Second Amendment

reply to post by spock51


At times "the crime" and "the tool" are inseparable. I am not aware of any instances of individuals entering public schools in broad daylight and killing 6 adults and 20 children nor do I think it would be humanly possible without "arms". If you are aware of any such cases please share them with us.

Originally posted by TheFlash
reply to post by spock51

 

At times "the crime" and "the tool" are inseparable. I am not aware of any instances of individuals entering public schools in broad daylight and killing 6 adults and 20 children nor do I think it would be humanly possible without "arms". If you are aware of any such cases please share them with us.

And yet, "the crime" and "the criminal" are never inseperable. I am not aware of any instances of "arms" entering public schools in broad daylight and killing 6 adults and 20 children, nor would it be possible in the realm of physics, without a person wielding it. If you are aware of such cases please share them with us.

Originally posted by NavyDoc

And yet, "the crime" and "the criminal" are never inseperable.

I never claimed that they were. What lead you to believe that I did?

This has no bearing on my point nor does it respond to it.

reply to post by TheFlash

Bombs explosives and chemicals could do worse.
Those are not arms.
But they too require a human hand.

Originally posted by TheFlash

Originally posted by NavyDoc

And yet, "the crime" and "the criminal" are never inseperable.

I never claimed that they were. What lead you to believe that I did?

This has no bearing on my point nor does it respond to it.

But you haven't made a point. You just ask for proof. This is why people have gotten annoyed at you in this thread--you make a statement that is consistent with a particular position, then when people respond, you say "I didn't say that." okay. Why do you keep bringing up school massacres? What position are you trying to establish?

No law banning any sort of tools has been proven to stop any sort of school massacre. It has never been proven that a homicidal maniac did not kill people at a school because laws banned the tools. If you have deginate proof to the contrary, please provide it.

reply to post by NavyDoc


You are mistaken. Yes I did make a point. Let me repeat it for you; it was "At times "the crime" and "the tool" are inseparable".

I asked for someone to provide any instance of someone entering public schools in broad daylight and killing 6 adults and 20 children without the use of "arms". I am looking for facts, not imaginings. Until I see any such instances, my point stands.

Originally posted by TheFlash
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

You are mistaken. Yes I did make a point. Let me repeat it for you; it was "At times "the crime" and "the tool" are inseparable".

I asked for someone to provide any instance of someone entering public schools in broad daylight and killing 6 adults and 20 children without the use of "arms". I am looking for facts, not imaginings. Until I see any such instances, my point stands.

And I asked you for proof to back up your point: when has a law banning arms prevented a school massacre? Until you provide this, you have made no point at all.

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by TheFlash
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

You are mistaken. Yes I did make a point. Let me repeat it for you; it was "At times "the crime" and "the tool" are inseparable".

I asked for someone to provide any instance of someone entering public schools in broad daylight and killing 6 adults and 20 children without the use of "arms". I am looking for facts, not imaginings. Until I see any such instances, my point stands.

And I asked you for proof to back up your point: when has a law banning arms prevented a school massacre? Until you provide this, you have made no point at all.

YOU have made the point. You are right that no existing laws stopped this. The conclusion must be that we need new ones to do so, right?

reply to post by TheFlash


the shooter in Colorado and at sandy hook both violated
numerous felony firearms laws before they ever fired a shot.
after they shot people they were guilty of numerous other felony firearms laws.

neither of the two men were exercising their right to
SELF DEFENSE under 2A. so their actions both
before and after bearing arms is not protected by 2A.

if the adults at sandy hook would have been encouraged
and allowed and permitted to exercise their 2A rights
while on the job at the school, the shooter at sandy
hook would have died soon after he shot his first two
or three rounds.

reply to post by TheFlash


yes we need a new law to prevent school massacres and the new law is this:

Be it enacted that all teachers and school staff in the US will be required to
take and pass a CCW class during the summer break of 2013.

Upon return to school in the fall all staff will be expected to exercize their 2A
rights while on the job and while at extracirrcular school functions.

cost of CCW class will be reimbursed by the school districts.

Originally posted by TheFlash

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by TheFlash
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

You are mistaken. Yes I did make a point. Let me repeat it for you; it was "At times "the crime" and "the tool" are inseparable".

I asked for someone to provide any instance of someone entering public schools in broad daylight and killing 6 adults and 20 children without the use of "arms". I am looking for facts, not imaginings. Until I see any such instances, my point stands.

And I asked you for proof to back up your point: when has a law banning arms prevented a school massacre? Until you provide this, you have made no point at all.

YOU have made the point. You are right that no existing laws stopped this. The conclusion must be that we need new ones to do so, right?

False conclusion. If no law has helped, the logical conclusion is that even more laws will not helped. Since you stated "we need more laws," specifically which laws are you in favor of?

reply to post by NavyDoc


Once again you are mistaken and you attribute words to me that I have not written nor spoken. I never said "we need more laws". Please try to be more observant and careful.

Originally posted by TheFlash
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

Once again you are mistaken and you attribute words to me that I have not written nor spoken. I never said "we need more laws". Please try to be more observant and careful.

You said it just above; "we need more ones to do so.". I'm asking, since you said it, which laws do we need to do so?"

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by TheFlash
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

Once again you are mistaken and you attribute words to me that I have not written nor spoken. I never said "we need more laws". Please try to be more observant and careful.

You said it just above; "we need more ones to do so.". I'm asking, since you said it, which laws do we need to do so?"

edit on 6-6-2013 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)

Once again you are mistaken. I did not say "we need more ones to do so.". What I wrote was a question "we need new ones to do so, right?" For those who are not very observant, the punctuation is incorrect and changes the meaning of the words.

Perhaps you are not aware NavyDoc, but double quotes are indicative of quotation, the definition of which is "a group of words taken from a text or speech". I would appreciate it if you would stop attributing things to me which I have not said. You have done this repeatedly in this thread.

Originally posted by TheFlash

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by TheFlash
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

Once again you are mistaken and you attribute words to me that I have not written nor spoken. I never said "we need more laws". Please try to be more observant and careful.

You said it just above; "we need more ones to do so.". I'm asking, since you said it, which laws do we need to do so?"

edit on 6-6-2013 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)

Once again you are mistaken. I did not say "we need more ones to do so.". What I wrote was a question "we need new ones to do so, right?" For those who are not very observant, the punctuation is incorrect and changes the meaning of the words.

Perhaps you are not aware NavyDoc, but double quotes are indicative of quotation, the definition of which is "a group of words taken from a text or speech". I would appreciate it if you would stop attributing things to me which I have not said. You have done this repeatedly in this thread.

And you have squirmed out of positions repeatedly in the thread. Okay, I'll play: what new laws do you support to avoid school massacres and why? Direct question.

And you did not use double quite on the passage in question do you fail there, and if taken from a speech, you did not cite said speech so where did it come from?

reply to post by NavyDoc


Based on the things you write I have to ask if English is your first language? I will repeat yet again that I did state that new laws were required; I asked a question about it.

The quote in question was yours, not mine.

reply to post by TheFlash

YOU have made the point. You are right that no existing laws stopped this. The conclusion must be that we need
new ones to do so, right?

no. we do not "need new ones"
only one new law :
all staff will obtain a ccw and exercise
their 2A rights on the job.

reply to post by slugger9787


Things are that simple are they? This is an excellent article about the practicalities and questions raised by such proposals that probably have not occurred to many people. I suggest that you read it.

reply to post by TheFlash

I had to give you a flag because in the OP you bring up a point I've never come across before. If bearing arms is taken literally (aside from having short sleeves) it would mean all weapons. Arms is usually and rightly read as guns, and that's of course what America's founders meant, but a well-regulated militia can be formed by people carrying torches and pitchforks (see poor misunderstood Frankenstein's creation who can gripe about that).

As for the flag, after eleven pages of discussion there has to be enough quality in the thread to rate at least one flag! Fly it proudly!