…etc…and does NOT apply to semi-automatic weapons. Noting that it does say the 2nd Amendment would protect those weapons “in common use at the time”, then those semi-automatic weapons would be covered. In fact, it further stated this;

“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.”

“In the absence of any evidence tending to show that the possession or use of a [shortbarreled shotgun] at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.” 307 U. S., at 178 (emphasis added).“Certainly,” the Court continued,“it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.”
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#665 Mar 2, 2013
factologist wrote:
The public heavily favors universal background checks for gun buyers, and a majority of Americans approve of a federal database to track gun sales as well as a ban on "assault style weapons," a new poll from the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press shows.
So...?...are you not familiar how enumerated rights and the minority and majority work...?
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#666 Mar 2, 2013
factologist wrote:
<quoted text>How stupid not not realize the power of the people. No, we citizens of the US don't "dictate rights", but we do influence them. Prohibition and the repeal of prohibition are good examples of that. So was civil rights legislation. you seem to understand very little about our voting system as well.
Mass hysteria, another of your convenient lies. You advocate incarcerating people for life BEFORE they have committed a crime and you call back ground checks mass hysteria. You are just one big lie. You scream that we should follow the 2nd as the SC has said yet when they specifically say banning ARs is in line with the 2nd, you bleat "mass hysteria". Another big fat lie on your part.
STOP LYING!
"No, we citizens of the US don't "dictate rights", but we do influence them. Prohibition and the repeal of prohibition are good examples of that."

How is that an example of influencing rights...?...what right are you talking about...?

"You scream that we should follow the 2nd as the SC has said yet when they specifically say banning ARs is in line with the 2nd, you bleat "mass hysteria". Another big fat lie on your part.
STOP LYING!"

YOU may want to take your own advice because the USSC has NOT ever..."specifically say banning ARs is in line with the 2nd." That is sounding more like "mass hysteria".
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#667 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>
"arms"..."defin ing the term--as it is NOT defined in the Constitution."

HOWEVER, since it is their job, the USSC has defined it.
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#668 Mar 2, 2013
xando wrote:
<quoted text>
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!
Go read Heller.
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#669 Mar 2, 2013
factologist wrote:
<quoted text>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!
WRONG!

“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.”

THE RIGHT APPLIES TO THOSE USED BY THE MILITIA

You may want to remember that part...it will be coming back agaib.

“Certainly,” the Court continued,“it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.”

ORDINARY MILITARY EQUIPMENT...COULD CONTRIBUTE TO THE COMMON DEFENSE.

Both of those terms would apply to semi-automatic "assault weapons" and high capacity magazines.
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#670 Mar 2, 2013
factologist wrote:
<quoted text>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.
You have been off base on several points you keep trying to make...maybe your own "mass hysteria" is affecting you.
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#671 Mar 2, 2013
factologist wrote:
<quoted text>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.
"You own firearms because you want to and you can. Spin it however you want, but that's the bottom line."

AND the biggest reason...it is an individual right that I can freely exercise...that's what upset these "frustrated control freaks"...YOU don't have conrol.
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#672 Mar 2, 2013
factologist wrote:
<quoted text>More of your FILTHY LIES followed by an NRA talking point.
Yours are better..?
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#673 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>
Use mine all the time...nothing wrong with that.
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#674 Mar 2, 2013
xando wrote:
Let's see.........Tray, GetOut, Marauder, Squach.......uh.....CN.
All the same person? I think so.
ROTFLMAO...really...?...you really are a "frustrated control freak" aren't you.
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#675 Mar 2, 2013
factologist wrote:
Tidbits from Heller
-The traditional militia was formed from a pool of
men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense.
-“In the colonial and revolutionary war era,[small-arms] weapons used by militiamen
and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.
-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.
- It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like may 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 Amendment’s 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.
You're getting closer...but where does it say that "...weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like may be banned..." when Miller specifically says "...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."...?
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#676 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.
The Feinstein bill does call for the registration of existing AW.
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#677 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.
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.
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!
"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."

What is this crap...?..."right of the people to ban certain firearms"...?...NO...you have no such right, especially when they specifically said the militia weapons ARE protected by the 2nd Amendmnet.

I wish you ignorant, "frustrated control freaks" would learn to read AND comprehend.
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#678 Mar 3, 2013
factologist wrote:
<quoted text>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 service—M-16 rifles and the like—may 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
Amendment’s 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.
It doesn't say that military arms can be banned...try having someone that can comprehend it explain it to you.
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#679 Mar 3, 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>
BS!
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#680 Mar 3, 2013
factologist wrote:
<quoted text>No, those aren't NECESSARILY the gun nuts. The gun nuts are not characterized by professions, you idiot, they are characterized by what they believe. Like what you believe. You are a gun nut.No matter your profession or CV or skin color or.... Like so many before you who feel brave because they "carry" or because they own an AR simply for the bragging rights and myriad of other personality quirks. Just look in the mirror, read what you write, YOU are a GUN NUT. You are to be pitied and watched.
Same can be said for the "frustrated control freaks" intent on trying to control the lawful activities of others.

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 No wedding for Bristol Palin (May '15) 12 hr Three Days 43
News Assault weapon bans should stand Sat Quirky 766
News Facebook Spends $16 Million on Armed Guards for... Apr 29 okimar 1
News Hillary to Voter Calling for More Second Amendm... Apr 24 GoForTheBandit 1
News Crimson Trace Provides Improved Accuracy Apr 22 duzitreallymatter 1
News It's just a bill Apr 20 payme 1
News Advocates: Vegas Woman Slaying Illustrates Find... Apr 19 spytheweb 1
More from around the web