National School Walkout

[rogue06]

He's saying that there was one bus per victim.

Ah... Thanks.

[Roy]

You found two quotes, on in London. I was correct, we do not use that kind of language when it comes to knives or bats or even cars when they are purposely use to kill. Period...

Anyone else, including you, could perform the same searches and find the same examples I did, and many more:

http://www.wdel.com/news/senior-citi...4820faace.html
https://www.villagevoice.com/2017/06...-state-senate/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ting-life.html
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/surg...d-6841519.html
https://www.poynter.org/news/how-cov...-stabbing-case
https://tribune.com.pk/story/1598077...nife-violence/
https://www.centerforhealthjournalis...knife-violence
http://www.breitbart.com/tag/knife-violence/
https://tribune.com.pk/story/1598077...nife-violence/
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/britis...erns-1.1173099
http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/n...el_since_2011/
https://citylimits.org/2016/04/13/ci...nife-violence/
https://www.centerforhealthjournalis...knife-violence
etc etc etc.

One of them refers to "baseball bat violence" too, just for good measure.

When breitbart has a search tag dedicated to a phrase you claim newspapers do not use, it's clear that your claims are based on your own opinions only, that you have tried neither to confirm nor refute them, that your views are totally divorced from reality, that you will not and cannot be convinced otherwise, and there is no point trying.

You can claim "game, set and match" if you wish, but you are just denying the truth.

[Mountain Man]

And she's wearing the flag for communist Cuba on her shoulder, a country famous for disarming and then slaughtering its own defenseless citizens. How adorable.

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Maybe these kids should be in school instead of ignorantly shilling for the Democrat party.

[seer]

Anyone else, including you, could perform the same searches and find the same examples I did, and many more:

So you find a hand full of anomalies, in light of the thousands of possible articles. This only shows that more leftist speak, that is inane and irrational, is seeping into the culture. Again for those who are not brain dead, knives don't do violence, neither do guns, neither do bats or cars... People do.

You can claim "game, set and match" if you wish, but you are just denying the truth.

That concerned another issue.

[seer]

And she's wearing the flag for communist Cuba on her shoulder, a country famous for disarming and then slaughtering its own defenseless citizens. How adorable.

So she is a little Commie - why doesn't that surprize me?

[Sparko]

So she is a little Commie - why doesn't that surprize me?

pretty sad because her family escaped from Cuba to come here. So she is basically spitting on their sacrifice by wearing that flag.

[rogue06]

And she's wearing the flag for communist Cuba on her shoulder, a country famous for disarming and then slaughtering its own defenseless citizens. How adorable.

Much like the ignoratis who think it is so cool and hip to wear a Che Guevara T-shirt or tack up a poster of him blissfully unaware of what sort of homicidal monster he was.

[carpedm9587]

What? The two points are clearly linked. I am speak of resisting (armed resistance if necessary) if you or anyone else tries to strip us of this fundamental right.

Since I disagree that "owning a gun is a fundamental right," I disagree with your position. If we successfully change the constitution, it will not even be a constitutional right. If that change it made and you resist with force of arms, you will be acting illegally and unconstitutionally. You will ultimately probably end up like Koresh and the other people who have taken up arms in illegal defense of "their rights." You will either cease to be, or you will be incarcerated.

Again back to my point, if the second amendment is not a fundamental right - what is? Are there any fundamental rights in the Constitution?

"Fundamental" or "inalienable" rights are those you have by virtual of being a human being: life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, speech, etc. Other rights are not fundamental - they are simply granted by the constitution. "Owning guns" is (arguably) one of those. You have the right to self defense. You do not have the right to "own guns." That you equate the two is your concern. If guns are broadly outlawed, and a hard stance is taken (a la Hong Kong) against their possession and use, then the incidence of gun violence can be likewise expected to reduce, keeping everyone on a level playing field. Carve-outs should be provided for hunting and the use/ownership of a gun as a tool (e.g., farms, ranches, etc.). They also should be possessed (IMO) by our military and paramilitary. That can even extend to private ownership by registered members of the military. Outside of that, I now advocate for broadly restrictive laws on all other types of ownership. If a gun collector wishes to collect, that too is fine, but they need to be non-functional pieces (sealed barrels, no firing pin, etc.) for display purposes only.

Except all the Founders would agree with me on this basic right, they wrote it, and fought the British empire to secure these very rights. If you were alive back then no doubt you would have been a Tory, after all those Founders were just a bunch of dangerous radicals...

Actually - probably not. And we disagree on what the founders intended when that amendment was enacted. I too would have argued for it, in preference of a well regulated militia rather than a standing army. Like them, I would probably have changed my mind not long thereafter, realizing the logistical complexities involved in using the citizenry as a militia instead of an organized standing army, likewise rendering the amendment less critical.

As I have said before: reasonable people can reasonably disagee on the meaning of that amendment and it's purpose/application in the modern age. When one side of that argument threatens the other side with bodily harm for the sheer audacity of disagreeing with them, something is amiss. That you continue to defend that position confirms to me that there is an extremely dangerous faction in our midst, that is willing to be criminal if it gets them what they want. People of good conscience must take a stand against such things. Unlike you, I will not threaten your person because you disagree with me. But I will stand for the defense of myself and those like me should you actually ever carry out your threats. It will be a criminal act if the constitution is so amended.

[seer]

pretty sad because her family escaped from Cuba to come here. So she is basically spitting on their sacrifice by wearing that flag.

yep...

[TheWall]

Mr carpe I think you have misunderstood something. I don't think most gun owners want to hurt anyone. However if someone breaks into my home I have the right to defend myself. Likewise if a tyrannical government attacks me or others I have the right to fight back. That happened in Gonzales Texas over a cannon. It is where " come and take it" comes from.

[seer]

Since I disagree that "owning a gun is a fundamental right," I disagree with your position. If we successfully change the constitution, it will not even be a constitutional right. If that change it made and you resist with force of arms, you will be acting illegally and unconstitutionally. You will ultimately probably end up like Koresh and the other people who have taken up arms in illegal defense of "their rights." You will either cease to be, or you will be incarcerated.

Carp are there any fundamental rights in the Constitution? Can you name one, and why?

"Fundamental" or "inalienable" rights are those you have by virtual of being a human being: life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, speech, etc. Other rights are not fundamental - they are simply granted by the constitution. "Owning guns" is (arguably) one of those. You have the right to self defense. You do not have the right to "own guns." That you equate the two is your concern. If guns are broadly outlawed, and a hard stance is taken (a la Hong Kong) against their possession and use, then the incidence of gun violence can be likewise expected to reduce, keeping everyone on a level playing field. Carve-outs should be provided for hunting and the use/ownership of a gun as a tool (e.g., farms, ranches, etc.). They also should be possessed (IMO) by our military and paramilitary. That can even extend to private ownership by registered members of the military. Outside of that, I now advocate for broadly restrictive laws on all other types of ownership. If a gun collector wishes to collect, that too is fine, but they need to be non-functional pieces (sealed barrels, no firing pin, etc.) for display purposes only.

But you are wrong, this right goes back to english common law:

By the time of the founding, the right to have arms had become fundamental for English subjectscited the arms provision of the Bill of Rights as one of the fundamental rights of Englishmenthe natural right of resistance and self-preservationthe right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defencehttps://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

Actually - probably not. And we disagree on what the founders intended when that amendment was enacted. I too would have argued for it, in preference of a well regulated militia rather than a standing army. Like them, I would probably have changed my mind not long thereafter, realizing the logistical complexities involved in using the citizenry as a militia instead of an organized standing army, likewise rendering the amendment less critical.

As I have said before: reasonable people can reasonably disagee on the meaning of that amendment and it's purpose/application in the modern age. When one side of that argument threatens the other side with bodily harm for the sheer audacity of disagreeing with them, something is amiss. That you continue to defend that position confirms to me that there is an extremely dangerous faction in our midst, that is willing to be criminal if it gets them what they want. People of good conscience must take a stand against such things. Unlike you, I will not threaten your person because you disagree with me. But I will stand for the defense of myself and those like me should you actually ever carry out your threats. It will be a criminal act if the constitution is so amended.

Nonsense, in your binary mind the Founders would have been violent radicals.

[Sparko]

Since I disagree that "owning a gun is a fundamental right," I disagree with your position. If we successfully change the constitution, it will not even be a constitutional right. If that change it made and you resist with force of arms, you will be acting illegally and unconstitutionally. You will ultimately probably end up like Koresh and the other people who have taken up arms in illegal defense of "their rights." You will either cease to be, or you will be incarcerated.

ah, so much for the oft-repeated "We are not trying to take away your guns!" we hear so much from the left.

And no, it would not be like Waco. There are a hell of a lot more citizens with guns than at Waco. Many of them are in the Military, FBI and Police who would join in the citizen's rebellion.

"Fundamental" or "inalienable" rights are those you have by virtual of being a human being: life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, speech, etc.

Where do these fundamental rights come from, Mr. Moral Relativity?

[seer]

Mr carpe I think you have misunderstood something. I don't think most gun owners want to hurt anyone. However if someone breaks into my home I have the right to defend myself. Likewise if a tyrannical government attacks me or others I have the right to fight back. That happened in Gonzales Texas over a cannon. It is where " come and take it" comes from.

Exactly!!!!

[carpedm9587]

ah, so much for the oft-repeated "We are not trying to take away your guns!" we hear so much from the left.

I think you have missed much of the discussion between Seer and myself. You might want to scroll back and read. Yes - my position has changed, mostly due to what Seer has taught me about the core values of many gun owners on this one, and the complete lack of objection from anyone else here to his statements.

And no, it would not be like Waco. There are a hell of a lot more citizens with guns than at Waco. Many of them are in the Military, FBI and Police who would join in the citizen's rebellion.

And if the constitution has changed, they will all be acting illegally. If there are THAT many of them, then the constitution will not change.

Where do these fundamental rights come from, Mr. Moral Relativity?

They are embodied in the set of "things we value" that are most common to humans.

[carpedm9587]

Mr carpe I think you have misunderstood something. I don't think most gun owners want to hurt anyone. However if someone breaks into my home I have the right to defend myself. Likewise if a tyrannical government attacks me or others I have the right to fight back. That happened in Gonzales Texas over a cannon. It is where " come and take it" comes from.

I have understood nothing. A government is not "tyrannical" if it reflects the views of the majority of its citizens. That is what it is SUPPOSED to do: govern by the consent of the governed. Today, we have a poorly worded amendment that, as I have noted, people of good conscience can disagree on and fight through the courts and the legislature. If, however, a new amendment is passed that repeals the 2nd Amendment - and I now believe that should happen - that can only happen if the majority of the representatives of this country as well as the majority of the citizens of this country wish it to happen. It is then the duty of the government to act on the will of the people. Should that will be, "we need to eliminate guns," then that is the will of the majority of the citizens implemented as the founders intended: by constitutional amendment. There will no longer, at that point, BE a constitutional protection for gun-ownership: the matter will be settled.

Those who then take up arms against that law and do physical violence to their fellow citizens for implementing and enforcing the law will be criminals. They cannot claim a high-ground. They will simply be denying the constitutional process they have so long claimed to respect, and discarding it because it is not producing the outcome they want. They will be shown, undeniably, for what they are: people who want it their own way and are simply using the constitution as a pretext for getting what they want.

What has amazed me here is not the position about gun-ownership - it is the explicit threat to do bodily harm to fellow citizens under the circumstances outlined above. It makes it clear to me that there is actually no real respect for the constitution here. There is simply a "I want what I want and will do anything I have to so as to get it." That is not patriotism. It isn't even American. It's, well, pretty unbelievable. And on this supposedly "Christian" website, I have not seen a single person step forward and say, "Wait - that's a bit over the top. You can't justify harming someone over a 'thing.' "

I have to admit to being more than a little stunned. It's why I have come to the conclusion that my previous "moderate" position was in error. We have a very dangerous faction amongst us, and it is a ticking time bomb. It needs to be dealt with.