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

#821 Mar 7, 2013
Squach wrote:
<quoted text>I have never said that I disagree with ALL of his policies either. I just disagree with the majority of them. A very important one in my opinion is gun control. The way elections are run in this country today it's hard to believe anyone gets there honestly. I vote for the candidate who most accurately represents what I believe. Unfortunately NEITHER party has been very good, of late, at finding a candidate who inspires my patriotic fervor. To me Mr. Obama is just another inept office filler that we must put up with until we can find someone who will do the job well.
I've been called a "birther" because I asked questions about the birth certificate BS, even though I have never said what I believe one way or the other. Seems one isn't allowed to ask questions about that.
I've been called a racist because I express views that are contrary to the political philosophy applied by Mr. Obama. I'm told that I dislike his methods "because he's black".
I've been called a "tea bagger" because I express conservative views. I don't know what the "tea party" is all about nor do I care. I'm not a member and I speak as an individual citizen.
I've been called an "NRA gun nut" because I believe that the second amendment means EXACTLY what it says and I believe that it is extremely important to protect our individual rights. I don't have anything against the NRA but I'm not a member and I speak as an individual citizen.
It certainly seems that a great many of the supporters of Mr. Obama and his liberal agenda find philosophical dissent repugnant and attempt to silence it with accusations of everything from insurrection to insanity.
BTW, I don't care whose hands your ass is in, that's TMI my friend.
Excellent post, and spot on!!!
TDH

United States

#822 Mar 7, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
Uh...wouldn't "less"(meaning "not as many") be the same as "fewer", genius?{rolls eyes}
http://englishplus.com/grammar/00000214.htm

Uh...the link explains the difference, but I doubt it will help you. You probably won't be able to figure it out.....genius.

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#823 Mar 7, 2013
Sorry for the double post, I'm having some of those weird topix experiences this morning. Navigating from page to page I keep ending up at the forum index. Seems to be working better now.
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#824 Mar 7, 2013
TDH wrote:
<quoted text>
"FEWER." It's "fewer," dope; not "less."
OMG!...STOP the presses..."We need pictures to include to show the idiots like "TDH".

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#825 Mar 7, 2013
TDH wrote:
<quoted text>
http://englishplus.com/grammar/00000214.htm
Uh...the link explains the difference, but I doubt it will help you. You probably won't be able to figure it out.....genius.
In mathematics, is "<" a less-than symbol, or a fewer-than symbol?
factologist

Huntsville, AL

#826 Mar 7, 2013
Squach wrote:
<quoted text>Since none of that definition applies to me, why do I keep getting called a racist when I say that Mr. Obama is too liberal and I don't agree with his leadership methods? Or that I don't like his political philosophy? Why is that?
Maybe it's because people ust don't like you.
factologist

Huntsville, AL

#827 Mar 7, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
"Anytime people arm themselves with the idea of killing other humans in mind it bothers the Hell out of me, be that a neighbor, the Feds or Iraqis. Self defense is one thing, planning, almost anticipating a chance to use one's arsenal is another."
AND YOU, all by yourself, can tell what lurks in the hearts of others. So why aren't you employed with the FBI...?...you could be their tracker dog.
But instead...because you don't have a clue...and like the true "frustrated control freak" that you are...you seek to infringe on the rights of all men in the slim hope of affecting crime.
So while you are pursuing this endeavor...please explain the FACT that violent crime, to include crime with a gun, has been going down for the past 20 years and the number of "LEGAL" guns on the street has increased with now 49, soon to be 50 States, with some form of concealed carry and more and more people walking the streets legally armed..?
RACIST!
factologist

Huntsville, AL

#828 Mar 7, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
So the NRA twisted the President's arm to entice him to challenge the rights of the people by going after the least used weapons in crimes...makes a lot of sense...don't you think...?
I think you don't make ANY sense.
factologist

Huntsville, AL

#829 Mar 7, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh jeez...get a room.
Kiss my grits.
factologist

Huntsville, AL

#830 Mar 7, 2013
Squach wrote:
<quoted text>I have never said that I disagree with ALL of his policies either. I just disagree with the majority of them. A very important one in my opinion is gun control. The way elections are run in this country today it's hard to believe anyone gets there honestly. I vote for the candidate who most accurately represents what I believe. Unfortunately NEITHER party has been very good, of late, at finding a candidate who inspires my patriotic fervor. To me Mr. Obama is just another inept office filler that we must put up with until we can find someone who will do the job well.
I've been called a "birther" because I asked questions about the birth certificate BS, even though I have never said what I believe one way or the other. Seems one isn't allowed to ask questions about that.
I've been called a racist because I express views that are contrary to the political philosophy applied by Mr. Obama. I'm told that I dislike his methods "because he's black".
I've been called a "tea bagger" because I express conservative views. I don't know what the "tea party" is all about nor do I care. I'm not a member and I speak as an individual citizen.
I've been called an "NRA gun nut" because I believe that the second amendment means EXACTLY what it says and I believe that it is extremely important to protect our individual rights. I don't have anything against the NRA but I'm not a member and I speak as an individual citizen.
It certainly seems that a great many of the supporters of Mr. Obama and his liberal agenda find philosophical dissent repugnant and attempt to silence it with accusations of everything from insurrection to insanity.
BTW, I don't care whose hands your ass is in, that's TMI my friend.
Admirable post at explaining your positions on Obama and some of your conservative leanings. I congratulate you.

I do take issue with one of your statements.
That is "that the second amendment means EXACTLY what it says." Here's my problem with that; Take the Supreme Court case of United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) Gun rights advocates claim this case as a victory because they interpret it to state that ownership of weapons for efficiency or preservation of a well-regulated militia unit of the present day is specifically protected.
IOW the court's decision connected the "right to bear" with the "right" to maintain a militia, not simply with the "right" of the individual. 69 years later, another Supreme Court case,District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), 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.
Can you see the difference? " means EXACTLY what it says" meant nothing in either of these cases. In reality, the 2nd, as well as all the amendments, is a legal issue as such the meaning of an amendment is as "interpreted" by the courts.
Tray

Nettleton, MS

#831 Mar 7, 2013
Squach wrote:
<quoted text>I have never said that I disagree with ALL of his policies either. I just disagree with the majority of them. A very important one in my opinion is gun control. The way elections are run in this country today it's hard to believe anyone gets there honestly. I vote for the candidate who most accurately represents what I believe. Unfortunately NEITHER party has been very good, of late, at finding a candidate who inspires my patriotic fervor. To me Mr. Obama is just another inept office filler that we must put up with until we can find someone who will do the job well.
I've been called a "birther" because I asked questions about the birth certificate BS, even though I have never said what I believe one way or the other. Seems one isn't allowed to ask questions about that.
I've been called a racist because I express views that are contrary to the political philosophy applied by Mr. Obama. I'm told that I dislike his methods "because he's black".
I've been called a "tea bagger" because I express conservative views. I don't know what the "tea party" is all about nor do I care. I'm not a member and I speak as an individual citizen.
I've been called an "NRA gun nut" because I believe that the second amendment means EXACTLY what it says and I believe that it is extremely important to protect our individual rights. I don't have anything against the NRA but I'm not a member and I speak as an individual citizen.
It certainly seems that a great many of the supporters of Mr. Obama and his liberal agenda find philosophical dissent repugnant and attempt to silence it with accusations of everything from insurrection to insanity.
BTW, I don't care whose hands your ass is in, that's TMI my friend.
Absolutely perfect post.
Tray

Nettleton, MS

#832 Mar 7, 2013
factologist wrote:
<quoted text>Admirable post at explaining your positions on Obama and some of your conservative leanings. I congratulate you.
I do take issue with one of your statements.
That is "that the second amendment means EXACTLY what it says." Here's my problem with that; Take the Supreme Court case of United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) Gun rights advocates claim this case as a victory because they interpret it to state that ownership of weapons for efficiency or preservation of a well-regulated militia unit of the present day is specifically protected.
IOW the court's decision connected the "right to bear" with the "right" to maintain a militia, not simply with the "right" of the individual. 69 years later, another Supreme Court case,District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), 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.
Can you see the difference? " means EXACTLY what it says" meant nothing in either of these cases. In reality, the 2nd, as well as all the amendments, is a legal issue as such the meaning of an amendment is as "interpreted" by the courts.
Except as you pointed out in previous posts, those on the SCOTUS at any given time are appointed for their views on certain agendas at the time and not their being impartial. A gun control president will appoint judges who embrace gun control not one who is impartial. The problem with constant review of the Constitution is each court has it's own view and rarely are any two the same. The words don't change simply because a different party is in office. The Second Amendment has already been debated in the government by the lawmakers before it was included in the Bill of Rights so why should it continue to be debated today? Self defense was deemed a right at the time and rights don't expire due to the passing of time. The original interpretation is clear and is backed by other writings of the founding fathers. Only those wishing to abolish the right are the ones wanting to find a loop hole. There is no loop hole and to claim otherwise is a pure lie and anyone believing that lie is a fool.

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#833 Mar 7, 2013
factologist wrote:
<quoted text>Maybe it's because people ust don't like you.
Those "people" must not like anyone who expresses doubt or disagreement with Mr. Obama and his supporters because I've watched others receive the same treatment. I didn't invent the behavior, just observed it.
Tray

Nettleton, MS

#834 Mar 7, 2013
factologist wrote:
<quoted text>Admirable post at explaining your positions on Obama and some of your conservative leanings. I congratulate you.
I do take issue with one of your statements.
That is "that the second amendment means EXACTLY what it says." Here's my problem with that; Take the Supreme Court case of United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) Gun rights advocates claim this case as a victory because they interpret it to state that ownership of weapons for efficiency or preservation of a well-regulated militia unit of the present day is specifically protected.
IOW the court's decision connected the "right to bear" with the "right" to maintain a militia, not simply with the "right" of the individual. 69 years later, another Supreme Court case,District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), 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.
Can you see the difference? " means EXACTLY what it says" meant nothing in either of these cases. In reality, the 2nd, as well as all the amendments, is a legal issue as such the meaning of an amendment is as "interpreted" by the courts.
I have a great idea. Politicians pass illegal laws all the time because they face no penalty for them. How about if their laws all had to meet SCOTUS review and ANY found to be unconstitutional would be met with all those voting for it to be executed for treason. I bet all these in favor of gun control would be much more cautious in putting forward these laws because they KNOW they are unconstitutional.

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#835 Mar 7, 2013
factologist wrote:
<quoted text>Admirable post at explaining your positions on Obama and some of your conservative leanings. I congratulate you.
I do take issue with one of your statements.
That is "that the second amendment means EXACTLY what it says." Here's my problem with that; Take the Supreme Court case of United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) Gun rights advocates claim this case as a victory because they interpret it to state that ownership of weapons for efficiency or preservation of a well-regulated militia unit of the present day is specifically protected.
IOW the court's decision connected the "right to bear" with the "right" to maintain a militia, not simply with the "right" of the individual. 69 years later, another Supreme Court case,District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), 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.
Can you see the difference? " means EXACTLY what it says" meant nothing in either of these cases. In reality, the 2nd, as well as all the amendments, is a legal issue as such the meaning of an amendment is as "interpreted" by the courts.
And therein lies the rub. The SCOTUS has overstepped its authority when it "interprets" the constitution in a manner that is clearly not in keeping with the author's interpretation, intent, and meaning. Our checks and balances are the best in the world but they aren't perfect and we have allowed the SCOTUS evolve beyond it's intended role. It's not the job of the SCOTUS to REWRITE the constitution. They are charged with applying the author's "interpretation" not their own.
downhill246

Pompano Beach, FL

#836 Mar 7, 2013
factologist wrote:
<quoted text>That's right. The Democratic party was a different party then, as was the Republican party. Try reading about the history of their metamorphosis; it's an interesting story.


A higher percentage of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Other than being a benevolent modern day slave owner, I am not quite seeing the angel wings on the DNC.
downhill246

Pompano Beach, FL

#837 Mar 7, 2013
factologist wrote:
..

I do take issue with one of your statements.
That is "that the second amendment means EXACTLY what it says." Here's my problem with that; Take the Supreme Court case of United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) Gun rights advocates claim this case as a victory because they interpret it to state that ownership of weapons for efficiency or preservation of a well-regulated militia unit of the present day is specifically protected.
IOW the court's decision connected the "right to bear" with the "right" to maintain a militia, not simply with the "right" of the individual. 69 years later, another Supreme Court case,District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), 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.
Can you see the difference? " means EXACTLY what it says" meant nothing in either of these cases. In reality, the 2nd, as well as all the amendments, is a legal issue as such the meaning of an amendment is as "interpreted" by the courts.
Obviously the high court did not require Miller or Layton to be a member/members of a "well-regulated militia" to bring a constitutional challenge via the 2nd Amendment. If the court believed that to be a requirement then they would have dismissed the challenge because the plaintiffs weren't members of a well regulated militia and never claimed to be. A claim of "no standing" is a common practice of the court to refuse to hear a constitutional challenge. Michael Newdow's establishment clause challenge to "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance was dismissed because the court ruled he did not have standing to sue. The fact that SCOTUS ruled on the challenge is prima facie evidence that being a member of a well regulated militia was never a requirement to exercise the right to keep and bear arms under the 2nd Amendment.

Attorneys for the United States argued four points. Points three and four were; the Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia and the "double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length, bearing identification number 76230" was never used in any militia organization. The US attorneys never argued that Miller or Layton were not members of a well regulated militia meaning the federal government didn't consider it a requirement either.

Neither the defendants nor their legal counsel appeared at the Supreme Court. A lack of financial support and procedural irregularities prevented counsel from traveling.] Miller was found shot to death in April, before the decision was rendered.

If counsel was present at the court hearing he could have argued that sawed off shotguns were used by US forces in trench warfare during WW1.

//////////

Sawed off shotguns
Used by American soldiers in the Western front, the pump action shotgun was a formidable weapon in short range combat, enough so that Germany lodged a formal protest against their use on 14

September 1918, stating "every prisoner found to have in his possession such guns or ammunition belonging thereto forfeits his life", though this threat was apparently never carried out. The U.S. military began to issue models specially modified for combat, called "trench guns", with shorter barrels, higher capacity magazines, no choke, and often heat shields around the barrel, as well as lugs for the M1917 bayonet. Anzac and some British soldiers were also known to use sawn-off shotguns in trench raids, because of their portability, effectiveness at close range, and ease of use in the confines of a trench. This practice was not officially sanctioned, and the shotguns used were invariably modified sporting guns.

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

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#838 Mar 7, 2013
factologist wrote:
<quoted text>Kiss my grits.
Flo?? Is that you???

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#839 Mar 7, 2013
factologist wrote:
<quoted text>I think you don't make ANY sense.
And of course it wouldn't to someone who is fact-proof.
factologist

Huntsville, AL

#840 Mar 7, 2013
Squach wrote:
<quoted text>Those "people" must not like anyone who expresses doubt or disagreement with Mr. Obama and his supporters because I've watched others receive the same treatment. I didn't invent the behavior, just observed it.
No,dislike of you has nothing to do with your feelings about Obama, I assure you.

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 With Obama leaving, Congressional Republicans l... Fri Bow Down 1
News Officials have duty to Nevadans to make backgro... Jan 16 duzitreallymatter 2
News CCW Weekend: The Enduring Concealed Carry Revolver Jan 15 jimwildrickjr 1
News Washington attorney general proposes assault we... Jan 13 justice 2
News Extend background checks to save lives Jan 9 duzitreallymatter 3
Our own worst enemy Jan 7 justice 3
News GOP Rep Introduces National Concealed Carry Rec... Jan 7 jimwildrickjr 9
More from around the web