Common Sense Law or Zero Intelligence?

[Mr VJP]

[table][tr][td]Friday, February 04, 2011[/td]          [/tr]          [tr]              [td] [/td]          [/tr]          [tr]              [td]  There's still no shortage of cases involving school officials'  over-zealous, one-size-fits-all, zero-common sense enforcement of  "zero-tolerance" rules.

The latest outrage involves a 7-year-old Hammonton, N.J. student who, according to a recent NBCPhiladelphia.com article, faces criminal chargesfor the egregious offense of firing a Nerf-style toy "gun" at his school.  The  fearsome weapon shoots small, soft, ping-pong-type balls and there was  no evidence of anyone being threatened or injured by the child's  actions.

The incident was actually investigated by the Hammonton Police Department after school officials reported "suspicious activity."  Police then charged the pint-sized perpetrator with possessing an imitation firearm in or on an education institution.  Unbelievable!

Is this what we've come to?  Insisting the police investigate and charge a 7-year-old for "shooting" Nerf-style ping-pong-like balls?  What's next; throwing children in jail for tossing beanbags in class?  Imagine the damage a marshmallow could inflict.

We all can agree that we want our children to be safe at school, and that reasonable safety measures should be followed.  But  when administrators and law enforcement allow "zero-tolerance" to  become "zero-common sense," we've gone beyond unreasonable and arrived  at outrageous.  [/td][/tr][/table]

[Bballhunter11]

I agree VJP, another story for you a person who works in fort stanwix was doing a presentation at a school in CNY. This person does tons of these presentations every year at schools. He was walking across the parking lot with a replica firearm from the Rev war and a school official comes running out of another building waving and screaming at him. The guy explained who he was and what was going on the school official still would not let enter the building with his "firearm" and threatened to call the police. The person was forced to do the presentation without the prop and the official felt he had done a great job, complete idiot

[Doc]

What all this does is to simply show just how fanatical the anti gun forces are (and they say the NRA is an extremist organization .... lol). These anti-gun nuts would be very happy if the word "gun" were made illegal. Anybody who thinks these people are rational, should read these posts and other similar stories. None of it has anything to do with common sense.

[Mr VJP]

And some gun owners seem to think tactics like this are "reasonable".

:

[132 eight pointer]

My son is a senior in high school.He told me a student had a kitchen knife and fork on the front seat of a vehicle parked in the school parking lot and was disciplined for it.Zero tolerance means loss of common sense.

[2BRKnot2B]

We have to start using the line every time we see "zero tolerance" that zero tolerance = intolerance. Until we start getting this message across the leftards carry the day. I don't even call them liberals anymore, because the name just doesn't fit. Liberal means "Leaning toward democracy." the left is already leaning towards tyranny, and is, in many respects tyrannical. Until we start calling a spade a spade, we'll continue to see this leftard advancement of their agenda. Time to change the direction so that right wing (constitutional republican libertarianism) isn't a bad thing, but that leftism (socialism, communism, fascism, National Socialism=NAZIism) is. We can't be civil to them anymore, because they have drive civility to the tyrannical level. There can be no civility where there is "zero tolerance."

[G-Man]

Wish i could pinpoint when society changed, when i went to school most boys had a pocket or sheath knife, i remember bringing my 22 to school to hunt squirrels after with friends and the shop teacher...not that long ago, now metal detectors and cops seem to be the rule. Sad in my opinion.

[jasons75]

This country is just getting way to ridiculous! Zero tolerance rule is a crock! My kids middle schools and high  school have permenant police stationed in them....Police DO NOT BELONG IN SCHOOLS!!!!!  Teachers and school staff need to be able to handle kids. Premed need to be held accountable for their kids behavior as well...

Nobody wants to take any responsibility for anything anymore. This liberal mindset needs to be disbanded these ridiculous laws and rules need to be removed and people need to use common sense a lot more

[2BRKnot2B]

Won't happen until more of s speak up, step in, run for office, school board, PTA, etc. One thing I admire about the left is that they are willing to do whatever is necessary to advance their agenda, and they do it quite well. They don't hold back. Even when they lose, they are thinking about the next election cycle. They don;t quit when they get caught doing something illegal, unconstitutional, or even morally. Fact is, they really have no morals. Whatever rules the day, and with which they can get away.  No responsibility as Jason said. Worse, they are in our teaching profession to beat the band, and are teaching our children. Nothing speaks more for homeschooling than this one factor.

[sweet old bill]

The far LEFT or the Far RIGHT both are nuts.

It seems that to say that guns are bad is not a logical position for the far Left but then I sure do not feel that everyone should be able to own anything in the way of GUNS or cop killing ammo.

I sure do not think we should be able to buy clips that hold 30 + rounds.

I sure do not want to go back to the old west with all carrying a 6 gun on his person. I also do not want ammo to be sold with special ID marking that you have to purchase and the bullet is then tracked to you, or my shot gun or rifles have to have a listing with the police, or yearly fees.

I do think that the laws should be logical, maybe more education within the schools. WIth so many single parent women that do not have the awareness of guns may need the schools to present safe handling of guns. I am aware of archery in the school system has been a major plus for archery.

I have hunted my total life (69 years ), and first helped clean shotgun or rifles in I THINK the first grade. My own kids I did the same way and never had a problem.  Safety first. I sure could see myself locked up for shooting bow or guns in the backyard. We are blessed in central NY to still have the wide open spaces to take our kids or grand kids to show them the ways of hunting and fishing.

I am aware that now in NJ there are towns that will not even allow a bow to be used in the back yard and all guns/ bows must be listed with the police. Not common logic anymore.

[2BRKnot2B]

You, sir, are the nut. You want what has never been. You want a lack of responsibility for your own safety, and as Ben Franklin noted, such who want safety above liberty will always become slaves to those who will allow such.

How many rounds would be enough? Would you allow six guns, even? Should we all carry? The purpose of concealed carry is to not have to know whether you are, or not. This makes all safer, unless permitted (registered) by gov't. Reason; no criminal knows who is armed, or not, thus making them more wary of whom they choose to target. You, sir, benefit from my concealed carry. No, you'll probably never know the gun(s) is/are on my person. A cop will most likely be able to tell, but no one I have ever been around has ever said anything about the gun(s) I am carrying.

I carry multiple weapons usually, and multiple clips for each different caliber.

What laws, sir, are "logical"? And, should laws be "logical," or should they be first, "constitutional"? If constitutional, then what part of "...shall not be infringed," don't you understand?

By logical, do you mean "common sense." What part of checking people for priors to buy a weapon is "logical", or of "common sense"? Does it stop some criminals? Likely. When was the last time you heard of a prosecution based upon this law? During the Clinton administration 4 people, out of hundreds of thousands, were prosecuted.

What part of AW Ban(s) are "common sense"? Does look of a rifle trump action? What makes an AR, or AK, different from a Remington 1187, or .22 cal. Winchester 190/290? The 190/290 have a 17 shot potential with tubular magazine. Should it be outlawed? What part of a ban on martial arts weapons, collapsible batons, baseball bats, etc., makes sense. Town of Gaines, Orleans County, passed a law banning "anything that can be construed as a weapon" from all town property. Would that include pens, pencils, baseball bats, etc.? They can all be used s a weapon? Would it include sticks, stones, slingshots, auto's? They have all been used as weapons in the past.

Sir, you sound like a fine individual to me, but a bit naive.

[Ford]

Here is my opinion about hi-capacity magazines.

It is most likely the easiest part of a firearm to duplicate/modify/or get on the black market.

When they say "only the outlaws would have guns" it applies even more so to hi-capacity magazines.

[2BRKnot2B]

What exactly are cop killing bullets? Will a .22 kill a cop? I know one that did a bang up job on his head. He still lives, but he is nothing like what he was. There is no firearm caliber that won't, given the right circumstances, kill, or maim. So, this is another leftist tactic. Same as "ASSault weapon." These are merely misnomers used to scare those without knowledge of weapons, and you sir, perpetuate the idiocy.

[Taz1300]

What exactly are cop killing bullets? Will a .22 kill a cop? I know one that did a bang up job on his head. He still lives, but he is nothing like what he was. There is no firearm caliber that won't, given the right circumstances, kill, or maim. So, this is another leftist tactic. Same as "ASSault weapon." These are merely misnomers used to scare those without knowledge of weapons, and you sir, perpetuate the idiocy.

I think it is refering to teflon coated. You know the ones that can pass through body armor.

[virgil]

i've been a gun owner and hunter since i was 16 years old.  i'm not a gun nut who makes believe that our government has any plans to 'take away our guns'- as so many of you like to say to rile each other up.  the truth is that there is no sporting purpose for anyone private citizen to own assault weapons.  using the constitution to support your agenda is silly.  the consitution was and is a brilliant document.  however, it reflects the needs of society at the time it was written.  it has been amended many time since it was first written, and with good reason.  it scares me to see so many guys on this website post paranoid rants about 'leftists' wanting to take away gun rights- this is one reason why hunters have gotten a bad reputation.  as far as kids being punished for playing with nerf toys, that's just as ridiculous.  but, try putting yourself in the position of school officials who are entrusted with our kids safety.  then, try to imagine the position they'd be in if any harm came to a child on their watch.  would any of the gun-nuts hesitate to contact a lawyer if their child was hurt at school by a toy or object that could be perceived as a weapon.  i doubt it.  i believe that the term 'logical' means that both sides of an argument have been considered before a decision or law is made.  it's easy and hypocritical to bash people who don't share your agenda. 

[WNYBuckHunter]

i've been a gun owner and hunter since i was 16 years old.  i'm not a gun nut who makes believe that our government has any plans to 'take away our guns'- as so many of you like to say to rile each other up.  the truth is that there is no sporting purpose for anyone private citizen to own assault weapons.  using the constitution to support your agenda is silly.  the consitution was and is a brilliant document.  however, it reflects the needs of society at the time it was written.  it has been amended many time since it was first written, and with good reason.  it scares me to see so many guys on this website post paranoid rants about 'leftists' wanting to take away gun rights- this is one reason why hunters have gotten a bad reputation.  as far as kids being punished for playing with nerf toys, that's just as ridiculous.  but, try putting yourself in the position of school officials who are entrusted with our kids safety.  then, try to imagine the position they'd be in if any harm came to a child on their watch.  would any of the gun-nuts hesitate to contact a lawyer if their child was hurt at school by a toy or object that could be perceived as a weapon.  i doubt it.  i believe that the term 'logical' means that both sides of an argument have been considered before a decision or law is made.  it's easy and hypocritical to bash people who don't share your agenda.

So um, what do you think an "assault weapon" is? Where do you draw the line?

[2BRKnot2B]

What exactly are cop killing bullets? Will a .22 kill a cop? I know one that did a bang up job on his head. He still lives, but he is nothing like what he was. There is no firearm caliber that won't, given the right circumstances, kill, or maim. So, this is another leftist tactic. Same as "ASSault weapon." These are merely misnomers used to scare those without knowledge of weapons, and you sir, perpetuate the idiocy.

I think it is refering to teflon coated. You know the ones that can pass through body armor.

Not according to Charles Assini, former lawyer on the staff of former state senator Frank Padavan. Frank Padavan wanted to ban cop killer bullets. I asked Mr. Assini what was meant by that since almost any bullet, even shotgun pelletized weapons can kill. He said he was speaking to ones that can penetrate bullet proof vests. I made note that if bullet proff, then no bllet could pass thru, thus no reason for the law. he said they were going through. I asked what bullets specifically. He didn't know. I said, so you want to make a law against bullets that is so broadly worded that any, and every, bullet type could be banned. He said no, he'd like to work with me, to compromise. So I said i was more than willing to compromise. I would allow some small number of bullets to be banned, perhaps those most used in criminal assaults against police officers, if he could even determine which ones were most used for such, if he would add an addendum to the bill to negate PL 400, or sections of it? He said he wasn;t willing to give up "gains" in legislation so far, only that he was willing to help me help him determine which bullets might be added to the list of banned ones. I noted that such is not compromise on my part but capitulation to his demands solely. He said we had nothing further to discuss if I wasn't willing to capitulate, tho' he refused to call it capitulation.

Virgil, I don;t care how long you've been hunting. Because you don't use one, or can probably even give me a description of what one is, doesn;t mean others aren't using them. And whther for hunting, or not, the 2A ISN'T ABOUT DUCK HUNTING! You are merely another one of those leftist types who think the constitution may be changed at the whim of the legislature, and not thru the amendment process. if it's such a great document, then why don't you agree with this position within it? Reminds me of the Pelosi'ism when asked about where in the constitution the onus for a HC bill was. She said, "Are you serious? Are you serious?"

2A is about a tyrannical gov't, and our ability to throw off its chains, Until we get rid of the imbeciles who don;t nderstand this, or refuse to acknowledge it, we aren't going to make any headway whatsoever. unfortunately, there ar way too many of them even within our own ranks, Whether infil'traitor's or not, their beliefs are anti-constitutional.

[steve863]

2A is about a tyrannical gov't, and our ability to throw off its chains, Until we get rid of the imbeciles who don;t nderstand this, or refuse to acknowledge it, we aren't going to make any headway whatsoever. unfortunately, there ar way too many of them even within our own ranks, Whether infil'traitor's or not, their beliefs are anti-constitutional.

You guys really think that armed citizens could hold off government forces with pistols, rifles and shotguns only??  I think not.  Maybe 230 years ago the armed citizens with muzzleloading weapons had a chance against government forces, but these days things are a bit different.  That is why what was written 230 years ago doesn't exactly hold water in the same way today.  As I have mentioned before the same people who wrote the 2nd amendment also were slave owners and had NO problem with the concept of slavery.  Of course today things are also a bit different.  If everything they wrote and believed in back then is so perfect, how could they be so right with one idea and so wrong with the other?? My hunch is that things back then don't exactly relate to things today with both of these issues.  I know most here can't accept this, but this is just a very simple example.

Their ideas back then were in general good and a foundation for what was to come afterwards.  They had no crystal ball to look into what the world would be like in 200 plus years.  If they did, maybe they would have had a change of heart as to some of the ideas they had back then.

[2BRKnot2B]

2A is about a tyrannical gov't, and our ability to throw off its chains, Until we get rid of the imbeciles who don;t nderstand this, or refuse to acknowledge it, we aren't going to make any headway whatsoever. unfortunately, there ar way too many of them even within our own ranks, Whether infil'traitor's or not, their beliefs are anti-constitutional.

You guys really think that armed citizens could hold off government forces with pistols, rifles and shotguns only??  I think not.  Maybe 230 years ago the armed citizens with muzzleloading weapons had a chance against government forces, but these days things are a bit different.  That is why what was written 230 years ago doesn't exactly hold water in the same way today.  As I have mentioned before the same people who wrote the 2nd amendment also were slave owners and had NO problem with the concept of slavery.  Of course today things are also a bit different.  If everything they wrote and believed in back then is so perfect, how could they be so right with one idea and so wrong with the other?? My hunch is that things back then don't exactly relate to things today with both of these issues.  I know most here can't accept this, but this is just a very simple example.

Their ideas back then were in general good and a foundation for what was to come afterwards.  They had no crystal ball to look into what the world would be like in 200 plus years.  If they did, maybe they would have had a change of heart as to some of the ideas they had back then.

Seems to me we just saw a bunch of MuSlim zealots do it with nothing more than their bare hands. I think we could do it a bit better. Our problem is a "standing army" which many of our founders warned against.

As to your contentions, I think these were mentioned by some of the founders. They lived well into the 1800's, and most knew of the newer modernities. What they related was that tho' modernity happened, the general condition of the individual is not affected by it. One will still endure the lash if they feel the consequence to do otherwise is the freedom to do what they will. In other words, many people would prefer the lash to not having some bailouts of banks, or car companies, not being secure in their homes, having roaming gangs able to take it t a whim, but then again, I just descried out current gov't. Uh oh!

One still wishes to be free as possible, regardless of the consequences, but some would give up some freedom for some safety, or assurances in future. Look where that got us. A Ponzi scheme of gigantic proportions called Social (in)Security (SinS). The bank of the federal gov't is broke unless they print more money or tax everyone into poverty. Of course, then all will be in the welfare teat, and isn't that what Barry HuJinTau and his cronies wish? Ever see films of the Soviet Union? Fat old ladies out shoveling snow off RR tracks, sidewalks, and the like. They didn't work, they didn't get a paycheck. Everyone worked where & when the gov't told them. You didn't have the choice between being an engineer, or a busboy, a traitorous troll, or a ditch digger. The gov't made the decision. That's what will happen if Barry HuJinTau Obama's policies are allowed to continue in this country.

[solon]

i'm not going to jump into this fray, but wanted to add that a good book to read is called the "federalist papers" that is a collection of stories by some of our founding fathers:

http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/

It scares me when  people want to say what was written 200 years ago doesn't apply anymore...

 

[Mr VJP]

I get upset when people say the 2nd Amendment only protects firearms the government deems you may need. 

What type of firearm do you think you would need to defend yourself from a government that takes total control of your life, declares martial law or totally removes your freedoms for their own oppressive reasons?

If you were a store owner in LA during the riots over the Rodney King beating and mobs of rioters were burning every property in the city, what type of weapon do you think you would need to defend your property?  How many rounds do you want in your magazine?

Freedom means I get to decide what I need.  It's nobody's business if I am not harming anyone else with what I possess.  That's what I believe the 2nd Amendment protects.  We have laws to prosecute people for commiting any crime imaginable.  Where is it in the Constitution the Fed has the right to prosecute a person for something he has the potential to do??

How about if the Fed decides you don't need a Corvette, Ferrari, Harley Davidson or Ducati race bike because they can go faster than any legal speed limit?  Would that be OK with you too?? 

What about when they start adding all cars and motorcycles to the list???  Or at least those that have an engine with more than 50 HP and don't have a speed governor to prevent speeds over 55 MPH??

Americans that are willing to give any control over their freedom to the government have no clue how much they may wind up losing!!  And just because a lot of freedom has already been given up, doesn't mean we would be wise to keep giving up more.

>

[Mr VJP]

Almost forgot my favorite analogy:

How many men would be willing to give up their Johnson because the government thought that would prevent all of the rapes in America?

:

[steve863]

Ever see films of the Soviet Union? Fat old ladies out shoveling snow off RR tracks, sidewalks, and the like. They didn't work, they didn't get a paycheck. Everyone worked where & when the gov't told them. You didn't have the choice between being an engineer, or a busboy, a traitorous troll, or a ditch digger. The gov't made the decision. That's what will happen if Barry HuJinTau Obama's policies are allowed to continue in this country.

Yeah, we have all seen films of the old Soviet Union.  You forget that the people living in the old Soviet Union ditched that government a good while ago.  Only people living in LaLa land think that this country now wants to go down that same route.  If you don't like Barry, get someone to run who can beat him in the next election.  Quite simple really.  Complaining about him won't solve much.

[virgil]

2brknot, i think you've gone off the tracks again.  not sure what you're referring to-because i don't use what?  an assault rifle?  who do i need to assault?  you're quick to label me a 'leftist' because i don't want to overthrow the government to 'protect' my rights.  i just don't have any irrational fears that anyone is trying to take away my hunting rifles and shotguns.  get a grip.  you're probably just a gun-loving racist who's pissed off because there is a man of color in the white house.  your obvious paranoia prevents you from considering that anyone should be allowed to have a different view than yours; and makes you quick to question the patriotism or intelligence of sensible gun owners and sportsmen who don't feel the need to carry a gun or sleep with one under our pillows when we're not in the woods hunting (or working on our manifesto in your case).

[Culvercreek hunt club]

2brknot, i think you've gone off the tracks again.  not sure what you're referring to-because i don't use what?  an assault rifle?  who do i need to assault?  you're quick to label me a 'leftist' because i don't want to overthrow the government to 'protect' my rights.  i just don't have any irrational fears that anyone is trying to take away my hunting rifles and shotguns.  get a grip.  you're probably just a gun-loving racist who's pissed off because there is a man of color in the white house.  your obvious paranoia prevents you from considering that anyone should be allowed to have a different view than yours; and makes you quick to question the patriotism or intelligence of sensible gun owners and sportsmen who don't feel the need to carry a gun or sleep with one under our pillows when we're not in the woods hunting (or working on our manifesto in your case).

I will disagree with you on this point...and strongly. the government has not right to tell me any weapon I can have. any weapon I choose to protect my family. The 2A doen't talk about hunting rifles....It should be our choice...period.

Steve...think the world of you...but an armed public can protect itself even from the current military. I look at what the Afgans did to the soviet unioun ....granted with our help in arms. And one thing I think many overlook...our military is not compromised of a bunch of brainless bafoons. I think if the leaders ever tried to bring that force against the American public.....they may get quite a shock. I put a lot of faith in our military people....and i don't mean the ones with all the stars on their shoulders.

Do I think the gov't will be coming any time soon to take my arms away...I don't think so...but I don't think we can give them one step in that direction...a train is a lot easier to keep stopped than it is to stop it once it is moving.