• In total there are 31 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 31 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 789 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:08 am

The Left's Children's Crusade

A forum dedicated to friendly and civil conversations about domestic and global politics, history, and present-day events.
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.

All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
KindaSkolarly

1E - BANNED
Doctorate
Posts: 512
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2017 3:53 pm
7
Location: Texas
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 104 times

Re: The Left's Children's Crusade

Unread post

"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."

infringe - act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.

That's the second amendment to the US Constitution, plus a definition. The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Not "should not" be infringed, "shall not" be infringed.

I know eight-year-olds who can tell me what the statement means.

Lots of different judges have had lots of different opinions on the amendment. And yes, I should be able to own a vaporizer. The federal government should not limit my ownership of one. Cannot, according to the Second Amendment. But if local voters want to limit the ownership, that's a different matter. That's not the federal government violating its governing document. If I want to own a vaporizer then I should move to a place that allows them. True, the place wouldn't exist for long...

I think I'll start a thread on the Bill of Rights here someday. I can't tell if you leftists honestly don't understand the document or if you just pretend not to.

I may start a gun thread too. This one is supposed to be about the despicable way that leftists are using a school shooting to advance an anti-gun agenda. I suspect that leftists on this thread harp on the gun thing because it draws attention away from Obama's hand in the murders. And the over-drugging of children. Leftists crave control, and drugging people is a way to achieve that.

Image
User avatar
LanDroid

2A - MOD & BRONZE
Comandante Literario Supreme
Posts: 2800
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2002 9:51 am
21
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Has thanked: 195 times
Been thanked: 1166 times
United States of America

Re: The Left's Children's Crusade

Unread post

KindaSkolarly wrote: And yes, I should be able to own a vaporizer.
Based on your erratic rhetoric I think we can trust you to operate one of those, but not much else. :P
Attachments
vaporizer.jpg
vaporizer.jpg (44.12 KiB) Viewed 8747 times
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4779
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2198 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

Re: The Left's Children's Crusade

Unread post

KindaSkolarly wrote:"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."
Yes, the Second Amendment's emphasis was on the militias, not on private individuals, as many constitutional scholars have discussed over the years. Either way, there are different views on the subject. Though it's your opinion that the Second Amendment absolutely guarantees individual rights to own any gun, that's not the case in the real world. If you don't believe me, why don't you walk down the street carrying a loaded Thompson (Tommy) gun without a permit and see what happens.

One of the purposes of the Constitution is to strike a balance between society’s need for order and the individual’s right to freedom. We give up certain rights in order to live in an orderly society. Else, as Thomas Hobbes said, we descend into a nasty, brutish, and short existence. That's why we look at the founder's intentions and try to apply them to the modern world. Not always an easy task. Certainly not as black and white as you make it out.

And then my final, final point would be that our citizens don't need guns to keep our government in check nearly as much as they need to be educated and well-informed.

Note: I edited this post a couple of times today.
-Geo
Question everything
KindaSkolarly

1E - BANNED
Doctorate
Posts: 512
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2017 3:53 pm
7
Location: Texas
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 104 times

Re: The Left's Children's Crusade

Unread post

Well, whether it's true ignorance of the Bill of Rights or just pretending not to understand the document, you folks do yourselves no favors. Pol Pot disarmed Cambodians before he murdered the "educated and well-informed" in that country. Let's dig them up and ask them how come their brains didn't fare better against the government's guns. A country of 3 million, 1 million murdered because they were "smart." Really, because Pol Pot feared opposition, he ordered the execution of "smart" people. If you wore eyeglasses, you were killed. Our founding fathers knew that things like that could happen. Massachusetts knew it too, once. At the time that the Constitution was implemented, every head of household in Massachusetts had to own a firearm.

But back to the subject at hand--school shootings.

Accused Parkland shooter Nikolas Cruz is apparently going to plead not guilty to the charges:

msn.com/en-us/news/us/florida-judge-ent ... ar-BBKdmAS

It sounds as if he has a pretty good defense.

A teacher said she saw what she thought was a cop doing the shooting:

mikesheedy.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/ ... eacher.mp4

She described the shooter in metal armor, helmet, etc., shooting a type of rifle she'd never seen. AR-15s are all over the news, we've all seen them, teachers are trained for shooting scenarios, but she saw a gun like one she'd never seen. Cruz had purchased an AR.

Minutes after the shooting, police were seen hustling a duffel bag out of the school. An active crime scene, removing evidence:

mikesheedy.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/ ... police.mp4

One witness said she was with Cruz when gunfire was going off:

mikesheedy.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/ ... erview.mp4

Another witness said she heard gunfire coming from multiple points:

mikesheedy.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/ ... erview.mp4

Cruz may have pleaded not guilty of his own accord, or the plea may have been entered out of procedural necessity. Whatever the case, he definitely has reasonable doubt on his side. Possible evidence tampering as well.
User avatar
DWill

1H - GOLD CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6966
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
16
Location: Luray, Virginia
Has thanked: 2262 times
Been thanked: 2470 times

Re: The Left's Children's Crusade

Unread post

KindaSkolarly wrote: The 2nd amendment is very clear on gun ownership. NO laws limiting ownership should exist. I don't see a problem with denying an individual the right to guns if s/he has demonstrated a danger in that area (like pulling a driver's license after a DUI), but should we ban EVERYONE from driving just because one person is dangerous behind the wheel?

A good piece on what the 2nd Amendment means:

http://krisannehall.com/lesson-gun-control-2/?pdf=24844

Guns are necessary to keep government from becoming abusive. The Bundy Ranch Standoff is a good example of this. In 2014 there was an armed standoff between agents of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and supporters of Cliven Bundy. The BLM claimed he owed the government a million bucks for grazing rights. The BLM is notorious for seizing private property. They work with organizations like the Clinton Foundation, which helped furnish Russia with 20% of America's uranium in the Uranium One deal. Some of that uranium will be coming off of lands seized by the BLM.
You'd have us believe that the Second Amendment was put in to affirm the right of citizens to form militias against the very government that the Constitution defines. That's a tortured and wrong reading of the amendment. The "well regulated militia" is clearly an adjunct of the state, considered necessary to protect it from threats. There was no standing army in 1791; there were no government army soldiers or government-issued weapons. From the wording of the Amendment, we can assume that the writers of the Constitution considered having firearms to be a right of citizens. I've never denied that. But it's an open question whether this right would have been enshrined in the Constitution had not militias been considered so important. After all, the Constitution itself says there exist more rights than the document explicitly protects. When the ownership of guns became essentially irrelevant to the national defense, the rationale for the Second Amendment disappeared. In other words, the reason for saying the right to bear arms shall not be infringed disappeared. It strains credulity that the founders of the government would have believed that some other interest existed important enough to justify a modern belief that anything to do with guns must be beyond the reach of legislation. That they would witness U.S. citizens infringing "the security of a free state" by murdering other citizens in droves and not think laws should be adjusted, is unthinkable.
User avatar
LanDroid

2A - MOD & BRONZE
Comandante Literario Supreme
Posts: 2800
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2002 9:51 am
21
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Has thanked: 195 times
Been thanked: 1166 times
United States of America

Re: The Left's Children's Crusade

Unread post

DWill wrote:You'd have us believe that the Second Amendment was put in to affirm the right of citizens to form militias against the very government that the Constitution defines. That's a tortured and wrong reading of the amendment. The "well regulated militia" is clearly an adjunct of the state, considered necessary to protect it from threats.
Yes. The role of militias provided by the U.S. Constitution is very different from modern gun culture propaganda.
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15
Under Article 1, this "calling forth" can be done only by Congress. The clause lists only three reasons why this can be done.
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16
This clarifies even further who is in charge of militias, quite the opposite of contemporary misconceptions!
User avatar
Harry Marks
Bookasaurus
Posts: 1920
Joined: Sun May 01, 2011 10:42 am
12
Location: Denver, CO
Has thanked: 2335 times
Been thanked: 1020 times
Ukraine

Re: The Left's Children's Crusade

Unread post

geo wrote: Yes, the Second Amendment's emphasis was on the militias, not on private individuals, as many constitutional scholars have discussed over the years. Either way, there are different views on the subject. Though it's your opinion that the Second Amendment absolutely guarantees individual rights to own any gun, that's not the case in the real world.
You mean they might have left out the "militias" part if that was their intent? Not one of Scalia's most consistent moments as an originalist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_ ... _v._Heller
geo wrote: If you don't believe me, why don't you walk down the street carrying a loaded Thompson (Tommy) gun without a permit and see what happens.
Me, I'm bringing my howitzer. That way the guy with the Tommy gun doesn't even get close enough to use it.
geo wrote:And then my final, final point would be that our citizens don't need guns to keep our government in check nearly as much as they need to be educated and well-informed.
That's elitist talk. If guns were good enough for David Koresh and Cliven Bundy, they're good enough for me. Only wusses rely on rule of law.
KindaSkolarly

1E - BANNED
Doctorate
Posts: 512
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2017 3:53 pm
7
Location: Texas
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 104 times

Re: The Left's Children's Crusade

Unread post

My earlier post on this was deleted.

I pointed out that the left-wing party in America, the Democrats, recruit from the ignorant and ill-informed. They have to because people with any sense at all can see through their BS. But the latest recruitment ploy, the reach into the pool of juveniles, is beyond disgusting. And they're not even recruiting voters, they're recruiting child soldiers. Marchers.

But people are beginning to see this for the despicable act it is.

Chicago GOP to File Lawsuit Against Chicago Public Schools: Student Walkout ‘Political Indoctrination, Pure and Simple’

“It’s appalling that 10 to 14-year-old kids would be coerced, by their teachers, to participate in a political demonstration,” said Chris Cleveland, chairman of the Chicago GOP, in a statement. “A 10-year-old kid isn’t going to have an informed opinion on these political matters, and shouldn’t be expected to have the fortitude to hold a different opinion from everyone else in his or her classroom. This is political indoctrination, pure and simple.”

http://12160.info/page/chicago-gop-to-fil

Clear evidence of how ill-informed the children being used as pawns are. This student thinks an AR-15 makes deer explode:

https://youtu.be/KZzwsaK6abA

And if you don't go along with the propagandizing...

High School Teacher Placed on Leave after Questioning National School walkout

12160.info/profiles/blogs/high-school-t ... e=activity

What's being done with the children is clearly child abuse. School administrators who facilitate the abuse should be fired. And Clooney and Soros and the rest who have contributed money to this should be looked at for facilitating child abuse.
User avatar
DWill

1H - GOLD CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6966
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
16
Location: Luray, Virginia
Has thanked: 2262 times
Been thanked: 2470 times

Re: The Left's Children's Crusade

Unread post

I haven't seen anything that supports the accusation of manipulation of the children. Certainly there's nothing that does in your links. Is the contention that kids have nothing really to be scared of, so the only possible reason for their protest must be that they're proxies for gun-hating adults? I think it's pretty silly to say that students shouldn't speak unless they have workable, technically correct policy proposals. That's supposed to be the work of the adults who run things. The students are filling a void in leadership.

The student who spoke about AR-15s being high-powered weapons may be technically wrong. That doesn't mean his protest is empty. We hear this "gunsplainin'" all the time from your side. Getting the gun details wrong isn't nearly as big a deal as you make it out to be.
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4779
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2198 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

Re: The Left's Children's Crusade

Unread post

KindaSkolarly wrote: Chicago GOP to File Lawsuit Against Chicago Public Schools: Student Walkout ‘Political Indoctrination, Pure and Simple’
The GOP has come a long way since William F. Buckley Jr., who once said, "Conservatives pride themselves on resisting change, which is as it should be. But intelligent deference to tradition and stability can evolve into intellectual sloth and moral fanaticism, as when conservatives simply decline to look up from dogma because the effort to raise their heads and reconsider is too great."

How true these words have come to be. Today the GOP is devoid of ideas and seems to exist only to react against the ideas of the left. As David Brooks recently noted, "Conservatism is now less a political or philosophic movement and more a separatist subculture that participates in its own ostracism." This is a prime example. Instead of working to improve our nation's gun laws, they put all their energy into putting up barriers to those who do want change. While there is probably some truth to these charges of political indoctrination, the GOP is still doing nothing constructive here. They created this atmosphere with their long-standing alliance with the NRA and far-right ideology and now all they can do is cry foul with the inevitable backlash.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/01/opin ... collection
-Geo
Question everything
Post Reply

Return to “Current Events & History”