|
|
Post by Merge on Feb 16, 2018 2:52:01 GMT
See, when I see an acronym with an F in it, I assume it stands for fuck and extrapolate from there.  For some crazy reason, the FW in NFW registered first as Fort Worth and kept me hiccuping. go figure. NFW will you ever find me posting about Fort Worth. How's that?  As an aside, I had no idea this acronym was not in wider use. Can we name it after me on the board? The Merge variant? |
|
katybee
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,468 
|
Post by katybee on Feb 16, 2018 2:53:43 GMT
Let’s talk about school safety. Our doors are locked throughout the school day. You can enter through the front office, but have to sign in and go through our background check system, first. There’s no way that will EVER stop anyone who really wants in. They could simply shoot the glass out and open the doors from the inside. Heck, some teenage vandals got in this summer by climbing on the roof and breaking a skylight in. They could enter the office and shoot the 2 middle aged women behind the desk and hit the buzzer to open the doors to the school...they’re not hard to find. You might THINK your kids’ school is safe, but you’re just kidding yourself. because we have multiple outbuildings (including mine), we can't lock down all doors. You can come in the front and the two down one hall. You can get into my building (on my locked at night) or the modulars or the 3 other structures. We can't lock down currently...im sure we'd figure out how to lock down if a shooting happened near us. I do wonder about the schools that have outside passing areas and what they do (like the one on 90210) Our highschool is made of several separate buildings—at least 6 or 7. I never thought about it, but the doors would have to remain unlocked so students can pass, right? Maybe they’re only unlocked during passing times? |
|
|
|
Post by padresfan619 on Feb 16, 2018 2:55:01 GMT
Let’s talk about school safety. Our doors are locked throughout the school day. You can enter through the front office, but have to sign in and go through our background check system, first. There’s no way that will EVER stop anyone who really wants in. They could simply shoot the glass out and open the doors from the inside. Heck, some teenage vandals got in this summer by climbing on the roof and breaking a skylight in. They could enter the office and shoot the 2 middle aged women behind the desk and hit the buzzer to open the doors to the school...they’re not hard to find. You might THINK your kids’ school is safe, but you’re just kidding yourself. I grew up going to school in San Diego, CA. Open campuses with multiple buildings are the norm. They keep the gates locked but it would be so easy for someone to hop the fence and enter buildings, those aren’t locked during school hours. I’m tired of fearing for the lives of my nieces and nephews who are school aged, as well as my many friends and family members who are teachers. School is supposed to be the safest place for children. |
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Feb 16, 2018 3:01:16 GMT
because we have multiple outbuildings (including mine), we can't lock down all doors. You can come in the front and the two down one hall. You can get into my building (on my locked at night) or the modulars or the 3 other structures. We can't lock down currently...im sure we'd figure out how to lock down if a shooting happened near us. I do wonder about the schools that have outside passing areas and what they do (like the one on 90210) Our highschool is made of several separate buildings—at least 6 or 7. I never thought about it, but the doors would have to remain unlocked so students can pass, right? Maybe they’re only unlocked during passing times? I can virtually guarantee you that's not the case. Kids have to go between buildings during classes, too - office pass, nurse, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by freecharlie on Feb 16, 2018 3:03:13 GMT
Our highschool is made of several separate buildings—at least 6 or 7. I never thought about it, but the doors would have to remain unlocked so students can pass, right? Maybe they’re only unlocked during passing times? I can virtually guarantee you that's not the case. Kids have to go between buildings during classes, too - office pass, nurse, etc. Or to their locker, late to class, diabetic needs to get to nurse, staff to the copier |
|
azredhead
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,755
|
Post by azredhead on Feb 16, 2018 3:06:44 GMT
Yes, that's the same here, there are pods or buildings. Some of the newer HS's have less pods now. There is a main gate around the school including the parking lot as they have a 'closed campus' lunch. When Dh went there it was open campus meaning anyone could come and go. It's just how things have changed. I'm gathering from the reports of this school it was similar as it said 'science building' and mentioned other builidings like it is here. So kids go back and forth. The JR highs are all seperate pods.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 26, 2024 22:21:47 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2018 3:14:13 GMT
Just for the record, it was repeating the same exact, word for word language used by the pea being responded to. The one who's post was being patronizing and ridiculing comments made by by those who don’t agree with them.
But selective outrage, once again.
|
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Feb 16, 2018 3:18:32 GMT
Yes, that's the same here, there are pods or buildings. Some of the newer HS's have less pods now. There is a main gate around the school including the parking lot as they have a 'closed campus' lunch. When Dh went there it was open campus meaning anyone could come and go. It's just how things have changed. I'm gathering from the reports of this school it was similar as it said 'science building' and mentioned other builidings like it is here. So kids go back and forth. The JR highs are all seperate pods. They razed my old high school a few years ago. I have no doubt a huge issue was the multiple entrances. There was a big architectural movement in the 1960-1970s to reinvent high schools in the pod/open model. Unfortunately that's made a nightmare for security in the 2000s. My kids high school was designed in that era, but luckily it was more multiple entrances vs pods. All those exterior doors are now locked and everyone has to go through the main entrance. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 26, 2024 22:21:47 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2018 3:19:03 GMT
I'd like to add one thing to the conversation. These shooters tend not to be bullied, they are the ones doing the bullying. It sounds like that in this case -- the shooter was expelled for harassing and threatening students. These are seriously disturbed people who are given access to serious weapons. Why are they able to access these weapons with their mental histories? That's a question for the NRA to answer. No, that's a question for our previous administration who threw up their hands and said we don't have the manpower to enforce those laws. Ask Joe Biden. |
|
|
|
Post by SockMonkey on Feb 16, 2018 3:19:29 GMT
Just for the record, it was repeating the same exact, word for word language used by the pea being responded to. The one who's post was being patronizing and ridiculing comments made by by those who don’t agree with them. But selective outrage, once again. If you’re more upset about message board posts than about dead school children, you can keep it moving right on out, thank you. |
|
|
|
Post by birukitty on Feb 16, 2018 3:38:29 GMT
We can stop this as a nation once we agree that our children and fellow citizen's lives are more important and valuable than than owning a gun-an object. I'm not saying we have to have a complete gun ban. I'm suggesting we do what Australia did after the Port Arthur Massacre. We are the only country that these almost daily mass gun shootings are happening to. And yet we are doing nothing to stop them. Other countries have the same problems we do-people with mental health problems, kids playing violent video games, and so on. The one difference between them and us that sticks out clearly is our lack of gun control compared to them-I'm talking about the UK, Japan, Germany, Australia and so on. How can we place the value of owning a gun (an object) over the value of even one human life? It is staring us in the face and we have to, we must change this now! 17 more teens lost today, all of that wonderful potential lost in a few minutes because of our lack of sufficient gun control laws. If we follow the example of other countries those who live on farms would be allowed rifles to manage their farms. People who want to practice shooting for sport would go to places to do that where their guns are kept and locked up. Only police and the military would have access to guns. How would we accomplish this? You can read all about how Australia did it for information on that. We'd have to change the 2nd amendment, but we've changed amendments before. As far as the NRA goes I think if we did this they should be disbanded. This is my hope for our countries future. Will it ever happen? I don't know, but I'm an optimist. I think if we don't try something like this we'll never stop these huge numbers of death. If our citizens were dying of anything else in these numbers it would have stopped long, long ago. Because of the power of the NRA and the money they bribe the congress with it hasn't. They need to be stopped before any kind of true change can happen. We need a leader who believes in something like this and we need to get rid of the NRA. We DO have gun control. We have a lack of enforcement, not a lack of gun control laws. Those we have. In the first quote what I said was our lack of gun control compared to them. Our lack of gun control laws compared to their gun control laws. In the second quote I said our lack of sufficient gun controls. Sufficient means, according to dictionary.com "adequate to the purpose, enough" In my opinion the control laws we currently haven't aren't anywhere close to enough and certainly aren't adequate to the purpose. Reading comprehension. It's a good thing. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 26, 2024 22:21:47 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2018 3:42:21 GMT
Remember this? " President Donald Trump quietly signed a bill into law Tuesday rolling back an Obama-era regulation that made it harder for people with mental illnesses to purchase a gun. The rule, which was finalized in December, added people receiving Social Security checks for mental illnesses and people deemed unfit to handle their own financial affairs to the national background check database. Had the rule fully taken effect, the Obama administration predicted it would have added about 75,000 names to that database. " www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-signs-bill-revoking-obama-era-gun-checks-people-mental-n727221No one is saying this alone is the answer. The answer is 1000 steps away. But this was one step. I've said this at least twice before and once it was in response to you specifically. So I don't know why you're still spreading misinformation, but I'll say it again. House Vote 77 - Repeals Rule Restricting Gun Sales to Severely Mentally Ill The rule in question does not, in fact, "keep guns from the mentally ill," and repealing it will not allow the mentally ill access to firearms. Not being able to handle your finances is not a measure of whether you should be allowed to protect yourself or not. They are very different determinations. INDIVIDUALS should be determined to be a risk to themselves and others, not a blanket determination by the Social Security Administration, which does not allow due process. There's a reason the ACLU and dozens of mental health groups have urged the repeal of the law Obama put in place.
Stop skimming headlines and repeating things you haven't researched. Use those critical thinking skills and research what you read. You know, those things that many Left leaning people here accuse the Right of not doing. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 26, 2024 22:21:47 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2018 3:57:08 GMT
"The rule, which was finalized in December, added people receiving Social Security checks for mental illnesses and people deemed unfit to handle their own financial affairs to the national background check database.
Had the rule fully taken effect, the Obama administration predicted it would have added about 75,000 names to that database. ""
To reiterate: No one is saying this alone is the answer. The answer is 1000 steps away. But this was one step.
|
|
|
|
Post by birukitty on Feb 16, 2018 4:01:10 GMT
Do you think bullying doesn't happen in the other countries that don't have 2 school shootings a week like we do? Bullying has always been around, everywhere. And so have guns been around forever and we didn't have this problem. Students had them in the back of their truck on a rack and people weren't shooting up the schools. something has changed and it isn't available guns. They've always been here. One of the big reasons in my opinion is the NRA has changed and become a fear promoting, gun pushing terror organization funneling millions of money into congress' pockets to stop everything from studies on gun deaths to any reasonable gun control laws like universal background checks which 80% of the population want. Were they like that back in the 1970's? I don't know. I grew up in a family that didn't own guns so I didn't pay any attention to the NRA, they weren't a part of my life. I too went to a high school for 3 years that was in a rural area and the young men had pickup trucks with gun racks in the back. You can keep saying it's something else, it's this or that. But almost every day people are dying. Do we really have the years it's going to take to figure out exactly what it is? Every week 2 school shootings are happening. Are those children's death worth it to figure out how long it's going to take to pinpoint exactly what it is? I don't think so! I don't think any human life is. I say we do something drastic now like Australia did in the aftermath of Port Arthur and see if it works. If it doesn't than we know that isn't the solution. But if it does than we know it is and that's so many lives saved every day instead of waiting and waiting arguing what is the problem and what is the solution. The selfishness of wanting to own an object that has no other purpose but to kill something isn't worth the lives of our fellow citizens and children. My favorite band has a lyric that goes like this "We've decided to risk melting our guns as a show of strength". I love the sentence. I'm not calling for a total ban of guns like I mentioned up post. |
|
|
|
Post by dewryce on Feb 16, 2018 4:16:29 GMT
"The rule, which was finalized in December, added people receiving Social Security checks for mental illnesses and people deemed unfit to handle their own financial affairs to the national background check database. Had the rule fully taken effect, the Obama administration predicted it would have added about 75,000 names to that database. "" I've read this 2 ways from different sources. 1) People who have a mental illness, receive SS and also deemed unfit to handle own financial affairs. And 1) People on SS with a mental illness and seperately people deemed unfit to handle own financial affairs. Based on numbers, I think it must be the first? I'll be the first to say, I have bipolar disorder, take away my gun rights. But, I don't know that I believe everyone with a mental illness should lose their rights. There are many mental illnesses that don't potentially cause anger issues or psychotic breaks. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 26, 2024 22:21:47 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2018 4:23:32 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 26, 2024 22:21:47 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2018 4:26:58 GMT
Washington PostHere is what happened to the NRA from the Washington Post. After that revolt the new NRA started to change the accepted version of the 2nd Amendment to what it is today. “How NRA’s true believers converted a marksmanship group into a mighty gun lobby“.
From the article.. “In gun lore it’s known as the Revolt at Cincinnati. On May 21, 1977, and into the morning of May 22, a rump caucus of gun rights radicals took over the annual meeting of the National Rifle Association. The rebels wore orange-blaze hunting caps. They spoke on walkie-talkies as they worked the floor of the sweltering convention hall. They suspected that the NRA leaders had turned off the air-conditioning in hopes that the rabble-rousers would lose enthusiasm. The Old Guard was caught by surprise. The NRA officers sat up front , on a dais, observing their demise. The organization, about a century old already, was thoroughly mainstream and bipartisan, focusing on hunting, conservation and marksmanship. It taught Boy Scouts how to shoot safely. But the world had changed, and everything was more political now. The rebels saw the NRA leaders as elites who lacked the heart and conviction to fight against gun-control legislation. And these leaders were about to cut and run: They had plans to relocate the headquarters from Washington to Colorado. Before Cincinnati, you had a bunch of people who wanted to turn the NRA into a sports publishing organization and get rid of guns,” recalls one of the rebels, John D. Aquilino, speaking by phone from the border city of Brownsville, Tex. What unfolded that hot night in Cincinnati forever reoriented the NRA. And this was an event with broader national reverberations. The NRA didn’t get swept up in the culture wars of the past century so much as it helped invent them — and kept inflaming them. In the process, the NRA overcame tremendous internal tumult and existential crises, developed an astonishing grass-roots operation and became closely aligned with the Republican Party. Today it is arguably the most powerful lobbying organization in the nation’s capital and certainly one of the most feared. There is no single secret to its success, but what liberals loathe about the NRA is a key part of its power. These are the people who say no. They are absolutist in their interpretation of the Second Amendment. The NRA learned that controversy isn’t a problem but rather, in many cases, a solution, a motivator, a recruitment tool, an inspiration.“
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 26, 2024 22:21:47 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2018 4:27:33 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 26, 2024 22:21:47 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2018 4:27:57 GMT
Somehow, I'm not surprised. Are YOU willing to admit that the previous management of this problem wasn't working either? One of the most effective solutions given and Joe Biden "threw up his hands and said" we don't have the manpower to enforce that current law. So, tell me again how NEW laws are suddenly going to be enforceable when we can't enforce the current ones? Who said anything about new laws? This problem won't be solved by new laws. This problem will be solved by a sea change along the lines of MADD. In my opinion, this isn't at its most basic level, a gun problem. It's a lack of caring and compassion problem. It's an us against them problem. At this point, if after all these mass deaths, people are still clutching their guns this tightly, ( look at this closely: choosing a metal inanimate object over human lives) there is something wrong there; sadly, it seems these people are basically flawed in their capacity to care for other people if at this point, they still want to argue semantics and statistics rather than saying, "This needs to stop. We need changes."This problem will be solved by abandoning the reliance on intellectualizing and debate as a way of deflecting and distancing from the pain of this problem. This problem will be solved when gun romanticizers recognize that they are stuck in one or maybe two untenable world views and are willing to look outside them: 1) They honestly want change but don't really want to have to change anything they think or do. In some sort of magical thought reality, this strategy is reminiscent of the person who wants to lose weight but doesn't really want to change any of their habits. Instead of entertaining new possibilities and ideas, they busy themselves with coming up with reasons why things won't work, and getting bogged down in debates with people who want more gun restrictions. If they are doing this, they don't spend one instant imagining fragments of bloodied bodies in classrooms, parents' agonies at the time they are informed that their child will not be coming home again, and all the negative fallout that will impact these families forever. If they don't feel it, if it's not real, there is no real impetus for change. The victims are just some random, anonymous people in some town somewhere, and and the gun romanticizer knows that eventually the news cycle refreshes and they can relax and move on. Until the next one. 2) They believe they are good people, daresay perhaps even believe they are people of God, and say they want change (while offering hopes and prayers), but secretly are so afraid, so caught up in some bizarre gun-brandishing self-identity, bolstered by a Constitution that offered the right to carry muskets as part of a militia, that is part fear, part bravado, part frontier justice/manifest destiny fantasy that to abandon that, would be to expose an intolerable vulnerability. Hard nuts to crack. This problem will be solved by involving people on an emotional and personal level, where victims are actual people with actual families who have actual ramifications from their loved ones' deaths in mass shootings. Huh?! What in the blueberry fuck muffins are you talking about?! That has always been the collective rallying cry forever. "We don't want to come for your guns, don't be paranoid! We just want more gun laws, better laws, laws that will be effective." So I can't imagine why you would say "who said anything about new laws". That just blows my mind that you would say that, have you been living under a rock? People are choosing the right to self protection, not the inanimate object. And not OVER human lives, but in protection of theirs and their loved ones. It's a basic human right. Not one given to you by the government, but one you hold just because you exist. Anything other than that truth is pure and simple rhetoric designed to demonize people that say that truth. and there is the proof. And we're back to the first point. We already have gun restrictions, so wouldn't MORE of them require new laws? Have you, yourself ever considered the millions of lives saved by defensive gun use? |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 26, 2024 22:21:47 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2018 5:04:40 GMT
Demonizing people with different ideas about how to accomplish the same thing, or how not to accomplish it, doesn't do anything to further the solution. If you think people who don't agree with your solutions to preventing this believe children shouldn't be able to go to school without being killed, you need to take a good hard look at your logic and critical thinking. Just try to look past your idea that only YOUR solution is right. BTW, what IS your solution? I came up with this list in October. I don't know how to share it to this thread so I am cutting and pasting. It is a list of 7 things I came up with over coffee.. I also posted it on FB where my friends and I came up with another 4 or 5 things that added to the list. There are a ton of things we could do. But looking at what other countries have done the most effective thing is making access to guns extremly difficult. Oct 3, 2017 6:52:11 GMT -5 ktdoesntscrap said: I think we need 7 things. 1. Acess to Mental Health 2. A way for Mental Health professionals to "flag" a person who should not have guns. (this would require a lot of training etc. Its a long term solution not a short term one) 3. Limit the sale of semi and automatic weapons, and the manufacture of military grade weapons. 4. Limit the amount of ammunition a person can own at one time. You have to provide used casings to purchase new ones. 5. Require fire arm safety course and licensure for owning a gun. (this should include graphic pictures of gun violence, just like you see graphic pictures of car accidents in Drivers Ed) 6. Require insurance on all guns . 7. Institute a bi-partisan campaign against gun violence. Like the MADD campaigns in the late 80's/90's. I am no expert but if I can come up with a list of 7 things.. only ONE that limits gun ownership. We can work towards a solution if we really want too. ETA: A National Gun Buy back program where the guns are destroyed. I like how much thought you put into it and that you wrote it down. I agree with 1 & 2 3. It's already illegal to purchase an automatic weapon and the only real military grade weapons being manufactured are going to the actual military. Anything else labeled as a military style weapon is nothing but marketing, not function. No actual military grade weapons are being sold to civilians. 4. It isn't the right to bear weapons, or the right to a specific part of it. It is right to bear arms. The federal government cannot restrict piecemeal what the constitution forbids them wholesale. This principle has been held up many times in first amendment and fourth amendment decisions. See flag burning, obscene t shirts, etc. Keep in mind that his debate goes very much to the heart of the constitution. The second amendment is there ultimately to protect and uphold the constitution from the government. 5. I wholeheartedly agree with safety training and would like to see it be required and maintained. I don't believe licensing will ever happen, nor should it. See #4 6. insuring will require some form of registering and that will never fly and it shouldn't. See # 5 7. I wholeheartedly agree. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 26, 2024 22:21:47 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2018 5:12:03 GMT
And why can't we the US learn from this and what happened in Australia. Because we value our "freedooms" over the lives of children. And because of your 'rights' to own guns, which is fine, but no one is trying to take away or ban guns from those mentally stable people who have them legally. There actually are politicians who would like nothing more and many have not been shy of saying so. Others draw up sneaky legislation they think isn't as obvious as it is. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 26, 2024 22:21:47 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2018 5:20:50 GMT
Some people are saying that it’s because of computer games that teenagers are so violent these days but you know what teenagers in Europe and in everywhere in the world are playing does same computer games and they don’t go shooting their school mate after worth. We have a gun problem in this country and as long as we don’t recognize this nothing is going to change . I lost hope that anything will ever change after Sandy Hook. When 6 and 7 year olds are massacred at school and that doesn't change things, I doubt anything else will either.  As long as you understand it also wasn't enough to get Democrats to act during the time they had the power to make the changes needed. The fingers need to be pointed in both directions. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 26, 2024 22:21:47 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2018 5:23:22 GMT
Absolutely nothing. I’m not the one with the problems with the gun laws And no problems with children being gunned down at school? Are you proud of doing "absolutely nothing" about that too? Shitty thing to say. Demonizing someone who wants the same thing you do but doesn't agree with your solution is vile. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 26, 2024 22:21:47 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2018 5:28:36 GMT
Driving is a privilege; the right to bear arms is a Constitutional guarantee. Right there is the difference in the ability to regulate and the extent of regulation. But, when the founding fathers gave the right to bear arms, they were thinking muskets not AR-15s. It’s time to revisit the gun laws. I’m not anti gun, have family who hunts, but they don’t need an AR-15 to bag a deer.  Same for your 1st amendment rights. By your logic it only applies to the printing press and as far as you can shout. |
|
PLurker
Prolific Pea
Posts: 9,840
Location: Behind the Cheddar Curtain
Jun 28, 2014 3:48:49 GMT
|
Post by PLurker on Feb 16, 2018 5:30:53 GMT
somewhere in this l o n g discussion , probably more than once, I believe it was asked/stated that types of guns restricted wouldn't matter and it's the bullets that kill and various other things. I saw this from a Sandy Hook mom.
Below is her thoughts, from a victim's point of view.
Bolding is mine as it is what struck a particular chord with me:
Sandy Hook Promise
·
The shooter who killed my beautiful butterfly Dylan carried 10 thirty-round, large-capacity gun ammunition magazines into Sandy Hook Elementary. 300 rounds. He deliberately left the smaller-capacity magazines at home.
In approximately four minutes, he shot 154 bullets, killing 20 children and six educators. Five of those bullets hit Dylan, and in an instant, my little boy was gone.
But in the time it took the shooter to reload, 11 children were able to escape. If magazines were limited to one-third the number of rounds available that day, just think how many more children could have survived. Perhaps Dylan would still be alive today. Perhaps more people would have escaped from the horrific mass shootings in Las Vegas and Texas.
That's why I'm trying to gather 50,000 petition signatures demanding Congress limit the size of gun magazines. But we're still several thousand short, and it looks like you haven't signed yet. So please, sign the petition right now to help save lives.
– Nicole Hockley (Dylan's mom)
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 26, 2024 22:21:47 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2018 5:38:38 GMT
But, when the founding fathers gave the right to bear arms, they were thinking muskets not AR-15s. It’s time to revisit the gun laws. I’m not anti gun, have family who hunts, but they don’t need an AR-15 to bag a deer. Also, the 2nd Amendment began to be redefined as conferring an individual’s right in the 1970s, at the behest of (you guessed it) the NRA. And Orrin Hatch. This was not even mainstream Republican thought at that time, so the reinterpretation was done quite forcefully. Before that, the amendment was generally believed to confer the right to bear arms on militias or national/state defense groups - not individuals. www.google.com/amp/s/www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/so-you-think-you-know-the-second-amendment/ampBut to hear today’s gun enthusiasts talk, you’d think this was a clear interpretation that had stood for two centuries. Not so at all. I'm quoting another pea here: "According to this article in The Atlantic, the writers of the 14 Amendment specifically mentioned gun ownership as a right given to freed blacks. I read this article a while back, but just found it again to go along with our discussion. I found it so interesting that previous attempts at gun control were a means to keep black people from exercising their freedoms, and that the Black Panthers were given credit with starting the modern gun rights movement. I think it goes to show that differences in how the 2nd Amendment have been interpreted are not just modern 20th century differences." |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 26, 2024 22:21:47 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2018 5:43:59 GMT
Just like a vehicle, guns should be registered, owners/operators should be licensed and insured. If your weapon is used in crime. The owner of the gun should be culpable. Sure, as long as you do the same when your vehicle is stolen and used in a crime. Or any of your other belongings from your house. Someone walks away with your registered hammer while while they're stealing your jewelry and electronics. They have it on them when breaking into the next house and get surprised by the homeowner and use it to kill him. Using your logic, now you get to go to jail. |
|
azredhead
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,755
|
Post by azredhead on Feb 16, 2018 5:49:12 GMT
Maybe now we can talk about the Las Vegas shooting? it feels like very few people want conversation they want to say their piece - point a finger and stomp off both sides there is rarely any civilized conversations about hot button topics gina I agree with this 100% especially when people tell them to just F'off especially when saying non of us want change! That doesn't help anyone and it's a broad brush. Emotions are raw and high. It affects EVERYONE! I don't care who you are. But to tell people they don't care is just not helping either! |
|
PLurker
Prolific Pea
Posts: 9,840
Location: Behind the Cheddar Curtain
Jun 28, 2014 3:48:49 GMT
|
Post by PLurker on Feb 16, 2018 5:57:04 GMT
this was posted after the Vegas shooting, I believe. It is a bit of truth, sadness and wit all in one.
this was a following comment. also witty, sad and truth mixed:
Genius idea... add in Muslims and Mexicans and it would be done by Thursday!
|
|
|
|
Post by dewryce on Feb 16, 2018 6:02:25 GMT
this was posted after the Vegas shooting, I believe. It is a bit of truth, sadness and wit all in one. this was a following comment. also witty, sad and truth mixed: Genius idea... add in Muslims and Mexicans and it would be done by Thursday! IN one of the many threads today this was addressed by pudgygroundhog (I think). When the Black Panthers armed themselves in the 60s Republicans did take action. She provided a link I have added to my reading list, I'll go see if I can find it. eta: I couldn't link to page in original thread, but here is the article in The Atlantic. |
|
