A Common Sense Way To Protect Students Without Violating The Constitution!

That is merely YOUR UNSUPPORTED INTERPRETATION.

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms and was adopted on December 15, 1791, as part of the first ten amendments contained in the Bill of Rights.[1][2][3][4] The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the right belongs to individuals,[5][6] while also ruling that the right is not unlimited and does not prohibit all regulation of either firearms or similar devices.

* * * * * * * * * *

In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment did not protect weapon types not having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution


The Preamble of the Constitution states its primary objectives to be “TO FORM A MORE PERFECT UNION, ESTABLISH JUSTICE, INSURE DOMESTIC TRANQUILITY, PROVIDE FOR THE COMMON DEFENSE, PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE, AND SECURE THE BLESSINGS OF LIBERTY TO OURSELVES AND OUR POSTERITY”. Any interpretation of the Constitution that does not support these objectives must be regarded as a misrepresentation of the intended meaning.

The purpose of the law is to protect groups or individuals from victimization, not to justify oppression, and any interpretation not supporting that is a corruption of justice and an insult to our system. We must look beyond our individual preferences and accept universal values emphasizing the absolute priority of the rights and freedom of every individual citizen. . . . But the one freedom that must NEVER be compromised is the RIGHT TO LIFE.

 

~~~~
The de facto position of the Executive Branch from 1934 until 2002 was that the Second Amendment protects a collective right, based on an interpretation of US v. Miller. In 2002, Attorney General John Ashcroft and Solicitor General Theodore Olson announced their interpretation that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms, including a different interpretation of US v Miller to support their arguments.
Certain local jurisdictions, such as New York, had begun trying to restrict firearms ownership from minorities with registration schemes as early as 1911 and the former slave states had tried to prohibit black Americans from owning any sort of firearms starting shortly after the 13th Amendment was enacted officially freeing all slaves in 1865. In fact, the Congress cited disarmament of blacks as the primary reason why the 14th Amendment was needed, to ensure that freed slaves obtained all of their civil rights under federal law and federal supremacy.
Strangely it's the interpretation by judges that concerns me. AS for example the preposterous statement by Judge King as an example shows a complete bias on his part.
The Second Amendment does not claim that weapons whatever the future might bring be restricted nor should there be a tax imposed upon other American Citizens. Yet that is what you and the Leftist are attempting to do on a more imposing basis against.

 

Your meandering arguments are only accusations of judicial bias that are irrelevant to excluding dangerously problematic firearms from Constitutional protection.

Trump's Presidency is not a mandate for all laws to be changed for the benefit of self- serving conservative special-rights groups who apathetically DEFY objections.

 

All in all Progressive Marxist Democrat Leftists do their best to shop for like minded judges that will legislate from the bench. Meanwhile their lemmings continue to cry for the small scraps of cheese. No one has claimed that Trump has a mandate unlike the PMD Left that claimed Obama had a mandate and attempted to raise him to God like status with the phony halos around his head.

 

YOU are condemning partisan politics??? You can choose to reject the truth, but that won't change it.

It's called denial. . . . And what you have continually persisted in doing is called deflection, and it's getting VERY tiresome.

 

If we call the trained person a police officer, I am fine. Nobody else.

 

A lot fewer, and many of the cowards would choose not to shoot up schools if they think a gun may be in the classroom already. We are already doing this in Texas. No problems yet with armed teachers.

 

In Texas, they take volunteer teachers who already have a license to carry and put them through 2 weeks of training at the expense of the district. They are called School Marshals. They carry concealed and are not payed extra. It's cost effective and it cuts response time drastically. They even already know the kids and the layout of the school.

 

So, if one of your loved ones is being attacked and a bystander with a firearm is available to help, you would prefer to allow the attack to continue and wait until a trained police officer shows up?
Glad you are not one of my relatives.

 

We will see if it actually prevents an attack when one occurs.

 

Just imagine if Mr. Myrick already had his gun on him. He had to run to his car parked off campus to get his gun before stopping the shooter(after he killed 2 and wounded several others). How many dead or injured could he have spared if he didn't have to run to his car first. Imagine a half a dozen teachers securing assigned posts when a shooting occurs. They might even drop a shooter as soon as he walks into the school with a rifle.

https://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/pearlhigh.asp

 

~~~~
This Is Barack Obama: All You Need to Know, in One Place ...
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1791
This website describes the networks and agendas of the political Left. ... THIS IS BARACK OBAMA: ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW, ... * Living Like Royalty,
~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

two week of training to blast away with a hundred kids nearby. I feel so at peace. I got more training to fry bacon in a nursing home. I used the word 'police', not school marshal.

 

The parents in the parking lot have no required training and they don’t cause problems.

Or I guess you would rather let the shooter have free reign.

 

I would not tolerate those parents wielding weapons on school grounds. Lots of parents are hotheads.

I used the word 'police', and that is the word I meant to use. If you are putting experienced and well trained police officers in these schools, I feel comfortable with them wielding fire arms.

 

~~~~
Total confiscation of guns did Not change the murder or crime rate in the UK. There's always a black market where guns are for sale in every country of the world.

Harvard study concludes that gun control does not prevent murders, other violent crime​

http://www.guns.com/2013/08/30/harvard-study-concludes-gun-control-prevent-murders-violent-crime/
"The study, which was conducted by Don B. Kates, an American criminologist and constitutional lawyer, and Gary Mauser, a Canadian criminologist and university professor, offered a stark truth: More guns does not equal more deaths and less guns does not equal less deaths".
~snip~
"According to the study, the so-called fact that the reason the murder rate is so high in the United States compared with other modern developed countries is due to the U.S. having uniquely easy access to guns, is simply not true. The study indicates those homicide rates are not an accurate representation and moreover, that those rates have nothing to do with the number of firearms in the country".
~snip~
Regardless of the reason – or reasons – the fact remains that the U.S. has seen the lowest violent crime rate in the last 15 years.
The study then skims the surface of the societal problems of violent crime, citing that most violent criminals – and especially murders – almost always have a long history of criminal behavior. “So it would not appreciably raise violence if all law‐abiding, responsible people had firearms because they are not the ones who rape, rob, or murder. By the same token, violent crime would not fall if guns were totally banned to civilians.”

 

Laughable hyper-biased source. . . . BUT HOW OFF-TOPIC IS THAT???

Do you even REMEMBER what we were discussing?

 

When did mass murder in schools become more common? Columbine seems to be referenced as the kick off point. That was in 1999.

Guns were much easier to obtain before 1999 than they are now. AR-15 type semi-autos with large capacity magazines were available back then.Yet why has there been what appears to be a higher frequency of them?

What changed?

ACLU court victories back in the late 70's and early '80's effectively changed the way mentally ill people are treated. So I agree that remains a serious issue. But hands are tied.

But bullying? From what I can determine, the rules against it may be in place, but little appears to have changed.

https://www.livescience.com/51294-cyberbullying-social-media-teen-depression.html

 

It isn't bullying.
Bullying has been around since the dawn of man.

How we treat mental illness is different.
What year did we start with ADHD drugs in wide dispersion?

 

I beg to differ. The issue of bullying has been widely discussed and has been a major topic of discussion in the educational setting, especially with the popularity of various social media platforms. For example, suicide caused by social media ostracizing is and has been a big issue.

I don't know when various drugs to deal with ADHD were first introduced, or became widespread. I think such drugs are a very bad idea. I am most certain had I been born 20 years later I would have been fed them myself. Instead, my difficulty sitting still was channeled in other ways.

 

Most every young boy would have been given ADAH drugs, myself included.
I got kicked out of catechism class one time for tapping a pencil. I was not aware I was doing it.

The school wanted to put my son on ADHD drugs, wife and I said absolutely no way.

 

Nice to know there are other Americans who understand the importance of not trashing the Constitution! I guess we just have to give some slack to the sound bite addicted liberals!

 

~~~~
ADHD was literally voted into existance in 1987 by the American Psychiatric Association and added to their billing book DSM(Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders) The list of so called symptoms could describe any normal energetic child yet psychiatrists try to promote it as a brain disorder.

 

IT HAS BEGUN!

THIS IS ONLY TEMPORARY, GUN OWNERSHIP AGE WILL THEN SOON BE REDUCED TOO FIVE!

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens...d-to-throw-books-at-school-shooters-1.4542023

 

The "living" constitutionalists are a loud, but woefully uninformed group of people. However, people must always be vigilant against those forces the Founding Fathers predicted would come along.