|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> School Shooting /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1443728880 Message started by WebsterMark on 10/01/15 at 12:48:00 |
|
Title: School Shooting Post by WebsterMark on 10/01/15 at 12:48:00 I'll bet that school was a gun free zone...... When are we going to face reality? There are 300 + million guns in the US, there is no such thing as gun control. That horse left the barn a long time ago. When the details of this shooter come out, lets see where the simplest point of interception could have occured (if there even is one) and why not focus resources on those points? |
|
Title: Re: School Shooting Post by Serowbot on 10/01/15 at 13:20:02 4D7F78696E7F68577B68711A0 wrote:
This is true... ...but,.. the first thing to do, when you find yourself in a hole, no matter how deep, is stop digging... The answer to the gun problem just can't be more guns... Soon,.. we will look like Afghanistan... women pushing shopping carts with AK's slung over their shoulders... Armed guards at theatres and schools... We already have metal detectors at events, and shows... That's no way to live... Between security, border enforcement, and building levee's to hold back rising seas,.... we will have no one left to produce goods... Add to that,... an aging population, and going in a hand-basket... :-?... |
|
Title: Re: School Shooting Post by WebsterMark on 10/01/15 at 14:40:59 The answer certainly isn't gun free zones or the MSM castigating the NRA or the entire midwest and south as backward hicks. you've got guns, i have no concern with you owning guns. however, take the stats on gun crime that occur in inner cities out of the equation and the US crime rates probably fall into European categories. lets start really addressing that. we had a terrible incident in st louis this week. a vets and his girlfiend were robbed after a cardinal baseball game. he was shot in the back and is now paralyzed for rest of his life. everyone knew what the background of the suspect was going to be when he was caught and of course everyone was righy. multiple violent crimes in his history. ...why was he out? |
|
Title: Re: School Shooting Post by WebsterMark on 10/01/15 at 14:54:51 if i take the crime stats of 3 st. louis zip codes out of the figures, you'd think st. louis was the safest city in America. Doesn't that tell us that we don't have a gun problem, we have a culture problem? and if thats true (which it is) why are we wasting time pursuing silly gun control schemes that liberals shove down our throat? |
|
Title: Re: School Shooting Post by MnSpring on 10/01/15 at 15:01:15 7B494E5F58495E614D5E472C0 wrote:
WHAT ? Tell me that's not true ! " Gun Free Zones " ARE, the Answer. They will, STOP, the senseless killing by a Nut Job. Or at least, we are told that, over, and Over, and OVER, By the majority of Media, and the Berny Sander types. Or, maybe, Just maybe, a, 'gun free zone', does NOT WORK ? |
|
Title: Re: School Shooting Post by WebsterMark on 10/01/15 at 18:21:23 Just want to make sure I get the scorecard correct......... we politicize mass gun shootings, but we don't politicize selling baby parts. Okay, got it now.... |
|
Title: Re: School Shooting Post by raydawg on 10/01/15 at 18:47:15 Ok bot, what is your plan, and how will it work? |
|
Title: Re: School Shooting Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/01/15 at 19:41:26 I can't tell you how many times I've been told to answer a question, But, the answer couldn't be Ron Paul. When that's the answer, then that's the answer. Gun Free Zones are just target rich environments. The wealthy gun grabbers have armed guards and their children are never away from armed guards.. so, if that's the answer for Them,, I say it's a GOOD ANSWER, Try reading that in Chris Rocks voice.. And I don't know or care about what he says about guns. |
|
Title: Re: School Shooting Post by Serowbot on 10/01/15 at 22:54:39 6E7D65787D6B7B1C0 wrote:
Okay,.. I'll get to that in a minute... ...but, what is the alternative?... and which is the alternative?... We Need more guns... We should all carry guns... everywhere... We should also have better security... We should have armed security at all public places... theatres, schools, McD's, supermarkets, malls, colleges, courts, TV stations, sporting events, concerts,...etc... The two are mutually exclusive... :-? Think about it... Everyone is armed,... and everywhere has security looking for people that might be armed... You can identify an armed man,... by visual, search, or metal detection... fine and dandy... But we're all packin' for self defense... :-/... Point is,... you can identify an armed man... You can't identify a mentally disturbed man... Most of them, were okay at some point, and lost it at some point... Was it today?... or last week?... last year? or 10 minutes ago?... "Cops lives matter"... several cops have been gunned down recently... These men were armed,.. alert, and more aware of danger than 99% of us... Gunes didn't save them... "American Sniper".... this man was a trained killer, as was his friend,.... expert shot,.. armed at the time,... and suspicious of the person... and was still gunned down... You can't outdraw a drawn gun... :-? ...if you think you can,.. you are delusional... ...And you can't ID a mentally disturbed person... We have "metal" detectors... we don't have "mental" detectors... I do own guns... I have owned them since before Columbine... I like their craftsmanship, precision, accuracy........etc... But, times have changed... Less guns,... more restrictions... is not the perfect answer. It is the only answer. I know the argument... a gun is just tool... Well,.. it isn't... For most people it is a thingy enhancement... Just like a sportscar, 4x4, Hog, crotch rocket, I-pad, Rolex, Nike's, or Confederate flag... Let's call a spade a spade... ;D... Let's call a thingy a thingy... :-?... Site censor bit me in da' butt... :-/.... ;D ;D ;D... |
|
Title: Re: School Shooting Post by raydawg on 10/02/15 at 03:47:52 Sorry, did I miss something....... I didn't see a plan that would fix those who use guns against others. You want to hazard a guess as to why it seems these shootings are becoming more commonplace? Is it social media? 24/7 constant negative news bombardment? Polarization by social, academia, and political leaders? |
|
Title: Re: School Shooting Post by WebsterMark on 10/02/15 at 05:21:09 I know the argument... a gun is just tool... Well,.. it isn't... For most people it is a thingy enhancement... Just like a sportscar, 4x4, Hog, crotch rocket, I-pad, Rolex, Nike's, or Confederate flag... None of these people are walking into schools and shooting everyone, but these are the people liberal gun control laws impact. It makes no sense. You want some perspective? This causalities at this school shooting number far less than Chicago's July 4th weekend. We are going ape$hit over this and Hopey's calling for yet more laws yet Chicago has some of the toughest and this weekend it's 50/50 that just as many will be killed. No, we can't have armed security everywhere and I wouldn't want that anyway. But there is a fact that's just plain tough to get around. The thing that had the highest likelihood of stopping this was another armed person in that school. In fact, there was an army vet at the school who was packing (said he didn't care about the signs saying gun free zone), but he didn't hear about it right away and was too far. If he'd been near by, the damage would have been limited. There is no easy answer, just a tough question: In a free society like ours, is this the price we have to pay? |
|
Title: Re: School Shooting Post by Serowbot on 10/02/15 at 05:47:48 546661707766714E627168030 wrote:
I guess so... Chicago's gun sale ban is useless, when a 10 minute bus ride can get you to a gun store... You can't do that in Australia... or England... So, I guess they're not free countries... |
|
Title: Re: School Shooting Post by raydawg on 10/02/15 at 05:57:58 Free and secure, is sorta like sweet and sour or pretty ugly, an oxymoron..... How about we can still walk around freely but the authorities install and monitor scanners that ping off of a chip implanted.... No return ping we got a person who is trying to hide, and we nabbed em' |
|
Title: Re: School Shooting Post by Paraquat on 10/02/15 at 06:08:37 I'm not agreeing with Donald because I had the idea first... stricter laws and enforcement of laws already legislated. Florida passed a 10-20-30 law. Quote:
And guess what happened? Quote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10-20-Life No one will ever be able to harness the control over firearms so you may as well get ahead of it and figure out why people are killing each other. --Steve |
|
Title: Re: School Shooting Post by verslagen1 on 10/02/15 at 11:45:37 Gun free zones don't work. All they do is disarm law abiding citizens. Which isn't a bad thing, keeping guns outta the hands of hot headed kids is smart. I believe there are multiple reasons to have guns that will not change, ever. crime-leo's are not responsible for your safety. if leo's were stationed on every block, would they be there to protect you or control you? wildlife-bears come to my neighborhood frequently. I might be able to fend off the lessors critters with a shovel, but a bear will use it to pick his teeth with after he ate you. entertainment-putting holes in targets is fun. the bigger hole, the more fun. I haven't followed what the laws were broken yet in this case. Did he have the guns legally? when will the future crime police come? |
|
Title: Re: School Shooting Post by pg on 10/02/15 at 15:20:36 Hovis: Tell us how it works in the UK. I'm interested.... Best regards, |
|
Title: Re: School Shooting Post by oldNslow on 10/02/15 at 18:32:20 I wish I could be as eloquent as this lady, but I can't, so I'll just give you her words to consider. "..an otherwise undistinguished loser demonstrates the easiest way in America to get your own Wikipedia page and your name on the president's lips. And they're all over it on the TV, and this dillweed's actions are the topic of everyone's conversations, and they're interviewing every student who can claim they caught a glimpse of him and all I can keep yelling at the television screen is "Why didn't you shoot him?" Seriously, this guy allegedly has time to huddle people together and hold dialogues on their religion? Sounds like there was ample time for any even moderately competent shooter to smoke check his a**. But no. We're yet again going to be bombarded with discussions about taking guns away from the wrong people instead of arming the right ones. There weren't four too many guns in that classroom, there was one too few." Tam, "View From the Porch" That's the bottom line right there. Everything else is just ideological posturing and bullsh*t |
|
Title: Re: School Shooting Post by raydawg on 10/02/15 at 19:17:22 I appreciate this take..... Thursday night, as the sun set over Washington, if you asked President Obama who had been brave that day, he’d have said himself, not the students who declared themselves Christians knowing they were going to die because of it. Barack Obama, after all, had stood up to Republicans and the NRA — real bravery. In 1,299 words, at a press conference at the White House, the president never condemned the killings in Oregon. Before he spoke, officials confirmed that the shooter targeted his victims based on their religion. In 1,299 words, the president never called for religious tolerance. Before we knew who the gunman was or what his motive was, the president of the United States rushed to the podium to make the case for gun control. He even admitted he was politicizing it and that the shooting should be politicized. In his speech, the president said, “We talked about [gun control] after Columbine and Blacksburg, after Tucson, after Newtown, after Aurora, after Charleston.” What is so outrageous is that this time the president decided to politicize the situation after we already knew that the shooter had demanded the victims declare their religion before gunning them down. But the president never mentioned that. He never mentioned religious tolerance. But the president did not politicize the shooting in Virginia when it was a black, gay man who killed the reporters. The president did not politicize the shooting in Chattanooga when it was a Muslim radical who did the shooting. The president did not politicize the shooting of the Muslim family in North Carolina when it turned out the shooter was a gay-rights supporting atheist Obama voter. No, he and the political left ran from those stories as quickly as possible. “Look over there!!!” the media demanded. “Look at this story,” they declared as soon as the shooter did not mean the demographics that allowed them to press for gun control or talk about racism. They moved on from those stories as quickly as they moved on from the story of the gunman at the Discovery Channel offices who was killing liberals for not doing enough to stop global warming. They moved on from those stories as quickly as they moved on from the gunman at the Family Research Council who was a gay rights activist intent on killing Christians. Before the identity of the shooter was public this time, however, the president rushed as quickly as possible to make the case for gun control. He wanted to get out the gun control story as quickly as possible, just in case the facts became inconvenient to his politics and the left had to again move on quickly. What is so outrageous is that this time the president decided to politicize the situation after we already knew that the shooter had demanded the victims declare their religion before gunning them down. But the president never mentioned that. He never mentioned religious tolerance. Last week, the president told Pope Francis that we should all be able to live our faith in the public square. Meanwhile his administration and allies continue to harass Christians and sue them. Now someone goes into a school, demands to know the religion of the victims, and guns them down. But instead of calling for religious tolerance – as he would have if the shooter had been a Muslim – the president instead demands gun control. But in calling for “common sense” gun control, the president cannot name any gun control laws that would have stopped the shooting. In the same way Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe demanded background checks after the Virginia shooting only to find out the shooter had had a background check, the president cannot name any gun laws, other than curtailing gun ownership, that would have stopped the shooting. That is why, time and again, gun control arguments fall flat. But men like Barack Obama keep trying. Perhaps instead of the president politicizing the deaths of around a dozen Americans, killed for professing their religion, he should first answer a simple question: why are there more mass shootings like this under his watch than under George W. Bush’s watch? I really don’t think the man presiding over a cultural suicide should really be the man who leads on this issue, particularly when his “common sense gun control” policy solutions would not have stopped this tragedy. Evil is on the rise. It is real. It is active. It is global. And the president more often than not coddles it instead of confronting it. So perhaps we should just go back to ignoring him. |
|
Title: Re: School Shooting Post by verslagen1 on 10/02/15 at 21:08:09 This just hit the news, another army vet has saved more lived by denying the shooter access to another room full of students. |
|
Title: Re: School Shooting Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/02/15 at 21:24:18 How many students in the classroom needed to be armed to stop this Unavoidable tragedy? |
|
Title: Re: School Shooting Post by DesertRat on 10/03/15 at 11:38:01 And so it goes something like this: You beat him to death? What's the matter with you? You strangled him to death? What's the matter with you? You stabbed him to death? What's the matter with you? You shot him to death? We've got to do something about guns! |
|
Title: Re: School Shooting Post by Serowbot on 10/03/15 at 13:37:14 Just wait until we have a rash of mass strangulation's... ;D... |
|
Title: Re: School Shooting Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/03/15 at 14:55:39 A girl I went to school with married a jerk. Relationship in decline, divorce looming, he decided that his MIL and the wifes two brothers, each in their mid to late teens, needed to die. He slipped into the house late in the night, with a baseball bat. The victims were found ,bludgeoned to death, in their beds. Apparently, the noise created by a bat is small enough to not wake people in other rooms, even when the impact is sufficient to knock someone out, then viciously beat them to death. That was most likely a legally obtained bat. I just can't wait to see what the gun control crowd has to say about that. |
|
Title: Re: School Shooting Post by pg on 10/03/15 at 15:56:24 2,332 shooting victims in Chicago this year..... ::) http://crime.chicagotribune.com/chicago/shootings Best regards, |
|
Title: Re: School Shooting Post by raydawg on 10/03/15 at 16:16:26 Who is the mayor of Chicago? Oh yeah..... never let a good catastrophe go to waste dude, and Bo's best bud. Must be something in the Kool-Aid there, eh? |
|
Title: Re: School Shooting Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/03/15 at 17:48:33 504F494E53546555655D4F43083A0 wrote:
Really, I'm shocked. Three bludgeoned to death while they slept and nothing from the gun control front? Chicago, what a shining example. Took the Supreme Court to drive them into an almost Constitutional position. The local powers immediately set about making it as troublesome as possible to own a dang gun. http://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/article/605498 I'd like to see what percentage have bought, what percentage have CC licenses and what percentage of those shootings are gang violence. Chicago has seen decades of Progressive leadership, decades of being a magnet for the societal sponges who mooch off of the productivity. I went to see what Chicago is based on economically. http://www.city-data.com/us-cities/The-Midwest/Chicago-Economy.html It Sounds good.. well, it sounds better than what I've come to believe. And I trust no Official unemployment reports. Shadowstats, I trust that to be a lot more accurate. |
|
Title: Re: School Shooting Post by thumperclone on 10/03/15 at 23:56:09 said it b4 sayin it again "when guns are out lawed only outlaws will have guns" not my own words |
|
Title: Re: School Shooting Post by old.indian on 10/04/15 at 08:16:27 Everyone has a solution (except me). Government doesn't have a very good record of banning anything. Booze, drugs etc. it just makes crime and corruption bigger and more profitable. As far as "gun control... Recent memories of the DoJ "tracking" weapons going from the US to the Mexican drug cartels comes to mind .... Fact A very low percentage of SANE people will willingly use a fire arm on another person NO MATTER WHAT THE SITUATION. They may have a CC permit, they may be trained in it's use BUT when the actual situation arises NO ONE KNOWS HOW THEY WILL REACT . AND FYI "guns" aren't the only "deadly weapon" ... I was back east when two guys got into an argument and the matter was "solved" by a crossbow bolt. More recently here an argument was "settled" by running over the opponent with an SUV. Every one is a bad a$$ UNTILL things get real .... Having armed citizens around doesn't make you safer, they be the one who "snaps". Example the retired cop in a movie theater who didn't like a person texting during the previews of coming attractions...... |
|
Title: Re: School Shooting Post by raydawg on 10/04/15 at 08:46:14 You're right, you saw the results of prohibition. Drunk driving causes way more deaths than guns, yet.....??? |
|
Title: Re: School Shooting Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/04/15 at 17:11:00 OI, ONE example, a retired cop, going bonkers, is not enough to say CC, armed citizens, is not a good idea. |
|
Title: Re: School Shooting Post by old.indian on 10/04/15 at 20:04:46 JoG2: Are you familiar with the terms "Friendly Fire" or "Collateral Damage" ????? Not too long ago two NYC policemen opened fire on an armed murder suspect (loaded .45 in his hand). The suspect was killed (with out getting off a single round) EIGHT (8) innocent bystanders were wounded in varying severity. Not every round fired hits its' "intended" target . BUT it does hit something or someone. And the more armed citizens firing, the more rounds flying around, the more likely some "collateral damage" is going to be bleeding its' life out in the street two blocks away from the scene . |
|
Title: Re: School Shooting Post by DesertRat on 10/04/15 at 20:17:25 "old.indian", oh the irony in your user name, advocating disarming citizens . |
|
Title: Re: School Shooting Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/04/15 at 20:49:36 Yep, I'm well familiar with FF, collateral damage. No guarantees in life. Ill risk that over just a pile of dead bodies. |
|
Title: Re: School Shooting Post by mpescatori on 10/05/15 at 01:35:50 GUN control means, first of all, controlling yourself. If you are prone to rage attacks or fits, you shouldn't have a gun, period. I don't care if you are best friends with whomever, or some big shot's son or son-in-law, chances are you WILL draw and shoot in an entirely haphazard and arbitrarious manner, i.e. overkill. Too bad that "overkill" will not mean "swatting a fly with a hammer" but killing the guy with the flyswatter... I don't understand how you can have driving licenses, hunting permits, fishing permits, passports to travel, library cards to borrow a book, and then jump on the 2nd Amendment bandwagon, misread it and claim everybody and his dog are entitled to carrying a gun as if it were a pair of sunglasses. I do not know if my comment sounds offensive and quite frankly I do not care; the US has an inherent problem with social violence and this is carried on not only in the streets but in foreign politics and used systematically. Overkill means exaggeration; exaggeration causes collateral damage. Any sentient adult will know that, whatever one does, "collateral damage" is the kind of result which should immediately bring not excuses but apologies, not pointing the blame at somebody else but admission of own guilt and compensation for the loss or damage suffered by the the "collateral victim". The world is waiting, and you are in the spotlight. [url]http://www.msf.org/article/afghanistan-msf-staff-killed-and-hospital-partially-destroyed-kunduz/url] [url]http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/03/three-medecins-sans-frontieres-staff-killed-in-afghanistan-hospital-bombing/url] [url]https://www.rt.com/news/317482-afghanistan-kunduz-msf-hospital//url] This is the kind of "trigger happy" attitude which needs to be corrected, big time. You cannot expect to win "hearts and minds" when you mistake a wedding cerimony for a training camp, or a hospital for enemy headquarters. |
|
Title: Re: School Shooting Post by raydawg on 10/05/15 at 03:38:39 Maurizio....... Are you equating that our military shares a common trait with the lil' hoodlums in Chicago? Seems to me a rather large chasm to leap. As B3 said, stuff happens, and in this world, it does, or, we can opt for a complete police state, which, we will in the end, anyway.... |
|
Title: Re: School Shooting Post by WebsterMark on 10/05/15 at 04:59:23 Hell guys, follow the lead of hopey-change and the mainstream media: drop this story. Theres nothing to talk about anymore . No blacks targeted, no Muslims targeted. None of those super fierce looking assault rifles used, (i did read one commentary call them "military grade" weapons...... what's that mean?) The only story left is targeting Christians which is frankly what the New York Times, CNN, MSNBC, primetime TV shows do everyday so what's left to write about? |
|
Title: Re: School Shooting Post by mpescatori on 10/05/15 at 08:01:51 22312934312737500 wrote:
As Neil Armstrong once said: "One small step for man..." Your "rather large chasm" is, in fact, one small step. Allow me to lecture you on what you need to "win hearts and minds" in an occupied territory: - Open your field hospitals to the local civilian population: Given that, however powerful a ruler may be, he still listens to what his mother and wife have to say within the privacy of their own home... Italian Field Hospital in Beirut, open to the public; guess what, no terrorist attacks. http://www.cancelloedarnonenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/esercito-ospedale-militare-da-campo-italiano-in-ciad.jpg - Don't push your ways onto peoples and cultures which are an easy 10, 15 fold more ancient than you - Don't assume that just because you technically can, you are technically justified; nor that just because the enemy technically might, the enemy technically will. Montecassino: the Germans had specific orders NOT to seek cover within the 1500 year-old monastery of Montecassino, and abided by those orders; the US Commander, ohowever, not being able to tell a site of historical heritage, decided there was a possible risk and had the monastery bombed flat. http://webuser.unicas.it/cigola/images/Fig._7b.JPG http://www.trivigante.it/b.site/images/07_nov_images/montecassino_bomb.jpg http://paologiannetti.blog.tiscali.it/wp-content/blogs.dir/25057/files/1944-carl-mydans/montecassino.jpg THIS was supposed to be your alibi and cleanse your conscience ? I don't think so ! http://paologiannetti.blog.tiscali.it/files/2009/09/uid_122c0681201.580.0.jpg As I said, Webstermark, do not assume, but try to understand. You will be surprised, your interlocutor may have just as much culture, education and understanding as you. And yes, I still believe, strongly believe, you grew up believing you are entitled to having a perennial chip on your shoulder... |
|
Title: Re: School Shooting Post by Serowbot on 10/05/15 at 08:04:02 Please don't help... :-?... "Houston police responded to a shooting call around 11:15 p.m. Saturday at a Valero gas station on Jensen Drive at Reid Street in north Houston. Officials say two men jumped another man in the gas station parking lot and took the victim's Chevrolet pickup truck. Police say a witness then pulled out a gun and began shooting at the suspects, accidentally hitting the carjacking victim in the head. The victim was transported to a nearby hospital where he remains in stable condition. Police say the witness who shot at the suspects picked up shell casings and left the scene. Police found the stolen pickup truck about a mile down the road but are still searching for the suspects." http://www.khou.com/story/news/2015/09/27/one-man-injured-after-carjacking-shooting-at-gas-station/72923278/ |
|
Title: Re: School Shooting Post by oldNslow on 10/05/15 at 08:14:18 Bot wrote: Quote:
No problem. I carry a gun to protect ME. Yer on yer own. ;) |
|
Title: Re: School Shooting Post by MnSpring on 10/05/15 at 08:20:37 Words like this, ‘ … “trigger happy” attitude …”, are so useless, and un true, in the debate about, a, ‘Citizens RIGHT’, to defend themselves. As to the, Constitution of the Country, that a Citizen lives in. Where, When, How, is, “ … “trigger happy” attitude …”, EVER, come into play, in a Citizen who defended themselves ? The statement, ‘ … “trigger happy” attitude …”, applies ONLY, to the NUT Jobs, shooting up schools/churches/etc. Every time, a State was talking about passing a, ’Carry Law’, The Anti-Freedom, Pun-dents ALWAYS said: “ … “trigger happy” attitude …”, “ Mass Murder in the Streets”, “Wild West”, "Road Rage Shootings”. Yet, NON, of those things have happened. In FACT, (Total Undeniable FACT, Well Documented) Every State, that has Passed, a, ‘carry license’, the crime rate has gone DOWN. Every One ! And Every State, which, has passed, ‘Anti-Freedom’ laws, Which, Takes AWAY, a Constitutional RIGHT, The crime rate has gone UP ! Getting back to schools. Their, ARE, a number of Teachers/Professors, that, DO, want to carry, and are Licensed to do so. But they are ‘Prohibited,’ from doing so, by the Guberment. And if you, REALLY think, ‘Gun Free Zones’, work. Put up a sign, in front of your house: “No Guns In Here” |
|
Title: Re: School Shooting Post by mpescatori on 10/05/15 at 08:43:01 Pray tell me, from exactly against whom must you defend yourself ? A guy in the next lane prone to road rage ? A guy at the gas station because he has a problem with the gas pump ? The lady at the bus stop because she doesn't like your hair style ? The lady who goes beserk because they're out of coleslaw at the local fast food joint ? The teenager from a morally crippled family who grew up on caffeine energy drinks and GTA video games, who goes wild on a gun-totin' spree ? ... I lived in the States in the 1970's, why did these things never happen way back then ? Why was it that I could walk the way to the local 7-Eleven without fear of being run down, kidnapped or shot down ? How is it that I actually went on gun-safety courses as a Boy Scout, and learned to address gunshot wounds "after a hunting accident"? (street shootings being something that existed only in Dirty Harry movies) :-? How many would send their 10-y.o. on a bicycle three blocks down the road these days ? ::) Trigger happy ? Yes. It is an idiomatic expression, just as much as "chip on your shoulder". |
|
Title: Re: School Shooting Post by mpescatori on 10/05/15 at 08:51:09 I perfectly well know of the 2nd Amendment, I studied all Amendments in the 7th grade. However, as a European, I have re-read it and one thing jumps to my attention. http://www.grokshirts.com/second%20amendment.jpg OK... BUT... Exactly how many gun-totin' NRA 2nd Amendment supporters actually serve in their State Militia ? https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-five-extra-words-that-can-fix-the-second-amendment/2014/04/11/f8a19578-b8fa-11e3-96ae-f2c36d2b1245_story.html ::) That is why I earlier observed that all you need is a gun-license, just like you have driving licenses and fishing licenses... I have yet to see someone fished to death... http://https://s3.amazonaws.com/lowres.cartoonstock.com/animals-fish-fishes-fisher-fishermen-fisher_men-smb060413_low.jpg |
|
Title: Re: School Shooting Post by Serowbot on 10/05/15 at 09:11:07 It does say "well regulated",.. doesn't it?... What you figure they meant by that?... :-/... |
|
Title: Re: School Shooting Post by WebsterMark on 10/05/15 at 09:15:22 street shootings being something that existed only in Dirty Harry movies Not sure where you lived but in the 70's, there were plenty of street shootings. I was 9 and saw a man shot through the neck on the St. Louis ghettos. Happened often. |
|
Title: Re: School Shooting Post by WebsterMark on 10/05/15 at 09:24:40 As I said, Webstermark, do not assume, but try to understand. Mpes there is not a person on this forum who tries to understand another point of view less than you. Your every reply is seething with an irritating condescending attitude. And your last post about 2nd amendment and militias is typically wrong. The original intend of the 2nd amendment has always been clear. The authors expressed their views clearly in other writings. Its only those ignorant of this or those purposely trying to fool others into believing something not true. I'll leave it to you to pick which side you're on. |
|
Title: Re: School Shooting Post by Serowbot on 10/05/15 at 09:44:13 5345524F57424F54200 wrote:
Who,.. did the founders intend to regulate this militia?... They said, "well regulated"... not "unregulated"... :-?... |
|
Title: Re: School Shooting Post by WebsterMark on 10/05/15 at 09:55:51 Read what the ones who wrote it said about it. The intent of the 2nd amendment was to give citizens the ability to defend themselves against their own oppressive government should it turn against them. There was a lot of internal debate (well documented) about this since it seems to contradict language against treason, high crimes etc...but declaring independence and being in battle against their former sovereign when they felt no choice (remember 'WHEN IN THE COURSE OF HUMAN EVENTS....) they felt the need to give citizens the right to defend themselves. Now if you disagree with that or say its impractical in todays world, that's another argument, but you can't (well you liberals can and do) change the meaning of worse written at the time to suite yourself today. So, how about a little intellectual honestly. Call for 2nd amendment to be repealed, but don't try to change meanings. |
|
Title: Re: School Shooting Post by Serowbot on 10/05/15 at 09:57:57 ... but, honestly,.. what do you believe they meant by "well regulated"?... |
|
Title: Re: School Shooting Post by WebsterMark on 10/05/15 at 10:25:15 I have read that because war had been brewing for a number of years, the men of communities banded together to offer protection to their communities. How many had ben involved with the French/Indian War (not an accurate name!) and they were not far removed from hacking an exsistance out of the wilderness. It was definately a manner of life completely foreign to us. There was no federal government, it hadnt been created yet. The idea of a local militia formed of citizens, organized and run locally might seem crazy to us but I would guess if you looked around the globe for nations in a similar disorganized state, this is happening now. also, we view things today as needing to be run by some government agency to be valid when I don't think that was the case back then. Laws and organizations were just forming, people took care of things themselves. |
|
Title: Re: School Shooting Post by oldNslow on 10/05/15 at 10:37:07 Quote:
Right from the horses mouth, so to speak. http://www.loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php In case you don't care to read the whole thing yourself. "On June 26, 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller (PDF), the United States Supreme Court issued its first decision since 1939 interpreting the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court ruled that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution confers an individual right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense." "In the majority opinion authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court first conducted a textual analysis of the operative clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The Court found that this language guarantees an individual right to possess and carry weapons. The Court examined historical evidence that it found consistent with its textual analysis. The Court then considered the Second Amendment’s prefatory clause, "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," and determined that while this clause announces a purpose for recognizing an individual right to keep and bear arms, it does not limit the operative clause. The Court found that analogous contemporaneous provisions in state constitutions, the Second Amendment’s drafting history, and post-ratification interpretations were consistent with its interpretation of the amendment. The Court asserted that its prior precedent was not inconsistent with its interpretation. " So that's what the supreme court thinks it means. Until such time as there is another case and a different decision, we can jabber about it all we want, but there it is. |
|
Title: Re: School Shooting Post by raydawg on 10/05/15 at 10:41:55 I would say yes, Americans have their own distinct ideas, it is a melting pot of culture and enflunces, unlike so many mono-race/ beliefs of other countries... The ugly American was prolly aptly applied to some, then used by the host country to extend the CHIP they have on their shoulder. As bot and I sorta discussed in a different thread, we engage because we think we have the right answer, and everyone needs to hear it [ch128558] |
|
Title: Re: School Shooting Post by WebsterMark on 10/05/15 at 10:42:33 My plane is landing so I gotta go, but here is a link from my favorites list that I found once. contains a list of quotes. A fair reading of the amendment, especially when viewed alongside the other 9 which restict the government's ability to force citizens to think or act a cettain way, has to lead you to believe they wanted the citizens to have the freedom to arm themselves and to restict the government's ability to disarm them. Any other core meaning requires quite a stretch. http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/quotes/arms.html |
|
Title: Re: School Shooting Post by old.indian on 10/05/15 at 12:46:58 mpeslatori understands my point. I would point out that there are way too many "citizens" out there who when armed, get real brave and confrontational. I seriously doubt that Zimmerman would have gotten out of his car and confronted that kid if he had not had a gun on him. He started the trouble and then when he was getting his a$$ kicked he killed someone. Yeah, I'm REALLY impressed by that sort of mind set. Scratch a bully and you will find a coward hiding inside. |
|
Title: Re: School Shooting Post by pg on 10/05/15 at 16:52:04 293F28352D38352E5A0 wrote:
Here is what the SPLC thinks of them: THE INTELLIGENCE PROJECT IDENTIFIED 1,096 ANTIGOVERNMENT “PATRIOT” GROUPS THAT WERE ACTIVE IN 2013. Of these groups, 240 were militias, marked with an asterisk, and the remainder includes “common-law” courts, publishers, ministries and citizens’ groups. Generally, Patriot groups define themselves as opposed to the “New World Order,” engage in groundless conspiracy theorizing, or advocate or adhere to extreme antigovernment doctrines. Listing here does not imply that the groups themselves advocate or engage in violence or other criminal activities, or are racist. The list was compiled from field reports, Patriot publications, the Internet, law enforcement sources and news reports. Groups are identified by the city, county or region where they are located. https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/d6_legacy_files/active_patriot_groups.pdf Best regards, |
|
Title: Re: School Shooting Post by Serowbot on 10/05/15 at 17:26:23 Scary... |
|
Title: Re: School Shooting Post by WebsterMark on 10/05/15 at 17:50:40 how many of those 240 walked into a school and opened fire last year? |
|
Title: Re: School Shooting Post by MnSpring on 10/05/15 at 18:15:59 5A4C5B465E4B465D290 wrote:
"well regulated" = 'A Leader'. See another post, about how, 'words', change their meaning. I have a question. What does: " ... ANTIGOVERNMENT “PATRIOT” GROUPS ..." Mean ? Does that mean: If I voice my displeasure, in how the Guberment is run, If I voice a opinion, on how the, Guberment, does NOT represent it's, Tax Paying Citizens. If I prove how the Guberment, grossly oversteps it's bounds, by making 'rules' for ONLY themselves. If I prove, the Gubrment, enjoys privileges, ONLY, available to them, by their Own Hand. (Last two, the, 'Proof', is WELL Documented) Does that mean I, am a: ANTIGOVERNMENT “PATRIOT” ? And on some sort of, 'list'. To be hassled, by a, Guberment, I speak about ? |
|
Title: Re: School Shooting Post by MnSpring on 10/05/15 at 18:27:12 4A57425444465348554E270 wrote:
Did you study, when, that was written, and When, this part of N.A. became a independent country? Did you study, how words change? Not long ago, one could sit on a bench waiting for a bus. And a person walks by. (You happen to know that person that walked by). You say, to the person sitting next to you, (waiting for the bus): “That person is really Gay". The person sitting next to you, believes, you just stated: ‘That person is really Happy'. Today, you get thrown in Jail, for a hate crime. How about, ‘Plunger’. Today, we all know what a, ‘Plunger’ is used for. But LONG, before Plumbing, any kind of plumbing, was used. (Now don’t get into a tit telling about the Romans, who had ‘bath’ houses, here they were called, ‘outhouses’, Only difference was they deffacatied on a bench which was over a stream of running water). Their was a, ‘Plunger’. Which meant, ‘Gambler’. As in: A Person who, ‘plunges’ into something. So, ‘words’ change, but ‘Meaning’ does not. The 2nd Adm, is ALL about the Citizens Right, to protect themselves, from a ‘oppressive’ government. In THIS, Country, we have that right. In yours? Don’t know. What would happen if another, Mussolini came along ? |
|
Title: Re: School Shooting Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/05/15 at 21:29:41 If you have a Blacks law dictionary from back when it was written, then you'd understand the commerce clause. And the second amendment. Read the commerce clause. Look at how they use Regulate. Then, it meant, regular, normal, equal.. A well regulated militia would be made up of people who could use each other's ammo. One stockpile of shot would work for everyone. And the Free state.. Don't start thinking about the State. State , condition, the condition of the people. Remember who wrote the Constitution. They had fought for freedom from tyranny. You REALLY believe they didn't intend for the People to be ABLE to fight for freedom? What's WRONG with people? |
|
Title: Re: School Shooting Post by Serowbot on 10/05/15 at 22:33:21 I give,.. you all win... ;D ;D ;D... We're all allowed 22lr. (the most common ammo).. ...as long as we share... :-?... Are those 240 "militia's" sharing?... ;D ;D ;D... They are "Patriots",... Right?... ;D ;D ;D... The insanity of the TT, has me politically punch drunk... I need a recess.. TTFN... :-? |
|
Title: Re: School Shooting Post by WebsterMark on 10/06/15 at 06:09:14 2C3A2D30283D302B5F0 wrote:
Jesus Sew, your skin is tissue thin...... I thought this was a mild discussion. |
|
Title: Re: School Shooting Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/06/15 at 06:48:04 Times have changed, types of ammo, weapons, everything is different, BUT, you get into a protracted skirmish, common caliber, ammo, becomes a good idea. I doubt that was considered rationally, just spat on.. And yet, a look at the commerce clause and a bit of thought, and suddenly, IF we can get past the Current use of Regulate, things make sense. |
|
Title: Re: School Shooting Post by raydawg on 10/06/15 at 08:18:54 I don't own a gun, never have, and I don't understand the attraction or need to get rapid fire ones, that surely can not be sporting. They must designed to do great damage, quickly, as opposed to accuracy. I have absolutely no qualms about highly restricting and regulating their presence in our society.... However, all that said and done, it do not believe it will fix the deeper problem of why people kill, nor will it take the guns away from the criminals, as they don't care about laws, and it ( stricter gun laws ) might even increase killings in adults and robberies as a dead witness is one who can't snitch on you.... |
|
Title: Re: School Shooting Post by oldNslow on 10/06/15 at 08:40:31 37243C21243222450 wrote:
So, basically you acknowledge that gun restrictions don't really do anything to solve the problem we are discussing, and that criminals ignore them anyway, but you are still in favor of such restrictions. Why. Is it because you personally don't like or have no interest in guns, and therefore believe everyone else should be forced to conform to that viewpoint? Or do you just fail to see the inconsistency in what you said. |
|
Title: Re: School Shooting Post by mpescatori on 10/06/15 at 10:28:21 0B393E2F28392E113D2E375C0 wrote:
OK, first things first, I apologize for stealing and hijacking the thread towards a new subject - but it's four pages now that everybody is discussing "my" observations", so I have hit a "raw nerve", so to speak. HOWEVER I do not speak out of spite but out of love for the Nation I considered my Home as a Junior High School student (you have no idea how distraught I was when I was told we'd be returning to Europe) I speak my words because I firmly beliveve things can be made to improve not by forcing change down people's throats but by looking around and seeing how "different approaches" have worked very well in other comparable environments (I believe I could never compare the US to India, but I do believe I could compare the US to Canada or the UK or South Africa or Australia, for example) My post about the 2nd Amendment is wrong ? I can and will analyse it word by word; First of all, the wording: As passed by the Congress and preserved in the National Archives: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, then-Secretary of State: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. " Can you see the first fundamental difference? I can. There is a fundamental difference between "state" and "State". "state" being "the state you're in", as in Freeman, serf, press-ganged sailor etc... not to mention slave... "State" being that organized form of society where individual powers are given by the individual to a centralized form of administration for the gommon good of the "res publica", the public community which takes it onto itself to cater for the common requirements in a way as to ensure the gommon good. It is irrelevant that the form of administration is a Monarchy, an Oligarchy, a Republic or a permanent Assembly (see Maoist China, the former USSR or former Lybia) - they are all forms of "State" with a capital "S". So, the forst difference is that you must determine if the 2nd Amendment is to protect you as an individual or as a community. Secondly: The right "of the People" or "of the people"? Are you a mass of individuals or an organic, functional ensemble of citizens? Can you feel the difference? Third: "A well Regulated Militia"... "Regulated" does not mean "common logistics" as one suggested, much less that it has leadership. "Regulated" from Latin "Regula" means that it is determined by a satute, a set of Regulations or (Code of Discipline) and quite possibly a set of written Rules of Engagements and a set of Mission tasks. All this through a Command Structure and well determined hierarchy. Mind you, I am saying this as a professional military, I know what I am talking about. Fourth: "The right of the P/people to keep and bear arms" This determines the right of the individual/collectivity... it doesn NOT claim the right to keep them individually within their own home, or the collective obligation to keep them into custody at the "Village Armory" It simply declares the P/people are entitled to keep and bear (i.e., have the availability of, be trained to use, and functionally deploy individual weapons) Fifth: "shall not be infringed" Believe it or not, THIS is the ONLY part of the 2nd Amendment which will not lend itself to discussion or interpretation. Anything else is fodder for the Justices if their time; whatever the Supreme Court may have ruled in 1939, who is to say this will not be overruled next week, or next month, or next year ? Who is to say "a strictly literal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment demands that a Citizen MUST be enlisted in the State Militia / National Guard in order to benefit from said right" will not happen in... 2020? I once read a thread in this Forum where the initiator sparked a discussion with the statement "Nowhere does it say in my State's nor in Federal law that you MUST hold a license in order to drive a car" and he was ... taken not very seriously. Who knows, maybe he could appeal his driving ticket all the way to the Supreme Court! So, all in all... NO, I do not speak out of spite, and YES I do wish things could improve. I am convinced that if CCPs were made the only way to legally carry a gun, half the people currently carrying would either stop carrying or be denied CCPs. I am saying this out of personal experience, bureaucrats are bureaucrats everywhere... :-X P.S. I lived in Falls Church, VA, 22044 |
|
Title: Re: School Shooting Post by raydawg on 10/06/15 at 10:41:04 734D4C40524E4F210 wrote:
So, basically you acknowledge that gun restrictions don't really do anything to solve the problem we are discussing, and that criminals ignore them anyway, but you are still in favor of such restrictions. Why. Is it because you personally don't like or have no interest in guns, and therefore believe everyone else should be forced to conform to that viewpoint? Or do you just fail to see the inconsistency in what you said. [/quote] No, it is a non issue with me. I would not base my vote on a canidate over this issue. I am thinking having something sorta like when we sell our car to a private party, we need to record that sell, and to whom, so if they fail to register it in their name and cause an accident, we are free and clear of any claim of damages.... |
|
Title: Re: School Shooting Post by mpescatori on 10/06/15 at 10:43:02 As the guy says at the end of this video (forgive the poor quality) "Maybe it's not the gun, it's the guy holding the gun" http://www.facebook.com/retainyourfreedom/videos/911303092238059/ (I'll add one more) http://www.facebook.com/TheDailyShare/videos/485527148273328/ (or two...) http://www.facebook.com/OccupyDemocrats/videos/964786396947748/ ;) |
|
Title: Re: School Shooting Post by verslagen1 on 10/06/15 at 12:51:53 4B56435545475249544F260 wrote:
If "shall not be infringed" needs no interpretation, then neither does the rest. Quote:
I have a right to keep and bear arms in this nation. I should not be limited from keeping or bearing them where ever I might go. To do so, would be to infringe my rights. My rights to bear a weapon are extremely limited and leave exposed to those that criminally carry a weapon. |
|
Title: Re: School Shooting Post by MnSpring on 10/06/15 at 15:00:55 The statements: “One NEEDS to have a Drivers License, to Drive a Car/Truck” And “One does NOT need a Drivers License, to Drive a Car/Truck” Are, BOTH, correct ! What is missing is, ‘Information’. Complete information. Now we all do it, (perhaps intentionally, perhaps not), depending on one’s POV. When we discuss a topic. (not just political). Just like someone saying: “The Fish are hitting in 10 feet of water in xyz lake”. And the next persons says: “The fish are NOT hitting in 10 feet of water in xyz lake”. Their is information missing. Some, ‘politicians’, and ‘Media’, Intentionally, mislead people, by NOT, giving complete information. Just like, what some words meant, 240 years ago, vs what they mean now. (Or the spelling, grammar, Punctuation that was used) It is the, ‘more’ information, that is necessary. (In the case of the 2nd Amendment, it is the, ‘meaning’, 240 years ago). Oh, if you haven’t already figured it out. Driving: IF, you are on Public, Roads/Right of Ways, you Need a D.L. If you are on, Private land, you do NOT need a D.L. Just a, 'LITTLE', piece of information, missing. ;D |
|
Title: Re: School Shooting Post by mpescatori on 10/08/15 at 11:00:50 4B584F4E515C5A58530C3D0 wrote:
If "shall not be infringed" needs no interpretation, then neither does the rest. Quote:
I have a right to keep and bear arms in this nation. I should not be limited from keeping or bearing them where ever I might go. To do so, would be to infringe my rights. My rights to bear a weapon are extremely limited and leave exposed to those that criminally carry a weapon.[/quote] OK... ::) "A well Regulated Militia"... Everybody seems to think that bit (which is the foreword, i.e. that one clause and condition which ghives justification to all that which follows) is abslutely irrelevant. Which opens the flank to the lawmaker enforcing a strict application of said 2nd Amendment. What I am trying to say is NOT "you can't do that"... not at all ! What I am trying to say is... you need to safeguard that right ! ... "once upon a time there was the Minuteman" but this prerequisite is long gone; ...once upon a time there was the stagecoach driver/traveling salesman/professional gambler who packed a gun because it was one of their tools of the trade, to protect themselves from robbers, bad guys and the "eeevil injuns" we were shown so often on TV in the 1960's ...once upon a time there was the trapper who would need a rifle+gun combo to defend himself from bear/wolves/coyote when checking his traps for fur ...once upon a time there was the Pony Express kid covering 100 miles/day and more... ::) But those times are long gone, and you had better find something that is much stronger than "it's always been this way" to justify your inherent right given by tradition and customary law... Customary law being that common practice which dictates the general and widely accepted code of conduct unless there is an official law saying otherwise. Which is exactly my point. I'm all for the 2nd Amendment BUT I have noticed that all the NRA and supporters do is chant "it's always been this way!" Well, before things change for the worse, I am simply suggesting that you find the way to protect your rights and freedom as applicable by current customary law. "A well Regulated Militia"... is the writing on the wall... don't waste that chance... http://https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQH-7vV1GgZAFN1dYfF2sj-xoY9ghuar2uEblrUqrW19LZ0fMR3 ;) |
|
Title: Re: School Shooting Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/08/15 at 20:02:35 What is a militia? Who pays them? Don't forget, the authors of the Constitution had just fought for freedom from a tyrannical government. Do you REALLY believe that they wanted the People to be subservient and easy targets? |
|
Title: Re: School Shooting Post by thumperclone on 10/08/15 at 23:01:54 15 mil background checks so far this year |
|
Title: Re: School Shooting Post by verslagen1 on 10/09/15 at 11:54:12 796471677775607B667D140 wrote:
I don't think it's "absolutely irrelevant", it states that in order to defend ourselves, the populace must be trained in the operation of the given weapons of the day. It does not state, unless you are in a militia, you may not have a weapon. Most of our laws are determined by example. Quote:
Once the law has been interpreted this way, it's very difficult to reverse it. You may nit pick every word of the law, but until you have a convincing argument, I won't start any gofundme accounts for you. |
|
Title: Re: School Shooting Post by pg on 10/09/15 at 16:49:08 6579647C617463727D7E7F74110 wrote:
How does this pertain to this thread? Best regards, |
|
Title: Re: School Shooting Post by MnSpring on 10/09/15 at 17:15:18 Let’s see, the 14th Amendment. “ All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” OK, One group says this is, ABSOLUTE. NO Change. It is, FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS ! @@!@@!!!@ So someone, can wade across the ‘Reo Grand’, within a day or two, of having a baby, and that, ‘baby’, is “Instantly’, Granted, Citizenship? Where the people who wrote that, (Probably, don’t know, I wasn’t their), were thinking someone in a ship, which took, 1 or to MONTHS, to get here, and had a baby. YET, that, 'group', state: "it's always been this way!" AND, the SAME, ‘group’, says the 2nd Adm, need to be, ‘Re-Written’, because it does not apply today. ???????????? Gee, Golly, ya, think, something else is going on here ????????? |
|
Title: Re: School Shooting Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/09/15 at 18:50:32 and subject to the jurisdiction thereof So, a French woman, just a tourist, eight months along, figures she has time, but, no, water breaks, baby comes... You think that baby is subject to the jurisdiction of the USA? The C is being misread and misapplied. |
|
Title: Re: School Shooting Post by DesertRat on 10/09/15 at 19:21:45 11021A07021404630 wrote:
that my friend doesn't make any sense what-so-ever, these two positions contradict each-other :o |
|
Title: Re: School Shooting Post by WebsterMark on 10/10/15 at 05:41:09 504F494E53546555655D4F43083A0 wrote:
Thank you Jog, absolutely correct. To the rest of you in favor of more gun "control" laws, don't be so quick to cut your own balls off and hand them over to Uncle Sam because he promises to protect you. Cameras on every street corner just means the guy who robs and shoots you gets caught, maybe convicted and back on streets in couple years while you get to crap your pants lying in a hospital bed paralyzed or fertilize the grass at the local cemetery. |
|
Title: Re: School Shooting Post by raydawg on 10/10/15 at 07:11:22 4A6B7D6B7C7A5C6F7A0E0 wrote:
that my friend doesn't make any sense what-so-ever, these two positions contradict each-other :o[/quote] No rat, I don't believe they do.... Lets start with something we all agree upon, we don't want guns used to kill, or being used in criminal activities, yes? With registrations, all sales must be recorded, be it private or public sales, just as we do motor vehicles. Sure, it gets the gubbermint money, but it also protects us, the seller, if a person doesn't register it and gets in an accident. If its still registered to us, it will be traced to us..... however, if we did our prudent responsibility, and filled out the sale on our end, it will show who we sold the car to, and the authorities will have the proper party to punish, or a lead anyway. It won't prolly fix the gang bangers and career criminals, no, but it will help in finding/solving those individuals who just bought a gun because you never know when you might need it ( paranoia ) and somewhere in their later life, snap, using it to kill someone they are associated with, in an act of rage. Up to that point they were "normal" in all respect, and had no criminal record, but that quickly changed in a moment of unfettered rage. Would the knowledge of maybe the previous gun owner recording the sale, be a deterrent, I think in some cases it very well could, as reasoning ( or self preservation) might overcome the moment of rage, allowing a more conscious thought to enter the perps mind and nix the use of a gun to solve his/her dilemma Sure, criminals won't do this, I understand, it is just one tool that might help in combating this problem, and yes, I understand the argument that then the gubbermint will know where all the guns and threat to their tyrannical administration reside, however, I file this argument in the same reasoning category of partial birth and abortion advocates.... They claim if we restrict that, then the next step is to outlaw all abortions.... Can you now see where my reasoning was vested rat? Thanks for your input :) |
|
Title: Re: School Shooting Post by MnSpring on 10/10/15 at 09:04:55 Raydawg. You state you are not a gun owner, That’s fine, that's your choice. Just like I am not a Pilot. But I do not tell the Pilot, who I hired, (with several hundred others) how fly a airplane. As you are Not, a firearm owner, please do this. Spend a little time, next to the counter of a firearms store. And then you WILL find out, What needs to be done to purchase a firearm. “ … all sales must be recorded, … “ It’s already the law, since 1968. And it is very strongly enforced by the BATFE. As well as, ’Straw Sales’, (Which the, LIER Clinton, said are a, ‘paperwork’ volition). It most certainly is NOT. It carries a 10,000.00 fine, AND, 10 years in JAIL. But I guess SHE can lie. And the ONLY person, that has NOT been charged for, that crime, is Eric Holder. This is how it works; Let’s say a Colt Mod xyz, Ser # 123, was used in a crime. The BATFE, (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, Explosives), go to Colt. Colt produces the records that it was sold to ‘abc’ Distributor, that Distributor produces records it was sold to ‘cba' Jobber, that jobber produces records it was sold to the FFL, (Federal Firearms Licensed Dealer), of John Doe. Then John Doe, produces records, it was sold to citizen Jane Doe. “ … all sales must be recorded, … “ Now, the BATFE, knocks on the door, of Jane Doe’s house. “Where were you Fri Night from 9 to 11PM”, “WHY”, “Because a firearm YOU own was used in a crime”, “Oh, I sold/traded that last year at Peter Doe’s shop”. Now the BATFE, go to, ‘Peter’s’ shop, and keep going. etc. (And B.T.W., that is how, ‘Gun Shows’ operate. So their is, NO, ‘Gun Show’ ‘Loophole’). Now, their is a exception. It is called the FFT, (Face to Face Transfer), some States allow this, some do not. Let’s say, I, have a firearm, purchased as above, I want to sell it. I Can, to a FFL shop, or a private party. If it is to a private party, (A Person 18 or over, for a long gun, and over 21 for a handgun). That person MUST, Affirm, that they are of age. A U.S.A. Citizen. A Resident of the State you are in, (and which YOU are a resident of), (Which you are Both physically in). That they are Not a Felon, OR, have Ever been charged with a Felony. That they have, Not, ever been charged with a crime of Violence. That they have NOT ever had a ‘restraining’ order against them. That they have Not ever been committed to a mental institution. And guess what, the very VAST Majority of people that do that, require a, ‘Bill of Sale’, is signed. THAT, is how it works. BUT, oh yea, the Criminal, does NOT do this !!!!!! Not knowing, what the, ‘rules’ are, the Ultra-Liberals, USE, the lack of knowledge to, SCARE people, into thinking, something can happen. So they will, ‘agree’ with them. A very common ploy, and often heard. “You can BUY a Gun off the Internet from Anywhere”. That statement is TRUE ! I, in MN, can ‘buy’ a firearm, from a private party in NM, off the Internet. So, the deal is made, money exchanged, and now, I, ‘own’, that firearm in NM. But, BUT, As Paul Harvey always said: ’The REST of the Story”. That seller, can NOT, send, ME, the gun. That seller, HAS to send the gun to a FFL in MN. Then I go into that FFL shop, and do all the necessary paperwork, for, “ … all sales must be recorded, … “ So, I can not, ‘Posses’, that firearm, until, “ … all sales must be recorded, … “ But the Ultra-Liberals, make it sound like buying a, ’tea cup’ off fleaybay. And the people that Don’t know, what Has to be, and Is, done, all go: “OMG, we have to Stop This”. And vote, Ultra-Liberal, on the gun issue”. Now, can one get a firearm off the street, illegally? Sure. JUST like, one can buy, Heroin, Crack, pain pills, etc. Ya know, perhaps their should be a, law, that one can Not, sell Drugs, unless the seller, is a licensed dispenser of Drugs? |
|
Title: Re: School Shooting Post by raydawg on 10/10/15 at 10:18:54 Spring..... I plead ignorance, and yes, my er', understanding/reply, is off the cuff, more emotional, than factual. I will yield to your knowledge on the matter, for as I state, and you pointed out, I do not own firearms and have no real experience with the process, or matter, of ownership. I do know NRA members, and on that personal level, I have never, ever, seen the use, and operation of firearms, taken lightly or in folly. Fact is, the education and instruction is very serious, you could even say, "dead serious"! My question to you then is this, and please don't just give the standard answer of the indoctrinating machine of the left, as you and I both saw how RR overcame these very obstacles to garner a 3 gig hitch ( him two, B1, one ) in the oval office. But why is this information, that you shared, not getting out in a coherent manner? It kinda reminds me how Hillary's problems would go away IF......as she say's, did nothing wrong and would have released all the emails, etc, instead of scrubbing them.... It would have exposed those who are out for a witch hunt, and the only cost would have been to reveal the planning of Chelsea's wedding AFTER the fact, as the wedding had already taken place ;D Anyway, thanks for the insightful reply and the time it took to post it! |
|
Title: Re: School Shooting Post by MnSpring on 10/10/15 at 15:04:21 Raydawg said: “ … My question to you then is this, … … But why is this information, that you shared, not getting out in a coherent manner? …” Well, For fear of sounding like, “ … standard answer of the indoctrinating machine …”. that, which I do not intend to, but may well do so, depending on one’s POV. 1. The, ’truth’ is to long. It is not a, ’Sound Bite’. If the Media or a Politician, (both sides), goes in to a dissertation, of all the things that are required to legally purchase a firearm. It’s BO-RING ! If you are For Freedom, you say: “It’s Not True”. If you are against Freedom, you say: “Anybody can buy a Gun off the Internet”. Great, ‘Sound Bites’, for the ’talking heads’. 2. If you are, for, Freedom, you are, not, going to risk, Boring, your audience, by telling ALL of the truth. For fear of loosing them. 3. If you are, Anti-Freedom, you are going to say, what ever you can get away with, to get the people that, Do Not Know, to Vote for you. That’s my take. AND, it has gotten Worse, over the years. 35 years ago, when I first started teaching, FSTC, (Firearms Safety Training Classes), one of the, ‘lectures’, is on, ‘Ethics’. Always start that with: “How many here, know what the, word, ‘Ethics”, mean”? (It’s always 12 -14 + year olds). 35 years ago, 75-80% of the Students raised their hand. Last 4 classes, sum total of, ONE PERSON, raised their hand. (do two classes a year). Then next statement is: “The best way to describe, ‘Ethics’, is, ‘What do you do, when No One is Looking”. And now, (last two years), look out at a sea of, ‘Doe in the Headlight look’, students. WHAT ??????. WHAT, are these kids being Taught ? By their Parents and their Teachers ?????? JOG’s, (What some call, ’tinfoil hat’, statements). Have a tremendous amount of truth to them. Another change. One of the instructors, who has joined recently, (10 years), is a professional, teacher in the Public School system. We, (the other instructors), CONSTANTLY, have to correct him. (He is a very good teacher, and we all have learned from his methods). BUT, he, ALWAYS, ‘Lapses’, into “Teaching The Test”. The ’TEST’, is just that. It is a, ’TEST’, of retained Knowledge ! But, today's kids, are SO used to, Not Paying Attention to the subject material, And so, ‘used to’, the, “TEST”, answers, being taught. They do NOT Learn ! Well I could go On and On, (Yea I know, ’to late’) Anyway, in a Nutshell, ‘why not tell the truth’. Because the generations, today, that have the Majority of votes, are to DUMB, To, ‘BORED’, to, ‘UN Interested’. Because that is what they have been, ’Taught’. So it’s: ‘Lets go with the ’Sound Bites’, then they will listen’. Which is regretful, (from my POV), The, Pro-Freedom, people saying: “That’s Not True” and the, Anti-Freedom people saying: “OMG, Anybody can buy a Gun on the Internet”. Which of course is, ‘Not True’, but, Now, you know, the Truth. Or as Paul Harvey always said: ’The Rest Of the Story” ! |
|
Title: Re: School Shooting Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/10/15 at 22:52:18 Happily surprised, Mr. Spring. |
|
Title: Re: School Shooting Post by mpescatori on 10/11/15 at 09:59:47 153422342325033025510 wrote:
that my friend doesn't make any sense what-so-ever, these two positions contradict each-other :o[/quote] Actually, no, gthey do not. If you had ever lived in a Country, any Country, where firearms are regulated at least as strictly as automobiles, you'd realize what you just challenged. In ANY nation with strict gun control laws, in proportion, the fewer the firearms in circulation, the more widespread the availability of illegal guns on the black market. Go ask any Scandinavian, or Brit, or European in general. |
|
Title: Re: School Shooting Post by mpescatori on 10/11/15 at 10:05:04 4E5157504D4A7B4B7B43515D16240 wrote:
Actually, yes, the French baby will have double citizenship for as long as he/she is a minor (underage) and once an adult (18+) will continue to enjoy the benefits of double citizenship as long as the laws of the two nations permit. My kid brither was born in Bethesda Naval Hospital on 12/28/'72 and retained double citizenship and a double passport up to the age of 18. My mother, as mother of the infant, was granted a form of "privileged entry" into the US from wherever she could be in the world, provided she was with my brother, up to his coming of age. It's the Law. But, frankly... you have obviously not delivered any babies youself... no woman 8 months pregnant would ever consider going anywhere at all! ;) |
|
Title: Re: School Shooting Post by mpescatori on 10/11/15 at 10:09:20 524D4B4C51566757675F4D410A380 wrote:
Who pays for the County Sheriff ? Who pays for the local Fire Department ? Who pays for the Volunteers of the local Fire Department ? So... who pays for the local Militia ? Back in the day, it was called... http://img.soundtrackcollector.com/movie/large/Posse_(1993).jpg [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qV2sjiU-qi0[/media] |
|
Title: Re: School Shooting Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/11/15 at 16:56:55 That's how it is interpreted. I'm not able to believe that is the Intent. Would you write a law that made every baby born in the country automatically a citizen, even if its parents weren't? You're real quick with demanding explanations in the Second Amendment, why would they have included And subject to the jurisdiction..? |
|
Title: Re: School Shooting Post by MnSpring on 10/11/15 at 17:38:11 How many have seen this, on the, 'NEWS" ??? http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/gudger.asp Gee, Why Not ? |
|
Title: Re: School Shooting Post by MnSpring on 10/11/15 at 17:43:13 mpescatori wrote: " ... no woman 8 months pregnant would ever consider going anywhere at all! ...". I guess no one has told the multitude, crossing the 'Rio Grande', at 8 Months, 3+ weeks ! |
|
Title: Re: School Shooting Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/11/15 at 19:05:30 "There's no doubt that Carolyn Gudger probably saved (Riden's) life at that point," Anderson says. Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/gudger.asp#IJDHUWIQwBdJeAgB.99 Wow, there's a definitive statement. And how much was it hyped? How many hours did I have to hear about this? Did the president go and congratulate the woman? Did he go and tell all the parents how lucky they were to have had their children all come home because a GOOD person with a Gun stopped someone. Only tragedy gets the hype. |
|
Title: Re: School Shooting Post by mpescatori on 10/12/15 at 08:20:30 647B7D7A6760516151697B773C0E0 wrote:
I cannot believe you said that... Where did your forefathers come from ? Who was the first of your ancestors to boast American Citizenship ? Was it granted to him or did he have to pass a scpecial exam ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli VS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_sanguinis You see, your Forefathers wrote a law that grants automatic citizenship to any and all children born in the US. Else, you'd all be German or British or - God forbid - Italian... :D |
|
Title: Re: School Shooting Post by WebsterMark on 10/12/15 at 10:52:28 You see, your Forefathers wrote a law that grants automatic citizenship to any and all children born in the US. No, they did not. Courts took an amendment written about slavery and applied it broadly. |
|
Title: Re: School Shooting Post by raydawg on 10/12/15 at 15:08:18 In context, this was a new frontier, most of the people populating it were coming from across the pond.... With that in mind, they were by default the first citizens, and it declared their offspring born would be automatic citizens and could not be claimed by the throne or other entities.... This was implemented to squash all challenges, even those loyalist who still claimed their mother country as home... |
|
Title: Re: School Shooting Post by MnSpring on 10/13/15 at 10:49:13 So then, if a, 'group', of people, The SAME, 'group', who are desperately trying to change the 2nd, 'Because it needs to be up-dated to Modern times'. Think the 14th, is, Sacrosanct, and should NOT be changed ? :-? :o ;D |
|
Title: Re: School Shooting Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/13/15 at 18:24:08 People who move here, legally, and become citizens, THEIR offspring are Under the jurisdiction of the USA. Does someone who invaded your house and had a baby in your basement have reason to expect you to raise it? Do you have a right to tell them they can't take the kid or while it's in your house it has to have your last name, I.E., member of your family? The C is intentionally being misinterpreted and misapplied. |
|
Title: Re: School Shooting Post by mpescatori on 10/14/15 at 01:15:28 "People who move here, legally, and become citizens, THEIR offspring are Under the jurisdiction of the USA. " I think it's broader than that. My mother was never a US Citizen, but she was in the US legally. She had a child and that child acquired US Citizenship. So, being the fundamental condition "legally in the US", it is technically possible that a European tourist, legally in the US (why would a Frenchman ever want to illegally emigrate to the US? :D) has an early delivery... yes, that baby will have US Citizenship. And anyway, no sane woman would ever want to go and tour across the planet 2 weeks from "time". ;) |
|
Title: Re: School Shooting Post by MnSpring on 10/14/15 at 17:37:39 54495C4A5A584D564B50390 wrote:
Yep, ‘Dual Citizenship” till 21. And your Mother could, NOT, be deported, as long as she was with her child. But, I seriously doubt, your Mother ever said: [i] ‘GIMMIE GIMMIE, GIMMIE” “ … And anyway, no sane woman would ever want to go and tour across the planet 2 weeks from “time”. …” Again, better tell that to the, ‘mothers’, crossing a river, in some cases, just HOURS, before birth. |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |