U.S. students walk out again to protest gun violence

[UncleTouchyFingers]

13 minutes ago, stevenl said:

It boggles my mind how you can make that comparison.

 

Its literally right there, number 2 in the list of Amendments, you know, right after freedom of speech, press, religion etc... 

[MaxYakov]

On 4/21/2018 at 11:01 AM, boomerangutang said:

The older (and wiser?) I get, the more I see a need for the US to eliminate military-grade weapons from non-uniformed citizens (...from people who don't need them as part of their jobs).

 

Interesting that several posters say guns can't be curtailed, because there are so many guns.  That's like saying a sick patient can't be cured because there are so many bacteria in his system.  I differ. Policies can be put in place to lessen military-grade weapons in the US.  It will be painful medicine for some, but so be it.  Just as mustard gas and hand-grenades are outlawed, so too can military-grade weapons.  It won't be easy, but if I was prez, I would put action behind it, even if I had to use swat teams to batter down doors to do it.  .....same if I was taking action to close down bomb-making facilities in private houses.

Can you tell us who has "military-grade" weapons in the USA? Do you think the AR-15 and similar semi-automatic carbines commonly sold in the USA at retail are "military-grade"? Maybe you should research these questions to determine whether your parenthetical "and wiser?" actually applies to your knowledge of firearms ownership in the USA as well as other US-related topics.

 

So, if you "was prez" [sic*], you would put action behind the use of "swat teams" [sic*] to "batter down doors" to (I guess) confiscate "military-grade" weapons, would you? Again, do the research, above. Also, you should be reminded that the USA is, generally, already a nation of laws and not of the unlawful decisions of politicians (or tries to be) and fought several long, difficult and deadly wars claiming millions, of US citizens' lives to prevent or stop the actions you are advocating in your reply. Perhaps you should do some research on US History as well as US Federal and State law as well as on "military-grade" weapons.

 

PS (sic* = ): The "Subjunctive Mood" is a feature of the English language. Read all about it HERE. The initialism "SWAT" is typically capitalized, since it refers to the "Special Weapons And Tactics" descriptive term. Thank me very much!

 

Edited April 22, 2018 by MaxYakov

[boomerangutang]

"bear arms" ....would a syringe with HIV-tainted blood count as 'an arm.'

 

Do Ted Nugent and other right wing nut cases fight for my right to walk down a busy city sidewalk with a loaded syringe in each hand?   

 

What else would constitute 'arms.'?   A blow dart with poison tips?   ....an underwater spear gun?   ....a home-made spear-shooting weapon?   

 

I once went to a yard sale in the US with my son and his buddy, both 12 yrs old.  The moment they saw a serious bow and arrow set with gnarly tempered steel cutting blades on each arrowhead, they went nuts.  They begged me to buy it right then and there.  I didn't. 

 

Already, a year earlier, my godson had shot himself in the thigh with a pistol his step-brother had brought over from his father's house.   There are a hundred thousand stories of bullets piercing people who weren't the intended targets.  When a country is inundated with millions of war-weapons, bad things happen.

 

I use the analogy:  Imagine if every day-care center in the US had 120 cutter knives lying around, blades exposed.  The incidence of kids getting cut would skyrocket, would it not?  That's how I see the situation with guns in the US.  And hard-line proponents are like those 12 yr old kids were went bananas when they saw those made-to-kill arrowheads.   Yea, weapons are appealing to kids, .....and to adults.  It is hoped that adults have the maturity to use them responsibly - but the weekly massacres in the US prove that's not so.

[boomerangutang]

Check out this discussion panel talking about how Ted Nugent and other hard-rightists are denigrating the high schoolers who are speaking out for safer schools.

 

 

Posters on this thread have asked me why I use inflammatory language to describe gun-huggers.  I do that because A. it's a serious issue, and B. the worst of the worst dangerous people, like NRA board member Nugent, need to be shut down.   You can't fight a forest fire with a wet sponge.  

[bristolboy]

4 hours ago, UncleTouchyFingers said:

 

Think what you want about gun control, but the "founding documents" are the real reason why guns are so prevalent in the USA, and why its so hard (thank god) to legislate against them. 

 

Its not the NRA's fault, and its not "the rednecks" fault. Its a matter just as serious as who can vote, or what you can write, what you can say, what religion you want to preach. The Second Amendment is very serious business and is meant, clearly, as an equalizer for all men. 

 

Going against the Second Amendment is no different than going after certain voting demographics or religions.  

 

To me it boggles the mind that some people are soooo willing to give up the right to protect themselves under the guise of the ever-protecting government. 

except of course, that in different eras the courts have determined the extent of the 2nd Amendment very differently. Currently, a very right wing court has acted in accordance with its interpretation.

[bristolboy]

7 hours ago, UncleTouchyFingers said:

 

Thats certainly your opinion, and you're more than welcome to it. 

 

The other option is to do nothing in regards to actually protecting the kids in school itself, and I think it takes some seriously defective reasoning to believe that is the best way forward in the short term. 

because the cure is never worse than the disease.

[bristolboy]

4 hours ago, lannarebirth said:

It's not quite as easy as that. The "founding documents" were derived from what is known as Natural Law. The Bill of Rights almost did not come into being because at the time it was thought that the rights that were being protected were so obvious as to not need to be even committed to paper parchment. Unalienable, as it were, simply from being a human being.

For what it's worth, the Constitution was definitely not derived from "natural law". At least as that phrase is commonly understood. Natural Law supporters claim that the authors of the Constitution was basing the document on Judaeo-Christian beliefs including a belief in God.  Here's a link that gives a good summary of what those loons believe as presented by one of those loons himself:

https://nccs.net/blogs/our-ageless-constitution/natural-law-the-ultimate-source-of-constitutional-law

[HAKAPALITA]

 I loved a good walkout, being an idle sod. Couldn't be honest about it so i loved a Screamin Snowflake Day.

[boomerangutang]

47 minutes ago, MaxYakov said:

If you're responding to my reply HERE to an earlier reply from you, you haven't had time to do the research and don't want to stay on-topic either. This probably explains why you have greater than 13,000 replies on this forum.

You can't answer my questions.   

[MaxYakov]

2 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

You can't answer my questions.   

Do you mean answer your dictates? Why should I or anyone else waste any more of my valuable time on your falsely-premised statements/questions and ignorance? Again, review my questions HERE and get serious about some answers.

Edited April 22, 2018 by MaxYakov

[Basil B]

On 21/04/2018 at 5:31 AM, impulse said:

 

Because making stuff illegal is working so well on the war against drugs?  As if American prisons aren't already overflowing.

 

And I won't be voluntarily selling my guns unless I can buy replacements.

 

You are right American prisons are overflowing and failing in "correction" of criminals.

 

Needs tackling in a intelligent way, first look at the penal system, look at an alternative punishments for none violent offenders and who are very little risk to society, the prison system is just a university of crime...

 

[boomerangutang]

8 hours ago, MaxYakov said:

Can you tell us who has "military-grade" weapons in the USA? Do you think the AR-15 and similar semi-automatic carbines commonly sold in the USA at retail are "military-grade"? Maybe you should research these questions to determine whether your parenthetical "and wiser?" actually applies to your knowledge of firearms ownership in the USA as well as other US-related topics.

So, if you "was prez" [sic*], you would put action behind the use of "swat teams" [sic*] to "batter down doors" to (I guess) confiscate "military-grade" weapons, would you? Again, do the research, above. Also, you should be reminded that the USA is, generally, already a nation of laws and not of the unlawful decisions of politicians (or tries to be) and fought several long, difficult and deadly wars claiming millions, of US citizens' lives to prevent or stop the actions you are advocating in your reply. Perhaps you should do some research on US History as well as US Federal and State law as well as on "military-grade" weapons.

PS (sic* = ): The "Subjunctive Mood" is a feature of the English language. Read all about it HERE. The initialism "SWAT" is typically capitalized, since it refers to the "Special Weapons And Tactics" descriptive term. Thank me very much!

I'm not saying state-of-the-art military grade as pertains to the best-funded military forces around today - though that could apply also.  AK-47's and AR-15's are military grade.  Do you dispute that? 

As for the possibility of lessening the gun insanity that's gripped the US:  You're proving my point.  Once a disease like military-grade gun ownership gets entrenched in the US, it's near impossible to lessen the problems - similar to how it's v. difficult to bring a patient back to health who is riddled by multiple pathogens run amuck in his body.

[Chomper Higgot]

Young people becoming politically motivated (4,000,000 of whom will attain the age of majority before the 2020 election).

 

Old reactionary people croaking cut to old age.. sorry but that's life.

 

The NRA embroiled in legal troubles arising from having accepted $millions from Russia and directed that towards the GOP.

 

My money is on the young. 

Edited April 22, 2018 by Chomper Higgot

[Chomper Higgot]

On 21 April 2018 at 5:33 PM, UncleTouchyFingers said:

 

Theres 2 sides to this argument here. The first one is a legal one. 

 

The right to Vote and the right to own a gun go hand in hand. 

 

Should we also require voters to undergo voter ID laws? The argument (by some) is NO, thats racist and negatively effects people of color. You would be doing the same to people of color who cannot afford expensive training courses and X number of hours and therefore excluding them from the inalienable right to bear arms. Honestly its not just people of color its everyone that would be negatively effected by that sort of law, but Im using the Voter issue to illustrate that it is a serious enough problem as to constantly be argued by Democrat politicians. 

 

Theres also rulings against registrations and having doctors involved in ones basic rights. 

 

The second argument is that none of this legislation would have stopped the parkland shooter.  

The right to vote:

 

And yet hundreds of thousands of Americans are denied the right to vote due to having been sent to federal prison (after their release).

 

Republican Govenors and their administrations across the US acted to close voter registration centres and harass people queuing to register to vote.

 

How dare you make the comparison without defending the rights of Americans to vote?!

[boomerangutang]

The right to vote and the supposed right to own a gun are different.

 

The right to vote is basic and not debated.

 

The so-called right to own guns is debated hotly.  It stems for the 2nd Amendment which specifies 'a well-regulated militia.'   Few gun-owners in the US are members of a well-regulated militia.  The 2nd amendment was passed (barely) at a time when the cutting edge gun was a smoothbore, muzzle loaded gun which fired a small lead pellet at the about the speed of an arrow shot from a bow.

Comparing that to modern guns, is like comparing a hot air balloon with a fighter jet.

Plus, Amendments can be changed or eliminated.  It happened with the Amendment against alcoholic drinks.  There is a glimmer of hope for sanity, on the dark smoky confused horizon of gun craziness.

[lannarebirth]

8 hours ago, bristolboy said:

For what it's worth, the Constitution was definitely not derived from "natural law". At least as that phrase is commonly understood. Natural Law supporters claim that the authors of the Constitution was basing the document on Judaeo-Christian beliefs including a belief in God.  Here's a link that gives a good summary of what those loons believe as presented by one of those loons himself:

https://nccs.net/blogs/our-ageless-constitution/natural-law-the-ultimate-source-of-constitutional-law

 

When one posts on the basis of, "whatever that guy says I'm going to disagree with it and then find some link on Googleto justify it" should at the very least read the link they post. You have made my point with your link, though it isn't very fleshed. . Here's a better link. 

 

http://www.visionandvalues.org/barker/

 

No, I'm not going to go back and forth with you 12 posts on this. You should thank me for that.

[bristolboy]

26 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

When one posts on the basis of, "whatever that guy says I'm going to disagree with it and then find some link on Googleto justify it" should at the very least read the link they post. You have made my point with your link, though it isn't very fleshed. . Here's a better link. 

 

http://www.visionandvalues.org/barker/

 

No, I'm not going to go back and forth with you 12 posts on this. You should thank me for that.

I had thought you just made a mistake in ascribing to natural law the belief system behind the Constitution. Apparently I was wrong in my assumption

 

Let me set you straight very simply. James Madison is widely credited as the father of the constitution. Among other things, he believed that chaplains for congress and the us armed forces were unconstitutional.  This is a position that the ACLU would heartily endorse.

 

The only mention of God in the Constitution is in the dating convention of Anno Domini. Otherwise his name is not invoked. An oversight? For such a solemn event as the creation of a new nation? Just an oversight in the world of the 18th century? . This was a deliberate exemption, meant to show the world that the new nation was founded on reason.

 

 The attempt to link the Declaration of Independence, a document authored on behalf of 13 colonies, to the Constitution has been widely  and justly ridiculed by knowledgeable historians. Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence was himself a Deist, not a Christian. In fact, he had his own version of the New Testament from which all of Jesus’ alleged miracles were excised. Jefferson regarded Jesus as a wise teacher. nothing more. In the Declaration of Independence, ee invokes an abstract Creator, without any of the trappings of Judiasm or Christianity but very much aligned with Deist thought.

 

The thinkers behind the Constitution were men of the Enlightenment. They had seen the horrors of religious based government and wanted none of it in the United States of America. You should sample some of their writings and correspondence to see for yourself.

[lannarebirth]

8 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

I had thought you just made a mistake in ascribing to natural law the belief system behind the Constitution. Apparently I was wrong in my assumption

 

Let me set you straight very simply. James Madison is widely credited as the father of the constitution. Among other things, he believed that chaplains for congress and the us armed forces were unconstitutional.  This is a position that the ACLU would heartily endorse.

 

The only mention of God in the Constitution is in the dating convention of Anno Domini. Otherwise his name is not invoked. An oversight? For such a solemn event as the creation of a new nation? Just an oversight in the world of the 18th century? . This was a deliberate exemption, meant to show the world that the new nation was founded on reason.

 

 The attempt to link the Declaration of Independence, a document authored on behalf of 13 colonies, to the Constitution has been widely  and justly ridiculed by knowledgeable historians. Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence was himself a Deist, not a Christian. In fact, he had his own version of the New Testament from which all of Jesus’ alleged miracles were excised. Jefferson regarded Jesus as a wise teacher. nothing more. In the Declaration of Independence, ee invokes an abstract Creator, without any of the trappings of Judiasm or Christianity but very much aligned with Deist thought.

 

The thinkers behind the Constitution were men of the Enlightenment. They had seen the horrors of religious based government and wanted none of it in the United States of America. You should sample some of their writings and correspondence to see for yourself.

 

God's got nothing to do with it. No one's talking about God except you.

[bristolboy]

10 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

God's got nothing to do with it. No one's talking about God except you.

Did you actually read the text you linked to? Here's an excerpt:

"The fundamental difference between the classical-traditional understanding of the Natural Law and that of the Enlightenment is that the classical-traditional thinkers knew and declared that God is the author and source of the Natural Law, and that human reason is the faculty by which the Law established by God is made accessible to man, while the philosophers of the Enlightenment (who inspired the French Revolution) rejected God as the author of the Natural Law, or diminished His significance, and elevated human reason, or its variants, such as the general will or a legislative majority, to the position of supremacy. In the words of one historian, the Enlightenment philosophers “deified nature and denatured God.”[7] These differences can produce, and in fact have produced dramatic differences in the activities of the governments of the nations of the world."

[lannarebirth]

8 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Did you actually read the text you linked to? Here's an excerpt:

"The fundamental difference between the classical-traditional understanding of the Natural Law and that of the Enlightenment is that the classical-traditional thinkers knew and declared that God is the author and source of the Natural Law, and that human reason is the faculty by which the Law established by God is made accessible to man, while the philosophers of the Enlightenment (who inspired the French Revolution) rejected God as the author of the Natural Law, or diminished His significance, and elevated human reason, or its variants, such as the general will or a legislative majority, to the position of supremacy. In the words of one historian, the Enlightenment philosophers “deified nature and denatured God.”[7] These differences can produce, and in fact have produced dramatic differences in the activities of the governments of the nations of the world."

Yeah, so?  You're trying to suggest that I was  talking about law based in some deity, which is the opposite of what I was doing. Just to be argumentative. It seems to be in your DNA. God is an artificial construct. Nothing natural about that. C'mon, say uncle.

Edited April 22, 2018 by lannarebirth

[bristolboy]

9 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

Yeah, so?  You're trying to suggest that I was  talking about law based in some deity, which is the opposite of what I was doing. Just to be argumentative. It seems to be in your DNA. God is an artificial construct. Nothing natural about that. C'mon, say uncle.

So you were saying that the Constitution is not based on natural law but is a product of the Enlightenment? If that's what you're saying, then we agree.

[Scott]

One post removed.   Please stay on topic, which isn't about nit-picking discussions about the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.  

[Basil B]

Quote

A nude gunman has killed four people at a Waffle House in Nashville in the US state of Tennessee, police say.

The man burst into the restaurant at 03:25 (08:25 GMT) in the suburb of Antioch and opened fire, reportedly with a semi-automatic rifle.

Four other people were wounded. One of them wrestled the weapon from the man, who then fled the scene on foot.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43855097

By the way the gun man was white and the hero who wrested the gun off the gunman was black and the Nashville police a still looking for the gun man who is running around naked...

 

America has a big problem with guns and thinks arming teachers is going to solve the problem.

[Credo]

41 minutes ago, Basil B said:

By the way the gun man was white and the hero who wrested the gun off the gunman was black and the Nashville police a still looking for the gun man who is running around naked...

 

America has a big problem with guns and thinks arming teachers is going to solve the problem.

It's the only place I know where people forget to put on their clothes but remember to bring their gun.   

[Damrongsak]

1 hour ago, Credo said:

It's the only place I know where people forget to put on their clothes but remember to bring their gun.   

Thai guys are much more practical.  They don't want to get sunburned or tanned, and they need a place to hide a knife or a gun.

[F4UCorsair]

This is laughable, liberal socialist educators encouraging the young and stupid to think they can change the 2A.  All they have done is add millions of members to the NRA.  America will never get rid of their guns, its simply not going to happen.  We don't have a gun problem we have a mental health problem, which was brought on by these leftist educators and politicians who forced religion and american values out of the educational system.  
 
 

Exactly, the universities ' lecturer positions are populated by rabid lefties.

Worse, those encouraged to walk out of classes aren't intelligent enough to realize they're being used as pawns in an unwinnable chess game, and less time in front of lecturers won't harm the lecturers.

Plain stupid.

Sent from my SM-G610F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Scott]

Troll post removed.  

[juice777]

This is laughable, liberal socialist educators encouraging the young and stupid to think they can change the 2A.  All they have done is add millions of members to the NRA.  America will never get rid of their guns, its simply not going to happen.  We don't have a gun problem we have a mental health problem, which was brought on by these leftist educators and politicians who forced religion and american values out of the educational system.  
 
 

So you have a gun problem and a mental health problem.

Great nutters with guns.

So do you think people with a mental health problem should be able to have guns?

I hope the answer is no but in some states you don't need checks.And if a person with mental health issues can buy a Gun that's a gun problem.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

[juice777]

 
Here's why that won't work.  With 300 million guns already in circulation, some subset of them are in the hands of bad guys who won't turn them in.  Take the ability for good guys to defend their property and loved ones away, and the unintended consequence will be a huge increase in crime since burglars no longer fear armed residents when they break in.
 
I won't even go in to the founding documents of the republic, which enshrine the rights of an oppressed citizenry to rise up against their oppressors.
 

You know the US government has tanks,fighter planes and drones and not Musket anymore?

What do you think you can do lol

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

[juice777]

 
Trucks, homemade bombs, knives, hatchets, machetes, acid is an apparent fave in the UK.... 
 
Take your pick, because bad people do bad things and no legislation will ever stop that. People have been killing people since humans figured out how to pick up rocks and use them as tools. 

Yeah but nowhere near as many murders

Murders per Million


11.68 
Ranked 94th.42.01 USA
Ranked 43rd.11.68 UK

4 times more than United Kingdom


And Trucks and Home Made bombs are not a FAV in the UK what Nonsense.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk