The jumping off discussion area for the rest of the Deck. All things Lakewood.
Please check out our other sections. As we refile many discussions from the past into
their proper sections please check them out and offer suggestions.
This morning over 300 LHS students, teachers, administrators and guards took the the streets to protest gun violence in schools, and well everywhere. Students tired of hearing about one school shooting after another could not stand anymore and exercised their right to protest.
Soon enough Students, LHS Administration, school guards, turned back into the school.
Heading back in.
It all ended as peacefully as it started.
In a country with more mass shootings than days of the year, it has to be hard going into a school which way too often ends up the scene of another mass shooting.
Thanks to the students who sent in photos, and the administration and guards who joined them and allowed them to protest peacefully.
.
Jim O'Bryan
Lakewood Resident
"The very act of observing disturbs the system." Werner Heisenberg
"If anything I've said seems useful to you, I'm glad.
If not, don't worry. Just forget about it." His Holiness The Dalai Lama
I guess the world has changed, in the 1960s if a bunch of highschool kids walked out during school hours, they would have a second chance to meet, detention hall. The meeting with their parents, that cared then, would not have been pleasant. At least 200 kids out of 1,500 in this protest, and I noticed the same rhetoric signage from the world that's void of reality, liberalism. I guess they don't teach civics any more because this nation is a constitutional republic of united states. They don't even know who to complain to, abortion is not a constitutional right. The people's state representatives decide on the laws governing it. The 2nd Amendment was included specifically to protect the people's liberty from their government, state or federal, but I could be wrong, it's been decades since I was in 3rd grade civics.
In the 1950s a much smaller percentage of American teenagers attended high school. But they did not have as many school shootings or mass shootings or mass shootings at schools to get upset about.
The founding fathers solved this problem by not inventing revolvers or semi-automatic firearms. They also did not invent schooling: most kids did not go to school back then. There were no convenience stores or banks to rob, and no good roads to escape on. They must have planned it that way. Perhaps even with divine inspiration and reasoning informed by profound knowledge of the classics and scripture.
I sold shotgun shells to any adult customer at the Elyria k-mart in 1996. At that point in history it would have been possible to source production to South Korea or Taiwan and sell semi-automatic handguns at k-mart for $99.99 a piece. Granted, they would have probably broken after firing a few clips. But the important thing is that the Founding Fathers did not invent massive Diesel engine cargo ships and K-Marts for a reason. God specifically told them not to when they ratified the Constitution and its amendments.
[quote="ryan costa"]In the 1950s a much smaller percentage of American teenagers attended high school. But they did not have as many school shootings or mass shootings or mass shootings at schools to get upset about.
The founding fathers solved this problem by not inventing revolvers or semi-automatic firearms. They also did not invent schooling: most kids did not go to school back then. There were no convenience stores or banks to rob, and no good roads to escape on. They must have planned it that way. Perhaps even with divine inspiration and reasoning informed by profound knowledge of the classics and scripture.
I sold shotgun shells to any adult customer at the Elyria k-mart in 1996. At that point in history it would have been possible to source production to South Korea or Taiwan and sell semi-automatic handguns at k-mart for $99.99 a piece. Granted, they would have probably broken after firing a few clips. But the important thing is that the Founding Fathers did not invent massive Diesel engine cargo ships and K-Marts for a reason. God specifically told them not to when they ratified the Constitution and its amendments.[/quote]
DOE 1960 statists show that 78 percent of kids were graduating from high school and in 2017, it increased to 85 percent, a marginal increase that has nothing to do with school violence. The most devastating school massacre was on May 18, 1927, at Bath Consolidated School when a bomb killed 38 students and 6 adults, so school violence is not new. In 1937 a gas explosion in killed 294, 1908 fire killed 175, and 1958 fire killed 95.
At the time the colonies were considered one of the most literate countries in the world. Children did go to local schools or were home taught, learning basic reading, writing, and arithmetic. Why, because they were very devoting Christians and read the bible.
The first conflict in the revolutionary war was at Lexington, when 77 common men in the local militia lean by a common man fought the British force of 700 as delaying tactic. The Brits were on their way to Concord to disarm the militias, seize cannon, powder and shot. A third of these men died, giving time for 2,000 men in various militias organize and defeat the British troops They harass them all the way back to Boston and eventually force them to abandon the town. We should never forget that these men using their personal weapons that gave their life is the reason we are not subjects, but citizens in a constitutional republic.
It appears your experience with firearms selling shotgun shells to adults was limited. Unless it on sale, at $127, the Cobra Arms Freedom .380 handgun is the least-expensive newly manufactured firearm in the US today. Handguns don’t use clips; they use magazines unless they are a revolver. Are you against people owing firearms due to their income?
Your opinion the founders never meant to allow citizens to have modern weapons, disregarding the fact some owned cannons that donated to the cause or had them made, lack facts. The purpose of second amendment right to bear arms is to defend We the People’s liberty and from a tyrannical government. Never doubt that power corrupts power, and when a government attempts to disarm We the People, it wants a subservient people.
I do not claim to know what the founders intended. Each state convention had to ratify it it seems as brief and general and vague as possible, for the practicality of getting it over with. It is better to make fun of people of people that quibble over what the founders intended. Both “I want guns” and “I want some gun control laws” are more impressive than quibbling over the intentions of the folks who ratified the bill of rights contained in the first amendment. We have different degrees of drivers licenses, pilots licenses, and commercial watercraft licenses. It is possible the founding fathers anticipated we would have automobiles, and did not want the citizenry to get bogged down on how to regulate them without making a Constitutional debate over it. If cars as fast and powerful as Bugattis or Lamborghinis were as cheap and plentiful as used KIA Rios most suburban conservatives would be aching for all kinds of new laws and licensing requirements. However, it is possible the Founding Fathers wrote and ratified the Constitution to agree that you specifically should have everything you want.
[quote="ryan costa"]I do not claim to know what the founders intended. Each state convention had to ratify it it seems as brief and general and vague as possible, for the practicality of getting it over with. It is better to make fun of people of people that quibble over what the founders intended. Both “I want guns” and “I want some gun control laws” are more impressive than quibbling over the intentions of the folks who ratified the bill of rights contained in the first amendment. We have different degrees of drivers licenses, pilots licenses, and commercial watercraft licenses. It is possible the founding fathers anticipated we would have automobiles, and did not want the citizenry to get bogged down on how to regulate them without making a Constitutional debate over it. If cars as fast and powerful as Bugattis or Lamborghinis were as cheap and plentiful as used KIA Rios most suburban conservatives would be aching for all kinds of new laws and licensing requirements. However, it is possible the Founding Fathers wrote and ratified the Constitution to agree that you specifically should have everything you want.[/quote]
---------------
Modern technology and advances does not change the intents of founders when they wrote the Bill of Rights. This document affirms our individual rights of liberty, restricts the power of the government including the majority of the people to restrict it without 2/3 of the state legislative bodies to approve the change. The right of federal, states and local to regulate and pass laws is not restricted, unless it unconstitutional, which the definition, due to a corrupt justice system, has become exceedingly narrow.
The issue is that federal courts including SCOTUS have purposely circumvent the process to change the constitution by allowing federal, state and local unconstitutional laws to control the people to stand. The founders' intent of 2nd amendment is not a debatable, it’s precise, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Infringed, “fail to obey or act in agreement with.” SCOTUS history of resenting and protecting the government instead of the people’s liberty is historical, the most notable was the internment of Japanese citizens during WWII. We observe that, power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Richard Baker wrote:Modern technology and advances does not change the intents of founders when they wrote the Bill of Rights. This document affirms our individual rights of liberty, restricts the power of the government including the majority of the people to restrict it without 2/3 of the state legislative bodies to approve the change. The right of federal, states and local to regulate and pass laws is not restricted, unless it unconstitutional, which the definition, due to a corrupt justice system, has become exceedingly narrow.
Is it possible, that it seems narrow, as the choices have become larger and larger? Is it possible to arm oneself, without going to weapons of war?
Is it possible, that maybe people would need to amend the work every now and then, so provision were included for that?
Your thought process of them being all knowing both now and in the future might be as faulty as let's say Nostradamus.
My personal thoughts if you do not see how nuts and out of control the gun problems is, you are blind.
FWIW
Jim O'Bryan
Lakewood Resident
"The very act of observing disturbs the system." Werner Heisenberg
"If anything I've said seems useful to you, I'm glad.
If not, don't worry. Just forget about it." His Holiness The Dalai Lama
Your absolutist position on the 2nd Amendment does not reflect the current state of constitutional law, even with its newer "originalist' construction under the Robert's Court.
You made an editorial decision not to quote the full text of the 2nd Amendment and thus ignore the 2nd Amendment text that actually provides the context of a well-regulated militia.
I have hearing loss in my right ear from firing my M-16 during my term of service and, let's be clear, the 2nd Amendment does not embrace automatic weapons fire or heavy arms as your position may imply.
Your absolutist position on the 2nd Amendment does not reflect the current state of constitutional law, even with its newer "originalist' construction under the Robert's Court.
You made an editorial decision not to quote the full text of the 2nd Amendment and thus ignore the 2nd Amendment text that actually provides the context of a well-regulated militia.
I have hearing loss in my right ear from firing my M-16 during my term of service and, let's be clear, the 2nd Amendment does not embrace automatic weapons fire or heavy arms as your position may imply.
Mark
Ain't it funny how constitutional originalists/absolutists seem to ignore the well-regulated militia reference, and what it meant at the time, as well as now.
“Never let a good crisis go to waste." - Winston Churchill (Quote later appropriated by Rahm Emanuel)
Your absolutist position on the 2nd Amendment does not reflect the current state of constitutional law, even with its newer "originalist' construction under the Robert's Court.
You made an editorial decision not to quote the full text of the 2nd Amendment and thus ignore the 2nd Amendment text that actually provides the context of a well-regulated militia.
I have hearing loss in my right ear from firing my M-16 during my term of service and, let's be clear, the 2nd Amendment does [u]not [/u] embrace automatic weapons fire or heavy arms as your position may imply.
Mark[/quote]
"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." Perhaps you should study what a comma is used for in English. It's irrelevant but I lost my much of my hearing firing 90 mm rounds out an M48 tank.
