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
1
1
0
SSG Redondo, my real issue with this story i the way the local station broke it. The announcer started with, "Shots fired at Reynolds High School." And the paused for a few seconds before saying in Oregon. Since we live very near Winston-Salem, NC and there is a school there named Reynolds High School, my heart stopped for those few seconds. When she said the last words, I could then imagine the relief and ANGER as the parents of every child at that school listened to that same broadcast. The media of our country is so busy grabbing headlines and spreading sensationalism that they are irresponsible at times.
As far as weapons and gun control go, I agree with you completely. Even if we took away ALL guns, criminals and others set on this kind of violence would still find a way. Gun control is NOT the answer and restricting our rights as allowed under the Second Amendment in not and never has been the answer.
As far as weapons and gun control go, I agree with you completely. Even if we took away ALL guns, criminals and others set on this kind of violence would still find a way. Gun control is NOT the answer and restricting our rights as allowed under the Second Amendment in not and never has been the answer.
(1)
(0)
2
1
1
This is bad news because I have family members still in high school in Oregon. I remember the one in 1999 at Thurston HS and I learned of it while I the field at Ft Carson. The kid who killed his parents the day prior is serving a 111 yr sentence. He then went to school the next day to shoot 30+ students and killing at least 3 that year. His mother was my former Spanish teacher at Springfield HS which is located on the other side of town. No kid should have to go to school in fear of shootings happening.
(2)
(1)
CPT Jacob Swartout
It's just crazy that this is the only option for those who believe in violence as the answer to something that happened in school.
(0)
(0)
Capt Jeff Quinn
CPT Swartout- your loss and those who have experienced loss based on this type of insanity are of the utmost importance to me. My sincerest apologies- I fat fingered the down vote last night and meant to vote thumbs up. These families are in my prayers. This and the numerous other school shootings also calls for state and federal money to ensure all schools have metal detectors and armed guards/extra police roaming not only the hallways, but also the school grounds. I know this would come to a cost to tax payers, but I am sure many of us would even volunteer part time and take the neccesary law enforcement training to be reserve deputies or reserve police as needed. There has to be a pragmatic way to stop this insanity.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
1
1
0
I find all of this so fishie, just this pass year a lone we have had alot of shootings. These shootings started when the government wanted gun control. I have never heard of so many until the government started talking gun control. I feel the bugets for the mental hospitals are lacking, and the ability of parents and local people teaching safety and getting envoled. I mean now a days you do not hear of police men talking at local school and even firefigthers going there to even teach stop drop and roll. Bigger imvolement of government is not the answer, the backgound checks can only go so far, if someone has never been to the mental hospital for anything how is the background check going to catch this problem. Need to arm these teachers and stop gun free zones, becuase crimals never obey any law in the first place why would they start now!
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
Excellent explanation of the second amendment. The answer to your question though is not so easy. I'll give my opinion and see how many people I can piss off with it....
1) Punishment for gun owners who have their guns stolen/taken/borrowed and used in a crime on a conditional basis depending on how the perpetrator gained access to said firearms. I will teach my kids to shoot, they will NEVER touch my guns without my express permission, which means I have to lock them up. I would do the same with my car. If my kids joy ride my car into a family minivan, I am responsible for said kids and their actions....hence I pay the price. The intent is to create more responsible gun owners. Its entirely stupid in my opinion to hang your guns on your wall like trophies if you have kids. You deserve to have them stolen. In the military, we secure our weapons at all times.
2) A functioning mental healthcare system that has the ability to properly flag/unflag individuals deemed unfit/fit for firearm ownership/drivers license/anything dangerous to others. It would need to have checks and balances to allow appeals and expiration dates and to ensure that a previous finding of unfitness will not hamper an individual after being found fit later on.
3) Mandatory firearms safety course for all FIRST-TIME buyers. There is currently no system for ensuring people are getting the proper education on firearms safety. Right now, we rely on current gun owners to teach future gun owners and people are slipping through the cracks having no sense of trigger finger awareness/point at what you want to kill/securing firearms from children.
4) Allow open/concealed carry in all states and build a system to allow individuals to carry on school/government property. More trained individuals with guns will deter crime better than more laws and more cops.
I'm sure I could come up with more. My intent would be to revamp the entire system rather than adding/removing laws. I can compare our gun law system to the IRS tax code. Its a nightmare currently. I do not believe in taking away gun rights but you seriously cannot justify a gun free-for-all either. There are some people who just shouldn't have guns/cars/freedom. But determining how to identify those individuals is not as easy.
1) Punishment for gun owners who have their guns stolen/taken/borrowed and used in a crime on a conditional basis depending on how the perpetrator gained access to said firearms. I will teach my kids to shoot, they will NEVER touch my guns without my express permission, which means I have to lock them up. I would do the same with my car. If my kids joy ride my car into a family minivan, I am responsible for said kids and their actions....hence I pay the price. The intent is to create more responsible gun owners. Its entirely stupid in my opinion to hang your guns on your wall like trophies if you have kids. You deserve to have them stolen. In the military, we secure our weapons at all times.
2) A functioning mental healthcare system that has the ability to properly flag/unflag individuals deemed unfit/fit for firearm ownership/drivers license/anything dangerous to others. It would need to have checks and balances to allow appeals and expiration dates and to ensure that a previous finding of unfitness will not hamper an individual after being found fit later on.
3) Mandatory firearms safety course for all FIRST-TIME buyers. There is currently no system for ensuring people are getting the proper education on firearms safety. Right now, we rely on current gun owners to teach future gun owners and people are slipping through the cracks having no sense of trigger finger awareness/point at what you want to kill/securing firearms from children.
4) Allow open/concealed carry in all states and build a system to allow individuals to carry on school/government property. More trained individuals with guns will deter crime better than more laws and more cops.
I'm sure I could come up with more. My intent would be to revamp the entire system rather than adding/removing laws. I can compare our gun law system to the IRS tax code. Its a nightmare currently. I do not believe in taking away gun rights but you seriously cannot justify a gun free-for-all either. There are some people who just shouldn't have guns/cars/freedom. But determining how to identify those individuals is not as easy.
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
I'll add more later on but I disagree with parts of each of your points, especially #3. Regards to my question, which one? I asked 4 main questions, and 6 rhetorical ones.
(0)
(0)
SSG Daniel Rosploch
I guess my answer is what do we do about making sure we hold the individual not the object responsible.
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
Roger, that's the crux of the problem. The answer is so simple that it'll make no sense to so many. It can be found in what I wrote above in paragraphs 1, 3 and 5. Sent you a friend request. When you find the answer, send me a message.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google