Indiana passes law that high school students can keep guns **

[Hfx_Cdn]

    Seilerbird, I'll test the waters to see if there is a real interest to discuss, or if this just heads this string into the netherworld. 
    Getinaway, you might want to read some non fiction written on the subject by some people a lot smarter than me, for example here is an article that totally contradicts your position:
  http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/2nd-amendmentrsquos-meaning-has-evolved/1266645
    So, if that article is correct, your interpretation of the Second Amendment is quite recent and may well find itself overturned if the General Public decides that the NRA position needs to be reversed.

Ed

 

[John From Detroit]

There are lots of ways to kill people, but you have to admit using a gun is probably the most efficient.

Paul

Not even close, I can think of far far better ways to do it.. And so, I might add, can many terrorists.  Heck, watch a week's worth of CSI/COP type shows and the odds are good you will find a few of them as plot lines.

I do have to admit.. IF a decent portion of the student body was properly trained in firearm use and was Packing, Most of these multiple school shootings we hear of would have required a lot less funerals.

Sadly the IF's in that statement are only partially likely,, The part that's unlikely is "Properly Trained in firearm use".

Makes it hard to decide if letting them carry is good or not.    Personally.. I think NOT is best.. Too much chance of teens going out of control, since, biologically they are kind of out of control and that affects their mental state.  Guns can turn a nasty incident (Suicide for example) into a true disaster (Suicide by cop after killing 20 other kids) .

 

[PatrioticStabilist]

Where I went to high school in small rural Americana, last week, a young boy 17 just shot himself to death with a handgun. So sad.

 

[driftless shifter]

When the light in their eyes ain't right they don't need a gun handy, they're just gonna kill. Be it with a gun, a knife, a hatchet, a claw hammer, a nail gun. It's not guns, it's a sick society swirling down the drain. I fear we are repeating ancient history.

Bill

 

[TonyDtorch]

They may outlaw guns, but I think in the future you will be seeing more murders committed by bombings instead of guns,

even a child can make bombs out of household products with a little internet instructions.

maybe they should outlaw bombs too.......oh,.. wait.

 

[Getinaway]

    Seilerbird, I'll test the waters to see if there is a real interest to discuss, or if this just heads this string into the netherworld. 
    Getinaway, you might want to read some non fiction written on the subject by some people a lot smarter than me, for example here is an article that totally contradicts your position:
  http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/2nd-amendmentrsquos-meaning-has-evolved/1266645
    So, if that article is correct, your interpretation of the Second Amendment is quite recent and may well find itself overturned if the General Public decides that the NRA position needs to be reversed.

Ed

Here's the problem with your viewpoint. You think my "interpretation" of 2A is quite recent because some guy who was appointed in 1969 that made a statement in 1992 concerning a Supreme Court decision made in 1939 said so.
Meanwhile the bill of rights was ratified on December 15 1791 and the Federalist papers were written before that. If you go back before 1992 and read the federalist papers, another work of non fiction, they will give you the reason the founders decided the right to have and bear arms should not be infringed upon.
You might also want to take a look into the "evil" NRAs history, find out when they were founded and WHY.
Now, if YOU have a "real interest to discuss" you will do that, then get back to me, otherwise YOU are the one dragging this thread into the " netherworld".
I should add you should also read Miller. Once you read 2A, the Federalist Papers, and Miller you will see that Warren Burger and your viewpoint are actually the recent interpretations of the 2A.

 

[Getinaway]

My point is where does being prepared cross over into paranoia.  It is one thing to have the right to own a weapon, but it is quite another thing to believe you need to have one at the ready at all times.

I dont know where you got the idea I was opposed to gun ownership, but I do believe that we need to clarify the meaning of the 2nd Amendment.

Paul

It's pretty self explanatory Paul. In Fact I believe it is one of the most clearly written amendments. It is only confusing, or vague, or needs clarifying as you say, or is ambiguous as Berger claims, if you don't like or disagree with it.

 

[PJ Stough]

It's pretty self explanatory Paul. In Fact I believe it is one of the most clearly written amendments. It is only confusing, or vague, or needs clarifying as you say, or is ambiguous as Berger claims, if you don't like or disagree with it.

So you then agree with me that according to the 2nd Amendment citizens should be able to own any and all arms, including nuclear arms?

Paul

 

[Hfx_Cdn]

    No, my point was that there are more than one point of view as to what exactly the second amendment means, but any amount of posts in this or any forum will rarely change anyone's opinion.  Thus it is best to steer clear of such topics or it will only get heated and common civilities go by the wayside. Do you really fear that the Central Government need to be controlled by a state run militia, if so I do feel sorry for you.

Ed

 

[SeilerBird]

    Seilerbird, I'll test the waters to see if there is a real interest to discuss, or if this just heads this string into the netherworld. 

As predicted the thread went straight into the crapper.

 

[John From Detroit]

When the light in their eyes ain't right they don't need a gun handy, they're just gonna kill. Be it with a gun, a knife, a hatchet, a claw hammer, a nail gun. It's not guns, it's a sick society swirling down the drain. I fear we are repeating ancient history.

Bill

First responding to someone else, Where I went to school one of my classmates took a shot to the abdominal area but he survived and graduated.  AFTER I graduated two girls got in an argument,  One of them had a babysitting job but she was fired and the second took her place so EX babysitter comes by and stabs new babysitter to death.

What can I say.. that was a messed up family (Yes i knew all the folks involved).

However, to repeat, somewhat modified, what I said above.. Guns are not, by any means, the best way to kill large numbers of people..  And you are quite right... The worst School killings in history did not involve Guns at all, not a single shot was fired, not a gun in the house....      Just a car load of explosives in front of the building.. Kind of like Oklahoma city.  Only it was a school. IN Michigan, not a Federal building.  (There was a day care in the Federal Building too folks).

 

[TonyDtorch]

hand guns are outlawed up in Canada, but all the outlaws still have handguns ?
so all it really did was disarm the law abiding citizens.

 

[catblaster]

hand guns are outlawed up in Canada, but all the outlaws still have handguns ?
so all it really did was disarm the law abiding citizens.

Oh but dont you see....if the citizen had a handgun then they we not law abiding, instead they were outlaws and therefore did have handguns. Soooo you cannot disarm law abiding citized due to the fact they have broken the law in the first place. The law abiding citizens position could only be changed by arming them but that changes them to outlaws again so where did we wind up...I forgot

 

[Getinaway]

    No, my point was that there are more than one point of view as to what exactly the second amendment means, but any amount of posts in this or any forum will rarely change anyone's opinion.  Thus it is best to steer clear of such topics or it will only get heated and common civilities go by the wayside. Do you really fear that the Central Government need to be controlled by a state run militia, if so I do feel sorry for you.

Ed

I am an AMERICAN citizen therefore what I say pertains to MY country. Just your statement about FEARING THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT shows you don't understand the way MY countries govt. System is supposed to operate. It also shows what side of the political spectrum you reside.

 

[Getinaway]

So you then agree with me that according to the 2nd Amendment citizens should be able to own any and all arms, including nuclear arms?

Paul

Can you explain to me why progressive arguments always go to extreme ridiculousness? Tell me Paul, how does one go about acquiring a nuclear weapon?

 

[Ned]

This has strayed away from the original topic and is on the verge of getting out of hand so I'm locking it.  Please take your constitutional arguments to a political forum, this is not the venue for them.