27 dead at Connecticut Elementary School

bionicarm

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/393788/27-dead-at-connecticut-elementary-school/360#post_3506344
You need to get your story straight.
"Actually, I think it's still dove season in my zone. I still have a valid hunting license when I went dove hunting earlier this year. I'm not hunting actually, just killing predators. The stray cats and coons in my neighborhood love them for a nice midnight snack."
Those are the one's I just wing and fly away. I lose 4 or 5 birds every season when I go on a normal dove hunt. Just like your bullets, you can't find them all.
 

darthtang aw

Active Member
Apparently not.  Your analogy states you're more likely to get killed in a car than with a gun.  You put the two on an even keel, and the death rate would be around the same, if not more for the gun shooters.
You still missed it...oh well.
Somethings to read in your spare time.
Alexander Hamilton: "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed," adding later, "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government." By the way, Hamilton is referring to what institution when he says "the representatives of the people"?
James Madison: "(The Constitution preserves) the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation ... (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
Thomas Jefferson: "What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."
George Mason, author of the Virginia Bill of Rights, which inspired our Constitution's Bill of Rights, said, "To disarm the people -- that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
President Hubert H. Humphrey: "Certainly, one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms. ... The right of the citizen to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible."
"That the said Constitution shall never be 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, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)
"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 the 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. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."
--Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).
"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
-- Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950]
Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
-- Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836
"The right [to bear arms] is general. It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been explained elsewhere, consists of those persons who, under the laws, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon.... f the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of the guarantee might be defeated altogether by the action or the neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in so doing the laws of public order."
-- Thomas M. Cooley, General Principles of Constitutional Law, Third Edition [1898]
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing." That was Adolf Hitler.
 

bionicarm

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/393788/27-dead-at-connecticut-elementary-school/380#post_3506368
You still missed it...oh well.
Somethings to read in your spare time.
Alexander Hamilton: "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed," adding later, "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government." By the way, Hamilton is referring to what institution when he says "the representatives of the people"?
James Madison: "(The Constitution preserves) the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation ... (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
Thomas Jefferson: "What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."
George Mason, author of the Virginia Bill of Rights, which inspired our Constitution's Bill of Rights, said, "To disarm the people -- that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
President Hubert H. Humphrey: "Certainly, one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms. ... The right of the citizen to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible."
"That the said Constitution shall never be 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, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)
"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 the 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. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."
--Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).
"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
-- Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950]
Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
-- Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836
"The right [to bear arms] is general. It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been explained elsewhere, consists of those persons who, under the laws, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon.... f the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of the guarantee might be defeated altogether by the action or the neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in so doing the laws of public order."
-- Thomas M. Cooley, General Principles of Constitutional Law, Third Edition [1898]
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing." That was Adolf Hitler.

Been there done that. What's your point? Just because some old farts thought it would be a good idea to allow every American to arm themselves in case of some potential war or government conflict, it's OK now to accept the norm that people die every day because of that right?
Tell you what. Let's take that part of the Amendment which states "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state." and take it literally. You want to own a gun? Then you have to sign yourself up for the "militia draft". I don't care if you're 8 or 80. If a time comes again where our borders are invaded, or some group of radicals thinks it's time to overthrow our government, you'll be the first one's on the front line to protect all those wimpy gun haters who don't want to own firearms. You get to take the first bullet to protect that right to own that weapon. I'm SURE you'll be proud to exchange your life for that continued freedom to "bear those arms". Just tell me where to send the flowers.
 

darthtang aw

Active Member
Been there done that.  What's your point?  Just because some old farts thought it would be a good idea to allow every American to arm themselves in case of some potential war or government conflict, it's OK now to accept the norm that people die every day because of that right?
Tell you what.  Let's take that part of the Amendment which states "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state." and take it literally.  You want to own a gun?  Then you have to sign yourself up for the "militia draft".  I don't care if you're 8 or 80.  If a time comes again where our borders are invaded, or some group of radicals thinks it's time to overthrow our government, you'll be the first one's on the front line to protect all those wimpy gun haters who don't want to own firearms.  You get to take the first bullet to protect that right to own that weapon.  I'm SURE you'll be proud to exchange your life for that continued freedom to "bear those arms".  Just tell me where to send the flowers.
You are a true idiot. I would think if this country ever got invaded by a foreign country in a military fashion...the people that own guns (most of them anyway) would take up the fight.
I am so glad you wish ill on me.
 

2quills

Well-Known Member
Wasn't our right to keep and bare arms also a safe guard against a tyrannical government?
If a group of 2-3 armed thugs broke into my house, should I not have the right to protect myself with something a little more capable of evening the odds?
Hunting is one thing (one shot one kill philosophy). But self defense in a gun fight is totally different. Why do you think our military and law enforcement arm themselves the way they do in the first place?
I don't know about you guys but I happen to live in a hurricane zone. Does anybody remember the chaos and lawlessness that broke out in new orleans after katrina? Did anybody experience the great midwest power outage in 2003? Who thinks that these types of things aren't going to happen again? It's no secret that when a mass of people are put into a do or die situation that things get real hectic, real quick. If you want to defend yourself or your family with a pea shooter that you hardly know how to use then that should be your choice. And if I want to arm myself to the hilt and not take chances then that should be my choice.
 

acrylic51

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/393788/27-dead-at-connecticut-elementary-school/380#post_3506393
Been there done that. What's your point? Just because some old farts thought it would be a good idea to allow every American to arm themselves in case of some potential war or government conflict, it's OK now to accept the norm that people die every day because of that right?
Tell you what. Let's take that part of the Amendment which states "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state." and take it literally. You want to own a gun? Then you have to sign yourself up for the "militia draft". I don't care if you're 8 or 80. If a time comes again where our borders are invaded, or some group of radicals thinks it's time to overthrow our government, you'll be the first one's on the front line to protect all those wimpy gun haters who don't want to own firearms. You get to take the first bullet to protect that right to own that weapon. I'm SURE you'll be proud to exchange your life for that continued freedom to "bear those arms". Just tell me where to send the flowers.
I would gladly and have my friend....Problem is I don't think you'd have the b$lls to and never did.....So as you sit silently and patiently on the sideline for someone else to defend your candy a$$.....Don't need the flowers.....Honor my friend is enough......
 

crimzy

Active Member
At least this thread hasn't yet deteriorated into something unproductive. I could read about that dove issue for another 10 pages or so. I don't know about you all but i think hugs around are in order.
 

2quills

Well-Known Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/393788/27-dead-at-connecticut-elementary-school/380#post_3506393
If a time comes again where our borders are invaded, or some group of radicals thinks it's time to overthrow our government, you'll be the first one's on the front line to protect all those wimpy gun haters who don't want to own firearms. You get to take the first bullet to protect that right to own that weapon. I'm SURE you'll be proud to exchange your life for that continued freedom to "bear those arms". Just tell me where to send the flowers.
So you think that everyone who has given up their life for your right to live in this country was an idiot?
 

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/393788/27-dead-at-connecticut-elementary-school/380#post_3506393
Been there done that. What's your point? Just because some old farts thought it would be a good idea to allow every American to arm themselves in case of some potential war or government conflict, it's OK now to accept the norm that people die every day because of that right?
Tell you what. Let's take that part of the Amendment which states "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state." and take it literally. You want to own a gun? Then you have to sign yourself up for the "militia draft". I don't care if you're 8 or 80. If a time comes again where our borders are invaded, or some group of radicals thinks it's time to overthrow our government, you'll be the first one's on the front line to protect all those wimpy gun haters who don't want to own firearms. You get to take the first bullet to protect that right to own that weapon. I'm SURE you'll be proud to exchange your life for that continued freedom to "bear those arms". Just tell me where to send the flowers.
Because those old fart wrote the rules AND included a provision to update or A M E N D them should the need arise. And had they intended to only arm militia members the term "the people" wouldn't have been used as militia service was limited to males between the age of 15 and 49.
 

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Quills http:///t/393788/27-dead-at-connecticut-elementary-school/380#post_3506407
Wasn't our right to keep and bare arms also a safe guard against a tyrannical government?
If a group of 2-3 armed thugs broke into my house, should I not have the right to protect myself with something a little more capable of evening the odds?
Hunting is one thing (one shot one kill philosophy). But self defense in a gun fight is totally different. Why do you think our military and law enforcement arm themselves the way they do in the first place?
I don't know about you guys but I happen to live in a hurricane zone. Does anybody remember the chaos and lawlessness that broke out in new orleans after katrina?
LOL! And that was just the cops. I'll never forget watching those two "women" browsing through Walmart shoplifting on the news.
 

bionicarm

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/393788/27-dead-at-connecticut-elementary-school/380#post_3506401
You are a true idiot. I would think if this country ever got invaded by a foreign country in a military fashion...the people that own guns (most of them anyway) would take up the fight.
I am so glad you wish ill on me.
We have something in this country known as an Armed Military. There's four branches of service - Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines. Those people dedicated their lives, trained, and accepted the risks to protect this country. If this country's borders were ever physically invaded, they've sworn a duty to protect them. If our Federal Govt. feels there are inadequate individuals available to perform these duties, they implement a draft whereby certain age groups are "requested" to join and assist with the protection of our country. Not since the Civil War have we had "every person who owns a gun take up the fight", and the only reason that occurred was internal conflicts over specific cultural beliefs.
 

fish master

Member
Why is this post about guns. why is it not about mental people. we shouldnt be talking about getting rid of guns or gun are bad. this should be about how to help or stop mental people from commenting these kind of crimes. Most maybe not all of the people that says get rid of guns are people that have never had or been around guns. So its easy to say get rid of guns. i dont like cats and have never been cats. dont like cats. doesnt mean i think we should get rid of cats. ( i know your going to say cats dont kill), but iam tring to make a point. I just think we shouldnt outlaw something that americans love so much, just because a few mental people.
 

crimzy

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by fish master http:///t/393788/27-dead-at-connecticut-elementary-school/380#post_3506433
Why is this post about guns. why is it not about mental people. we shouldnt be talking about getting rid of guns or gun are bad. this should be about how to help or stop mental people from commenting these kind of crimes. Most maybe not all of the people that says get rid of guns are people that have never had or been around guns. So its easy to say get rid of guns. i dont like cats and have never been cats. dont like cats. doesnt mean i think we should get rid of cats. ( i know your going to say cats dont kill), but iam tring to make a point. I just think we shouldnt outlaw something that americans love so much, just because a few mental people.
How can you say this is about mental health? The Newtown piece of garbage was not diagnosed with anything except a mild form of autism [ausberger's syndrome (sp?)]. You might as well argue that we need to be talking about demonic possession and the guy just needed a good exorcism. Maybe he was just evil... or maybe he was an immature little punk who had a bad day and decided to off himself in style.
I'm so tired of the garbage about how society should have loved this prick more and all would have been rainbows. Even with the best mental health awareness and treatment, it wouldn't have changed anything at Sandy Hook because there was (and still is) no cause to believe that he suffered from a mental impairment. Sheeeesshhh...
 

fish master

Member
Maybe a little off topic but i have to say. Nra says we need guns in schools to protect. So many are against that. But i was listening to radio the other day and an anti gun person was on the other line and question was this---. do you wish there was someone in sandy hook that was armed and ready. That person didnt have anything else to say. If we have people armed in schools, schools wouldnt be a target
 

2quills

Well-Known Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by fish master http:///t/393788/27-dead-at-connecticut-elementary-school/380#post_3506435
Maybe a little off topic but i have to say. Nra says we need guns in schools to protect. So many are against that. But i was listening to radio the other day and an anti gun person was on the other line and question was this---. do you wish there was someone in sandy hook that was armed and ready. That person didnt have anything else to say. If we have people armed in schools, schools wouldnt be a target
I think the kids are going to be starting back in some new school building tomorrow. From what I heard on the news tonight is that this new school building is going to be pretty heavily protected (for now).
 

fish master

Member
crimzy. his mother told friends he was cutting himself with razors. and she needed to get him help. there was something wrong with this kid. i dont care what doctors say was wrong with him. it was a lot more than the doctors know. A normal person doesnt do what he did. this was totaly about mental health. i hope this is not a norm in your family
 

crimzy

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by fish master http:///t/393788/27-dead-at-connecticut-elementary-school/380#post_3506441
crimzy. his mother told friends he was cutting himself with razors. and she needed to get him help. there was something wrong with this kid. i dont care what doctors say was wrong with him. it was a lot more than the doctors know. A normal person doesnt do what he did. this was totaly about mental health. i hope this is not a norm in your family
This is not the norm in many families, but it does happen. What bothers me about this perspective is that it implies that this kid needed some counseling and a big hug and he'd be just fine. Why is it so hard for people to accept that there is evil in the world? There are plenty of mass murderers who have no medical diagnosis to justify their acts.
Mom told friends that he was cutting himself? And she did not try to get a guardianship or involuntary commitment? She is the one who taught her son to use the guns and left them unsecured for him to walk in and take. How in all these facts does the "system" get blamed? There is so little personal responsibility and accountability in society and here is an excellent example of why. Personally, I think that the guy was either evil, or was just angry, immature and suicidal... these things also exist.
We have also become a society that loves to blame behavioral issues on physiology rather than free will. Some kid doesn't get good grades and so he must be ADD and gets pumped full of Ritalin. People get sad so they suck down Prozac like it's tic tacs. It's pathetic to me. Personally I believe that 50% of mental "diagnoses" and created by our culture and are just part of the natural human experience.
 

fish master

Member
I keep going back to read your post. And everytime i say the same thing about what you said( how can you say this is about mental health). are you kidding me? Are you so one sided that you cant see the truth. Or have you been dropped on your head when you were young. Come on!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Top