The Guardian Plan

528 posts / 0 new
Last post
mommytoMR.FACE's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 6 months ago
Joined: 04/10/09
Posts: 781

We had plenty of drills when I was growing up. We also had some legitimate scares as well. I felt safer knowing that my schools had a plan and the teachers and staff as well as my classmates were aware of what to do.

Offline
Last seen: 3 years 3 months ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"Rivergallery" wrote:

I think it is was an overly dramatized statement, but could have been made true, if she said OFTEN those who are raped are never the same again. Or OFTEN traumatic events change us as people, sometimes for better sometimes worse, sometimes just different.

Thanks for monday morning quarterbacking a dead horse, but yeah, of course if she had made a different statement it might not have been offensive. She didn't say that, however......and the best way to remediate an offensive or incorrect statement is with a simple "I'm sorry". Especially when one is straight up told "I'm hurt and offended by your statement". Its pretty simple. But at Alyssa's request and against my own wishes, I will let it go. I wish you had done that too.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6803

Melissa - I am sorry if you were hurt by anything I said. As I previously mentioned, that was never my intent.

wlillie's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 weeks 6 days ago
Joined: 09/17/07
Posts: 1796

"Potter75" wrote:

Thanks for monday morning quarterbacking a dead horse, but yeah, of course if she had made a different statement it might not have been offensive. She didn't say that, however......and the best way to remediate an offensive or incorrect statement is with a simple "I'm sorry". Especially when one is straight up told "I'm hurt and offended by your statement". Its pretty simple. But at Alyssa's request and against my own wishes, I will let it go. I wish you had done that too.

hmm. Just quoting to save for posterity and to refer to the next time you say something offensive and incorrect.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 9 months ago
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

I asked nicely; please stay on topic.

Offline
Last seen: 3 years 3 months ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

Thanks Bonita, I truly appreciate that. I wasn't speaking up to be a jerk ~ but because I think that it's important for anyone who has overcome anything (be it rape, miscarriages, cancer, abuse etc) to speak up when we see misconceptions stated as fact about survivors. Otherwise what's the point of overcoming ~ if we don't let other people know that it's possible to overcome things we aren't giving hope to other people who may need it. Anyway, thanks. And Lillie, you don't have to quote anything, if you need me to show you how to use the search functionality, I would be happy to, its easy. Everything is seachable without being quoted.

Back to arming our nations teachers! Driving home just now I heard a nutjob professor has a conspiracy theory that is gaining enough traction that it appeared on CNN tonight? Apparently the gun lovers are now launching conspiracy theories and Sandy Hook was actually just a Government led fake out and didn't really happen? This is all part of a platform to launch a national discussion to disarm our nation, ultimately leading to some sort of takeover of the populace, according to some?

Reminded me of some of you guys! Thats probably another debate, though.

Rivergallery's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 8 months ago
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

I think drills are good in that they help organize the kids and help keep them calm and follow orders when the time comes. But I do not think the drills nor locked doors saved any children in the case of this last school shooting. What did save the one kindergartener girl that was the only one of her class not killed? She played dead... wonder why she did it, who taught her it, or if she just did it on her own.

I would like most parents to have a PLAN for negative things.. I talk to my boys about things and what to do if.. XYZ happens. I think it is not a culture of fear to have a plan either.

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 6 days ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4230

Hmmm... well it doesn't take a government takeover to have a need for protection.

Just take a look at these pictures
Los Angeles LA Riots - Then & Now

or a natural disaster can do it...
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/27/us/27racial.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

But I guess none of those things could ever happen again, right?

Rivergallery's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 8 months ago
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

"Potter75" wrote:

Thanks Bonita, I truly appreciate that. I wasn't speaking up to be a jerk ~ but because I think that it's important for anyone who has overcome anything (be it rape, miscarriages, cancer, abuse etc) to speak up when we see misconceptions stated as fact about survivors. Otherwise what's the point of overcoming ~ if we don't let other people know that it's possible to overcome things we aren't giving hope to other people who may need it. Anyway, thanks. And Lillie, you don't have to quote anything, if you need me to show you how to use the search functionality, I would be happy to, its easy. Everything is seachable without being quoted.

Back to arming our nations teachers! Driving home just now I heard a nutjob professor has a conspiracy theory that is gaining enough traction that it appeared on CNN tonight? Apparently the gun lovers are now launching conspiracy theories and Sandy Hook was actually just a Government led fake out and didn't really happen? This is all part of a platform to launch a national discussion to disarm our nation, ultimately leading to some sort of takeover of the populace, according to some?

Reminded me of some of you guys! Thats probably another debate, though.

There are whackos everywhere. But I do not think the idea that the government may want to disarm the populous is a conspiracy theory, it has happened in other countries, why not here? Some people think it may never happen, I think, it is possible, and wrong. I do know Obama has been talking about pushing through gun control legislation without congress approval, not sure if it will happen or not. I never know with him... he said my taxes wouldn't go up either... rofl

Offline
Last seen: 3 years 3 months ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

Hmmm... well it doesn't take a government takeover to have a need for protection.

Just take a look at these pictures
Los Angeles LA Riots - Then & Now

or a natural disaster can do it...
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/27/us/27racial.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

But I guess none of those things could ever happen again, right?

ETA: I can't touch this. Sorry.

Offline
Last seen: 6 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2256

"Rivergallery" wrote:

There are whackos everywhere. But I do not think the idea that the government may want to disarm the populous is a conspiracy theory, it has happened in other countries, why not here? Some people think it may never happen, I think, it is possible, and wrong. I do know Obama has been talking about pushing through gun control legislation without congress approval, not sure if it will happen or not. I never know with him... he said my taxes wouldn't go up either... rofl

So...you think that Obama had a bunch of children massacred to get rid of guns?

Rivergallery's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 8 months ago
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

"Potter75" wrote:

Wow, Gloria, I didn't know you lived in the Ghetto. Or are you trying to point out something else? I must be missing it?

Potter are you implying that those poorer parts of the city shouldn't own guns? or that just no one should? It doesn't matter where Gloria lives.

Rivergallery's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 8 months ago
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

"Jessica80" wrote:

So...you think that Obama had a bunch of children massacred to get rid of guns?

Did I say that?

Offline
Last seen: 3 years 3 months ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"Rivergallery" wrote:

Potter are you implying that those poorer parts of the city shouldn't own guns? or that just no one should? It doesn't matter where Gloria lives.

No, that is the opposite of what I was implying. I edited my post but you had quoted me first. I will stick with my edit of Nevermind.

Offline
Last seen: 6 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2256

"Rivergallery" wrote:

Did I say that?

You said you could see it happening. Especially since your taxes went up.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6803

"Potter75" wrote:

Thanks Bonita, I truly appreciate that. I wasn't speaking up to be a jerk ~ but because I think that it's important for anyone who has overcome anything (be it rape, miscarriages, cancer, abuse etc) to speak up when we see misconceptions stated as fact about survivors. Otherwise what's the point of overcoming ~ if we don't let other people know that it's possible to overcome things we aren't giving hope to other people who may need it.

Thank you for your explanation. Please allow me to try to explain what I was trying to say. Hopefully in a less offensive way. Your experiences are different than my own. While I have never been all the way raped, I have been molested, nearly killed in a house fire, and experienced several miscarriages. Every experience I have had both good and bad have shaped who I am and have had an impact on who I am. None of those experiences mean that your life is over, but IMO it does impact you for the rest of your life. Columbine, Sandy Hook and every other mass shooting has effected America. That obviously does not mean that our life as a nation is over, but that it will never be the same. After 9/11 the country was never the same. Airport security was drastically changed, and many people will never think of flying in the same way that they did before 9/11. It was not my intent to imply that you can not over come a bad experience, you can. I do still think though that any experience you have, both bad and good will shape your future and change who you are. In this instance, Sandy Hook will change how people view sending their children to school and the necessary changes that will need to be made school security. I know this because it has already happened. My local news is filled with the security upgrades that are being put in place in local schools and the homeschooling boards that I am a part of are full of new people with questions about homeschooling and with people who have just pulled their kids because it.

Offline
Last seen: 3 years 3 months ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

All of that is fine and I understand what you are saying and I am sorry for the bad experiences you have had. None of that makes the sentence that I bolded in your original post either true or acceptable. The sentence that I bolded was what I took exception to, because it was incorrect.

In that same vein, I am extremely grateful for my past, and I include EVERY experience in that, because without them I would not be where I am today. I can't be grateful for my present without being thankful for my past. That is probably a different debate. My husband flies almost every week. I can assure you, for him (and me!) and much of America, after a while, flying did just go on. School will just go on, eventually and believe it or not. For a lot of us, after time and healing or therapy or whatever "relaxation" can and did just go on. There is a lot more gumption in survivors, and in America, in my view I guess than in yours.

And I will say with 100% certainty that hearing that a host of people are leaping to homeschool as a knee jerk fear based reaction hurts my heart. I don't think that children's needs are best served when parents make HUGE decisions like that (deciding to self educate ones children is HUGE decision) out of fear ...... There are a lot of reasons to homeschool. Doing it just because you are scared is a lousy one. You might well be a terrible educator, and that would stink for your kids (IMO). Again, probably another debate.

Offline
Last seen: 3 years 7 months ago
Joined: 11/28/06
Posts: 848

Perhaps I should explain what a lockdown drill entails. As I said before, our doors remain locked throughout the school day so technically no one can come in unless I let them in anyway. But, if there is a need for a lockdown, we have two types of threats - on campus (a dangerous person on campus) and off-campus (an armed person in the surrounding neighborhood). We only have off-campus drills. The principal will come on the intercom and state, "Teachers, check your e-mails" which is code for "lockdown". We check the hallways to pull in anyone who may be roaming around and then immediately check our e-mails (which are always pulled up on our laptops) to find out if the threat is on or off campus. If the threat is off-campus students are to continue working. If the threat is on campus students are to be moved to the safest location in the classroom which is to be pre-determined (mine is the bathroom). Once my students are secure (in the event of an actual lockdown) or I have directed them to follow lockdown procedures (in an off-campus threat or drill) I will place either a green card or red card in my windows. Green indicates that all is well in my room; red indicates that someone has been injured or needs medical attention in some way. If no card is displayed that is a signal that the intruder is in my room. My kids handled the lockdown drill really well and no one was traumatized in any way.

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 6 days ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4230

"Rivergallery" wrote:

Potter are you implying that those poorer parts of the city shouldn't own guns? or that just no one should? It doesn't matter where Gloria lives.

Of course you aren't allowed to protect yourself unless you have enough money to hire someone else to protect you. Or if you are the President. Poor people have to rely on the police to get there in time. Funny how the police couldn't protect everyone during the riots or after Katrina. And actually I do live 10 mins from Oak Cliff in south Dallas which is the ghetto. I drive through there every day on my way to work.

President Barack Obama on Thursday signed into a law a measure giving him, George W. Bush and future former presidents and their spouses lifetime Secret Service protection, the White House announced.

The legislation, crafted by Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, rolls back a mid-1990s law that imposed a 10-year limit on Secret Service protection for former presidents. Bush would have been the first former commander in chief affected.

Read more: Obama Signs Law Giving Himself Armed Guards For Life | Obama | Fox Nation

Offline
Last seen: 3 years 3 months ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

Of course you aren't allowed to protect yourself unless you have enough money to hire someone else to protect you.

Cite?

Offline
Last seen: 3 years 3 months ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

Gloria, do you see guns as a class issue? Because I almost get from your posts that you think that the rich white liberal people are coming to take them away from you and then you won't have a way to protect yourself from the poor black people. Am I just reading you wrong, or is there a part of this discussion that plays into the whole "I'm part of the white downtrodden getting screwed six ways from sunday hardworking middle class" thing coming into play here and I never realized it? (Not meaning with just you, but meaning maybe I missed it as a part of a lot of gun owners as a whole?) I'm not being snarky ,I'm being serious.

I've never hired someone to protect me (Other than our police and military, of course, via tax money), but I've also never feared looters.

So I guess I've never thought of it as a class issue until seeing you lay it out like this ~ you are angry that some who are calling for gun control are wealthy, and you are worried about ghettos/rioting/the police not being able to protect you.

wlillie's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 weeks 6 days ago
Joined: 09/17/07
Posts: 1796

"Potter75" wrote:

Gloria, do you see guns as a class issue? Because I almost get from your posts that you think that the rich white liberal people are coming to take them away from you and then you won't have a way to protect yourself from the poor black people. Am I just reading you wrong, or is there a part of this discussion that plays into the whole "I'm part of the white downtrodden getting screwed six ways from sunday hardworking middle class" thing coming into play here and I never realized it? (Not meaning with just you, but meaning maybe I missed it as a part of a lot of gun owners as a whole?) I'm not being snarky ,I'm being serious.

I've never hired someone to protect me (Other than our police and military, of course, via tax money), but I've also never feared looters.

So I guess I've never thought of it as a class issue until seeing you lay it out like this ~ you are angry that some who are calling for gun control are wealthy, and you are worried about ghettos/rioting/the police not being able to protect you.

quoting for posterity

Offline
Last seen: 3 years 3 months ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk

Very annoying that this won't embed. Enjoy!

AlyssaEimers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6803

"Potter75" wrote:

Gloria, do you see guns as a class issue? Because I almost get from your posts that you think that the rich white liberal people are coming to take them away from you and then you won't have a way to protect yourself from the poor black people. Am I just reading you wrong, or is there a part of this discussion that plays into the whole "I'm part of the white downtrodden getting screwed six ways from sunday hardworking middle class" thing coming into play here and I never realized it? (Not meaning with just you, but meaning maybe I missed it as a part of a lot of gun owners as a whole?) I'm not being snarky ,I'm being serious.

I've never hired someone to protect me (Other than our police and military, of course, via tax money), but I've also never feared looters.

So I guess I've never thought of it as a class issue until seeing you lay it out like this ~ you are angry that some who are calling for gun control are wealthy, and you are worried about ghettos/rioting/the police not being able to protect you.

I can't speak for Gloria, but I might guess what she could be referring to the idea that it is ok to have a gun if you are rich and going Zebra hunting for sport, but that it is not ok to have a gun if you are poor and going deer hunting to sustain your family.

Offline
Last seen: 3 years 3 months ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

I can't speak for Gloria, but I might guess what she could be referring to the idea that it is ok to have a gun if you are rich and going Zebra hunting for sport, but that it is not ok to have a gun if you are poor and going deer hunting to sustain your family.

Who on EARTH has argued against sustenance hunting? Please link to the posts. Because I can assure you with confidence that no one on this thread, or any other, has.

ETA: ALso, of course they aren't using Guns they own to Zebra hunt. They don't have zebras in America, and you may have noticed its hard to get a gun on a plane.

wlillie's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 weeks 6 days ago
Joined: 09/17/07
Posts: 1796

"Potter75" wrote:

Who on EARTH has argued against sustenance hunting? Please link to the posts. Because I can assure you with confidence that no one on this thread, or any other, has.

ETA: ALso, of course they aren't using Guns they own to Zebra hunt. They don't have zebras in America, and you may have noticed its hard to get a gun on a plane.

,

Offline
Last seen: 3 years 3 months ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

?

Hey, Lillie, I appreciate my posts as much as anyone.......but no one needs to read my words twice. Can you please stop cluttering the threads with reposts of my posts? Its flattering, but annoying and slightly stalkerish.

If you can't contribute to the debate with your own thoughts we all understand. If you are saving these threads for "My offspring", don't sweat it, they live with me, I have years to pass along my collective wisdom, you don't have to quote my posts for my kids, though that is awfully thoughtful of you.

Bonita maybe you are thinking of the post where I asked Kim why Seamus needed a Semi Automatic Rifle for deer hunting? I still maintain that they are unnecessary, though I do understand her explanation of how they make a difference. And if they make that much of a difference, there has to be some sort of way to allow hunters to still use those weapons. I believe that I referenced some sort of hunting club, where hunters who want to own such weapons have to undergo extensive background checks and mental health screenings or some such, keep these high powered rifles at the hunting club, and check them out for the day on the days that they want to go hunting. I also talked about having to maintain insurance and inspections on such weapons. I have several friends who hunt, though most of them in my area are bow hunters.

Offline
Last seen: 6 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2256

I agree, I don't remember saying anything about not hunting. I also agree that I don't completely understand why a semi-automatic weapon is necessary to hunt. I know excellent bow hunters as well.

Rivergallery's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 8 months ago
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

"Jessica80" wrote:

You said you could see it happening. Especially since your taxes went up.

You might want to reread, I said some people are Wackos Wink

Offline
Last seen: 6 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2256

"Rivergallery" wrote:

There are whackos everywhere. But I do not think the idea that the government may want to disarm the populous is a conspiracy theory, it has happened in other countries, why not here? Some people think it may never happen, I think, it is possible, and wrong. I do know Obama has been talking about pushing through gun control legislation without congress approval, not sure if it will happen or not. I never know with him... he said my taxes wouldn't go up either... rofl

Yes you did and then you said the bolded. You said that the idea could happen here. In response to people posting about how this event was a gov't plot.

Rivergallery's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 8 months ago
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

"Jessica80" wrote:

Yes you did and then you said the bolded. You said that the idea could happen here. In response to people posting about how this event was a gov't plot.

I said exactly what I meant ;). Of course Obama didn't kill children to try and outlaw guns, that is the whacko part... I do not think it is whacko to look to the past, present and future and see that our government may at sometime try and take the guns away from the people... Do you think that our government may at sometime in the future want to disarm the populous? if not.. what makes us so different from all the other countries where it has happened?

Offline
Last seen: 6 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2256

Well, I never say never but to be honest, I don't think that way. I take things as they come. I don't think because we want safety that it means it is the government trying to run us. Maybe it could be. I'm just not going to live that way.

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 6 days ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4230

Those who would ban what they like to call assault weapons like to portray them as automatic weapons designed for use on the battlefield simply because they look cosmetically like their military counterparts. In fact, they are semi-automatic firearms that are designed and built not for the military, but for the civilian market and function differently than their military counterparts. Were our soldiers outfitted with ARs, they would be at the mercy of every army in the world.

The more than three million Americans who currently own AR-15s must wonder if any of these people know what they’re talking about. These guns are not cheap, but they have been the best-selling long arm in this country for some years. Those three million people didn’t buy have purchased them just to look at or because they are planning to use them to kill their fellow citizens.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation has surveyed the purchasers of AR-15s. The AR-15 is the most commonly used rifle for marksmanship training and competition. Nearly 90% of those who own an AR-15 use it for recreational target shooting; 51% of AR owners are members of shooting clubs and visit the range regularly. The typical AR owner is not a crazed teenage psychopath, but a 35+ year old, married and has some college education.

The popularity of the AR can be traced in part to the fact that it is a semi-automatic version of the rifle used by the men and women of the military. Nearly half of AR owners are veterans, law enforcement officers, or both. It is a configuration they are familiar with and enjoy shooting. My daughter, for example, served two tours in Iraq, one in Afghanistan, and only owns one gun — an AR.

AR 15s are good for hunting. Some buy an AR for home defense and about six percent of buyers are either collectors or varmint hunters. The standard AR is illegal in most states for deer and big game hunting because it is not considered powerful enough to reliably put down deer-sized or larger game, but is used for coyote, wolf and feral pig hunting in many states.

So the evidence tells us that although Sen. Feinstein and her friends may not know it, millions of Americans buy these guns because they like to shoot them and use them lawfully. The fact that a half dozen out of more than three million have been misused after illegally falling into the hands of crazed killers does not seem to be a reason to ban the popular gun according to most Americans asked in a recent USA Today poll.

These guns are not the weapon of choice for this nation’s criminals or killers. Indeed, the FBI found that in 2010, the last year for which data is available, more people were beaten to death than killed with all long guns including these so-called assault weapons.

It is true that the Supreme Court has left the door open for “reasonable” restrictions on firearms sales. There is good reason, for example, to keep guns out of the hands of felons, those who have been adjudicated as mentally incompetent, or unsupervised children. However there is no evidence whatever to suggest that a ban on the AR 15 or other semi-automatic firearms can be constitutionally justified just so politicians can say they have done something to satisfy the natural public desire act in the face of a tragedy like Newtown. A renewal of a juiced up version of the old Clinton “assault weapons” ban would no doubt make Sen. Feinstein and her friends feel good and deny millions of law abiding Americans the right to own and enjoy a gun protected by the Second Amendment,, but would do absolutely nothing to prevent future tragedies.

THE AR-15: THE GUN LIBERALS LOVE TO HATE

Rivergallery's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 8 months ago
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

"Jessica80" wrote:

Well, I never say never but to be honest, I don't think that way. I take things as they come. I don't think because we want safety that it means it is the government trying to run us. Maybe it could be. I'm just not going to live that way.

That is a valid point of view. I do not think it is crazy to think the government might, and protect ourselves form encroaching laws into legal gun ownership. Either way is an "ok" way to live. Heck even thinking the government will and not owning guns because you are a pacifist I understand. But it is America and we shouldn't be surprised that people want to keep their gun rights, and especially due to the 2nd amendment (ability to form a militia). And I think those people are far from whacko Smile

AlyssaEimers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6803

Totally unrelated, but can I just say I can't believe this is almost 50 pages?

Offline
Last seen: 6 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2256

I never said keeping gun rights wasn't a good thing. I said ideally no one would want or need guns in my little utopia. I also said we need more restrictions on what is manufactured and what we have access to. That's it. The 2nd amendment says we have the right to form a militia. It says nothing about assault weapons.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6803

As an aside, I was just reading my local news and thought I would point out something interesting. There was a gun show here today. Thousands showed up and the wait to get in was over 2 hours long. The talk of banning certain weapons here as had the exact opposite effect that was wanted. DH went with his brother to a gun shop a last week. The gun shop owner told DH that he has sold more guns in the last few weeks than he has in the last 3 years combined.

Offline
Last seen: 6 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2256

Oh what a beautiful country we live in when the response to such a horrid event equals rushing out to buy more weapons.

(Yep, think I've already said that once...it just amazes me.)

Locally, near the school in CT...they are stopping gun shows. I think that is awesome. No need of them.

Rivergallery's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 8 months ago
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

"Jessica80" wrote:

I never said keeping gun rights wasn't a good thing. I said ideally no one would want or need guns in my little utopia. I also said we need more restrictions on what is manufactured and what we have access to. That's it. The 2nd amendment says we have the right to form a militia. It says nothing about assault weapons.

I think no one would need or want guns in most people's utopia. Smile I would have to disagree with you about the 2nd amendment , and as proof I will leave you with some quotes from the signers -

”A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.”
~George Washington

”The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops.”
~James Madison

”The right of the people to keep and bear…arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country…”
~James Madison

”This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember it or overthrow it.”
~Abraham Lincoln

--- Not to mention other notables like Thomas Paine, or Patrick Henry and John Adams who could not or did not attend...

Offline
Last seen: 6 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2256

I agree to:
1. A well regulated militia (which would do nothing against the gov'ts forces today but anyways). Disciplined and trained people.
2. To keep and bear arms. It doesn't say it has to be every arm available.

Heck, everyone can have their musket! I'm on board with that!

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 6 days ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4230

"Jessica80" wrote:

I agree to:
1. A well regulated militia (which would do nothing against the gov'ts forces today but anyways). Disciplined and trained people.
2. To keep and bear arms. It doesn't say it has to be every arm available.

Heck, everyone can have their musket! I'm on board with that!

the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

I would call telling people what kind of gun they can buy infringement.

Offline
Last seen: 3 years 3 months ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

Do you feel infringed upon by not being able to buy a fighter jet or a SCUD missile or a nuke? Because you can't. Why doesn't that bother you? You are limited in what arms you can bear, by a government which out weapons you like 200,000,000:1. Yet you don't protest that.

Is it really just about out arming the scary people a few neighborhoods away?

Offline
Last seen: 6 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2256

No, I don't consider that an infringement on my rights or yours at all.

Rivergallery's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 8 months ago
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

"Potter75" wrote:

Do you feel infringed upon by not being able to buy a fighter jet or a SCUD missile or a nuke? Because you can't. Why doesn't that bother you? You are limited in what arms you can bear, by a government which out weapons you like 200,000,000:1. Yet you don't protest that.

Is it really just about out arming the scary people a few neighborhoods away?

It is limiting it according to the signers of the 2nd amendment is my point.

Offline
Last seen: 6 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2256

As I pointed out, I don't think what we have is anywhere close to what they were picturing. At all.

I don't see anywhere that says that you can have access to any weapons that we have today. If we're going by what they thought at that time they were picturing arms available to them. By all means, please have all the access you want to those.

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 6 days ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4230

"Potter75" wrote:

Do you feel infringed upon by not being able to buy a fighter jet or a SCUD missile or a nuke? Because you can't. Why doesn't that bother you? You are limited in what arms you can bear, by a government which out weapons you like 200,000,000:1. Yet you don't protest that.

Is it really just about out arming the scary people a few neighborhoods away?

My right to buy a fighter jet is not in the Constitution. A fighter jet is not classified as ARMS and never has been. Especially when they didn't even have airplanes when the Constitution was written.

(4) The U.S. Constitution does not adequately define "arms". When it was adopted, "arms" included muzzle-loaded muskets and pistols, swords, knives, bows with arrows, and spears. However, a common- law definition would be "light infantry weapons which can be carried and used, together with ammunition, by a single militiaman, functionally equivalent to those commonly used by infantrymen in land warfare." That certainly includes modern rifles and handguns, full-auto machine guns and shotguns, grenade and grenade launchers, flares, smoke, tear gas, incendiary rounds, and anti-tank weapons, but not heavy artillery, rockets, or bombs, or lethal chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. Somewhere in between we need to draw the line. The standard has to be that "arms" includes weapons which would enable citizens to effectively resist government tyranny, but the precise line will be drawn politically rather than constitutionally. The rule should be that "arms" includes all light infantry weapons that do not cause mass destruction. If we follow the rule that personal rights should be interpreted broadly and governmental powers narrowly, which was the intention of the Framers, instead of the reverse, then "arms" must be interpreted broadly.

Legal Theory of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms

AlyssaEimers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6803

"Jessica80" wrote:

As I pointed out, I don't think what we have is anywhere close to what they were picturing. At all.

I don't see anywhere that says that you can have access to any weapons that we have today. If we're going by what they thought at that time they were picturing arms available to them. By all means, please have all the access you want to those.

I believe their intent was that the people should have weapons equal to the government so they could oppose the government and other world governments if needed. I am not saying that is wise at this time, but I do believe that was their intent.

Offline
Last seen: 6 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2256

Yep and what we have today didn't exist then either.

The 2nd amend. allows you to have guns. It does NOT say what kind.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6803

"Jessica80" wrote:

The 2nd amend. allows you to have guns. It does NOT say what kind.

You might have already said, but for clarification, what kinds of guns do you think people should be able to have?

Offline
Last seen: 6 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2256

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

I believe their intent was that the people should have weapons equal to the government so they could oppose the government and other world governments if needed. I am not saying that is wise at this time, but I do believe that was their intent.

I keep hearing that we need to follow the Constitution strictly.

If that isn't in there then we can't go by intent.

You can't have it both ways. Follow what it says but it it isn't in there...then believe something else.

Pages

Topic locked