Oops. I got my government atrocities confused. The shortened gun led to the Ruby Ridge Incident, where federal agents murdered some of Randy Weaver's family. The survivors later won a wrongful death case and were awarded millions of dollars. They only survived to collect because they had guns to shoot back at the government agents.

google.com/search?q=ruby+ridge&ie=u ... irefox-b-1

The Waco incident was triggered when agents tried to serve a warrant at the Branch Davidian compound. The warrant is here:

http://www.jaedworks.com/shoebox/waco.html

It's a hodgepodge of suppositions and wishful thinking. The feds and human services wanted to shut down the compound, so they threw that thing together. They found a judge to sign it and it was off to the races. 51 days later they had murdered 82 citizens.

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.

Anyway, in 2014, federal agents were going to confront the Bundy family and probably murder them, the usual M.O. But the government shock forces were met with this:





The government retreated. They grabbed members of the family later and locked them up, tortured them and so on, but in January of this year the charges against them were dropped. A judge reprimanded the feds for grave violations of the law.

The discussion stemming from the Florida school shooting should be about making schools safe, not about depriving law-abiding citizens of guns. We need guns to protect ourselves from the government.

Broward County (where the school shooting took place) is operating under an awful Obama-era policy:

...deputies working as school resource officers in Broward County had their hands tied after the school district overhauled its student conduct code in 2013 with its Collaborative Agreement on School Discipline.

The agreement, developed with partners including the NAACP, the Broward County sheriff and Broward state attorney, included a diversionary program for repeat offenders called PROMISE and listed 14 misdemeanors no longer subject to school-based arrest.

m.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/mar/5/n ... -obama-po/

Fifty school districts across the US adopted this scheme (race-based of course, coming from racist Obama), whereby students wouldn't be charged with crimes committed at school. So, when Cruz showed up with bullets in his backpack, and should have been arrested and put in the NICS system, he wasn't. He was later able to buy a gun because the school didn't file charges. Thanks to Obama.

More on the program:

The new policy resulted from an Obama administration effort begun in 2011 to keep students in school and improve racial outcomes (timeline here), and came against a backdrop of other efforts to rein in perceived excesses in "zero tolerance" discipline policies, including in Florida.

Broward school Superintendent Robert W. Runcie – a Chicagoan and Harvard graduate with close ties to President Obama and his Education Department – signed an agreement with the county sheriff and other local jurisdictions to trade cops for counseling. Students charged with various misdemeanors, including assault, would now be disciplined through participation in “healing circles,” obstacle courses and other “self-esteem building” exercises.

Asserting that minority students, in particular, were treated unfairly by traditional approaches to school discipline, Runcie’s goal was to slash arrests and ensure that students, no matter how delinquent, graduated without criminal records.

realclearinvestigations.com/articles/20 ... oting.html

School safety can be improved by eliminating that policy. Commit a serious crime in school, face charges. If you're convicted, then that may stop you from buying a gun later.

KindaSkolarly wrote:. . . The 2nd amendment is very clear on gun ownership. NO laws limiting ownership should exist.

Not even remotely true. Even the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, a Ronald Reagan appointee, said that the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” It is “not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

That last line is a direct quote by the way:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_ ... _v._Heller

What if a gun were invented that could vaporize a 20-story building? Would that be protected by the Second Amendment as well? Could we all go out and buy Vaporizer Guns with less paperwork than it takes to drive a car? Of course not. As Justice Scalia wrote, and the Supreme Court has ruled, the right to bear arms is not unlimited, and guns will continue to be regulated.

I don't know what's scarier: that dangerous and mentally unstable people are murdering innocent people on the streets of America with increasing regularity, or that there's a growing religious cult of gun fanatics, who have no understanding of constitutional law and who "interpret" the Second Amendment any way they see fit, based on lies spoon-fed to them by the NRA.

Well, if any tinpot Korean dictator can have nukes, then obviously we need our own nukes to defend ourselves. I think I found a place on the dark web that will sell me mine.

Social polarisation produces a politics of over-reach. People make ambit claims, expecting that the political negotiation process will lead to a partial result. But in the case of guns in the USA, the ambit claims have been successful, and children get subsidised bazookas (joke).

What tends to happen when an ambit claim unexpectedly wins is that it generates a reaction, a social backlash that ends up delivering a worse outcome from the advocates' perspective than would have occurred if they had had the sense to negotiate in the first place by giving up on their unrealistic ambit claims.

The most sensible thing the NRA could do now is come out from its bunker with its hands up, and call for restrictions on assault rifles. Otherwise they might not like how a post-2020 anti-Trump Democratic Presidency reacts to the Florida groundswell.

But no doubt Geo is right about the fanatical gun cult, and there are NRA supporters who are gunning for a civil war to install a military dictatorship. Their line of thinking, ala Westboro, seems to be to purge the commo trash, based on an intransigent blinkered religious sense of righteous anger that will brook no dealings with the subhuman faggoty city-dwellers who want to take away their assault rifles.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.