15
15
0
When will we learn? What's it going to take? Lots of great comments on several different threads but many on both sides miss the issue. Gun control is not about guns, it's ultimately about controlling the populace. If this is not true then why is there no cry for controlling bats, knives, bathtubs, cars, etc. All of these items have been used to commit violent acts. Many who advocate for stricter gun laws don't understand it is the individual who conducts bad behavior. It is not the inanimate object that we should be blaming. Each person has the free will to make good or bad decisions.
This whole thing of the 2A applying only to the militia is false. Just to clarify, the 2A is as follows: “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”. Many don’t understand but this is a three part statement. First, “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,…” refers to the collective nominative absolute of the people to organize in order to defend themselves from a tyrannical government. This is quantified by the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence as well as the Preamble to the Constitution. Second, “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms…” refers to the individual, God given, right of each person to possess any type of armament as so desired. This is further strengthened by the 1A, the 4A, the 9A and the 10A, all of which specifically refer to “the people” as individuals not as a total collective. Third, “…shall not be infringed” refers to the absolute limitation of the Federal Government’s ability to restrict the rights of the people.
Now, many say a variety of different things to include “But we need to restrict these assault weapons/rifles” or, “There’s no need for you to have a machine gun” or, my favorite, “The founding fathers did not intend the 2A to protect the right to have a machine gun, etc”. The term “assault weapon” is a misnomer and an intentional distraction. The term is a deceptive, made-up political term designed to demonize and elicit fear in those who don’t understand firearms. The next two can be summed up easily. If the founding fathers were not smart enough to anticipate “machine guns, rocket launchers, etc” as the technological advancements of arms, then they would not have been smart enough to anticipate typewriters, computers, the internet, TVs, radios, automobiles, etc and these must be restricted as well. Regardless of whether someone believes people don’t NEED something is not for them to say. For example, why would you need a vehicle capable of going 100 MPH? There’s no need for that, right? So let’s restrict cars. In fact, let’s make ALL cars able to go only up to 25 MPH in order for everyone to be safe. After all, there would be less traffic tickets and there would be less accidents. Right? Sounds stupid, doesn’t it? Why is it if someone gets a Corvette (as an example), drives it at 130 MPH down the highway and gets a speeding ticket, we hold the driver accountable for their reckless behavior? Why don’t we ban the cars? It’s the same thing with any type of armament. It is NOT the inanimate object that deserves the blame. We must hold the individual responsible for their actions.
Lastly, many call for tougher rules as if criminals are going to obey these new rules. Gun control laws do only one thing: prevent law-abiding citizens from obtaining a firearm in order to defend themselves. Prove me wrong. There are plenty of examples but I’ll highlight a few specific ones like the recent Sandy Hook incident, Columbine and Jonesboro. All of the perpetrators ILLEGALLY obtained the firearms they misused in their crimes. Over 40 laws were broken in Sandy Hook where firearms were heavily restricted in the first place. No additional restrictive laws would have helped. Look at all the high crime areas in the country like Chicago, D.C., NY, etc. They all have extremely restrictive firearm laws yet they have a higher rate of violence than less restrictive localities. Why is that? Over 50K various gun laws throughout the years never stopped Charles Whitman, Carl Brown, Abdelkrim Belachheb, James Huberty, Patrick Sherrill, William Cruse, Richard Farley, Patrick Purdy, Joseph Wesbecker, James Pough, George Hennard, Gang Lu, Thomas McIlvane, Eric Houston, John Miller, Gian Ferri, Kenneth French, Colin Ferguson, Nathan Dunlap, Dean Mellberg, James Simpson, Roland Smith, Clifton McCree, Arthur Wise, Arturo Torres, Matthew Beck, Mitchell Johnson, Andrew Golden, Kipland Kinkel, Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold, Mark Barton, Larry Ashbrook, Byran Uyesugi, Silvio Leyva, Michael McDermott, William Baker, Douglas Williams, Nathan Gale, Terry Ratzmann, Jeffrey Weise, Jennifer Marco, Kyle Huff, Charles Roberts, Sulejman Talovia, Seung-Hui Cho, Tyler Peterson, Robert Hawkins, Charles Thornton, Steven Kazmierczak, Wesley Higdon, Robert Stewart, Jiverly Wong, Nidal Hasan, Maurice Clemmons, Omar Thornton, Jared Loughner, Eduardo Sencion, Scott Dekraai, One Goh, Ian Stawicki, James Holmes, Wade Page. Total murdered or injured: over 952 INNOCENT people. Prove to me that additional laws would have prevented ANY of these crimes. You can’t because it is practically impossible to prevent someone from committing a crime. Think about it. THEY are making a CHOICE to commit a crime. What we can do though is STOP that person from FURTHERING their crime.
All laws pertaining to any restriction of firearms are wholly unconstitutional, to include the restrictions on military bases. We all have the free will to make our own decisions but we also must be willing to accept responsibility for those choices. In the end, all of our rights are God given and can’t be taken away by anyone else, but they CAN be infringed upon. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is YOUR decision to seek and protect each one of those for yourself and your family. Don’t restrict others because of your personal fear. Are you willing to bet YOUR life, and the lives of YOUR family, that the government WILL protect you? Are you truly willing to turn over that responsibility to someone else instead of YOU?
http://news.yahoo.com/reports-shots-fired-oregon-high-school-media-160613532.html
This whole thing of the 2A applying only to the militia is false. Just to clarify, the 2A is as follows: “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”. Many don’t understand but this is a three part statement. First, “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,…” refers to the collective nominative absolute of the people to organize in order to defend themselves from a tyrannical government. This is quantified by the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence as well as the Preamble to the Constitution. Second, “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms…” refers to the individual, God given, right of each person to possess any type of armament as so desired. This is further strengthened by the 1A, the 4A, the 9A and the 10A, all of which specifically refer to “the people” as individuals not as a total collective. Third, “…shall not be infringed” refers to the absolute limitation of the Federal Government’s ability to restrict the rights of the people.
Now, many say a variety of different things to include “But we need to restrict these assault weapons/rifles” or, “There’s no need for you to have a machine gun” or, my favorite, “The founding fathers did not intend the 2A to protect the right to have a machine gun, etc”. The term “assault weapon” is a misnomer and an intentional distraction. The term is a deceptive, made-up political term designed to demonize and elicit fear in those who don’t understand firearms. The next two can be summed up easily. If the founding fathers were not smart enough to anticipate “machine guns, rocket launchers, etc” as the technological advancements of arms, then they would not have been smart enough to anticipate typewriters, computers, the internet, TVs, radios, automobiles, etc and these must be restricted as well. Regardless of whether someone believes people don’t NEED something is not for them to say. For example, why would you need a vehicle capable of going 100 MPH? There’s no need for that, right? So let’s restrict cars. In fact, let’s make ALL cars able to go only up to 25 MPH in order for everyone to be safe. After all, there would be less traffic tickets and there would be less accidents. Right? Sounds stupid, doesn’t it? Why is it if someone gets a Corvette (as an example), drives it at 130 MPH down the highway and gets a speeding ticket, we hold the driver accountable for their reckless behavior? Why don’t we ban the cars? It’s the same thing with any type of armament. It is NOT the inanimate object that deserves the blame. We must hold the individual responsible for their actions.
Lastly, many call for tougher rules as if criminals are going to obey these new rules. Gun control laws do only one thing: prevent law-abiding citizens from obtaining a firearm in order to defend themselves. Prove me wrong. There are plenty of examples but I’ll highlight a few specific ones like the recent Sandy Hook incident, Columbine and Jonesboro. All of the perpetrators ILLEGALLY obtained the firearms they misused in their crimes. Over 40 laws were broken in Sandy Hook where firearms were heavily restricted in the first place. No additional restrictive laws would have helped. Look at all the high crime areas in the country like Chicago, D.C., NY, etc. They all have extremely restrictive firearm laws yet they have a higher rate of violence than less restrictive localities. Why is that? Over 50K various gun laws throughout the years never stopped Charles Whitman, Carl Brown, Abdelkrim Belachheb, James Huberty, Patrick Sherrill, William Cruse, Richard Farley, Patrick Purdy, Joseph Wesbecker, James Pough, George Hennard, Gang Lu, Thomas McIlvane, Eric Houston, John Miller, Gian Ferri, Kenneth French, Colin Ferguson, Nathan Dunlap, Dean Mellberg, James Simpson, Roland Smith, Clifton McCree, Arthur Wise, Arturo Torres, Matthew Beck, Mitchell Johnson, Andrew Golden, Kipland Kinkel, Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold, Mark Barton, Larry Ashbrook, Byran Uyesugi, Silvio Leyva, Michael McDermott, William Baker, Douglas Williams, Nathan Gale, Terry Ratzmann, Jeffrey Weise, Jennifer Marco, Kyle Huff, Charles Roberts, Sulejman Talovia, Seung-Hui Cho, Tyler Peterson, Robert Hawkins, Charles Thornton, Steven Kazmierczak, Wesley Higdon, Robert Stewart, Jiverly Wong, Nidal Hasan, Maurice Clemmons, Omar Thornton, Jared Loughner, Eduardo Sencion, Scott Dekraai, One Goh, Ian Stawicki, James Holmes, Wade Page. Total murdered or injured: over 952 INNOCENT people. Prove to me that additional laws would have prevented ANY of these crimes. You can’t because it is practically impossible to prevent someone from committing a crime. Think about it. THEY are making a CHOICE to commit a crime. What we can do though is STOP that person from FURTHERING their crime.
All laws pertaining to any restriction of firearms are wholly unconstitutional, to include the restrictions on military bases. We all have the free will to make our own decisions but we also must be willing to accept responsibility for those choices. In the end, all of our rights are God given and can’t be taken away by anyone else, but they CAN be infringed upon. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is YOUR decision to seek and protect each one of those for yourself and your family. Don’t restrict others because of your personal fear. Are you willing to bet YOUR life, and the lives of YOUR family, that the government WILL protect you? Are you truly willing to turn over that responsibility to someone else instead of YOU?
http://news.yahoo.com/reports-shots-fired-oregon-high-school-media-160613532.html
Shooting (Sport)
Freedom
Honesty
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 15
3
3
0
SSG Redondo,
Every time one of these nut cases decides to show up at a school with a gun I am forced to relive the Columbine Massacre. No, I was not in the school, although I tried to get in as fast as possible. My mother was a teacher at the school for right at 30 years. A very good friend was the teacher who made the 911 call from the library. I am far from alone in the emotions that these more and more common incidents bring back to the surface.
Everyone wants to point in all kinds of stupid directions, purely to push their own agenda. Instead why doesn't society as a whole step back and ask why this seems to be building speed? It was a rhetorical question obviously. The real answer hurts feelings. We have become a weak self absorbed nation who has forgotten what it means to be a parent. Parents and schools alike are breading a generation of kids who have been coddled to the extent that they cannot handle failure or rejection. "Oh woe with me", has become "lets just go shoot somebody". Stop looking at guns and the mental heath industry as this is just another example of not taking responsibility. Instead look in the mirror and ask who is really raising your children. If it is the TV set, laptop and or the favorite video game instead of you... You are the problem. Step up, put down the cell phone for a while and be a parent.
Every time one of these nut cases decides to show up at a school with a gun I am forced to relive the Columbine Massacre. No, I was not in the school, although I tried to get in as fast as possible. My mother was a teacher at the school for right at 30 years. A very good friend was the teacher who made the 911 call from the library. I am far from alone in the emotions that these more and more common incidents bring back to the surface.
Everyone wants to point in all kinds of stupid directions, purely to push their own agenda. Instead why doesn't society as a whole step back and ask why this seems to be building speed? It was a rhetorical question obviously. The real answer hurts feelings. We have become a weak self absorbed nation who has forgotten what it means to be a parent. Parents and schools alike are breading a generation of kids who have been coddled to the extent that they cannot handle failure or rejection. "Oh woe with me", has become "lets just go shoot somebody". Stop looking at guns and the mental heath industry as this is just another example of not taking responsibility. Instead look in the mirror and ask who is really raising your children. If it is the TV set, laptop and or the favorite video game instead of you... You are the problem. Step up, put down the cell phone for a while and be a parent.
(3)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
Well said, SFC. You're absolutely right part of the problem is a lack of parenting. Sadly, it comes from the lower of standards, morals and ethics that has come about from the "anything goes" mentality.
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
One point that is being brushed under the rug by the media is that this shooting could have been a lot worse. The shooter had a bag with many magazines for his AR-15 and handgun. However, there were two armed police resource officers at the school who responded within 90 seconds and cornered the kid before he could kill anyone else. Since these type of shooters are usually attention seeking cowards and not someone who wants to engage in a gunfight with people who shoot back, he killed himself (like the Vegas shooters at WalMart). Bottom-line, good guys with guns are the first line of defense against crazies intent on doing harm.
(3)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
Well said, sir. This sums it up very well too. Sadly, many still won't understand.
(2)
(0)
3
3
0
As an observation for those who want an actual solution instead of a grand stand, stop threatening those who abide by laws with more laws, stop with the name calling. Start with an actual open idea forum and accept that people from other political leanings may actually have good ideas sometimes.
SSG Redondo, good post.
SSG Redondo, good post.
(3)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google