Rattler

You mad bro? Why do you swallow everything the anti-gun people, who have an agenda to further, feed you? You support the desire to repeal the 2nd Amendment and confiscate firearms?

Laura will not get fired.

OK, I watched it. Seems the kid went into the school after he arrived when the shooter was stopped. I'm sure he was recording himself from the minute he got to the school, but the video starts when he's in a closet with other kids. I did not hear a single gunshot in the video, nor did anyone there seem to be concerned the shooter was still active. The kid was a reporter for the school news station. Even in the closet he's preaching banning guns. Doesn't seem logical a kid who was afraid of getting shot would be saying what he's saying in this video. Fact: He wasn't there when kids were being killed. Wake up.

Well, it's pretty had to argue with a video of him admitting he wasn't there. I have not seen the video you refer to. Why do you assume that one is real?

This kid's a charlatan who wasn't even at the school when it went down. He has already admitted it.

A smart kid living in the real world would be pissed at the government agencies that failed to protect them, while wishing they could've been shooting back. These youth actually believe the world can be a safe place where nobody ever wants to hurt you. They also think the government will protect them by taking guns from everyone, without ever realizing it was that same government that didn't protect them, and doesn't have the ability, or desire, to do so. They should've learned from this experience that is a fantasy world they need to escape from. The smart kids who don't agree with these gun grabbing youth, have been silenced, ignored and ostracized in the schools and the media. That proves real intellectual dialog towards solving the problem is not the goal, it's the enemy of the agenda.

You need to give that some more thought.

Self defense is a natural right. Pursuit of happiness is a natural right. Food, clothing and shelter are not. They must be earned. Nobody deserves them for free.

In debating people who want to attack and violate your natural right to keep and bear arms, it's important to point out that the federal government has been violating these rights for nearly a century. There is nothing in the Constitution that authorizes the Feds to implement any gun control measure, including the acts of 1934 & 1968. This is why the 10th Amendment was written.

If you strive to understand what is being said here, you come to the conclusion all rights have limits, but the Constitution and Bill of Rights define what those limits are. Scalia was making a supportive statement here when he said, "the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. An AR-15 is one of the most common rifles in use in America today. Statistical evaluation of it's minimal criminal use in the world supports the fact it is NOT a "dangerous and unusual" weapon. In fact it is the perfect rifle for personal defense for the great majority of US citizens that have little training in personal defense firearm use. I'll leave those details for another thread. I firmly believe the SCOTUS will be forced to rule on these semi-auto rifle and magazine bans in the very near future, and when all of the past precedent regarding the 2nd Amendment is considered, as well as the actual writings from the founders on their intentions when it was written, the court will be forced to rule all of these bans are blatantly unconstitutional. This is why the desire to completely ban civilian handgun ownership failed decades ago. This is why the SCOTUS has been avoiding any cases dealing with the 2nd Amendment for decades now. This is why Retired Justice Stevens is telling these protesters they need to start calling for repeal of the 2nd Amendment. This is why anyone who says they aren't taking anyone's guns away is a liar. This is why anyone not opposed to this gun ban agenda is a fool.

I think the reason people attack these kids personally, has to do with the fact they have ordained themselves 2nd Amendment experts, which adult anti-gun fanatics support, when it is very obvious they don't know the first thing about it, individual rights, or any of the Constitution for that matter. I can understand their initial desire to speak out, but after you've been factually schooled on how little you understand, and they have been, if you persist, you earn personal attacks. Nobody wants the galactically stupid influencing an individual right they choose to responsibly exercise.

It is a paraphrase of a statement from the essay "Guns, Murders, and the Constitution" (February 1990) by Don B. Kates, Jr. where Kates summarizes his views of passages in Dreams in Folklore (1958) by Freud and David E. Oppenheim, while disputing statements by Emmanuel Tanay in "Neurotic Attachment to Guns" in a 1976 edition of The Fifty Minute Hour: A Collection of True Psychoanalytic Tales(1955) by Robert Mitchell Lindner: Dr. Tanay is perhaps unaware of — in any event, he does not cite — other passages more relevant to his argument. In these other passages Freud associates retarded sexual and emotional development not with gun ownership, but with fear and loathing of weapons. The probative importance that ought to be attached to the views of Freud is, of course, a matter of opinion.

Even in high school I was a supporter of freedom, rights, the Constitution and Conservative ideals. Maybe because I was already into hunting, fishing and the outdoors. Even then I knew the government was not my friend, couldn't be trusted and certainly shouldn't be asked to oppress others for me. Nixon was President and Vietnam was still going on. Need I say more?

Years ago, smoking was common in films. Films often promoted certain cigarettes on the screen. Hollywood charges product manufacturers to show their product in a film, claiming it is advertising the product. The next time you see a product shown by name in a film, or even mentioned by name, be aware you are watching a paid advertisement on the screen. Also, when a film is mostly about promoting an ideology, which is often liberal, leftist, Socialist or Communist, it has probably received financial backing from the special interest groups pushing that agenda.

You have to notice they never say "nobody wants to take away your right to own a gun". Truth be told, they want it to be a privilege granted by, and restricted by, the big government they long for. In their minds, if they impose all sorts of oppressive restrictions and you no longer meet the criteria to own firearms, they didn't take your guns away, you lost the privilege to have them. Therefore you're the bad guy and they're the good guys. That's leftist ideology being justified with convoluted thinking.

How does this article define the "Militia"? The Constitution is well understood to give power to the government only where needed and it bars the government from any powers not specified in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Of course the founders would give the power to organize the people in defense of the country if ever needed. You need to read the line that states, "employed in the Service of the United States". The people were called upon by the government when needed to defend the country, but they were still free men, autonomous and without conscription. They could refuse to fight without penalty. They were also free to organize against their own government if it ever turned on their freedom. If today's events were happening soon after the Constitution and Bill of Rights were ratified, the people would've been shooting by now.

I'm not aware of these things. Perhaps you can provide a link to allow me to investigate further. Even if it did happen, weren't they both severely criticized for saying it? I can recall many instances of justified criticism of Obama's policies that got people labeled as "racist" and fired from their jobs. The MSM circled the wagons around Obama and protected everything he said or did. So did all of the Dems in D.C. Today, Trump's only friends are the people who voted for him, even when all of the evidence points to America actually improving on all political fronts.

The principle of the debate is simple; namely, the right to self-defense is a God-given right that predates government itself. The Declaration of Independence proclaims we are each endowed by our Creator with certain "unalienable rights" and that "to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed." Get that? Rights are secured, NOT granted, by government. In his Commentaries on the Constitution, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, the "Father of American Jurisprudence," made it clear and unambiguous, declaring, "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them." Disarming law-abiding citizens will not protect innocent people; it will only leave them defenseless against those with homicidal intentions — not to mention at the mercy of tyrannical government. It is beyond foolish to think otherwise.

It's one thing to call people names. It's an entirely different evil to call for killing them.

Yes I would, and it disappeared when Bush was elected, way before Obama was even a thought.

"Glasgow is an ex-convict who started an Alabama ministry called The Ordinary People Society. He has recently been campaigning to restore voting rights for convicts." What could possibly go wrong?

Oh I recall all of that, but don't believe that was the same level of homicidal hatred we are seeing today. Besides, I firmly believe two wrongs do not make a right. Are we looking to see how far down the rat hole America can fall with each Presidency? Or are we going to accept civil discourse is the only method of debate we should condone?

“a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” When one understands proper English, it becomes obvious the the words "shall not be infringed", refer to possession of arms. The founders were not concerned with anyone who possessed arms, they were only concerned about criminal activity. They wrote laws to punish criminals, people who abused their freedom to hurt others or trample on the rights of others. They understood prosecution of criminal activity was needed to protect freedom. The entire Constitution was written to prevent the Federal government from having the ability to evolve into an entity employing organized crime. It was granted little power over much of anything by the founders, so it could never be a tool for tyrants. The founders warned future generations that freedom needed to be understood, earned and guarded on a daily basis, as there would always be insidious encroachment by men of zeal, who possess no understanding of the consequences. The America people have been allowing their freedoms to slip away for decades now, lulled into a sense of false security by the siren of big government. Recently, the taking of rights has become intentional though. Many in government seek to retain power in spite of the Constitution's prohibition of their conduct. Time is always on the side of traitors. They never lose sight of their goals. Free people, on the other hand, are often in denial, when it comes to their rights and freedoms being attacked. Unless Americans start learning the purpose of the Constitution and what their rights are, they will soon be saying they live in a free country, where you are free to do whatever the government let's you do.

The Constitution doesn't define the term, it uses it. At the time the Constitution was written, "well regulated" meant "acting like a precision watch movement". The whole of the people were the "militia". Well armed, trained, prepared and a force to be reckoned with. It didn't mean ruled by big government regulation and oppression, as the left believes it means. BTW, the people of the time possessed the same level of weaponry they expected their enemies would bring to bear against them. Today, even with AR's and AK's, the citizens do even possess half the level of weaponry that could be used against them. That's unconstitutional.