Folks,

I think - again, as an outsider - that Olle made some valid points. I do not believe that draconian laws against firearms ownership is a solution against crime waves or a shooting spree. The current problems with high crime ratings and violence in my country is a vivid proof against such theory.

However, stick to the 2nd Amendment as godspel will not allow you to hold this pósition forever. I'm afraid that, legaly speaking, an Amendment is... an amendment, it can be revoked or modified if the proper proceeding is taken by the Congress, as had happened before. It is only a matter of politics, popular support and lobby.

It remembers me a legal lesson in the Roman-Germanic law that says that someone's right ends when the other's starts. I mean, your right to own a gun should not prevail over the right of protection to those who chose not to or are not entitled to carry a gun (as was the children's case).

In a less technical note, I find difficult to say to those parents who lost theis sons and daughters that your right is untouchable and sacred. Those children should be alive and not in a wooden box. And politically speaking, is a shoot in your own foot.

I know how dangerous is to deal with left wings politicians - I have my own experience with the same subject here - but to refuse to sit at the negociation table and discuss alternatives it will only bring those who are silent or haven't care about this subject until now (the "silent majority") against the firearms owners and NRA. You should be able to be part of the solution and not part of the problem, as it may turned out to be.

I'm not what you call "a liberal". Believe me when I say that we (gun owners outside USA) see you and your rights to bear guns (and its effects against crime) as a great argument against antiguns all around the world. So any defeat over here can reverberate on other places. But, again, you must to be prepared to a wiser move than simply saying "no, we don't discuss this".

With my respects.

Douglas.

It was said that words are often deadlier than bullets, one fired from the silos of the mind can never be recalled, excused nor forgoten! The underestimated power of one finger caused one world war an ended another!!!

One thing that may hurt gun owners more than anything is if something happens to the 2nd Amendment. It can happen, so I think it's in every gun owners interest to protect it by discussing how it should be applied to a modern society, and also showing some flexibility (which should, of course, be shown by both sides). You can't protect the 2nd Amendment by stubbornly clinging on to it as an eternal truth, because it isn't.

What really hurts this debate is that both parties see their opponents as rabid, hard-headed ideologists, and act accordingly. It's not really a creative environment.

Heavy metal classroom doors with a good lock down system would be a first good step. A regular teacher in panic with a lack of gun training is not a resolution for this problem. If there is a need for an armed teacher... then there is something wrong in the society. It's not a school in comanche territory 1850. It must be possible to raise children in a safe, child appropriate environment, without a constant fear.

Tell that to the Israelis.......

How do they secure their schools in Israel?

But can we really compare the US with Israel? There's another level of danger, a more constant threat of terrorist attacks. When my kids went to an elementary school in MD, I was never really concerned that something could happen to them like this.

There is something wrong with society. A lack of moral values and respect, the need for instant gratification, worship of idols, greed, secularization... I grew up in the 60's, and me and my buddies thought we were real gangsters when we made crank calls or stole apples from the neighbor's yard. Now they get high on dope, steal cars and rob convenience stores, all glorified by music, movies and video games. It's a culture that will lead to its own downfall.

Some of the problems stem from bad or lack of parental supervision IMO.

I took my physical wacks with the spanking stick, which was at that time sold in stores as a joke. The wife and her brothers got the strap.

We all turned out just fine.

But then again our parents weren't crack heads either.

Evening CBS news today (Tuesday, December 18th) covered a school in Texas, the name of which I cannot recall, in which teachers carry concealed weapons. I don't know the number of such teachers out of all those in the school. Texas state law allows this.

In the same news article, it was noted that the Governor of Michigan has vetoed a similar law.
I did not note if that veto is history or within the last few days or even today.

Did anyone else see this broadcast and can you by any chance provide any more details.

David

I watched the same newscast and all that I can add is, it was reported that the principle of the Texas school has recieved calls from schools in four other states wanting more information about their program, Missouri was one of them. The Texas school implemented the teacher CC program after a college shooting, can't remember which one.

What the Gov in Michigan vetoed was CC carry overall being allowed in schools and daycares. The Bill had passed and was ready to be signed.

You could tell the media gal interviewing the Texas principle was anti-gun............

Put a police officer in every school in America and pay for it with all the money we give to foreign countries.

I'm sure "Automatic" (semi-automatic) weapons that are magazine fed will be targets for the "Feel Good's". Your Lugers will be on the table, for sure. Sit back, and do nothing. :grr:

Several things said here are incorrect:

The second amendment does not give us a right. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" The second amendment is a law which protects that right.

Reasonably is subjective. The founding fathers believed our rights were ABSOLUTE.

The second amendment is in the BILL OF RIGHTS. Rights cannot be revoked or modified. You opinion that rights are a matter of politics, popular support and lobby decribes the forms of government in most every other nation. But not America.

"endowed by their creator" is an eternal truth.

Marc

I agree.

Your quote is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. The second amendment is not a law, but a change(amendment) to the Constitution, along with nine others ratified by congress and the state legislatures. The first two amendments, of 12 in the original bill, were not ratified. Virginian George Mason (of the Mason-Dixon Line) was most vocal about this so-called bill of rights. I'm glad he mostly got his way

Reasonable might be subjective--to the unreasonable... It implies that a concept is examined in the light of logic and reason, NOT emotion. This process can be quite objective. To insist that the founding fathers crafted the perfect constitution is negated by the fact that there have been many amendments since. I think they did, however, do a pretty good job setting up a framework that could flex with time, circumstances, and reality. On the other hand, dogma tends to be chiseled in stone, its tenets deemed absolute by its followers.

Incorrect. The first ten amendments, like all the rest, may be changed by the amendment process set out in the Constitution--2/3 of both houses plus 3/4 of the states' legislatures. Seems the founding fathers considered it a bad thing to force succeeding generations to live by the rules of their forebears, no matter how inappropriate they may be deemed to be. I think you may be confusing our Constitution with the bible or koran, or the North Korean "constitution".

Or it may be theistic gibberish. My mother and father were joint participants in my creation, so I guess I'm lucky enough to have two! Some of the founding fathers were deists, at most. Check out the bible, as Thomas Jefferson re-wrote it. Read a little bit of "Common Sense" by Thomas Paine, etc. You'll be amazed at how secular these guys were. The first amendment, for example, protects citizens of all beliefs and dis-beliefs, leaving us all to believe what we wish, or not, without fear of persecution.

David Parker

Thank you for added, noncom retired. The college shooting was the horror at Virginia Tech by another mentally incompetent person.

David

I'm sure that someone more educated than me can pick it apart, after all I'm an engineer and not a lawyer so I'm looking at it from a layman's practical view, rather than analyzing exactly how and where the text is written. Anyway, the bottom line is that you seem to think that nothing can change the constitution, while I believe that there is a chance for it to happen.

What I'm looking at is that there have been several amendments to the constitution (one as late as 1992), so it can obviously be done. You can also look at the 18th and the 21st Amendments, it has been a while but they show how fickle politicians can tinker with the constitution. So my question is if there is a way for everybody to agree on how the 2nd Amendment should be applied to a 21th century society. There is obviously a great disagreement between the pro-gun and anti-gun politicians, and I believe the truth is somewhere inbetween.

From a strictly legal standpoint, that may be true. But once again, the amendments show that changes in society have also changed the interpretation of the original constitution. You can call it popular opinion, politics, lobby or whatever, it doesn't change the fact that it can happen.

Popular history tends to be re-written on a regular basis. There was a big revisionist movement in the 20's. Apparently the stuff about Geo. Washington and the cherry tree is a total myth, making its first appearance in recorded/written history at about that time. This is not entirely unlike how German text books were edited, post-war, to help their society deal with the extensive, collective guilt, shame, and consternation concerning their preceding political paradigm and the policies that were carried out. Basically, an entire nation had been duped, or baited and switched by a juggernaut of their own creation, however "well-meaning" it was presumed to be at its inception. And we haven't stopped there.
Robert Green Ingersoll (the Great Agnostic) was a lawyer for the railroads at the turn of the last century, and a very popular speaker on the subject of agnosticism, the bible, and belief. He was the highest paid public speaker in a time before media we take for granted nowadays--film, radio, TV--up to $2.500 per appearance, which in those days was the price of a couple of houses. He neglected to underwrite further efforts in this realm after his death, leaving none of his massive fortune to the cause because he presumed religiosity had been pretty well stamped out. But he was wrong. Myths continue to be created, most significantly one that had resurgence as little as about 20 years ago, that the United States is a Christian nation. This notion is a total fabrication perpetrated and maintained by those who would benefit from it. Its roots lie in thinking that is more like mob rule than democracy. Safeguards in the Constitution, (on paper, anyway) help prevent a majority from trampling the rights of a minority simply because there are , obviously, more people in the former. We have an undeniable Christian (whatever that is, broken into thousands of splits and offshoots) majority. The founding fathers deemed no religious view any more valid than any of the others, and tried to ensure that the basis for legislation NOT have its origins in ANY of them. If this were not the case, there would be an opportunity for a majority with a particular view to hijack the entire country. Religion has no place in politics and overall societal policy; otherwise someone's freedom is curtailed, never fear.

How sad that rights and freedoms one generation has been asked to die for are so willingly relinquished by another on the basis of popular opinion.
Marc

IthicaArtist,
Perhaps a more careful approach would be advisable before “correcting” another’s post. Cdmech never claimed his first quote was from the Constitution. You may disagree but I believe that most view the Declaration as one of our founding documents.
Not accurate, the following from the National Archive Article V
“ amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures
A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States”
Other inaccuracies would include confusing the Virginian George Mason with the Englishman Charles Mason, who with Jeremiah Dixon surveyed the boundary between Maryland and Pennsylvania(the Mason-Dixon Line), and attributing the cherry tree myth of Washington to the”.
That story is first seen in a biography on Washington written by Mason Locke Weems ( A History of the Life and Death, Virtues and Exploits, of General George Washington(1800) either 20 or 120 years before the “revisionist movement” you mention depending on which century you’re referring to.
As to this being a Christian nation, you may be able to argue from a religious standpoint, but I think there's little doubt that this country embraces the philisophical teachings of the man Jesus of Nazareth
I believe that your lack of factual accuracy, opinion masquerading as fact, and the obvious disdain for religion apparent in your posts taints any of the possibly relevant points you make.

So you're confirming that, anyway, the US Constitution can have another Amendment added or an old one revoked or modified. As I said before, it is a matter of a legal proceeding - it might be a difficult task but it can be done if the conjuncture is right.

Regarding Christianism and religion I strongly believe that it must be left out of any political discussion. Religion is a matter of faith, with its dogmas. Although I'm pretty certain that the Chritian guided several principles written by the Founding Fathers in your Constitution, their most important contribution (and its most historically contribution) was to creat a secular Nation, with freedom of religion.

But, again, in my humble opinion, it has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment, laws, and the possibility of changing gun control rules.

Respectfully,

Douglas

One last thing I would like to add is that our founding documents are written in plain english so that anyone of simple mind can understand his freedoms. It takes a lawyer and the educated to confuse them.

Marc

That is true, the problem is that the lawyers and the (supposedly) educated are the ones who have the power to change things. The power is only indirectly with the people, once politicians are voted in they will go their own merry way regardless.

I hope you don't confuse my ideas with those of the lawmakers, what I'm saying is that there is a good chance that they, and not us will come up with new laws. I can see changes coming, and if we approach it with an open mind we can at least steer it in a better direction than assault weapons bans, gun registration and other things we absolutely don't want. If they know that you're not willing to negotiate, they won't invite you to the negotiation.

Lawyers are smart we represent all sides!! Eric, Esq.

A question I have is why didn't any neighbors respond to the sounds of gun shots coming from the school?:grr:
I live across the street from a elementary school. All three of my kids went there. Believe me,if I hear multiple gunshots coming from the school during a school day and see no police swarming the premises,I would be out the door in less then a minute(sound familiar?) with a rifle and a 45. I am sure all you gents would do the same.The "I don't want to get involved" mindset has to be put aside when it comes to gunfire and children.
So what about a program similar to neighborhood watch? The local police could ask for a few volunteers from the school area to just be ready if anything happens.Perhaps a few retired gents who are normally at home. The local public affairs officer could teach some classes and hold a meeting once a month.
The volunteers could use their own approved weapons and have to pass background checks. To make it worthwhile for the volunteers,the police can supply free ammo and let them use the police range for practice.Cost to taxpayer? Negligible.
The other thing that should be done is every teacher and admin person needs a panic button on their PERSON whenever they are at school. It should include a direct signal to the police dept and the school office and it should start up a very loud warning signal,that is not the same as the school bell systems. Perhaps some surplus air raid sirens could be used.
You need a different type of warning signal so that everybody knows when a serious event is occurring. This also ties into my school watch program.When you hear THAT signal,you respond!
Comments?
Bob

"I think,therefore I own guns" Bob..better think that scenario through a little more..running to a school armed like you propose automatically makes you a felon..then it makes you a target of opportunity when the Police do arrive.

Jerry
When the police do respond,they know who you are. You have had meetings with them and have ID that shows you are part of the watch program.
Bob

Don't count on every law enforcement officer responding to the scene from different agencys to remember you or even know that you are a good guy. You could be wasting their time dealing with you while the BG is getting busy inside.

Plus what are the chances of you hearing shots from an enclosed school and you are inside your house. Probably pretty slim.

Gary
Didn't want to hi-jack this wonderful forum. Of course,not all responders will know you. Just throw down and assume the position quickly. As far as having a enclosed school and not hearing shots,that is why a loud panic alarm is a plus. In addition ,our local school district has a phone call alert system,which I am sure could be utilized by watch volunteers.
I understand, you can't have a one size fits all solution. But any comprehensive program that is utilized will be a deterrent to the crazies out there.Right now, because of the usual unintended consequences of anti-gun laws,the schools are now a free fire zone.
If the mentally unstable punk planning on attacking a school knows that local armed citizens are bearing down on him and he has to endure a loud obnoxious siren while he is looking for victims,maybe he will just commit suicide instead.
Bob

Honorable intention Bob - BUT realistically you opening fire in a school and a round fired by you hits a kid.....

Bob..Your heart is in the right place and I am positive any of the fellows I associate with would do exactly as you say..I am just saying it's not necessarily a good plan. Something you might do on the spur of the moment in the heat of battle but these things rarely present themselves. When they do brave people do what they can with what they have to be sure. One other thing..

I live across the street from an elementary school. You Sir.. are in a "gun free zone" 5 years in the grey bar hotel. Kick out the fire and hide!

http://www.gunlaws.com/Gun_Free_School_Zones.htm

Assault is a kind of behavior, not a kind of hardware.


• It's always better to avoid a gunfight than to win one.

• It's always better to win one than to lose one.

• If innocent life doesn't immediately depend on it, don't shoot.

• And if it does, don't miss.

Before you drop the hammer, remember:
You will write a check for your life savings to your lawyer.
Don't do that unless your life depends on it.

Good luck in ever getting that law changed now.

I hope you don't think I'm just picking apart your every post, because rereading this thread I'm afraid that's exactly what I've done.:rolleyes:. Actually you've just forced me to refine my own thoughts.
As far as being "invited to the negotiations", therein is allot of what is wrong with the politicians. Our basic rights are not given to us by man, therefore man cannot rightly take them away. It is non-negotiable. That is why we are not subjects.

Marc

Thanks Gents
Just throwing out ideas about how to do something effective, instead of the same old ineffective "Ban all Guns" chorus!
Bob

What folks need to really do is write their congressman a real letter, and tell them in an articulate way that we really don't need any new laws (stressing first how this awful tragedy was caused by a mad man)

Ed

Marc,

No problem, I just wanted to be sure that you understand that I'm not an advocate for more restrictions. I fully understand and actually agree with most of your points, I'm just looking at it from a different perspective. I guess I have just resigned to the fact that attitudes, culture, politics are constantly changing. Sometimes they will evolve into something better, sometimes they won't, but you can be damn sure that they will evolve somehow. I don't always like it, but it's happening anyway and I can't do very much more than to try and turn it in a direction that's in my favor.