|
|
Post by vinsanity on Apr 21, 2008 8:34:27 GMT -5
My logic isn't flawed...
There is a huge difference in stating that anyone who is "of age" should be able to vote versus being someone "of age" being allowed to own/carry a weapon. You simply cannot compare these two points as a vote does not have the ability to gun down anyone in the street.
In your own position you see daily the effects of irresponsible gun ownership. I believe that carrying a gun and voting are privileges. Privileges that can be earned at certain ages, but that can be taken away should the individual prove not responsible enough to have them.
You ask... "And since when did upright, freedom-loving Americans let THE LAW (as defined by activist judges and liberal lawmakers) define what is RIGHT? Abortion on demand is the best example--totally legal, but always immoral and wrong. Always."
To that I would answer... The LAW is what defines right and wrong in this country. It is the LAW that allows gun ownership in the first place. It is when morality is mixed with the law that problems arise. I would think that most Americans want law and order. Abortion is the perfect example of mixing morality and the law. Some people feel that the government has the right to mandate this issue, others do not. But those who do ALWAYS state that it is a morality issue. Perhaps people should keep their morality in their homes and churches. If they did this argument could be settled. I seem to remember the founding fathers mentioning something about the importance of not mixing church and state...
And why is it that most all conservatives feel that judges are activists and that lawmakers are liberal? If that assertion is fact, then why do conservatives not become judges or lawmakers? Oh wait, they do. That is why we end up with legislation like the Patriot Act. PLEASE... there are PLENTY of conservatives making laws in this nation. That argument is the most flawed I have seen in a long time.
As to saying "oh well" to how our kids behave, I personally did not do that. But I, like yourself, are in the VAST minority on this point. I agree 100% that we should and must insist on better from our children. But what you and I do in our homes is not effective across the entire nation. Young people today are far less educated and equipped to handle the stresses of daily life. And that is SOLELY the fault of their parents. We are raising a nation of idiots who care only about themselves and WE will pay for it.
Our expectations for our nation are not that different, Red... I feel that we both want individual freedons respected. We both demand a high level of personal responsibility as well.
|
|
Death's Shadow
LPmember
I have become Death. The destroyer of worlds.
Posts: 3,184 
|
Post by Death's Shadow on Apr 21, 2008 10:59:37 GMT -5
To me what it boils down too is...
I should have the right to protect myself. The people that wish to do harm to others ( nut jobs that plan and do mass shootings) will obtain guns lawfully or unlawfully. If they have made the choice that they are going to carry out their plan, they could care less about the laws that tell him he can not carry guns on that property.
Our constitution gives us the right to keep and bear arms. It doesn't say you have to be 21, it doesn't state what type of arms, it doesn't state were you can and can not have them.
In the end I choose personal responsibility. Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
RedRock
LPmember
Never ask what kind of computer a person uses--if it's a Mac, he'll say; if not, why embarrass him?
Posts: 4,972
|
Post by RedRock on Apr 21, 2008 13:28:16 GMT -5
My logic isn't flawed... There is a huge difference in stating that anyone who is "of age" should be able to vote versus being someone "of age" being allowed to own/carry a weapon. You simply cannot compare these two points as a vote does not have the ability to gun down anyone in the street. I disagree. To me, the vote is far more dangerous and deleterious than the infinitesimal risk of a berserker with a gun on an isolated campus, as the vote affects all of us and for generations in our freedoms, economy, and security. The pimple-faced, government-educated, sheeple who vote for feel-good "hope" and "change" but haven't the slightest idea what that means and instead give us huge socialist programs are doing me and my family far more damage than the college student who wishes to exercise her Constitutional right to keep and bear arms to protect herself from rape while walking to her dorm from the library. I see irresponsible BEHAVIOR, not ownership, with all sorts of weapons and items, including adult beverages, motorcycles, and scissors. We slaughter some 50,000 Americans on the road every year with our vehicles, but somehow we accept that as ok, but let one nut job break multiple laws and shoot up a classroom, and suddenly guns are a "major" problem to control or eliminate. And we keep on driving.... Yet, in America, the Constitution makes them RIGHTS, not privileges. A privilege, for example, is a driving license, granted by the state to its citizens it deems worthy and safe enough to use a vehicle. My earlier arguments have been that the Constitution should be changed to make voting a privilege, however, or at least not realized until a much later age. Violation of certain US laws, however, does allow the government to take away many rights, including gun ownership and voting. Let me refresh your memory: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." NOTHING there about you can't have religion in our government or schools, and NOTHING there about laws can't have a religious, or even moral (morality is not necessarily God-based), foundation to them. Government just can't say you will worship as the Catholics do or not as the Muslims do, etc. No, it is the withdrawal of God's basic laws from our everyday life in public that has been bringing this country slowly down since WWII. And no, just because gun-haters elected to office make it a law that a citizen cannot keep or use firearms, contrary to the Constitution, and just because there are liberal judges who won't decide those cases based on the Constitution but instead upon liberal beliefs and European law, that does not make the "LAW" right! Remember, this entire country was founded on the concept that "THE LAW" (the King's laws of Great Britain) and how they were carried out, were WRONG to Americans, and it was right to replace them with correct laws. God defines what is right and wrong. Man codifies that, and his own beliefs, into civil laws at his own whim and for his own purposes, but that doesn't change the fundamental right and wrong of it, it merely makes it (to man) legal or illegal. The murder of the unborn is always wrong, no matter what civil law says. That such activities tremendously harm our society is why laws should make such activities illegal. Abortion is the best example of activist judges! Liberal judges can find no place in the Constitution stating that the termination of an unborn child is a "right" of a woman or of anyone, yet by stretching the law to fulfill their liberal leanings, suddenly "the right to privacy" includes the supposed "right" to kill the unborn. The Patriot act should be strengthened, not weakened. It's the liberals now working to defeat or weaken this important tool in the war on terror, and it doesn't threaten the freedoms of law-abiding Americans. Yep, some conservatives become judges and lawmakers, and some actually teach college, but not nearly enough, as the liberals block or hinder conservatives from progressing in the appointment process or in academic success. Well, Brother Vinnie, you are certainly correct there, and you are undoubtedly just as sincere, and disgusted about the situation in general, as I am. Which is a ton! But I admit, I do not know how to bridge the gap between us without compromising what is just and right. So I'll end here, and give you the last word, if you want it. Thanks for discussing it openly with me! |
|
|
|
Post by vinsanity on Apr 21, 2008 15:50:47 GMT -5
I don't need the last word. That is not what is important to me. What is important is that people like us work to make things better, regardless of the way we choose to go about it. We just see things differently.
|
|
Lamron
Benevolent Dictator
Posts: 5,225
|
Post by Lamron on Apr 21, 2008 19:38:22 GMT -5
|
|
Pvt._Michaels
LPmember
AMERICA......it was nice while it lasted.
Posts: 365
|
Post by Pvt._Michaels on Apr 22, 2008 12:03:54 GMT -5
Time for the Pvt. to weigh in.. Great discussion, BTW.
Two points I will attempt to make. 1.) expect responsibility from young people early
2.) Enforce laws already on the books AGGRESSIVELY.
The tone of the arguments here, so far, are really about "should we expect & demand responsibility from 18 yr. olds...and, from young adults in general...."
As for being responsible to carry a weapon on campus: (also, Lowering drinking ages)
I say YES, let them carry if they are qualified & are offering to be RESPONSIBLE.
A HUGE aspect of this argument is our "culture" of prolonged adolescence.
Think about it... We ( western society) demand virtually nothing from young people anymore.
In an era when college grads come back to the empty nest and ruminate about
"...what do I want to do....?" the rest of us accept this..? Take trade schools, apprentice programs, etc. These used to be noble & necessary alternatives to college training, where folks made a great living & provided much needed skills and services.
Where has all this gone?
Not everyone is going to be a doctor, lawyer (no more of them please!), or Wall St. tycoon.
It wasn't too long ago that
if you were going to be a machinist, carpenter, pipe fitter, millwright, electrician, HVAC technician, etc... you were preparing in high school and lining up apprentice programs and
preparing to be a RESPONSIBLE contributor to your society. You did this early on. It is now
politically incorrect to even suggest that there is an alternative to college degrees.
Until very recent history, European society EXPECTED that school kids finish with high school at 16 and either go to college or qualify for a trade program. At the same time they were expected to be RESPONSIBLE adults....at 16...! They could drink, smoke, etc. Since they were EXPECTED to be adults & consequently responsible, they assimilated quickly and acted...well, like adults! Now, we think we must herd them all off to college to get INDOCTRINATED.
The other side of expecting responsible behavior is dealing with consequences ( law enforcement).
Here in the Chicago area all we here about these days is the "gun" violence. There have been 15-20 high school age inner city kids killed by guns this year already. Of course, ALL of these have been gang/drug related. The Honoroable Mayor Daly has long (20 yrs) made it illegal for any one to own a hand gun in Chicago. But, he and all the hangers on (the Governor, Barack Hussein Obummer, etc) now claim that the problem is the gun manufacturers, the LEGAL gun shop owners, Federal Firearms license holders, Illinois gun laws, the Constitution, Blah Blah Blah.... This is the easy way out for a Politician. The politician says " lets go after the 98% of society that is law abiding and owns guns legally"
Let's punish them and encroach on the Constitution so it looks like we care and are actually doing something.
Reality is that they would NEVER actually direct law enforcement and the D-A to aggressively
enforce the laws pertaining to gang violence (RICO), gun crimes, ,etc. A 14 year old gang banger with a Tech 9 that uses it to commit crime needs to be put away and tried as an adult. Illegal immigrant MS 13 members using AK 47s to do their crimes need to be put into chain gangs on the border to build fences & sent back after they are finished. Let all would be criminals see first hand the consequences of acting irresponsibly. But, no. No one will dare suggest that the culture of gangs, drug violence, be addressed. Just Take all guns away & everything will be ok.
As for nutball campus shooters..... Why do they always pick a college? As nutty as they are, do you think they'd actually consider going down into the Chicago ghetto and start shooting the place up when they have a perfectly safe haven as an alternative?
I'd feel a whole lot better if I knew that responsible peers of my kid were on campus with a legal weapon.... Instead of dozens of dead students there might have been a chance at VT to take the guy out early in his rampage.... SUMMARY: Expect & demand responsibility from ALL!
The Pvt.
|
|
|
|
Post by vinsanity on Apr 22, 2008 13:54:48 GMT -5
PVT: I agree 100% that as a society, we have failed in properly rearing our young people. My generation (X) is the worst batch of parents that I have ever seen. I attribute that failure to their parents, the baby boomers. Boomers failed to raise their kids with the same level of respect for hard work, ethics, and basic values that their parents instilled in them. I suppose it can be attributed to the wealth that the boomers have enjoyed. They made it way too easy on us gen-Xers and we as a result have been piss poor parents ourselves. The truly sad thing is that I see no efforts to reverse this downward spiral in our nation.
I also agree that a HUGE part of the problem revolves around allowing youth to come back home to live in a comfy home. If they were forced to survive on their own, they would have to or die. But the boomers are far to worried about their image among their peers than being proper parents.
I know this is not the ase with ALL boomer parents, but frankly we did not get where we are due to stellar parenting by the boomer generation.
As to guns on campus, I must again disagree with the idea that students should be armed. I know from being on a campus for four years that campus officers being armed helps maintain order. That is enough weapons on campus.
|
|
|
|
Post by Urumii-Previously ThePresident on Apr 22, 2008 14:23:23 GMT -5
The people in power need to make a much greater effort to fix and punish THE PARENTS. If a kid is a bully at a school, going out of his way to make everyone that is different than him feel like sh!t, it is almost always how he was raised. There are the few who are actually crazy, but in most cases those people are the loners, not the "popular kids" who are most of the bullying problem. The parents need to be brought in to the school to have a meeting with an untimatem. If you don't straighten your kid up, he WILL NOT be allowed to come back to school.
But instead what the schools do is tell them "Don't do that". Almost never any punishment, just a quick don't do that. When has any kid said, "Oh, well, darn I never thought of it that way". 1 out of 1000. If the kid is obviously causing many problems, they need to shape up or ship out. And it needs to be the parents who do this. Unfortunately there are a few problems with that.
Parents don't like to be told they are doing a bad job. And they don't want to be told their kid is a bad student. And whenever the school does something "unfair" to one of their kids, they get all upset. No kid left behind, everybody treated equal. BULL SH!T!!! If your kid is going around knockin books out of people hands, stealing their stuff when the're away, throwings rocks and sticks, bashing their heads into concrete walls. THEY NEED TO BE PUT IN JAIL!!!! If they were doing these things in a law enforced public, they would be arrested. But the schools can somehow make up their own laws and choose to ignore the ones put in place by the government. But then we get back to the parents. They aren't going to allow their kids to be put in jail. I don't see why we can't just do that. It shouldn't matter what the parents think, its against the law.
For anything to get solved even a little bit, the schools need to change their policies. Even before it becomes a fight with the parents. The teachers at the schools are not allowed to do anything to a misbehaving student past saying "Stop that" or "Go to the office". They can't physically put them in a chair if they are running around the classroom. They can't swear or yell, the most they can do is call the office and have them send somebody up who can.
This is the biggest problem I see. The teachers, who are with the kids for 6-7 hours a day, even more than their own parents (with sleeping factored in), need to be able to discipline the kids as necessary. And they need to be able to do it when a problem arises, however they see fit. The teachers are the ones raising the kids, and it needs to be a joint effort with both the parents and the teachers.
I don't even know if that made any sense... it just pisses me off, as I was a victim of extreme abuse in the schools, and I understood exactly why and how to fix it. I wish I could go back and give the administration a piece of my mind with what I know now.
Well, to get back on topic....
Guns go bang LOL
|
|
|
|
Post by vinsanity on Apr 22, 2008 17:32:11 GMT -5
Already this week (and it is only Tuesday) THREE high school students at two different schools in our county have been arrested for making threats against their schools. The parents of these kids obviously have no idea what their kids are up to. I hope these three aren't allowed to carry weapons on any college campus where their supervision will be even less than in their own homes.
|
|
Lamron
Benevolent Dictator
Posts: 5,225
|
Post by Lamron on Apr 22, 2008 21:54:01 GMT -5
2.) Enforce laws already on the books AGGRESSIVELY. Sounds good to me! Under Federal law, you can get the death penalty for trying to prevent someone from exercising their right to carry a gun. |
|
|
|
Post by vinsanity on Apr 23, 2008 8:23:47 GMT -5
2.) Enforce laws already on the books AGGRESSIVELY. Sounds good to me! Under Federal law, you can get the death penalty for trying to prevent someone from exercising their right to carry a gun. What specific law states this? I would like to read it. |
|
RedRock
LPmember
Never ask what kind of computer a person uses--if it's a Mac, he'll say; if not, why embarrass him?
Posts: 4,972
|
Post by RedRock on Apr 23, 2008 13:21:59 GMT -5
Already this week (and it is only Tuesday) THREE high school students at two different schools in our county have been arrested for making threats against their schools. The parents of these kids obviously have no idea what their kids are up to. I hope these three aren't allowed to carry weapons on any college campus where their supervision will be even less than in their own homes. Those types will carry whether they are allowed or not. Duuuuh! Which is why the peace-loving, honest, hard-working, decent, law-abiding students should be allowed to carry to be able to protect themselves from pieces of trash like the first group, should the occasion happen, and like they already can away from the campus! This is fear in its worst example--depriving decent people of rights and security because of a few bad apples. Remember, all that's necessary for evil to triumph is for a good man to do nothing. Sort of like looking at the islamofascists and saying, if we'll only let them alone, they won't hurt us! |
|
Lamron
Benevolent Dictator
Posts: 5,225
|
Post by Lamron on Apr 23, 2008 18:14:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by vinsanity on Apr 23, 2008 19:09:53 GMT -5
After reading the statue it is clear that one cannot be sentenced to death for trying to prevent someone from carrying a gun UNLESS you kill them or attempt to kill them, or sexually assault them. |
|
|
|
Post by Sgt_Blueberry on Apr 23, 2008 19:35:20 GMT -5
So..................what would you call Waco? ; or any of the other "compound" stand-offs??
I remember most of them centering around BEARING arms.....
When I hear the press say "compound" I alway sigh and think that some poor smuck is getting pounded on because he believes in the Right to bare arms.....
This is a big can of worms................
|
|
