Enjoy an Ads-Free Jets Insider - Become a Jets Insider VIP!
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 122

Thread: Student Shot In GA Middle School...

  1. #41
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    36,630
    Post Thanks / Like
    A Big +1 to Freestaters Post.

    Political Reality on "compromise" on a whole assortment of issues, and a great example of how compromise only moves one way (from the individual, to the State) and how today's "this is all we want" is tomorrows "be reasonable, you need to compromise (again)".

    Very well said.

  2. #42
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,408
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Ruby2 View Post
    You make some good points, but I still just don't like the idea of kids having to go to school with armed guards. That just doesn't sit right with me. Maybe it is the best solution, I don't know, but if it is it is a pretty sad reflection on our society.
    It may be because you think of armed guards as National Guard Soldiers walking around with AR 15 assault rifles in full riot gear. I'm saying give the security guard that is already sitting in his chair at the front door of the building a pistol to conceal under his jacket.

    I try to deal in common sense realities. To me if I'm already paying someone to be a security guard the least we can do is give them the tools to be effective at their job.

  3. #43
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    13,752
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by intelligentjetsfan View Post
    So the answer is to arm everyone with a pulse and a valid I.D.?
    Actually, there is no "answer". Throughout human history, bad and evil people have done bad and evil things. They have employed the technology of the day to achieve their evil ends. (Incidentally, most of that evil has been perpetrated by the exact people "your side" would have control a monopoly on firearms) History has also borne out the fact that whenever a govt. attempts to suppress a marketplace, or to outright prohibit one, that a 'black market' or underground market pops up almost instantaneously.

    The only answer you could possibly achieve is to go back in time and un-invent guns. Of course, this assumes that your real goal is to reduce crime and criminal violence, and not to simply impose your will on you law-abiding neighbors. If that assumption is true, then your only "answers" are pipe-dreams.

  4. #44
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Jerseystrong
    Posts
    18,167
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by chiefst2000 View Post
    It may be because you think of armed guards as National Guard Soldiers walking around with AR 15 assault rifles in full riot gear. I'm saying give the security guard that is already sitting in his chair at the front door of the building a pistol to conceal under his jacket.

    I try to deal in common sense realities. To me if I'm already paying someone to be a security guard the least we can do is give them the tools to be effective at their job.
    You are definitely right. I dont think when LaPierre or whoever went on his tirade anyone thought of a guard with a concealed pistol. More like the armed national guard soldiers you mentioned.

    Your scenario is much more plausible and easy to get behind.

  5. #45
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LI
    Posts
    19,594
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    Just like I remember hearing "Most Obamacare supporters are not pushing for Nationalized Universal Healthcare...."

    Except last night on the radio, I got a nice interview with a (D) Congressman who was very clear in saying that "Obamacare was just the first step, the real goal in Nationalized, Universal healthcare".

    You'll have to forgive me if I don't trust a liberal when he says he "only" wants, X, y, or Z. History shows they never stop there, they always want more. Just look at EVERY social welfare program, every one of which i vastly expanded over their original intentions today.

    So when you say "we don;t want to ban guns", "we don't want to nationalize healthcare" or "we don't want to have a welfare state", frankly, I don;t believe you. I believe what I see happen, law gets passed and immediately it's on to the work of expanding/further bannign whatever.

    The same folsk who say they don;t want to ban guns were the folks who were all in support of banning 16 oz. sodas.
    Libs are like Jehovah's Witnesses: you let them get a foot in the door, and you're royally ****ed.

  6. #46
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,408
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    A Big +1 to Freestaters Post.

    Political Reality on "compromise" on a whole assortment of issues, and a great example of how compromise only moves one way (from the individual, to the State) and how today's "this is all we want" is tomorrows "be reasonable, you need to compromise (again)".

    Very well said.
    In New York our Governor just pushed through a "compromise" gun bill that has effectively outlawed 95% of the currently legal weapons on the market. In NY right now you can basically own a crank action deer rifle or a six shooter revolver (only after months of background checks and gun safety classes). The scary thing is that they snuck it through the legislature with a bill that was only shown to the legislators minutes before the vote.

  7. #47
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,408
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Ruby2 View Post
    You are definitely right. I dont think when LaPierre or whoever went on his tirade anyone thought of a guard with a concealed pistol. More like the armed national guard soldiers you mentioned.

    Your scenario is much more plausible and easy to get behind.
    Thanks for acknowledging this. For reference I'm not a big gun owner. I've shot one a few times in my life at ranges but I'm far from a collector or enthusiast. I have little kids and my interest is in their safety above all other things. Since no one can change the fact that guns exist and the vast majority (over 98%) of gun crimes are committed by holders of illegal weapons the idea that banning law abiding citizens from the right to purchase a weapon for self protection will reduce gun crime statistically does not make any sense.

    Imagine a woman who is being stalked. She goes to the police and they issue a restraining order. She tries to get a gun for self protection but is rejected or put on a wait list that takes months to get past. This type of thing happens. I want that woman to have the ability to protect herself and feel safe.

  8. #48
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    36,630
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by chiefst2000 View Post
    ..........they snuck it through the legislature with a bill that was only shown to the legislators minutes before the vote.
    This is something that is happening FAR too often, in FAR too places, from local Govt. right up through Congress.

    Amongst the other Const. Amendments I'd be in favor of is one mandating that ANY and ALLL new legislation must face a minimum of 1 full week (7 days) from the time it's made publicly available for reading, before it can be voted on.

    Thinking about how much of our law is now written by special interests, and never even READ by our "legislators" is very, VERY disturbing to me.

  9. #49
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,408
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    This is something that is happening FAR too often, in FAR too places, from local Govt. right up through Congress.

    Amongst the other Const. Amendments I'd be in favor of is one mandating that ANY and ALLL new legislation must face a minimum of 1 full week (7 days) from the time it's made publicly available for reading, before it can be voted on.

    Thinking about how much of our law is now written by special interests, and never even READ by our "legislators" is very, VERY disturbing to me.
    Barry promised in his campaign that there would be transparency and every major bill would be on the white house website for 3 days for the public to review before going to a vote.

  10. #50
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    14,348
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    In more news:



    The danagers of "Driving Whilst Snowy" rears it's head for a second major event in less than TWO DAYS!!!! Clearly, Congress MUST address this on the Federal level, since locals are failing to act, and lives are being destroyed DAILY!!!!



    Ban Driving Whilst Snowy!
    You know drivers do lose their licenses and they are insured for this type of stuff. But keep on reaching its fun.

  11. #51
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,418
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by freestater View Post
    "We cannot negotiate with those who say, 'What's mine is mine, and what's yours is negotiable.'"

    -- John F. Kennedy, Address to the American People, 25 JUL 1961

    Most people tend to substitute the word 'compromise' for the first 'negotiate' in that quote, and it does tend to fit the current circumstances.

    Once again the anti-gun people are starting to trot out the tired and hackneyed meme of "compromise" in the "national gun conversation".

    One of the more highly linked of my posts is the one about the "Gun Rights Cake" analogy, which I will now re-post and expand a bit:

    I hear a lot about "compromise" from the gun-control camp ... except, it's not compromise.

    Allow me to illustrate:

    Let's say I have this cake. It is a very nice cake, with "GUN RIGHTS" written across the top in lovely floral icing. Along you come and say, "Give me that cake."

    I say, "No, it's my cake."

    You say, "Let's compromise. Give me half." I respond by asking what I get out of this compromise, and you reply that I get to keep half of my cake.

    Okay, we compromise. Let us call this compromise The National Firearms Act of 1934.

    This leaves me with half of my cake and there I am, enjoying my cake when you walk back up and say, "Give me that cake."

    I say -- again: "No, it's my cake."

    You say, "Let's compromise." What do I get out of this compromise? Why, I get to keep half of what's left of the cake I already own.

    So, we compromise -- let us call this one the Gun Control Act of 1968 -- and this time I'm left holding what is now just a quarter of my cake.

    And I'm sitting in the corner with my quarter piece of cake, and here you come again. You want my cake. Again.

    This time you take several bites -- we'll call this compromise the Clinton Executive Orders -- and I'm left with about a tenth of what has always been MY DAMN CAKE and you've got nine-tenths of it.

    Let me restate that: I started out with MY CAKE and you have already 'compromised' me out of ninety percent of MY CAKE ...

    ... and here you come again. Compromise! ... Lautenberg Act (nibble, nibble). Compromise! ... The HUD/Smith and Wesson agreement (nibble, nibble). Compromise! ... The Brady Law (NOM NOM NOM). Compromise! ... The School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act (sweet tap-dancing Freyja, my finger!)

    After every one of these "compromises" -- in which I lose rights and you lose NOTHING -- I'm left holding crumbs of what was once a large and satisfying cake, and you're standing there with most of MY CAKE, making anime eyes and whining about being "reasonable", and wondering "why we won't compromise" as you try for the rest of my cake.

    In 1933 I -- or any other American -- could buy a fully-automatic Thompson sub-machine gun, a 20mm anti-tank gun, or shorten the barrel of any gun I owned to any length I thought fit, silence any gun I owned, and a host of other things.

    Come your "compromise" in 1934, and suddenly I can't buy a sub-machine gun, a silencer, or a Short-Barreled Firearm without .Gov permission and paying a hefty tax. What the hell did y'all lose in this "compromise"?

    In 1967 I, or any other American, could buy or sell firearms anywhere we felt like it, in any State we felt like, with no restrictions. We "compromised" in 1968, and suddenly I've got to have a Federal Firearms License to have a business involving firearms, and there's whole bunch of rules limiting what, where and how I buy or sell guns.

    In 1968, "sporting purpose" -- a term found NOT ANY DAMNED WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION, TO SAY NOTHING OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT -- suddenly became a legal reason to prevent the importation of guns that had been freely imported in 1967.

    Tell me, do -- exactly what the hell did you lose in this 1968 "compromise"?

    The Lautenberg Act was a "compromise" which suddenly deprived Americans of a Constitutional Right for being accused or convicted of a misdemeanor -- a bloody MISDEMEANOR! What did your side lose in this "compromise"?

    I could go on and on, but the plain and simple truth of the matter is that a genuine "compromise" means that both sides give up something. My side of the discussion has been giving, giving, and giving yet more -- and your side has been taking, taking, and now wants to take more.

    For you, "compromise" means you'll take half of my cake now, and the other half of my cake next time. Always has been, always will be.

    I've got news for you: That is not "compromise".

    I'm done with being reasonable, and I'm done with "compromise". Nothing about gun control in this country has ever been "reasonable" nor a genuine "compromise", and I have flat had enough.

    Source: http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2.../a-repost.html
    Its an interesting perspective.

    Here is my perspective;

    Your constitutional rights cannot infringe on my constitutional rights. Freedom of speech does not afford you or me the ability to verbally threaten someone or yell fire in a movie theater when there is none. Irresponsible gun laws and listless enforcement of those laws are a serious threat to the most basic constitutional rights we enjoy.

    So as an example, a society which tacitly (at the very least) allows mentally ill citizens with criminal records longer then my arm to purchase assault weapons at gun shows (thanks to loop holes in the laws) is protecting one right at the potential loss of another.

  12. #52
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,418
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by cr726 View Post
    You know drivers do lose their licenses and they are insured for this type of stuff. But keep on reaching its fun.
    +10000000000000000000

  13. #53
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,408
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by intelligentjetsfan View Post
    Its an interesting perspective.

    Here is my perspective;

    Your constitutional rights cannot infringe on my constitutional rights. Freedom of speech does not afford you or me the ability to verbally threaten someone or yell fire in a movie theater when there is none. Irresponsible gun laws and listless enforcement of those laws are a serious threat to the most basic constitutional rights we enjoy.

    So as an example, a society which tacitly (at the very least) allows mentally ill citizens with criminal records longer then my arm to purchase assault weapons at gun shows (thanks to loop holes in the laws) is protecting one right at the potential loss of another.
    I don't have an issue with background checks for gun purchases. The problem is that when a supposedly moderate Democrat sets the rules and is able to pass the legislation they WANT to pass we get what Cuomo did in NY. A ban on 95% of the currently legal firearms. In addition we get what just happened in upstate NY. Law abiding citizens being thrown in jail for possessing 10 round magazine clips.

  14. #54
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    14,348
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by chiefst2000 View Post
    I don't have an issue with background checks for gun purchases. The problem is that when a supposedly moderate Democrat sets the rules and is able to pass the legislation they WANT to pass we get what Cuomo did in NY. A ban on 95% of the currently legal firearms. In addition we get what just happened in upstate NY. Law abiding citizens being thrown in jail for possessing 10 round magazine clips.
    NY wasn't very smart.

  15. #55
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,408
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by cr726 View Post
    NY wasn't very smart.
    Correct. Now what?

  16. #56
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    14,348
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by chiefst2000 View Post
    Correct. Now what?
    National consensus for background checks, ban .223 rounds.

  17. #57
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    36,630
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by intelligentjetsfan View Post
    Its an interesting perspective.

    Here is my perspective;

    Your constitutional rights cannot infringe on my constitutional rights.
    And the obvious problem is that simply owning a gun does not infringe upon your Constitutional rights in any way.

    And you do not have the right nor power to infringe upon MY rights simply because you fear someone MIGHT infringe upon yours.

    Thats what this boils down to. You want to revoke the rights of 300 million people, because you fear one of those poeple might, one day, infringe upon your rights.

    Imagaine if we handled all jurisprudence that way.

    In effect, you wish to find Guilty all Americans for a crime that not only has not yet occured (the removal of your rights) but might NEVER occur.

    Thats not how it works. WHEN someone takes your rights from you, THEN they face the penalty of Law and potential removal of their rights (freedom, voting, gun ownership, etc).

    Not before hand.

    I'm shocked that this needs explained to a professional educator.

    Freedom of speech does not afford you or me the ability to verbally threaten someone or yell fire in a movie theater when there is none.
    Yet you do not have the power or right to revoke 300 million Americans right to free speech, in ADVANCE, becaus eone of them MIGHT use their freedom of speech to threaten you or yell fire in a theatre, do you?

    Amazing.

  18. #58
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    14,348
    Post Thanks / Like
    Well regulated.


    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    And the obvious problem is that simply owning a gun does not infringe upon your Constitutional rights in any way.

    And you do not have the right nor power to infringe upon MY rights simply because you fear someone MIGHT infringe upon yours.

    Thats what this boils down to. You want to revoke the rights of 300 million people, because you fear one of those poeple might, one day, infringe upon your rights.

    Imagaine if we handled all jurisprudence that way.

    In effect, you wish to find Guilty all Americans for a crime that not only has not yet occured (the removal of your rights) but might NEVER occur.

    Thats not how it works. WHEN someone takes your rights from you, THEN they face the penalty of Law and potential removal of their rights (freedom, voting, gun ownership, etc).

    Not before hand.

    I'm shocked that this needs explained to a professional educator.



    Yet you do not have the power or right to revoke 300 million Americans right to free speech, in ADVANCE, becaus eone of them MIGHT use their freedom of speech to threaten you or yell fire in a theatre, do you?

    Amazing.

  19. #59
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    963
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    And the obvious problem is that simply owning a gun does not infringe upon your Constitutional rights in any way.

    And you do not have the right nor power to infringe upon MY rights simply because you fear someone MIGHT infringe upon yours.

    Thats what this boils down to. You want to revoke the rights of 300 million people, because you fear one of those poeple might, one day, infringe upon your rights.

    Imagaine if we handled all jurisprudence that way.

    In effect, you wish to find Guilty all Americans for a crime that not only has not yet occured (the removal of your rights) but might NEVER occur.

    Thats not how it works. WHEN someone takes your rights from you, THEN they face the penalty of Law and potential removal of their rights (freedom, voting, gun ownership, etc).

    Not before hand.

    I'm shocked that this needs explained to a professional educator.



    Yet you do not have the power or right to revoke 300 million Americans right to free speech, in ADVANCE, becaus eone of them MIGHT use their freedom of speech to threaten you or yell fire in a theatre, do you?

    Amazing.
    +1

    The example given earlier about drivers your drivers license being revoked is another example of something that happens after you've used your vehicle recklessly.

  20. #60
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,418
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    And the obvious problem is that simply owning a gun does not infringe upon your Constitutional rights in any way.

    And you do not have the right nor power to infringe upon MY rights simply because you fear someone MIGHT infringe upon yours.

    Thats what this boils down to. You want to revoke the rights of 300 million people, because you fear one of those poeple might, one day, infringe upon your rights.

    Imagaine if we handled all jurisprudence that way.

    In effect, you wish to find Guilty all Americans for a crime that not only has not yet occured (the removal of your rights) but might NEVER occur.

    Thats not how it works. WHEN someone takes your rights from you, THEN they face the penalty of Law and potential removal of their rights (freedom, voting, gun ownership, etc).

    Not before hand.

    I'm shocked that this needs explained to a professional educator.



    Yet you do not have the power or right to revoke 300 million Americans right to free speech, in ADVANCE, becaus eone of them MIGHT use their freedom of speech to threaten you or yell fire in a theatre, do you?

    Amazing.
    Good Lord, it's like we are talking to different people when we are responding to our posts.

    Where in any of MY responses did I advocate taking away gun rights for everyone? I am sorry that the caller on Tom Hartman's show was a far left loon. Maybe the answer might be to call his show and set them straight.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us