Senator During Gun Control Hearing: I Don’t Want to Hear About This Constitution Thing

a reply to: DJW001

Do you really think you need to give adolescents real firearms with live ammunition, or any firearms at all, to teach them about correct safety precautions and respect of the weapon?

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: vor78

Don't make a mandatory training course for the possession of firearms, just make firearm safety and general management classes a mandatory part of primary and high school. Don't make these courses required for actually purchasing and obtaining firearms, and there's no opportunity for abuse. (Unless you intend on saying the kids will be brainwashed to be liberals who hate guns or something.)

Do you really think its a good idea to give adolescents access to firearms in school? Do you have any idea how many math teachers are likely to get shot?

when i was growing up it was quite common for high school students to have their shot gun and hunting rifles in their vehicles in the parking lot and to go hunting with teachers after school on occasion. I even saw a rifle or two in class. Some schools had shooting clubs.

We were not in fear of our lives as a result. not even the math teachers.

It was a different time with different influences and values.

originally posted by: DJW001
See? Once you stop rehashing the "constitutional" question, positive dialogue becomes possible. I was thinking that the Congress could mandate that each state determine its own standards and curriculum for firearm training and qualifying. The Federal government would then make funds available for each state's National Guard to implement its programs. Rather than make it entirely voluntary, I would insist that there be a mandatory gun safety and law course that needed to be completed and re-taken every few years. There could then be voluntary higher level programs for people who wish to use military grade equipment.

The question of constitutionality still exists, its just that my suggestion makes it voluntary rather than mandatory. By doing that, you defuse the argument over the constitutionality of it. Without that, it will inevitably devolve into the usual bickering between the two sides of the issue. You've got to find a way to make them want to do it, rather than try to force them to do it, because they'll never, ever go for the latter.

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: vor78

Don't make a mandatory training course for the possession of firearms, just make firearm safety and general management classes a mandatory part of primary and high school. Don't make these courses required for actually purchasing and obtaining firearms, and there's no opportunity for abuse. (Unless you intend on saying the kids will be brainwashed to be liberals who hate guns or something.)

I'm in full support of that. I've long been a proponent of, at the very least, having the local police departments come into the schools once or twice a year to give basic firearms safety instruction to the students once they hit a certain age. You could perhaps even offer a live fire training course in the last year or so, though I do have some reservations about it. Then again, the ROTC classes did it with air rifles when I was in school way back in the late 90s.

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: DJW001

Do you really think you need to give adolescents real firearms with live ammunition, or any firearms at all, to teach them about correct safety precautions and respect of the weapon?

I don't know. We had an archery unit in gym class in junior high, and somehow, no one wound up with an arrow in the knee.

a reply to: xuenchen

It's the Law of the Land (constitution) Where have we heard that before? And the 2nd is held up by the supreme court.

I got an idea. Let's have a civil war to find out who is right and let the winners determine the course of the country. After all, that is what will be happening if you try to take the arms from the citizenry. If you don't want to fight, then step aside and live with the results.

Let's just do away with the constitution all together then, is what this lame bimbo is stating. That means we can get rid of the fed gov and start over too then! I don't see this issue ever being settled by any other means.

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: DJW001

Do you really think you need to give adolescents real firearms with live ammunition, or any firearms at all, to teach them about correct safety precautions and respect of the weapon?

Many gun problems started with the ending of the military draft in 1973.

Maybe mandatory military service for all is necessary?

2 years with limited exceptions for medical and handicap issues.

a reply to: spirit_horse

A lot of people would support getting rid of the Constitution.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

Exactly the same thing.

We, though we've apparently forgotten, are her bosses, not the other way around. They should be thinking and saying what we tell them to think and say, on pain of losing what is a rather cushy job.

She isn't the only one who thinks this way, either.

But, we'll find a way to ignore this as an aberration of some sort, and continue to send the same sorts to DC, until one day, they start to decide that that whole voting thing is unnecessary, and "we'll choose who goes and stays".

Oh, wait... Some think that's happening already...

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: spirit_horse

A lot of people would support getting rid of the Constitution.

Yea, but me thinks those people will not win the civil war either.

a reply to: seagull

Well, she represents Maryland, so you have to take that into consideration. She may very well be voicing what her constituents believe.

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: projectvxn
At least she's being honest.

We know liberals don't give a crap about the constitution when it gets in the way of their agenda.

That is a wildly inaccurate statement.

Answer me a simple question completely honestly. In your opinion...if a liberal democrat were elected King and could do anything they wanted...would the right of citizens to own guns disappear?

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: TinfoilTP

Exactly the same thing.

We, though we've apparently forgotten, are her bosses, not the other way around. They should be thinking and saying what we tell them to think and say, on pain of losing what is a rather cushy job.

She isn't the only one who thinks this way, either.

But, we'll find a way to ignore this as an aberration of some sort, and continue to send the same sorts to DC, until one day, they start to decide that that whole voting thing is unnecessary, and "we'll choose who goes and stays".

Oh, wait... Some think that's happening already...

Not really to your last part. They don't want Trump but the people are going to send him there to boss them around anyway.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Vroomfondel

However, the militia has much more to do than defer a standing army, which we have always had as a nation. The main purpose of the militia is to defend the common man against tyranny, abroad or at home.

No, we have not always had a standing army. The Founders wanted all armed forces to be citizen militias under the control of locally appointed, temporary officers. Standing armies in Europe were often professional mercenaries with no emotional or economic attachment to the population of the nation whose King they served. In other words, if some peasants refused to pay their taxes or contribute their share of young men to the army, the King's soldiers would have no compunction about torching their farms and villages. That is the tyranny the militias were intended to prevent. The fledgling country saw no role for itself in global politics. They needed to defend against angry natives and predatory freebooters. Armed townspeople were usually sufficient for that purpose. As I said, things have changed considerably since then.

Here's my problem: we still have militias in the form of the state National Guards, and yet many more people own military grade weapons than are enrolled in the Guard. In order to fulfill the Founders' vision, shouldn't we make participation in the Guard a condition of owning certain types of weapons? At the very least, gun owners should attend weapons safety training and maintenance and marksmanship evaluations through the Guards. This would create a more disciplined citizenry and weed out the criminals and crazies. On the other hand, we can continue to see madmen gunning down large numbers of innocent citizens in public places, because, apparently, that's not tyranny.

The Marines were founded in Nuvember, 1775 and have been going strong ever since. The Army was first founded in June, 1775 as part of the revolutionary war, then chartered in June, 1784 as a standing army, descending from the original continental army of 1775. We have had a standing army and marines since before we were even a nation.

a reply to: stormbringer1701
When Congress goes mandating to the states they must do so on a very limited basis before they run smack dab into the Tenth Amendment.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The Second specifically says, "the people" not the States.

See, you have to take into consideration the entire document, not just individual amendments.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: xuenchen

I'm pretty sure this quote is being taken out of context, but I can't stand Barbara Mikulski, so I'll let it slide. Carry on.

My opinion is pretty much the same.

I will add, the second amendment is far more complex than simply the right to own guns. There is a lot of historical context that has to be addressed in the issue and that is conveniently left out of the conversation.

Considering the SCOTUS decision in 2010, I would say rifle, handgun and shotgun laws would fall to a states rights case, military weapons and ordinance is not protected and in fact controlled federally, background checks would be determined at federal level possibly under interstate commerce. Im not a constitutional lawyer but that is the argument I would make.

originally posted by: FamCore
a reply to: xuenchen

does she think we're talking about some other "Constitution"? Can we please fire her?

Nope... it took Barney Frank to retire to get rid of him...lol.

originally posted by: stormbringer1701

Do you really think its a good idea to give adolescents access to firearms in school? Do you have any idea how many math teachers are likely to get shot?

when i was growing up it was quite common for high school students to have their shot gun and hunting rifles in their vehicles in the parking lot and to go hunting with teachers after school on occasion. I even saw a rifle or two in class. Some schools had shooting clubs.

We were not in fear of our lives as a result. not even the math teachers.

It was a different time with different influences and values.

Thank you stormbringer. You remember an America before the terrorists won. Today, too many are afraid of their own shadow. Part of my youth was spent hunting and yes, I did have guns in my truck at school. Now we are being taught to distrust our neighbors and outright fear any strangers. Yet those people are no different from us. Oh, you will always have the bad seed, but on a whole, we are just the same. Honestly, I pity those who live in fear.

I have voted against her but some how she wins buy landslides.Hell i didn't know anything about her opponent and still voted for him (Guess it couldn't be any worse).This woman sold her soul to the the devil a long time ago..But on a good note this should be her last term (Old age and all) But the damage is done