NRA wants armed guards in schools

Originally posted by Krusty the Klown
Why don't you try something that Abe Lincoln said? He was your greatest president wasn't he?

Washington would be the greatest perhaps. Do these people exist?

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington
First President of the United States

"Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not."
Thomas Jefferson

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; … "
Thomas Jefferson


"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"
Samuel Adams

reply to post by TKDRL


So out of curiosity, do you know where the NRA draws the line at what weapons are acceptable in public hands?

Machine guns are fine obviously

What about grenades, RPG's, claymores, land mines, cannons?

What's the thinking there?

Is the NRA in to guns only?

reply to post by Krusty the Klown


No clue to be honest, I am not an NRA supporter myself, and never really have been. They seem very........ Self serving is maybe the word. I don't really support any form of mass lobbying.

Originally posted by Krusty the Klown
reply to post by TKDRL

 

So out of curiosity, do you know where the NRA draws the line at what weapons are acceptable in public hands?

Machine guns are fine obviously

What about grenades, RPG's, claymores, land mines, cannons?

What's the thinking there?

Is the NRA in to guns only?

What is the purpose of the 2nd amendment? Therein lies the answer.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


This gets back to the whole point of the thread. Slavery was also considered perfectly acceptable for the slave owning President Washington.

But the country realised that this was not the answer. The Second Amendment was written at a time when your burgeoning nation had no standing army and no police force therefore an armed militia was the most relevant solution.

In fact the concept of a police force had not even been thought of for another 40 odd years and in England of all places.................. the people you fought for independence against.

It is possible to embrace some ideology and reject others

Originally posted by Krusty the Klown
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

This gets back to the whole point of the thread. Slavery was also considered perfectly acceptable for the slave owning President Washington.

But the country realised that this was not the answer. The Second Amendment was written at a time when your burgeoning nation had no standing army and no police force.

In fact the concept of a police force had not even been thought of for another 40 odd years and in England of all places.................. the people you fought for independence against.

It is possible to embrace some ideology and reject others

edit on 23/12/1212 by Krusty the Klown because: Kan't spell

What did the founding fathers put into the Constitution about slavery?

ETA: I will save you the trouble of looking it up. Many of them were against slavery. It was not an accepted practice. Many Founding Fathers wanted it abolished. It was not possible at the time. So slavery and the 2nd amendment are not even remotely similar topics.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


The common law principle of acceptance. If a practice has been undertaken for a reasonable period of time then both parties have accepted the arrangement.

The fact that slavery OF BLACK PEOPLE ONLY was not mentioned in the constitution means that all the talk of freedom and rights in the US constitution and the Bill of Rights only applied to white people.

But we might be getting a bit off topic here.....................

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by Krusty the Klown
reply to post by TKDRL

 

So out of curiosity, do you know where the NRA draws the line at what weapons are acceptable in public hands?

Machine guns are fine obviously

What about grenades, RPG's, claymores, land mines, cannons?

What's the thinking there?

Is the NRA in to guns only?

What is the purpose of the 2nd amendment? Therein lies the answer.

You didn't answer the question at hand here.

I simply want to know where the line is drawn?

What is acceptable and what is not?

Originally posted by Krusty the Klown
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

The common law principle of acceptance. If a practice has been undertaken for a reasonable period of time then both parties have accepted the arrangement.

The fact that slavery OF BLACK PEOPLE ONLY was not mentioned in the constitution means that all the talk of freedom and rights in the US constitution and the Bill of Rights only applied to white people.

But we might be getting a bit off topic here.....................

No, it means the North tried to end slavery, the South fought their attempts, and in order to forge a nation compromise was reached. Not all parties accepted the arrangement. The 3/5 compromise is an example of this.

That is why yes, we ARE off topic. Gun ownership and the 2nd amendment was not a contentious topic. It was near unanimous. Find another topic other than slavery if you wish to compare the two.

As to standing armies, they existed at this period, so that is another topic that is meaningless when it comes to the 2nd amendment. Police. They used soldiers as a police force, the idea existed, it was just a military duty. Again, not really meaningful. What is the point behind the 2nd Amendment? Can a small police force achieve that? Being employed by the very state the 2nd Amendment seeks protection against makes them unable to achieve the goal either way.

Originally posted by Krusty the Klown

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by Krusty the Klown
reply to post by TKDRL

 

So out of curiosity, do you know where the NRA draws the line at what weapons are acceptable in public hands?

Machine guns are fine obviously

What about grenades, RPG's, claymores, land mines, cannons?

What's the thinking there?

Is the NRA in to guns only?

What is the purpose of the 2nd amendment? Therein lies the answer.

You didn't answer the question at hand here.

I simply want to know where the line is drawn?

What is acceptable and what is not?

I did answer. I answered in a way you can understand the answer. So again, the answer is this, what is the purpose of the 2nd amendment?

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


You might need to check your legal theory here. You are talking about two things 100 years apart.

When the constitution was written slavery was accepted as common law. It was not abolished until Lincoln legislated it illegal which was one of the causes of your civil war.

My point goes back to the argument that what was written in your constitution was acceptable then but not relevant now.

That's why you have amendments to the constitution....... because the original intentions need to be updated to modern circumstance. Or do you believe Washington knew kindergarteners would be massacred by a lone gunman and thought it was OK?

Originally posted by Krusty the Klown
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

You might need to check your legal theory here. You are talking about two things 100 years apart.

When the constitution was written slavery was accepted as common law. It was not abolished until Lincoln legislated it illegal which one of the causes of your civil war.

My point goes back to the argument that what was written in your constitution was acceptable then but not relevant now.

That's why you have amendments to the constitution....... because the original intentions need to be updated to modern circumstance. Or do you believe Washington knew kindergarteners would be massacred by a lone gunman and thought it was OK?

They could be killed by a lone knifeman. Look at China.

original intentions need to be updated to modern circumstance.

This is what you don't understand, I keep trying to bring you there, but you refuse to go.

Thomas Jefferson
“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” (Quoting Cesare Beccaria)

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

"I ask sir, who is the militia? It is the whole people...To disarm the people, that is the best and most effective way to enslave them..." - George Mason

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword because the whole body of people are armed and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States..." - Noah Webster

The goal of the 2nd Amendment is to have a civilian population so well armed NO ARMY could ever fight it. Including the standing army of the US itself. So with that goal in mind I ask you, what weapons should be barred from the civilian population?

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

When someone breaks into your house, do you think that shooting them with a rifle is the best plan? Hit the target, go through the wall, hit your kid or a neighbor.....really?

No, guns are not "toys", not are the "over-compensation" for something. They are for self defense. A handgun, with hollow points, or a shotgun, both make great home defense weapons.

Didnt want to really respond since I said my opinion on it and wanted to leave it at that. But since I was quoted I'll respond.

If someone broke into my house first thing id do is give em my money and then ask em to leave in a calm rational manner, after all thats more than likely the reason their doing it, ie drug habit or some other reason they need cash. If they simply want to hurt my family which is far rarer sort of crime thats when the gloves would come off... thing is in my country where getting guns is tricky, most home invasions done by petty crims involve people with knives, in which case id simply pull the Shillelagh i keep behind my bed out and brain the twit or break both his arms with it. Crims with knives tend to be cowards also, the number of times ive seen footage of people standing up to a crim with a knife only to have the crim either scarper or abort their attempt.

The only time guns tend to be used in my own country in crimes is gang on gang, or robbing a business like a dairy or a bank (although I cant really remember the last time a bank was robed).

As for my toy and compensating comments I was meaning handguns are to me the gun equivalent of toys, nothing but something to show off with like some wannabe law enforcer and an assault riffle or some other military weapon is so over the top it borders on compensating for something. To me as someone that doesnt like guns, the only legitimate gun is a hunting rifle in my mind, it serves a good purpose, which isnt home defence and is only really needed for a small number of lifestyles.

The problem to me with fighting guns with guns, if the crim has a gun theres a good chance they wont use it once they have what they want its purely there for intimidation and coercion, if every crim with a gun suspects every victim might be carrying, then all they will do is shoot you first then simply loot your corpse. If the crim just wants to kill our hurt you then they are just mentally sick, and you should immediately work on figuring out how your society created such a person in the first place and fix that... not having access to guns however would definitely delay or outright stop their desire to act what ever it is their sick mind was working on.

And why hollow points?.. so sticking a bullet into someone isnt enough, you have to scramble their insides as well? People seem more interested in killing the bad guy than incapacitating em and letting someone more qualified deal with them, so many in America still think its the wild west, or believe it still should be.

what a terrible press conference by the NRA. The whole tone of it was just wrong and amounted to a "get off my lawn" rant . Attempting to shift all the blame elsewhere just made themselves look like a bunch of cold hearted nut jobs.

reply to post by BigfootNZ


Because hollowpoints expand on impact, they don't travel through the target, maybe hit an unintended person behind them.

Maybe you don't mind letting some lowlife walk all over you and take what you earned, that is your choice I guess. I sweat and bleed for every cent I make, no way I am just handing it over to some scumbag.

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by BigfootNZ

 

Because hollowpoints expand on impact, they don't travel through the target, maybe hit an unintended person behind them.

Maybe you don't mind letting some lowlife walk all over you and take what you earned, that is your choice I guess. I sweat and bleed for every cent I make, no way I am just handing it over to some scumbag.

I live in good old Britain and guess what I dont have a gun and I have never had roveing bands of theifs stealing my stuff every other week.

reply to post by crazyewok


Congratulations, would you like a cookie or something?

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by crazyewok

 

Congratulations, would you like a cookie or something?

No a medal will do just fine.


But my point is a gun dont mean squat.

reply to post by lacrimaererum


You should read this

I know hundreds with guns, many many guns, and oddly enough, not a single one of them committed a crime with one.

I am a country boy, and like 99% of the country folks, I will not give up a single gun. Sorry, not going to happen.