Anti-gun lunacy continues

We ought to be used to the stories by now — “Student suspended for toy gun”; “Boy Scout tool nets student suspension”; “Tweety Bird key chain cause for expulsion.”  Still, when we read of a fourth grade student being hauled into a school prinicipal’s office because his LEGO policeman figure is carrying a two-inch long plastic rifle, it is hard to resist the urge to pull at one’s hair in reaction to the sheer idiocacy of the adults who do such things.  This latest example of a grown-up appearing to be a simpleton in front of a child, took place at Public School 52 in Staten Island, NY. 

According to a spokesman for the school system, Principal Evelyn Matroianni was simply following the Staten Island school system’s “no tolerance” policy that prohibits all “weapons” at the school, when she hauled the 9-year old into her office and called his parents. 

Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary defines a “weapon” to be “something (as a club, knife, or gun) used to injure, defeat, or destroy.”  Now, I know we have become in many respects a people afraid of our own shadows, but if Ms. Matroianni considers that a two-inch long plastic rifle held by a three-inch tall LEGO police figure will “injure, defeat, or destroy” someone or something, then this is definitely not the sort of adult I would want teaching my children or grandchildren anything.  This is a person so afraid of the world around her that she probably leaves her bedroom light on at night to help scare away the boogey man hiding under her bed.  Perhaps she holds down a second job at TSA.

240 comments Add your comment

Gerald West

February 12th, 2010
7:10 pm

Back to your usual silliness, Bob! Complain about everything, don’t know what to do about anything; label things you don’t understand “lunacy”.

It’s not a teacher’s job to determine whether something that looks like a weapon might endanger the children in her charge. You’d be the first to raise hell if a child got stabbed by that 2′ plastic rifle, or blinded by a toy pellet gun brought into the classroom.

Parents don’t want their children in a school that allows anything that looks like a weapon! There’s no telling what the children of the crazies of the American gun culture will find laying around the house, and may bring to school. Zero-tolerance is the right policy. The teacher in Staten Island did the right thing.

My F150is dirty

February 12th, 2010
7:14 pm

Even the honest to god freaks at Daily Kos and Democrat underground, seem to support gun rights- most of em anyway- Great websites to troll, by the way. The angst, pain, outrage, and suffering is fine entertainment.

I bet the gun issue is pretty much hands off to the left- just a political lost cause. Now if the right would give it up on abortion…

JTex

February 12th, 2010
7:25 pm

Because, of course, conflating the idiocy of a rule-happy bureaucrat with legitimate concerns about the massive proliferation of guns and a culture that seems to worship them isn’t specious at all.

I have no problem with regulated gun ownership, but suggesting that this story somehow informs the very legitimate disagreement that many people in this country have with the completely unfettered ownership of guns that the NRA desires is intellectually dishonest, and just plain silly.

I’m still not sure why we accept so many limitations of the government regulation of Speech, in my opinion vastly more important than the ownership of guns, yet shriek “UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!” when a law is passed to prevent a 5-year-old from buying a fully automatic rifle.

See…I can do hyperbole, too.

john boggess

February 12th, 2010
7:55 pm

why aren’t we passing laws to prevent this kind of stupid action?
In fact, why aren’t we passing laws to do away with state control of our schools??!

Aardvark

February 12th, 2010
8:04 pm

We forget that in order to become an “educator”, you need to check your brain and common sense at the door. I come from an academic family (parents, grandparents, cousins) but they were “old school” before the mid-1960’s when the current lunacy started to take hold. Could there possibly be a correlation between the rise of teachers unions and the stupidity that has come about?

Scout

February 12th, 2010
8:15 pm

Big D:

When we you in ? I was a Hollywood Marine (fall of ‘66) and then India 3/4 1967 (V.N.)

By the way, I used the Remington 700 with Redfield 3X9 Power Scope ……………. :o )

Jason

February 12th, 2010
9:35 pm

My son had “hundreds” day at school Thursday. This is when they celebrate the 100th day of school by bringing 100 of somthing, and he wanted to take 100 legos. In the bag of legos was a half inch long starwars laser. He was hauled to the principals office and we were called. They said they felt bad because it was an honest mistake on our part, but becuase of their “zero tolerece policy” He was Written up and it will go on his permanent record. He is in 1st grade. We seem to talk a great deal about diversity in schools but when it comes to the diverse population of us who leagaly and responsibly own guns, and responsibly train our children likewise. We are shunned and labled. Sad sorry state or should I say country of affiares.

Rational Person

February 12th, 2010
9:58 pm

“JoseyWales
February 12th, 2010
1:36 pm

Rational person:

I really don’t care if he said it or not; that wasn’t the point. And if you take a little time to actually read some history, …”

You just confirmed my point that you’re not distinguishing between the real and the imaginary. And I’ve probably been reading history for longer than you’ve been alive. One of the things I’ve gleaned is that amateurs (such as a militia) are pretty much helpless when matched up against a real army. That’s the lesson of the American Revolution, the War of 1812, Machiavelli’s Florentine militia, the Georgia Militia in the Civil War, and so on.

Leif Rakur

February 12th, 2010
10:00 pm

Quoting Big D:

“…need to read the dialog for the 2nd amendment before commenting on it. It’s a tough read, but start with the Federalist Papers.”

Two-thirds of the Federalist Papers were written by Alexander Hamilton and John Jay. They obviously considered the people’s right to keep and bear arms to be a right of the political community to a militia defense, not a right of individuals to carry arms on private missions.

Hamilton and Jay supported framing the Second Amendment idea for the Constitution in this way:

“That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state.”

In the all-militia context, the body of the people “capable of bearing arms,” was a reference to those capable of providing militia service. It wouldn’t make any more sense to parse “bear arms” to mean “carry arms” in the first clause than to equate “bearing arms” to “carrying arms” in the second. And the substitutions wouldn’t result in a coherent statement.

Scout

February 12th, 2010
10:09 pm

To Leif Rakur :

Sorry pal, the U.S. Supreme Court disagrees with you and guess what? They get to make the rulings not you.

Jason:

1) I wouldn’t stand for that. Get an attorney and sue the heck out of them personally.

2) Also, go back to the school and look in every book in the library or used in a class (you have that right) and see if you can find a picture of a weapon (i.e., a soldier carrying an M-1 up Omaha Beach on D-Day).

Then contact the administrators who supervise that principle/librarian and attempt to have them disciplined for allowing such a thing in school. Oh the horror if a child saw that.

3) Then pray that somehow we can someday get rid of these types of idiots in our government schools.

P.S. Now that I am thinking about it, I wonder if any Marines have visited that school? You know, those guys who wear “crossed rifles” under their enlisted rank?

God help us ……………. it’s hard to believe we have sunk this far as a nation.

Steve Lyons

February 12th, 2010
10:17 pm

Is this teacher an escapee from a psychiatric ward? Must think “It’ll put your eye out”……

Time to privatize the schools so idiots like that will be unemployed.

Davo

February 12th, 2010
10:42 pm

Enter your comments here

Leif Rakur

February 12th, 2010
10:51 pm

To Scout:

The Supreme Court makes mistakes, don’t you think?

Or maybe your agreed with the Supreme Court when it said that the National Guard is the modern militia. The Court cited the Constitution in doing so, and subsequently the Fifth Circuit cited the Court as authority for making a similar pronouncement:

“The National Guard is the modern Militia reserved to the States by Art. I. 8, cl. 15, 16, of the Constitution.” ( U.S. Supreme Court, Maryland v. United States, 1965)

“We begin our consideration of this appeal with full recognition that the national guard is the militia, in modern-day form, that is reserved to the states by Art I, 8, cls. 15, 16 of the Constitution. Maryland v. United States, 381 U.S. 41, 46 (1965).” (Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, James H. Lipscomb v. Federal Labor Relations Authority (2003) )

Not surprised

February 12th, 2010
10:56 pm

Opinions are like names – - – everybody has one. The rub is to have an INFORMED one. Those mired in their ignorance are beyond help. Those who wish not to make fools of themselves will acquaint themselves with the many quotes of the Founding Fathers. Missing from all comments on this page and from the truly ignorant about the meaning of the 2nd Admendment, they might , for starters, explain to the rest of us this quote: “I ask sir, WHAT IS THE MILITIA? It is the WHOLE people except for a few politicians.” George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and the Virginia Declaration of Rights). And how about this one? “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of firearms!” Thomas Jefferson. Another? “A free people ought to be armed.” George Washington. That there are many, many more, from these three people, and from John Adams (most responsible for getting the Declaration of Independence pushed through) to Ben Franklin to many, many others for those with the least bit of intelligence or inclination to look up, leave no doubt as to what they meant about the 2nd Amendment.

And if the militia people are so smart, try telling the rest of us why, with the remaining nine amendments dealing with protecting INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS, they would stick one in protecting the right of the State (i.e., Federal and State government)? And why placed second after freedom of speech, at that? Lastly, enlighten us all as to why gun rights are today enshrined in THE CONSTITUTIONS OF 44 STATES ! ! !

Scout

February 12th, 2010
11:08 pm

Leif Rakur:

Of course they make mistakes (i.e., Dread Scott and Roe vs. Wade) but as I said before …………. they get the last say – unless “the people” decide to pass a Constitutional Amendment.

I assume you are familiar with the Supreme Court ruling in the Washington, D.C. case that “people” means “individuals” just as “people” does in the other Amendments. Whether or not the “militia” is today’s National Guard is irrelevant to that principle. “Individuals” still have the right to bear arms.

H Stan Boring, PHC, USN, (Ret.)

February 12th, 2010
11:34 pm

“If a squirrel gets run over by a car, you can’t say the squirrel was trying to kill himself.” This is way off point. I have no idea who Lewis Black is or was, but I had that very thing happen to me. I disturbed young man ran forcefully into th side of my car, so hard he dented it with his knees. He was in fact attempting suicide. He succeeded several days later when the bus he ran in front of ran over and killed him. I know this because his father called me and told me what happened, so I would not feel bad about the incident with his son.

Reading the exchanges in these comments saddens me at the level of discourse into which we seem to have fallen

Navy Chief

Leif Rakur

February 12th, 2010
11:50 pm

Quoting “Not surprised”

” Missing from all comments on this page and from the truly ignorant about the meaning of the 2nd Admendment, they might , for starters, explain to the rest of us this quote: “I ask sir, WHAT IS THE MILITIA? It is the WHOLE people except for a few politicians.” George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and the Virginia Declaration of Rights).”

The implication that this Mason quote is a significant statement about the size of the militia is quite misleading. If you read a little further, you find that Mason was really saying that the militia was made up of all classes of the people, not stating that it was made up of every individual person. At the time (1788), the Virginia militia “amounted to 50,000,” as Governor Randolph put it. The population of Virginia in 1788 was not too far under 747,550, which was the number given in the 1790 Census. Therefore, the militia in Virginia consisted of about 1 in every 13 or 14 persons, not the whole population.

Froggy

February 12th, 2010
11:58 pm

I was born in 1936 I beleive i have lived thru the best years this country will ever see the late 40s & and all the way thru the early 70s After Reagan (the first Hollywood person) was elected progress (except technical) failed to advance The only improvement has been for the well to do. The average person has been held in place. and the teachers were able to teach. Not police.

Leif Rakur

February 13th, 2010
12:22 am

To “Not Surprised”:

Jefferson and other founders no doubt had great respect for the personal use of firearms. But that doesn’t mean they believed that was what the Second Amendment was about. Jefferson was a strong advocate of the Bill of Rights and often wrote his list of subjects that should be included. But he never listed the personal use of private arms. After the Bill of Rights had been adopted, he referred to the Second Amendment as “the substitution of militia for a standing army.” That was in a letter to Dr. Joseph Priestley, June 19, 1802.

Leif Rakur

February 13th, 2010
12:27 am

To Scout:

So we agree that the Supreme Court makes mistakes. I believe it made one in Heller.

Greengiant

February 13th, 2010
12:42 am

If all firearms, knifes, bows and arrows, swords. spears, were outlawed. Human beings
would kill each other with their bare hands.

DirtyDawg

February 13th, 2010
1:02 am

Reading all this crap I think I’m beginning to believe the theory that generations of breathing air filled with particulate matter and carbon dioxide from burned fossil fuels has turned too many of us into ‘lizard-brained’ humanoids. All too many of us can do is to violently strike out at things we are incapable of understanding, let alone appreciating. And as for ‘empathy’, you’re kidding, right?

DirtyDawg

February 13th, 2010
1:03 am

Enter your comments here

Jason

February 13th, 2010
1:06 am

To Scout: Thanks for the support my friend but I have to deal with these people for the next 13 years. So with a bitter taste in my mouth I apologized for our oversight. However I am all the more resolved that my family will be trained and proficient in the use of firearms for defense, hunting and sport. We have that right as Americans and I intend to support it. It just does not make sense to me to make waves, considering that this is the only school that my kids can attend in the small town that I live in. In any case we are sliding down a slippery slope and I hope we can stop the slide before we end up in dire straits.

Leif Rakur

February 13th, 2010
1:17 am

Quoting “Not Surprised”:

[W]hy, with the remaining nine amendments dealing with protecting INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS, they would stick one in protecting the right of the State (i.e., Federal and State government)?”

The “people” in the Second Amendment refers to the people as a whole. The word “people” is a collective noun. That means it can stand for a collection of persons, although it can also be used to refer to the individuals that make up the collection. As is done today, the founders applied the noun both ways. There was no rule saying that it must be used the same way throughout a document or from provision to provision. The opening words of the Declaration of Independence, for instance, use “people” collectively and then refer back to that noun in both a collective and a non-collective way —- and all in one sentence!

Joseph Story, in his “Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States” makes pertinent observations on this subject:

“§ 454. XVIII. And this leads us to remark, in the next place, that it is by no means a correct rule of interpretation to construe the same word in the same sense, wherever it occurs in the same instrument. It does not follow, either logically or grammatically, that because a word is found in one connexion in the constitution, with a definite sense, therefore the same sense is to be adopted in every other connexion, in which it occurs… Men of ingenious and subtle minds, who seek for symmetry and harmony in language, having found in the constitution a word used in some sense, which falls in with their favourite theory of interpreting it, have made that the standard, by which to measure its use in every other part of the instrument…. It was very justly observed by Mr. Chief Justice Marshall, in The Cherokee Nation v. The State of Georgia, that “it has been said, that the same words have not necessarily the same meaning attached to them, when found in different parts of the same instrument Their meaning is controlled by the context. This is undoubtedly true. In common language, the same word has various meanings; and the peculiar sense, in which it is used in any sentence, is to be determined by the context.” (Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, Chapter V – Rules of Interpretation, 1833)

The context of the Second Amendment’s right of the people to keep and bear arms is all ahout a well regulated militia, not about carrying personal arms on private missions.

Dasing

February 13th, 2010
4:00 am

To’ too many guns.’..If you ever encountered American history (not high school history) you would know the Milita in that amendment is “Every abled-bodied man from 16 to 60″ note,’ EVERY ‘ And another term used is ‘ the people ‘ If you cannot understand those simple words, please refrain from displayimg your stupidity!!

Dasing

February 13th, 2010
5:08 am

Please note in the context of ‘abled-bodied’ It means physicaly, mentaly, and legaly able to perform milita service. And just because the latter goverments in the us did not want to fund the milita as originaly provided for, does not make the National Guard a constituional milita, It still is a select Milita which was a very bad taste in the mouths of all the colonists,Founding Fathers not withstanding!

Jarhead1982

February 13th, 2010
5:25 am

Yeah Rational person, you are a military genius and have thought your position through thoroughly and completely.

Research all insurrections and rebellions since the 1600’s just to simplify things. Count those successful versus not and you have somewhere between 20-25% of all those succeeding. Please demonstrate to everyone how this is not a concern to any government?

Guess Vietnam never happened? Guess all those insurgents in Iraq & Afghanistan should’ve died off over 8 years ago. Care to explain how these technologically challenged fighters compared to the US technological and firepower manage to fight on today?

There are 3 million us citizens in active, reserves for military and police throughout the world today. There are 100 million law abiding gun owners in the US today per ATF studies. There are at minimum 35 million retired military personnel in the civilian population today, guess they all lost their skill sets by the universal mind wipe machine they must go through upon discharge from service right?

There are what, about 1,000 politicians who would be the arbi-”traitors” of such a uprising versus 100 million law abiding gun owners. Remember, 1,000 targets, or 100 million targets, who has less to do eh? Of course you have thoroughly thought out the effects of collateral damage and the effects it would have on support for such rebels. Much less how the media would have to be muzzled. After all, the government would wisely turn loose GBU’s, mines, tanks, napalm, MLRS, heavy artillery, fighter bomber attacks or full auto fire into civilian populations of the US, eh?

So what is the manpower required to secure Federal, state, and county lines were the “only ones” to go all big bother on us? How would such control projected to lines of communications and travel throughout the US, resources and logistics necessary to accomplish this control eh?

How would the government pull all the military and police instantaneously back to the mainland US to control and fight the citizens while leaving all our country’s assets and commitments around the world unprotected? Who or what would step into that void and what would be the result worldwide?

What would be the cost to logistically make such a move?

Of course such rebels don’t have access to ANY military equipment by acquisition or sympathetic sources right?

We wouldn’t see ANY smuggling of arms and munitions from ANY outside entity who would have interest in some destabilization, like Iran, China or so many other “enlightened” countries do on a daily basis eh?

Of course we have no examples of rebels manufacturing arms and ammunition clandestinely. Maybe the gun smiths in Afghanistan don’t make copies of Enfield rifles from basic tools. Maybe the Israelis didn’t manufacture Sten guns and millions of rounds of 9mm ammunition in clandestine factories again using simple tools during their fight for independence in the late 40’s eh?

No Rational Person, you have no freaking rational clue about military capabilities of the citizenry, the cost, manpower requirements, anything. So as you have demonstrated not even an inkling of rational thought about what is or isn’t militarily capable, you need to change your moniker.

Scout

February 13th, 2010
8:38 am

Leif Rakur: Sorry, but a ruling is a ruling. Otherwise, we have anarchy. You have the option of working on a Constitutional Amendment to change the 2nd. Have at it.

Jason: I hear you. Do what’s best for your familty.

I bet Leif doesn’t have a sign by his mailbox saying, “There Are No Weapons in This House”.

Del

February 13th, 2010
9:08 am

Some of the Jack A$$ types on this blog would have no problem murdering babies but they have a real problem interpreting the 2nd. Amendment and an individuals right to self defense. Some will even draft an epistle (probably a cut and paste) that essentially says nothing other than they don’t like gun ownership or Supreme Court rulings.

Scout

February 13th, 2010
9:22 am

Enter your comments here

Scout

February 13th, 2010
9:23 am

Del:

Ooo Rah! Let ‘er rip! Thanks for “walking point” this morning ………………..

Del

February 13th, 2010
9:36 am

Hey Scout,

Semper Fi. Have to go clear snow off my drive way. So I’m out…have a good one.

Hank Williams Jr.

February 13th, 2010
9:48 am

I’ve got a shotgun, a rifle and a 4 wheel drive and a country boy WILL survive !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Song now 30 years old people, said it then , truer today than ever.

Try to take my guns…………

Just try.

Rick

February 13th, 2010
9:52 am

If the Anti- Second Amendment folks on this thread would read the comments about the intentions of the founders of the Bill of Rights, there would be no misunderstanding on the true meaning. All governors, if they would raise us militias made up of all able bodied citizens owning and bearing their own weapons, automatic or not, with proper ‘regulation’ into units and groups, they would be fulfilling the amendment’s intent. “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.” Note: A “well regulated militia,” not well regulated individuals. Also not “being necessary to the security of a free state.”

Evidence of an Individual Right

In his popular edition of Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England (1803), St. George Tucker (see also), a lawyer, Revolutionary War militia officer, legal scholar, and later a U.S. District Court judge (appointed by James Madison in 1813), wrote of the Second Amendment:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government.

In the appendix to the Commentaries, Tucker elaborates further:

This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty… The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty.

Not only are Tucker’s remarks solid evidence that the militia clause was not intended to restrict the right to keep arms to active militia members, but he speaks of a broad right – Tucker specifically mentions self-defense.

“Because ‘[g]reat weight has always been attached, and very rightly attached, to contemporaneous exposition,’ the Supreme Court has cited Tucker in over forty cases. One can find Tucker in the major cases of virtually every Supreme Court era.” (Source: The Second Amendment in the Nineteenth Century) Source: http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/19thcentury.htm.

Hank Williams Jr.

February 13th, 2010
10:13 am

Send lawyers , guns and money, the sh-t has hit the fan !!!!!!!!!!!

uzicarlo

February 13th, 2010
10:14 am

Wow! I am ever so glad to have left NY. Reading stories like this about how our schools are treating guns makes me ever-so-gladder : – )

NADRA ENZI AKA CAPT. BLACK

February 13th, 2010
10:14 am

Seems the Nuremburg defense of ” I was just following orders ” has found new life in the unlikely ranks of American public education staff!?! Training our children to be inmates seems the new priority. Blind obedience to authority creates slaves.

http://www.captblack.info

Tory II

February 13th, 2010
10:42 am

QUOTE:
“States like New Jersey and Massachusetts have these licensing requirements, and have much lower rates of gun-related violence and death,” said Frosh, chair of the Judicial Proceedings Committee, which will hear the bill. “So we think we can significantly improve public safety.”

Gun control laws don’t reduce crime rates, they increase them.

Chicago has a total ban on handguns and many other types of weapons, but has very high rates of gun-related violence and death. Only shotguns are allowed (in the home) and they must be registered. In Chicago there are murders of all kinds every week. So the most stringent gun controls, handgun, knife, and assault rifle bans, have not improved public safety. For a State Senator to make such a claim clearly portrays the corruptive nature of Maryland politicians. Senator Frosh is clearly a bold-faced liar who also intends to capitalize his career by taking advantage of hoplophobes (citizens who have been brainwashed by the newsmedia about the benefits of gun possession).

The 2nd amendment was included into the Bill of Rights to prohibit GOVERNMENT from regulating weapons. “Govt” includes Senator Frosh. Senator Frosh, by attempting to create more useless gun control laws is also demonstrating his contempt for the Bill of Rights and a “rule of law” that specifically applies to him. Frosh is exactly the type of politician the 2nd amendment was written for (the kind that would disarm us for the purpose of controlling us).

Rational Person

February 13th, 2010
10:48 am

After reading the posts here, I made a contribution to the Brady Campaign.

We will be living in a freaking nightmare if some of you people get your way.

Tom Carney

February 13th, 2010
11:13 am

Staten Island is part of New York City(NYC). NYC has lately set itself apart from the rest of America, mainly because of its diverse population. At one time people new to America made efforts to become Americans. Today, NYC politicians curry and preserve various factions in the NYC venue for the politician’s own advantage. Since NYC denizens were at one another’s throats in the old world, to maintain SOCIAL CONTROL, only the NYC pols, their cronies and kin are let be armed there.

Safe Guns

February 13th, 2010
12:27 pm

What do Cheney and Oxendine have in common?

Gun safety, Watson!

Gun safety.

Hank Williams Jr.

February 13th, 2010
12:41 pm

Rational Person better wake up and smell the Jim Beam.
And Tom Carney, N. Yorksters better arm up.
THE 911 CRIME OF THE CENTURY WILL RETURN, bet your bottom dollar.
May happen there first, dont know.
U. S. citizens better arm up and defend yourselves and your families.
To not do this will be a mistake.

Dave

February 13th, 2010
12:53 pm

C Tucker, You are brainwashed. Why not ban pencils from school while we are “protecting the kids”. Stupid kneejerk reactions, political correctness, the liberal agenda, along with some peoples idea that they know what is best for the rest of us attitude (like you C Tucker) is what has this country in such turmoil.

A McBeth

February 13th, 2010
1:04 pm

Swede, you said “On the other hand I think it is fully appropriate to educate children at an early age that weapons of any kind are not appropriate nor permitted in the school environment. I didn’t have to deal with knives, guns, etc. at school when I was growing up even though I lived in the rural west. Kids had guns and knives, etc. but they knew if they dared to bring them on school grounds they would be seized and they would never see them again”
Unfortunately when I was in high school bullies used to follow me home and try to beat me up. Fortunately I had a knife in my pocket, after I showed it to them they backed off. I never actually had to use it, thank goodness, but its presence kept me safe. Would you rather have had them beat me up? That knife was never used improperly, in school or out, but it was always with me, including being in my pocket in class. You were just lucky, whereas I was prepared.

ron2112

February 13th, 2010
3:06 pm

That kind of political correctness in our school system is exactly why my wife and I home school our kids, not only do they not have to be “SUBJECTS” er subjected to that kind of idiocacy, we go shooting once amonth as part of our field trips. The public shool system needs your’e kids more than your’e kids need them, give home school a try and educate your’e kids, rather than having them indoctrinated into P.C.

TW

February 13th, 2010
4:06 pm

For every time a gun is used safely to defend one’s person, there are seventeen gun related suicides/unintentional lethal discharges (kids, etc.).

Though we are a young country, it’s long overdue that we should grow out of the insecure teenage phase.

Try Viagra.

David

February 13th, 2010
4:42 pm

To the anti-gun crowd:

Regarding the 2nd Amendment: ”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.” As I was once taught in school, the comma and the word “and” can be substituted for each other. Do that and you get ”A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State and the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” To me, it is obvious that the founding fathers truly believed in the right of the individual to own a firearm. Also consider, their intentions for the first 10 amendments to our Constitution were to place in writing individual natural rights that our government (or anyone for that matter) would not infringe upon.

And if that is not plain enough, my owning firearms is no one’s business. Also, I believe my right to own a guns is more important than the deaths that occur from accidental or intentional shootings that occur.

I do and will continue to carry a firearm wherever I go (albeit concealed).

Frankie

February 13th, 2010
5:27 pm

Its not the guns,knives and what else you may find in school that worries me, its the fact that these people are teaching our kids that scares the hell out of me.

BAMA

February 13th, 2010
6:38 pm

To Too Man Guns: You are the fool! The NRA is the one organization that will defend your right to act a fool as well as defend our right to bear arms. The militia? Look it up. A hint – the people. Stats verify time and a gain that armed society equals less crime. Look at Great Britain and their crime rate (move there for 6 months); look at Australia. Look at Iran where the freedom loving people are trying to regain their right to vote, their freedom. They won’t succeed. Why? Because they have no weapons; the police and military do. It’s obvious with your biased opinion you know nothing about guns nor the fact that owners know how and when to use them (stats prove this also). Research how many lives have been saved simply by owning ( not having to use) a gun. Of course I know you won’t look at statistics because you don’t want to see the truth, nor have to admit it the correctness. People like you, who probably voted for the socialists in DC as well as Obama, represent a real threat to our freedoms. This is the United States with a unique Constitution -the only nation with an amendment to guarantee the right to bear arms. Even our neighbors to the north had to give up many firearms since they have no constitutional protection. And this same Constitution gives you the 1st Amendment and the right to speak your mind, albeit it incorrect. And now, did you know, our narcissist socialists president has hinted at curtailing the 1st? Are you willing to give it up? We gun owners aren’t willing to give up or Second Amendment either. And we won’t!