An Elementary School?

[UNT90]

Tell us wise one, what is the problem?

How about the over-medication of our youth? How about the glorification of mass murderers by the media? How about the abdication of parenting in our society ?

Or, you can blame it on a mechanical device, because that's the easy thing to do and will get emotion on your side.

It's crazy. It's like blaming drunk driving deaths on the automobile.

But it's easy, and as a society, we have decided that we pretty much don't want to do anything hard to solve problems.

[FirefightnRick]

"After Meeting, NRA Says White House Has 'Agenda to Attack the Second Amendment''

http://m.weeklystandard.com/blogs/after-meeting-nra-says-white-house-has-agenda-attack-second-amendment_695097.html

...""The National Rifle Association of America is made up of over 4 million moms and dads, daughters and sons, who are involved in the national conversation about how to prevent a tragedy like Newtown from ever happening again.

We attended today's White House meeting to discuss how to keep our children safe and were prepared to have a meaningful conversation about school safety, mental health issues, the marketing of violence to our kids and the collapse of federal prosecutions of violent criminals," reads the NRA statement.

"We were disappointed with how little this meeting had to do with keeping our children safe and how much it had to do with an agenda to attack the Second Amendment. While claiming that no policy proposals would be prejudged, this Task Force spent most of its time on proposed restrictions on lawful firearms owners - honest, taxpaying, hardworking Americans.

It is unfortunate that this Administration continues to insist on pushing failed solutions to our nation's most pressing problems. We will not allow law-abiding gun owners to be blamed for the acts of criminals and madmen. Instead, we will now take our commitment and meaningful contributions to members of congress of both parties who are interested in having an honest conversation about what works - and what does not...."

Rick

Edited January 11, 2013 by FirefightnRick

[UNT90]

Shocked

[UNT90]

The funny/sad thing is, if this had happened before the election, we would have seen a completely different response from this administration. They wouldn't have dared to push an aggressive gun control agenda because it would have cost them the oh so special prize of Ohio.

Oh, wait, we did see this before the election. In aurora, CO. Remember all the calls for gun control and the aggressive push by the Obama administration then? Of course not, because he had an election to win.

That should tell you all you need to know about the so called "solution" of gun control.

Edited January 11, 2013 by UNT90

[GreenBat]

How about the over-medication of our youth? How about the glorification of mass murderers by the media? How about the abdication of parenting in our society ?

Or, you can blame it on a mechanical device, because that's the easy thing to do and will get emotion on your side.

It's crazy. It's like blaming drunk driving deaths on the automobile.

But it's easy, and as a society, we have decided that we pretty much don't want to do anything hard to solve problems.

Thank you. Now what is the solution?

[UNT90]

Thank you. Now what is the solution?

A big start would be not giving these deranged people the notoriety that they crave.

Better parenting is a societal problem that I doubt we can ever fix. Over medication goes right along with the parenting problem. Easier to fill your kid full of drugs and blame the behavioral issues on the kid than it is to be accountable as a parent.

This is a side effect of the moral breakdown of society. How do you fix that? You tell me and I'll vote for you.

[Censored by Laurie]

A big start would be not giving these deranged people the notoriety that they crave.

Better parenting is a societal problem that I doubt we can ever fix. Over medication goes right along with the parenting problem. Easier to fill your kid full of drugs and blame the behavioral issues on the kid than it is to be accountable as a parent.

This is a side effect of the moral breakdown of society. How do you fix that? You tell me and I'll vote for you.

Save for perhaps what we believe constitutes "the moral breakdown of society"...I agree with everything you stated...

My problem is that one can levy out these points, get nods of agreement from the NRA and gun enthusiasts, but as soon as the word "gun" enters into the conversation as another point of contention in a discussion on GUN RELATED VIOLENCE, the response is always the same..."2nd amendment", "tyranny" and "cold, dead hands."

The conversation needs to be all-encompassing.

[UNT90]

Save for perhaps what we believe constitutes "the moral breakdown of society"...I agree with everything you stated...

My problem is that one can levy out these points, get nods of agreement from the NRA and gun enthusiasts, but as soon as the word "gun" enters into the conversation as another point of contention in a discussion on GUN RELATED VIOLENCE, the response is always the same..."2nd amendment", "tyranny" and "cold, dead hands."

The conversation needs to be all-encompassing.

But it's not. As much as you accuse the NRA of taking guns off gthe table, the Obama administration is just as guilty of making it COMPLETELY about the mechanism of assault. Why? Politics. It was disgusting of them to politicize this the day after the event. They didn't call it "gun control", but it was very obvious what the President meant by his comments. Of course, these are very different comments than after Aurora, because there was an election to win. This is a completely political maneuver, and it is disgusting.

Here is the deal. If you want to change the gun laws, change the 2nd amendment. Follow the law. That's all I'm asking.

Surely you of all people understand that making guns illegal will only ensure that the criminals are the only ones with guns. You really can't argue that this society is responsible enough to handle marihuana, cocaine, and heroin, but doesn't deserve to be trusted with guns, can you?

[Green P1]

So there can't be a discussion.

[GreenBat]

A big start would be not giving these deranged people the notoriety that they crave.

Better parenting is a societal problem that I doubt we can ever fix. Over medication goes right along with the parenting problem. Easier to fill your kid full of drugs and blame the behavioral issues on the kid than it is to be accountable as a parent.

This is a side effect of the moral breakdown of society. How do you fix that? You tell me and I'll vote for you.

I agree with this. But please explain to me, and I asked this before, why do 100 round magazines need to be manufactured? The only thing they are good for is killing multiple people or making sure someone is dead, then pumping 90 more rounds into the person.

[UNT90]

I agree with this. But please explain to me, and I asked this before, why do 100 round magazines need to be manufactured? The only thing they are good for is killing multiple people or making sure someone is dead, then pumping 90 more rounds into the person.

And I explained before . The second amendment is there so that American citizens can protect themselves from the American government.

Maybe you overlooked the post?

[UNT90]

So there can't be a discussion.

When all one side of the discussion sees is a political opportunity for the mid-term elections, it is pretty impossible to have a discussion.

I mean, you and I can talk about it, but a discussion that matters among the politically powerful? When was the last time an honest discussion about an important issue occurred at that level? The Clinton Administration? Maybe the Bush1?

We are about 20 years deep into political polarization, and you expect an honest discussion?

[Green P1]

So it's just one side that won't allow for discussion?

Edited January 12, 2013 by Green P1

[GreenBat]

And I explained before . The second amendment is there so that American citizens can protect themselves from the American government.

Maybe you overlooked the post?

I understand the second amendment,

As passed by the Congress:

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.

As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:

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.

But NO WHERE does it say anything about 100-round magazines. If you can find anything in the constitution where it says Anything, I mean anything about automatic weapons or 100-round magazines, it is a miracle, because it does not exist.

But let me try again, Give me a logical reason why 100 round magazines need to be manufactured?

[KRAM1]

If we just would ban magazines holding 100 rounds, then all would be swell. Can't kill anybody with those 50 round mags.

A guy says he "understands" the 2nd Amendment then argues the position he does. Interesting. 2nd Amendment does't say anything about any style of weapon....what is it that is Understood" I have to wonder.

Lots of room for compromise on this issue. Time those that hold the most rigid views on both sides of the issue just get out of te way and let the more sane and rational folks figure this out.

[UNT90]

I understand the second amendment,

But NO WHERE does it say anything about 100-round magazines. If you can find anything in the constitution where it says Anything, I mean anything about automatic weapons or 100-round magazines, it is a miracle, because it does not

No where does it say anything about any specific type of weapon or magazine. What it does say is "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."

So, in theory, a person should be allowed to own a fully automatic weaponm with a 500 magazine if that is what is required to protect himself from government intrusion ("a free state" is directed towards statres rights) .

But I guess, to you, the writers of and voters on the 2nd amendamant should have anticipated the invention of a 100 round magazine 100 years in the future?

And like Kram says, what makes 100 the "magic" number?

[Green P1]

Lots of room for compromise on this issue. Time those that hold the most rigid views on both sides of the issue just get out of te way and let the more sane and rational folks figure this out.

Both true and impossible.

[GreenBat]

No where does it say anything about any specific type of weapon or magazine. What it does say is "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."

So, in theory, a person should be allowed to own a fully automatic weaponm with a 500 magazine if that is what is required to protect himself from government intrusion ("a free state" is directed towards statres rights) .

But I guess, to you, the writers of and voters on the 2nd amendamant should have anticipated the invention of a 100 round magazine 100 years in the future?

And like Kram says, what makes 100 the "magic" number?

Thank You for your explanation. While I believe it is incorrect, I will accept it.

So you are a STRICT constitutionalist. What is the name of the "well-armed" militia you belong to? How often do you train? Who is your superior officer? Have they instructed you on which weapon to purchase? If you do not have a "LEGITIMATE" answer to all of these questions, you are not a militia, according to your STRICT interpretation of the constitution.

Edited January 13, 2013 by GreenBat

[Monkeypox]

Thank You for your explanation. While I believe it is incorrect, I will accept it.

So you are a STRICT constitutionalist. What is the name of the "well-armed" militia you belong to? How often do you train? Who is your superior officer? Have they instructed you on which weapon to purchase? If you do not have a "LEGITIMATE" answer to all of these questions, you are not a militia, according to your STRICT interpretation of the constitution.

Except that grammatically, those two statements are not required to be related, STRICTLY speaking. It says that in order to have a well-regulated militia, you need the right to bear arms. It does not say that you can not have arms unless you are already in a militia. This is one of the arguments that people like to make, ignoring that the Supreme Court already ruled that a militia was the PURPOSE of the right to bear arms, but not a requirement to exercise that right.

[KRAM1]

Except that grammatically, those two statements are not required to be related, STRICTLY speaking. It says that in order to have a well-regulated militia, you need the right to bear arms. It does not say that you can not have arms unless you are already in a militia. This is one of the arguments that people like to make, ignoring that the Supreme Court already ruled that a militia was the PURPOSE of the right to bear arms, but not a requirement to exercise that right.

Bingo for you, Sir. Always amazes me how little folks who say they "know" all about it really do. Most of those on the fringe of all Constitutional issues and those who usually hold the most rigid positions are actually the ones who know the least about both the issue and the Constitution. Few have probably really even read the thing. But, they are "exerts" and "understand" fully. Sure.......

[Monkeypox]

Now, personally, I don't believe that the 2nd Amendment, in its intent, was to protect individual rights to bear arms, but I believe in a Living Constitution. If they had wanted to, they likely would've included such provisions, as were wanted and included by several states (Pennsylvania I remember specifically, but there were others). As a person who's had to protect myself and my property more than once with firearms, however, I can say that this is a big time issue for me. It is for many Americans. That's why candidates have to be very careful, and you won't find many pursuing it except on the way out of office.

There's a lot of loopholes that need to be covered, and I think that's where regulation can come into play. But understand that violent people can and will commit violent acts. You can't regulate crazy. If the killer is unconcerned with their own life, they will succeed. Violence won't end. Gun violence won't end.

[UNT90]

http://news.yahoo.com/gun-controls-opportune-moment-nra-vows-fight-025625527.html

And though gun control advocates say this is an "opportune moment" to enact stricter gun controls, the National Rifle Association is vowing to fight what it calls "a real threat to Second Amendment rights."

Again, all about politics.

If you don't want a fight from the NRA, amend the second amendment.

But no "gun control advocates" will try this, because they know it would never succeed.

[UNT90]

Except that grammatically, those two statements are not required to be related, STRICTLY speaking. It says that in order to have a well-regulated militia, you need the right to bear arms. It does not say that you can not have arms unless you are already in a militia. This is one of the arguments that people like to make, ignoring that the Supreme Court already ruled that a militia was the PURPOSE of the right to bear arms, but not a requirement to exercise that right.

This.

Exactly this.

[FirefightnRick]

Another disgraceful move by this Administration.

"W.H. Releases Letters from Little Kids Pleading for Gun Control"

http://m.weeklystandard.com/blogs/wh-releases-letters-little-kids-pleading-gun-control_696099.html

Rick

[SilverEagle]

Another disgraceful move by this Administration.

"W.H. Releases Letters from Little Kids Pleading for Gun Control"

http://m.weeklystandard.com/blogs/wh-releases-letters-little-kids-pleading-gun-control_696099.html

Rick

Why is releasing letters from children pleading for a safer neighborhood/world disgraceful?