Ind. could be first to require armed ...

Ind. could be first to require armed school employees

There are 583 comments on the USA Today story from Apr 3, 2013, titled Ind. could be first to require armed school employees. In it, USA Today reports that:

The Indiana House Education Committee approved legislation Tuesday, April 2, 2013, that would mandate the creation of a protection officer for each school.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at USA Today.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#565 Apr 12, 2013
Le Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text>cut an paste noted. Tagged and bagged.
Dont forget to say hello to AuCuntraire for me.

“Hillary, thirty years of lying”

Since: Nov 08

Paris

#566 Apr 12, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Dont forget to say hello to AuCuntraire for me.
Ok, tell us how to contact her. Did Topix give you her address.....poor lil' pookie, lives in a world of pretend.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#567 Apr 12, 2013
Le Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text>Ok, tell us how to contact her.
Her?

Was AuCuntraire supposed to be a her, Dumbo?

If anything, I am disappointed you didn't work a little harder on making that sale.

Let's move on to another alias?
conservative crapola

Orefield, PA

#568 Apr 12, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Dont forget to say hello to AuCuntraire for me.
Has he/she come up for air yet?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#569 Apr 12, 2013
Dumbo is still grieving...
Cat74

United States

#570 Apr 12, 2013
If the Senate gun contol bill was so good why aren't the Democrats celebrating? By the time Boehner dismantles it in the House they will have less then nothing. Democrats are not stupid. They stand for election in 18 months. They don't want their name on a strict gun control bill.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#571 Apr 13, 2013
Cat74 wrote:
If the Senate gun contol bill was so good why aren't the Democrats celebrating? By the time Boehner dismantles
Take a Civics class, LyingC*t74.

“Hillary, thirty years of lying”

Since: Nov 08

Paris

#572 Apr 13, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Take a Civics class, LyingC*t74.
hahahaha promoting the destruction of the constitution and you are telling people to take a civics class. You are a walking clusterfutch.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#573 Apr 13, 2013
Le Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text>hahahaha promoting the destruction of the constitution
Right.

"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
Speaking for the SCOTUS majority
this century
Cat74

United States

#574 Apr 13, 2013
What ever Scalia said the entire Supreme Court has ruled twice in the last 5 years in favor of the Second Amendement. Uh, after the gun bill went to the Senate it has to now go to the House where the Speaker might not even bring it up for a vote.So all the hoopla over the background check it just idle talk.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#575 Apr 13, 2013
Cat74 wrote:
What ever Scalia said the entire Supreme Court has ruled twice
Scalia was speaking for the majority.

To compare: you can't blink without lying.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#576 Apr 13, 2013
Cat74 wrote:
where the Speaker might not even bring it up for a vote.
Where he will bring it up for a vote or the 90 percent of Americans who want a universal background check will blame his party and 2014 is a year from now.
Cat74

United States

#577 Apr 13, 2013
Scalia cannot speak for the majority. if the majority felt that way the 2nd amendment would be threatened. The 2nd amendment to the Bill of Rights is not threatened at this time. Democrats can propose all the gun control they want, but they are a long way from getting it. If they don't get it soon, as before July 4th, they won't get anything. The majority will be campaigning for next years election, and gun control is one of those 3rd rail things. It is fun to watch.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#578 Apr 13, 2013
Cat74 wrote:
Scalia cannot speak for the majority.
He can and he does and he did as author on Heller and speaks for the majority frequently.

You lie every time you blink, Lying C*t74

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#579 Apr 13, 2013
Cat74 wrote:
Scalia cannot speak for the majority. if the majority felt that way the 2nd amendment would be threatened.
Geez, you are stupid.

He did and he wrote the majority opinion.
Cat74

United States

#580 Apr 13, 2013
If it was the majority opinion Goofy One it would be law. It isn't. You are too stupid to run around without a keeper. Even with this new "hurdle" the Democrats are doing their Jungle dance around there is still no Auto weapons ban, and no background check on inherited guns, or gift of guns, or private sales. It is nonsense. No one will enforce it. It is all for show.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#581 Apr 13, 2013
Cat74 wrote:
If it was the majority opinion Goofy One it would be law. It isn't. You are too stupid to run around without a keeper. Even with this new "hurdle" the Democrats are doing their Jungle dance around there is still no Auto weapons ban, and no background check on inherited guns, or gift of guns, or private sales. It is nonsense. No one will enforce it. It is all for show.
Exactly.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#582 Apr 13, 2013
Cat74 wrote:
If it was the majority opinion Goofy One it would be law.\.
YOU STUPID COW.

It is the law.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#583 Apr 13, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>Exactly.
AnalOriface: Majority opinion, Heller, when you are done doing the sausage bob on your boyfriend, look it up.

SCOTUS
Held:

1. 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, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation 2 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER Syllabus of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous armsbearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individual rights interpretation. 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. Pp. 47–54.

++++++++++ pay attention++++++++++
2. 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. 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. Pp. 54–56.

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this Syllabus prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster.
(clip)

Wipe your face, AO, you're working on a real protein stain there...

“Hillary, thirty years of lying”

Since: Nov 08

Paris

#585 Apr 14, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Right.
"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
Speaking for the SCOTUS majority
this century
You keep posting that like it means something. Is cut and paste all you can do without your gerbils help.

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.

Republican Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 4 min Chicagoan by Birth 243,857
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 15 min syamsu 209,837
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 19 min LOC 18,477
News Pilot who led Trump's police backers fired afte... 2 hr Le Jimbo 6
News Wells Fargo claws back part of CEO, other execu... 2 hr Go Blue Forever 7
News Senate blocks bill with $500 million for Louisi... 3 hr Le Jimbo 10
News Pence: Trump will "speak the truth" during debate 3 hr Le Jimbo 18
More from around the web