| To the Editor: Ideas offered to improve school safety |
| Written by Mark Barbour |
| Wednesday, 26 December 2012 09:07 |
|
As a parent, I am extremely disturbed by the senseless tragedy that recently occurred in Connecticut. I have a couple of "outside the box" ideas to address the issue of school security and keeping our children safe from armed individuals with evil intent. First, it should be a requirement that all administrators and teachers and other school employees be trained in self-defense and specifically, how to neutralize an armed assailant. This might give the teachers and administrators more of a "fighting chance" and would likely reduce the damage done if any situation did occur. I realize that funding for this would likely be almost impossible to obtain in the current economic climate, so this training could be conducted on a volunteer basis by current or former law-enforcement or military personnel. I would be willing to volunteer for this duty, as I'm sure would many others. Second, all outer doors at all schools should be locked during the school day, and the office should have to "buzz in" any visitors after they identify themselves and their business at the school. The new Otsego building already has this system in place. Obviously, the drop-off/pickup times would require a different solution, which would also have to be addressed. Third, all schools should have security personnel in place. Again, funding would be an issue, so we could rely on current and former military and law enforcement personnel to serve in this capacity. At the very least, each building should have what could be called a "greeter" at the main entrance at all times to monitor who enters and exits the building. Parent or grandparent volunteers could serve in this capacity, and should also be trained in threat assessment and self-defense. A 2-way radio or walkie talkie should be provided to the "greeter" for quick communication with the school office. School officials and law enforcement do their very best to prevent school violence and protect our children, and should be commended for their efforts. However, more needs to be done, and this could be addressed with more community involvement. Mark Barbour Haskins |
Front Page Stories
| Photographer finds picture perfect career 05/18/2013 | JACK CARLE Sentinel Sports Editor  Elizabeth Lee. (Photo: J.D. Pooley/Sentinel-Tribune) A passion for photography ha [ ... ] |
Pemberville woman fights incurable disease 05/18/2013 | PETER KUEBECK Sentinel Staff Writer  Karen Williams talks about scleroderma with her husband Charles at their home in Pemberv [ ... ] | Other Front Page Articles | ||
Comments
Teachers ALREADY have enough on their plates to stress about. Forcing them to be ad-hoc security officers is completely stupid.
Armed security officers in schools should ONLY be done at the behest of the school administrators, NOT as a carte blanche solution - another stupid idea.
Only idea #2 is realistic.
How is that not a stupid idea?
To suggest something like that requires a person to be out of their mind. It's a logical conclusion.
Suggesting that schools become armed camps is a sign of ignorance.
Protecting teachers and children is the POINT of a weapons-free environment, and is an assumption that teachers must not be forced to forgo at the behest of right-wing gun-nut reactionaries.
The events in Connecticut were tragic, but extremely rare. There are over 100,000 public schools in this country. Your kids are safe - or as safe as any of us are when we are just going about our business living our lives. There is no reason to turn our schools into armed camps.
This is also a decent job opportunity.
It could be anyone who passes a background check and can press a button. They don't even need weapons.
Indeed, they are exactly and precisely relevant to the 2nd Amendment. The amendment is about the deterrent to, and last safeguard against the tyranny of government-requiring more than muskets and shotguns.
Your implied straw man about "assault weapons" being unsuitable for hunting, is also false. There are growing numbers of hunters using AR-based rifles (commonly referred to as "assault rifles") for hunting everything from varmints to big game. These weapons might have "large capacity" magazines, but that doesn't mean that the magazine is full when hunting. Those that hunt with these weapons use them as ethically as do those with more traditional rifles.
OK, so you are a 2nd-amendment purist. But as long as we have our democratic processes in place, our government is not tyrannous, and will not be so long as the Constitution holds. So, this is your straw man.
But, an armed and militarized society is neither free nor polite. That is the dilemma.
And where is the sport in hunting varmints with Bushmasters?
I don't think our founders had in mind a culture held hostage to paranoid survivalists.
Our founders knew this, they disliked government, but recognized it was necessary. They instituted a weak, federal government, with limited, enumerated powers. Instead, they vested the real power in the States and local jurisdictions. Over time, we see how that has changed to an all-powerful federal government that is increasingly intrusive in individual's lives. That alone proves the wisdom of our founders.
An armed populace are indeed citizens, and quite polite. An unarmed populace are slaves.
Let me ask: is there any daylight between you and Wayne LaPierre on gun issues?
One has the right to be armed or unarmed, and be a citizen. When one no longer has the right to be armed, then all become slaves.
When I carry my weapon, concealed, lawfully, does that threaten anyone? I think not. When I lawfully, ethically and morally possesses a number of weapons, including pistols and "assault weapons" (that are really just semi-automatic rifles) or a number of hunting arms, am I threatening or intimidating anyone? Of course not.
The ONLY time one becomes threatened or intimidated by lawful arms is if a) they are doing something illegal to begin with, or b) ... well, there really isn't a (b).
Ok, but if the democratic processes crumble (or decay), it will be too late to rearm.
A militarized society is by definition not free. We are not talking militarization, rather the exercise of a right by free people. Those who wish to legally be armed, may be armed. Those who prefer not to, are likewise free not to. There is nothing inherently impolite or unfree about that.
I've never been to NYC, but it has the reputation for being quite unfriendly, even hostile. Yet the restrictions there on being armed are quite onerous. I've lived in Texas, a well armed state, and they have earned a reputation as very friendly.
And, frankly, I'll take my tuned and accurized M4 over many other weapons, for the appropriate game, or target scenario.
But this discussion misses the point. I don't tell you what car to drive, or how big to build your house, why would you presume to tell another law abiding citizen what weapon is or isn't "appropriate" for him/her?
In fact, I rarely hunt. I prefer target shooting and collecting. Does that make my possession of arms any less legitimate? I certainly don't think so.
1) Keep your heat in your house and on your target range.
2) Don't have any family members with mental illness.
3) Don't tell whole professional trades that they must also pack.
And don't bring it to my school.
Do that & we can get along, I think.
Or maybe the solution is limiting the size of a car's engine and the amount of gas they can buy in a given period of time. That won't limit their freedom of movement, will it?
Or maybe, the solution is limiting the number of people or organizations a person can associate with. That will take care of your gun show problem, too. It won't really effect their freedom of association.
And you know what, people should be limited to a small number of elections they can vote in, because I just don't like the outcome of some of these elections. That won't really effect their right to vote, will it?
This is completely specious idiocy.
Unless what you are saying is that the need to have no restrictions on guns is somehow directly related to your unhappiness with the outcome of the election, in which case it is completely dangerous idiocy.
I was simply point out that to limit someone's access to the exercise of a right, is to deny that right.
Likewise, to put prohibitive taxes or fees upon the exercise of that right, is also to deny the right.
It isn't quite so funny when the proposed "limitations" are something other than weapons. And, I dare say, something you hold more dear than other citizens' exercise of a right that perhaps you choose not to exercise yourself.
The Wild West is not a fitting model for a civilized society. But the gun nuts--and the Tea Party, with whom they are often closely allied--aren't really interested in a civilized society, are they? Certainly not one with any space given to "diversity." They are interested in getting their own way, or having the whole of society reflect their own values.
No Tea Partier or gun advocate has tried to coerce the opposing side into anything other than allowing them their rights. Nobody is trying to forcibly arm anyone. Diversity? Come on. Accepting diverse opinions and beliefs is one thing, Accepting them as one's own is another. Tea Partiers have no problem accepting diverse opinions and beliefs, just not taking them on as their own.
Armed citizens protect themselves and others many, many more times each day than they use their arms to inflict injury.
But, bottom line, I'd prefer to bet on the man with a gun to protect the man wanting to voice his opinion, than the opposite absent weapons in the hand so of citizens.
1)The teabaggers want to arm white Republicans and conservatives.
2) Teabaggers sure could NOT accept the diverse opinions presented to them when they came to BGSU. They tried to rhetorically isolate themselves and wouldn't even listen to the local libertatian. Or anyone else for that matter!
3) Armed citizens commit more crimes than they protect people. You lied about that.
4) You definitely have interesting fantasies about reality.
1. You are off your nut, what conspiracy site did you get the idea that "teabaggers" want to arm anyone, much less white Republicans? Do the black people who identify themselves as agreeing with the Tea Party know about this. You show your true colors by use of the derogatory slur.
2. Site your source for this conclusion.
3. LEGALLY armed citizens stop the conduct of illegal actions (robberies, assaults, home invasions, etc.) many hundreds of times a day across America. Usually without firing a shot. Now, if you count illegally armed citizens, and disregard those instances when a gun is not even fired in defense, that could change the equation. If you truly disagree with this, site your source.
4. My reality is grounded in truth, dear Brian. What's yours?
2. I believe Brian may have been there.
2) I was there. They were the worst kind of ignorant bigots. They ripped up any pamphlet info anyone gave them. They mocked people of color in the crowd. They verbally threatened violence.
3) The stats back me up; do your own homework.
4) Your so-called reality is grounded in fiction and bias. Why don't you give me YOUR citations?
Even soldiers with Concealed Carry Permits are not permitted to be armed on the installation. All the "weapons of war" are locked up in the unit Arms Rooms, unless out for training, and then tightly controlled.
The only ones armed on base, are the first responders: MPs and civilian security guards.
That said, it is telling that these events always take place where guns are conspicuously absent from the victims.
I do believe that by creating places where guns are removed even from those who are licensed and trained to use them, that it produces a freedom of action for the perpetrator that he wouldn't otherwise have. These perps may be evil and crazy, but that doesn't mean they are stupid. They, like criminals who assault, rob, rape and murder, do a simple risk-benefit analysis, and go do their deeds where the risk is minimal: declared "gun free" zones.
What is knowable is that without a semi-automatic gun with a high magazine capacity (sorry; I don't know gun terminology), fewer people would have been killed and less quickly.
A crazy woman who hated Hindus and Muslims killed one man she didn't know by pushing him off a platform. A crazy man who hated Muslims and Sikhs (whom he might have mistaken for Muslims) murdered many people he didn't know in short order at a temple in Michigan, because he had a high capacity weapon.
Sure, in combat, one wants the larger capacity magazine because the enemy tends to shoot back. But in a situation where the victims are all passive and there is no return fire, the difference is irrelevant.
I agree with Christopher Williams that , absent "high capacity" magazines, that the victims would have been shot marginally slower, but not that fewer would have been killed, all other variables remaining the same.
That is little consolation, methinks.
That said, one who doesn't know weapons should not be talking about issues pertaining to the function of those weapons. The 1994 "Assault Weapon Ban" was such a discussion, which ended up banning weapons for reasons solely about how they looked, not their function. To gun owners, it would have been laughable if it wasn't a sad infringement on a right.
One characteristic that led to a weapon being banned was if it had a bayonet lug (mounting point). Really? How many crimes, much less massacres, have been the result of a crazed bayonet attack?
It's not about guns you say. But that is what you want to remove from law abiding hands, instead of addressing the culture that otherwise leaves them victims.
And I am sorry that I exaggerated Carolyn McCarthy's knowledge of the issue by claiming that having her husband killed was any different from your personal grief at watching the Challenger explode. Sheesh!
Face it: you are a 2nd-amendment absolutist, and you really don't give a damn about the epidemic of gun violence that makes America truly exceptional in the developed world. So long as you can shoot squirrels with your Bushmaster.
Instead of going after law abiding citizens that aren't the problem, why don't you go after the criminals that are the problem ? Stiffer penalties, longer sentences.
You really want to reduce crime ?Look where the majority of crimes occur, FBI statistics, go there. That's reality. The blanket feel good "solution" of banning firearms didn't work. Why do you think it will work this time ?
Your words Mr. Williams. It appears you don't care for people speaking obtusely on a subject that involves you. No need to respond as I'm quite sure you will have an "explanation" for your hipocricy. haha
What you seem to be doing is saying that speaking out of ignorance on something I do know about is OK. But my saying something about gun violence despite my lacking technical knowledge of guns is not OK, even when I know something about school culture and human behavior.
That is exactly what YOU did in another post.
"A response that shows no knowledge of the issues, beyond your reflexive suspicion of teachers and unions."
Why is OK for you and not for me ?
... and in so doing, puts their patrons at increased risk of criminals or those with criminal intent to visit their evil at will, and with minimum risk.
Since you are not a gun person, let me point out a few things.
1. There is a reason these shooters all pick locations where there is a very slight chance they will be met with deadly force, at least at first. Is there a reason why nobody ever plots a massacre at a gun show, gun store, pawn shop or other place with high likelihood of multiple armed persons present.
1a. Do you believe in the deterrent effect for anything? If so, why not in this case?
2. One doesn't have to hit a perp to stop him. If someone returned fire, even missing him, it would cause him to loose concentration and confidence. I've been on the receiving end of gun fire, widely inaccurate. Even when trained, it has that effect.
That said, (1) it is extremely difficult outside the military or law enforcement to acquire body armor of the grade that will actually stop direct hits. I am unaware of the type and quality Aurora shooter had.
(2) Trust me, even in body armor, it is natural to be effected by "counter fire", the closer and more accurate, the more it effects the wearer. Even in full body armor and helmet, our troops still seek cover when the enemy is shooting at them.
2) What about perps bent on suicide anyhow? They should have been prevented from obtaining firearms and silly armed guards are the reason for the (killing) season.
They are also poorly paid, so you can kill this idea already.
Simply removing the "sure thing" of a lack of defense from the campus will reduce significantly these types of events. Perps may be crazy and evil, but they aren't stupid. They will think twice about going to a possibly armed location to do their evil deed.
I go back to the ancient times of the early '80s, when you could find pickup trucks in the BGHS parking lot with shotguns and rifles clearly displayed in the back windows. Nobody freaked out, and nobody was harmed. And, if anyone had dared enter the school with evil intent, it would have been met with force, sooner rather than later.
2) BGHS in the 80's was an extremely rural white and isolated backwater with special privileges for the local boys club.
Times have changed.
So, lets take this a step further. Since automobile fatalities account for vastly more deaths than do firearms, lets extend your ideas to automobile ownership. Lets grossly inflate the taxes paid for the purchase of autos, and every other item required to operate them, like gasoline and oil.
And RevJD (do I know you from BGSU in 1984?), lets put trained drivers in every car, at the owners expense too. For the same reasons as above. That won't infringe on anyone's freedoms, will it?
Extreme taxation, as suggested by some, is just another way to infringe on freedom and liberty, no less than the Pole Tax and other schemes used through history to limit the ability of a group of people to exercise their rights, or particular rights.
And you do realize that bringing up "extreme taxation" can seem paranoid when it is pointed out that taxes--especially income taxes--are at the lowest rates they have been in almost a century.
I am finding this whole "we need guns because we don't like our government" really disturbing. It's Weimar Republic stuff.
The anger of the Tea Party is rooted in frustration that government does not immediately change to conform completely to its priorities, which exclude people who do not agree with them. It is the anger of the John Birch Society and the anger of Gohmert, Bachmann, Santorum, and the gun nuts. More than anything, it is why Romney lost the election.
In the antebellum south, that was a pole tax to make voting by the black segment of the population to be almost completely prohibitively expensive.
Similarly proposed taxes on weapons and ammunition would seek to prohibit the exercise of the right, rather than gather legitimate revenue to the taxing authority.
A debate about the merits of excessive taxation upon the income of those who drive the economic engine of our nation is apt for another comment thread, not this one.
3. There has been no correlation between tax cuts for the "job creators" and job creation (CBO)
4. Income disparities in our country are the most exaggerated and unsustainable for any country in the developed world.
In my opinion, the real class warfare has been waged against the poor, in order to make our society economically more comparable (I'm sorry; competitive) with China and India.
Regardless of the "loosening" of the gun laws in the late '20s and after 1932, the fact that the "imposition of gun control in 1938 was because the tyrannous and highly militarized dictatorship wanted to stamp out the possibility of rebellion." makes my point exactly.
We are always only one generation away from tyranny.
Tyranny abhors anything that can counteract it. It will scapegoat, demonize, demagogue and simultaneously limit the rights and liberty of those it controls. And no piece of paper, no mater how revered, will stop that in the hands of a despot, without an armed citizenry reasonably able to offer rebellion as a counter thesis.
Sure, by 1938, Germany was a vicious one-party dictatorship and had re-militarized. 1938 was the year Hitler started his expansionistic endeavors in earnest, annexing part of Czechoslovakia, and occupying Austria. And it was several years before the big push that would see 6 million Jews, Gypsies and other "undesirables" sent to the concentration camps and gas chambers.
Why did Hitler wait so long? I have no idea the opposition to the idea at the time, maybe he needed to get his police state in place first. Maybe, he didn't have a suitable "crisis" come along to not waste, which would have allowed him to confiscate guns from law abiding citizens earlier.
The "big push," as you describe it--The Final Solution--actually came as Germany began its decline after the defeat at Stalingrad. But that was a long time after the Nuremberg laws of 1933, which stripped those groups of citizenship and even employment rights, except as slave labor for the private sector corporate interests that propped up the regime economically.
Citizens who, lawfully, own firearms, are in the same boat as those who procreate. They have the right to.
In some states, even ownership is licensed and/or registered.
Those that want to carry concealed weapons have to take an actual test and be licensed.
Your strawman about licensed drivers misses the mark. What RevJD opined was to put guards in front of the homes of all those with legally owned "assault rifles". I equated legally owned weapons with legally owned (and presumably operated) automobiles. Since both are being (presumably) operated legally, then the analogy is most apt.
However, the NRA has routinely tried to weaken and circumvent gun licensing, regulation of gun shows (such as those in Virginia,where gun-controlled D.C. gets a lot of its ammunition), and background checks. LaPierre would sooner call for a national database of the "mentally ill" (however that is defined, but presumably, in order to include Adam Lanza, including such things as Asperger's and possibly bipolarity in the register) than call for a national registry of gun owners.
Gun controlled D.C. and NYC can get their ammunition from a number of sources, to include Walmart. My understanding is that these locales restrict the ownership of firearms, not ammunition.
But... I agree. It is a very tough nut to crack. (Pun recognized but not intended.) How to balance two competing rights? How to ensure possibly mentally infirm citizens do not arbitrarily have their rights infringed, any more than non-mentally infirm citizens don't have their rights infringed?
That is why I ensured when talking about sales at gun shows, I specifically addressed the vendors who are legitimate FFL licencees. So, you were disagreeing with a statement I didn't make.
It is true that individuals could meet at a gun show and agree to buy, sell or trade weapons between themselves, without a background check. But they don't need a gun show to do that... they could meet any day of the year, anywhere they could legally be and do the same thing. It could be your father passing a heirloom rifle on to his son, or a family member giving a pistol to a young adult girl going off to college.
Then again, it being a "joke" is your biased, subjective view of it. When BATF isn't actively subverting the process ("Fast & Furious") it works pretty well.
I don't want to ban anything, but REAL background checks with a waiting period should be made mandatory.
Also: improved enforcement of weapon-free zones, like schools and universities will remain. A civilized culture requires it.
Remind me again which country they all turn to when they need help?
The question of the military support of a superpower is different from the question of whether an armed society is perceived as a civil society. The U.S. is the only country that sees it that way (woohoo! American exceptionalism) . That said, Europe and Canada have been pulling their own MILITARY weight relative to population through NATO and the U.N, including in Afghanistan.
I'm certain that you have reported both your friend, and the dealer, so that this legitimate "loophole" can be closed, right? Or, are you part of the problem?
The vast majority of vendors are legitimate, by-the-book business people who will not risk their livelihood and jail time by selling unqualified people firearms. Your single annecdote does not a trend or generalization make.
But there will always be some, to be sure.
Knowing that you associate with a 2x Felon (and apparently condoned his further illegal activity), of course, also colors your comments going forward.
All of this completely undermines your position, you should know.
It is a weak registration requirement & you KNOW it.
Wonderfully progressive, this civilization of which you speak.
No, I do not rat out my friends, but yes, there should be tighter regulations.
One event does not make something "common place". I'll stipulate that it happens, but I absent a whole lot more evidence, I refute that it happens often or is common place.
ORC 2921.22 no person, knowing that a felony has been or is being committed, shall knowingly fail to report such information to law enforcement authorities.
Do what's right Brian, don't be part of the problem.
The fact is, the loose standards of gun shows, and their location in close proximity to cities that have anti-gun laws has been amply documented by journalists, and Brian did not have to "go there." What usually happens is that the illegal gun dealers buy their arsenals legally, and then take them into the cities and get them into the wrong hands. It is also a statistical fact, often denied here, that the states with the most permissive gun laws DO have the highest rates of accidental and intentional gun death, including in domestic disputes.
That was your lie. I did call you out & your response was a personal attack/threat.
No one is going to restrict law-abiding citizens. Stop being so emotional and paranoid.
The point is that this IS very common, even if Defender wants to wear his blinders.
Attacking me does not change real facts.
However, I do know that 20 kindergarten kids should not have been shot into hamburger, so badly that the coroner broke down in tears. And that the focus on arming the schools is unrealistic and perverse when it is much easier to regulate the purchase of what, in the hands of anybody other than the military, are nothing more than toys that have little connection to realistic hunting or home protection. Feinstein's bill enumerated numerous weapons by name that were EXEMPT from the ban.
I agree, those kids nor any other innocent person should be shot. In case you're not aware, firearm owners wept as well. Arming schools in unrealalistic? Good enough for our Commander and many of our elected officials but not regular citizens? Research schools that are armed, no issues.
While taking the path that is "easier" does not make it right or effective. Again, you are showing your ignorance of firearms. The military does not use the firearms that are proposed in the ban. Feinsteins ban, bans the cosmetics of a semi-auto firearm. Nothing to do with the action of the firearm. If reduced crime is what you are after, then you should be upset with the lack of results thus far. You're emotions are getting the best of you.
Quoting Ryan:
The military uses anything they want: FULLY automatic assault weapons and more.
But what C. Williams and others blithly refer to as "assault weapons" are not the same as what one finds in the hands of our military.
A M-4 in the hands of a soldier has a 3-shot burst rate as well as semi-auto fire, and a shorter barrel length. The M-4 available to civilians is semi-auto only, and longer. In other words, it is functionally the same as the "exempted" hunting rifle, but just "looks scary". That is a wonderful reason to outlaw it. Not.
Same for "AK-47's" available to civilians. And SKS, AR-15, FAL, FNLs, etc. All semi-auto just like the hunting rifles that would remain legal. For now.
Yes, the military uses fully automatic rifles. Those are NOT part of the ban being proposed.
Which part are you having an issue understanding?
Automatics are already banned.
Why can't *I* buy one?
Assault weapon (in my book) means aone that is convertible to automatic.
Would you also like people that own tanks to turn them in as well?
Again, showing your ignorance. Please just stop. :)
See my above post about my friend with 2 felonies getting a gun at a show.
5 minutes.
Stop lying to protect gun culture.
Why are we not all driving under-powered Soviet-era cars because some choose to abuse driving over-powered cars that crash and hurt people?
I advocate tighter regulation and licensing. That is all anyone rational is calling for. No one is going to ban your precious guns, go back to your paranoid cave.
Unless "ban" doesn't mean "ban", what rock are you living under when you say "no one is going to ban your precious guns"?
At least my cave has internet and cable.
While I clearly have not been to every gun show in the USA, nor even purchased weapons at all those I have been to, I do know that the vendors (those who possess a FFL allowing them to sell firearms) at gun shows are required to do a background check just like in a store, and have to maintain and file the same paperwork as if they were in a brick and mortar store selling firearms. They are as likely to threaten their livelihood there as they would in their store.
So, I dispute your "well known" contention. Especially since I strongly suspect you have never set foot inside one yourself.
But here's a suggestion. For those who so want to infringe on the right (let's be honest, that is what an "assault weapon" ban would be, as would limits on magazine capacity or other schemes), why not just go to revoke the 2nd Amendment? We have a process for that in our system of government, and it has been used before.
"Infringe" and "limit" are synonomous, so if that is what you intend to do, be honest, man up and seek to revoke the 2nd Amendment, instead of all the parsing and obfuscation. It's what you really want, so go for it. We'll see what it looks like when the dust clears.
The funny thing is: no one is seriously trying to ban firearms in the first place. Talk about a strawman argument!
The militia envisioned by the constitution is manifested today by the National Guard.
It's pretty simple, really.
It does not state that "the right to recreation and hunting, the people may be permitted firearms to enjoy these practices."
The militia is the able bodied adult (male) citizenry. The National Guard is a manifestation of the state, because it can be federalized. Contemporary writings clearly showed the purpose of the 2nd: That the citizenry was the last line of defense against an out-of-control government.
The 2nd Amendment implied that the same "small arms" available to the government should be available to the citizenry to counter the tyranny of a rogue government. This “last resort” is no less valid today, I would argue is one reason our democratic processes are so well developed and adhered to.
As the Supreme Court said, Amendment mandates freedom not responsibility. In other words, while the Constitution protects the freedom, it is up to the individual to exercise responsibility. The government cannot regulate or mandate that.
Be very carful how you respond to that !!
And then show how the 1st amendment does not imply a separation of church and state.
The government cannot regulate guns? Ha. You ARE crazy.
You are basically saying that any regulation of gun and armament ownership is the same as a ban and completely infringes your rights. That's crazy talk.
It's to the right of the NRA.
This explains "seperation of church and state"
As I stated in my previous post, "be careful how you respond", the Supreme Court case was a quote about the 1st amendment. Nothing about firearms. Apply your argument about the 2nd to the 1st and it all of sudden doesn't sound logical. :)
Why do you view "recreational hunting" and "home defense" differently than other legitimate "recreational" pursuits pertaining to firearms?
Is target shooting not recreational? Trap shooting? Cowboy Action shooting?
Long-range, large calibre target shooting? Collecting?
There are legitimate, structured "recreational" pursuits involving all the "scary" weapons you claim to have no legitimate place in society. How do you differentiate between the various legitimacies? How do you define them? How do you come to the Christopher Williams Doctine of what is legitimate for a law abiding citizen, and what is not?
If you think that no one is trying to take firearms away from law abiding citizens, then you have not done your homework. Feinstein has not hidden the fact that she wants Mr. and Mrs. America to turn in their guns.
People who equate having a spine with supporting gun-right absolutism are no better than school-yard bullies and modern brown-shirt equivalents. We don't need to go down that path again, but it is pretty darn close.
Didn't we leave England for our freedoms ?
You have no idea about the path that people are willing to go down to defend their freedoms. Unfortunately, I don't think it's too far away.
"Unfortunately, I don't think it's too far away." Now you are beginning to sound like Alex Jones. Nutty.
They scare you, so you want to ameliorate your fear by taking away their right to possess weapons.
At first, you "only" want to take away their scariest weapons. But in the end, that won't really relieve your fear sufficiently. The limits will become increasingly more stringent, strangling the Right to Bear Arms, until it is but a hollow promise unattainable in practice.
You'd scream bloody murder if someone wanted to similarly limit your 1st Amendment Rights, Right to Vote or the right of a woman to abort her child. But you are scared of "right wing survivalists", so limiting their rights is ok, even an imperative.
Even the NRA has a more moderate attitude than Defender and Ryan.
More guns=more gun deaths, accidental and otherwise. It's very simple, and adopting the idea that we need more and more guns, and have to hoard them for the coming insurrection seems rather contrary to the spirit of the founders. Why don't you try the democratic process and the art of persuasion rather than going all brownshirt on us. You sound like one who is willing to use force to get your own way, even if the majority opposes it.
You argue for gun control but when a known felony is mentioned, you ignore it and call it a distraction. You dismiss 500 murders as a relative small number per capita. yet with 151 murdered in mass shootings in a year, you scream for "gun control". You are about gun control and not the reduction of crime. If there is another "assault weapons" ban, you will win your fight. Too bad it won't reduce crime. Too bad for the innocent people that it will affect.
Am I willing to use force to get my own way ? No Willing to use force to defend the Constitution? Yes The majority can not change the Constitution. If you are willing to give up a freedom, then you are willing to give up all of your freedoms. I am done with you.
Are you saying that if there is any attempt to limit or regulate the sale of guns that you would be willing to use your own guns against the government?
Your absolutist logic is not logic. If you are done with me then you must be prepared to be done with the majority of Americans, because my views are quite mainstream on this.
Despite a few recent tragedies, the vast majority of deaths, and indeed previous massacres, all resulted from hand-guns and long-guns.
So, what is the logic behind seeking to limit those weapons marketed to resemble military weapons, if they are not the lead cause of the statistical problem you use to justify the attempt?
Oh, unless it is to set a precedent for later, further restrictions.
At no point in the constitution is it implied that a "well-regulated militia" should be in opposition to the well-regulated militia that is already of the people, by the people, and for the people.
Indeed I would go so far as to say that the underdog is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order." These were the subject races, conquered by military action, who were treated like slaves, were made to perform slave labor. (cont)
RSS feed for comments to this post.