PDA

View Full Version : Facebook Conversation on Connecticut School Shooting



ltorlo64
12-15-2012, 12:04 AM
This is a converstaion I am having with a friend on Facebook. A real friend not a person who just is on my list. The other person in this discussion is a Navy Officer I served with for 2 years in the same department.

Friend's original post.
Okay, time to lose some facebook friends again. At long last, can we not have meaningful gun control in this country? Buying an automatic weapon in this country is as easy as going through a drive-through at McDonalds. You can have your shotguns and home protection handguns, but weapons designed for mass carnage should be outlawed. I know...there will always be a black market for people that want to get these guns illegally, but these crazies that commit these acts are not thugs that deal in these shady, illegal enterprises. They are simply disturbed people that just wake up one day and decide to unleash fury. Their efforts should at least be hampered by some reasonable obstacles that would limit accessibility.

If we can't manage crazy, then we should at least manage what crazy has available to them.

My first response.
Considering we both took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, I am suprised to read this. The Second Amendmant is worded, purposely, to remind people of the right to bear arms with which they can defend themselves from enemies and from the Government, if that became necessary. In order to do this, you need the same kind of weapons as will be carried by those who will be opposing you.

Friend's reply.
Come on (my name removed), I'm taken aback by your comment. I hardly see where advocating gun control is in any way in opposition to the Constitution. Does the right to bear arms mean that we should all have access all manner of arms? Where do we draw the line...hand grenades? I respect you too much to argue openly about this and I can assure you that no one is more aware of my oath and what it means than me.

My second response.
The word "infringed" in the Second Ammendment means to not encroach. To welcome or advocate gun control is to encroach on the right of self-preservation, which usurps the Second Ammendment. It is akin to what we are doing with "hate speech" laws in taking away our right to free speech. It is important to remember that these rights that the Constitution and Bill of Rights put in words did not grant these rights to us, but were a formal aknowledgement of rights given to every person. So, in advocating for gun control people are advocating the removal of a right that is not theirs to remove.

Bluntforce
12-15-2012, 12:32 AM
"Two things, in his first reply he said only "bear" arms. It's "keep and bear" simply bearing is using them when and for what you are told. "Keep" means you own them and bear them for your own purposes. NEVER trust someone who only speaks of the right to "bear" arms. Slave armies have born arms in the past, only the free keep arms.

You spoke of rights "given". The Bill of Rights enumerates the most fundamental human rights. It does not grant or give. They are our rights endowed by Our Creator (or Darwin/Cthulu/Spaghetti Monster). It only lists the most important, it is not a complete list of human rights.

ltorlo64
12-15-2012, 12:41 AM
"Two things, in his first reply he said only "bear" arms. It's "keep and bear" simply bearing is using them when and for what you are told. "Keep" means you own them and bear them for your own purposes. NEVER trust someone who only speaks of the right to "bear" arms. Slave armies have born arms in the past, only the free keep arms.

You spoke of rights "given". The Bill of Rights enumerates the most fundamental human rights. It does not grant or give. They are our rights endowed by Our Creator (or Darwin/Cthulu/Spaghetti Monster). It only list the most important, it is not a complete list of human rights.

I purposely used the word given and left off the words "by our Creatror" so as to remind my friend that these rights were not granted by the Constitution, while not changing the focus of the discussion to whether there is a Creator or not.

As for the first point you made, thanks for that. I missed that and will bring that up if we continue the discussion.

Bluntforce
12-15-2012, 12:55 AM
It's good to keep it focused on the rights and not get sidetracked to the source.

Krupski
12-15-2012, 01:54 AM
This is a converstaion I am having with a friend on Facebook. A real friend not a person who just is on my list. The other person in this discussion is a Navy Officer I served with for 2 years in the same department.


What amazes me is that people don't understand the simple concept that MURDER and especially the murder of a CHILD is infinitely "worse" than breaking ANY gun law that is or could ever be.

Assault: ILLEGAL
Assault with a deadly weapon: ILLEGAL
Murder: ILLEGAL
Murder of a child: INCOMPREHENSIBLE

All of the above were violated by the shooter.... but then they think:

Simple Gun Ban: SAVES THE WORLD

WHO in their right mind can possibly believe that?

Even O'Brien couldn't make a sane person believe that a "gun law" would have saved anyone.

Krupski
12-15-2012, 01:58 AM
"Two things, in his first reply he said only "bear" arms. It's "keep and bear" simply bearing is using them when and for what you are told. "Keep" means you own them and bear them for your own purposes. NEVER trust someone who only speaks of the right to "bear" arms. Slave armies have born arms in the past, only the free keep arms.

You spoke of rights "given". The Bill of Rights enumerates the most fundamental human rights. It does not grant or give. They are our rights endowed by Our Creator (or Darwin/Cthulu/Spaghetti Monster). It only lists the most important, it is not a complete list of human rights.

ABSOLUTELY! Politicians, right before election time, all proclaim "Ah support the right to bear arms"... and they know damn well what THEY mean and they know damn well that most gun owners DON'T know what they mean.

We have the right to KEEP and BEAR arms. You can't "bear 'em" if you can't "keep 'em".

And, concerning the comment mentioned in the first post about "hand grenades"... damn right we should have free access to them. Just like any other deadly weapon, a LAW ABIDING CITIZEN isn't going to hurt ANYONE with a grenade. And a CRIMINAL doesn't give a damn, so what good is even restricting hand grenades for "good people"?

Krupski
12-15-2012, 02:01 AM
I purposely used the word given and left off the words "by our Creator" so as to remind my friend that these rights were not granted by the Constitution, while not changing the focus of the discussion to whether there is a Creator or not.

As for the first point you made, thanks for that. I missed that and will bring that up if we continue the discussion.

We have the inherent, God given right to self defense just the same as a mother bear has the right to maul an attacker to death to protect her cubs.

Every living thing has the NATURAL right to defend itself. Humans are not "granted" that right by politicians or pieces of paper.

Schuetzenman
12-15-2012, 08:17 AM
Your friend is an idiot! He jumps to a conclusion that full autos; M16, real AK-47, Uzi, M11, MP5 etc. was used to kill these innocent children and teachers. The reality is he used a Glock and a Sig both in 9 mm. Simple, handguns, the kind most of us cary for CCW and have in a night stand drawer for Home Defense. You can't legislate yourself into 100% safety. If as many have pointed out, the TEACHERS were allowed to pack this crazy son of a bitch might of been stopped very quickly, and if he knew that all teachers in the shool were armed, would he have even gone there in the first place, I'm thinking no he would not have!

El Laton Caliente
12-15-2012, 08:24 AM
Letters of Marque are also in the Constitution and that requires private citizens to own ships of war mounting 100 or more cannon...

Schuetzenman
12-15-2012, 08:45 AM
I just heard watching Fox n Friends that this guys Mother wasn't even on the Payroll of that school. Also they reported that he broke the glass out of the front door and opened it to gain entry. Nobody let him in, he broke in.

deth502
12-15-2012, 09:57 AM
just the same as a mother bear has the right to maul an attacker to death to protect her cubs.


thats why that mother has the right to bear arms. ;)

ltorlo64
12-15-2012, 10:50 AM
Your friend is an idiot! He jumps to a conclusion that full autos; M16, real AK-47, Uzi, M11, MP5 etc. was used to kill these innocent children and teachers. The reality is he used a Glock and a Sig both in 9 mm. Simple, handguns, the kind most of us cary for CCW and have in a night stand drawer for Home Defense. You can't legislate yourself into 100% safety. If as many have pointed out, the TEACHERS were allowed to pack this crazy son of a bitch might of been stopped very quickly, and if he knew that all teachers in the shool were armed, would he have even gone there in the first place, I'm thinking no he would not have!

I don't think he is an idiot, but he is doing what a lot of people will be doing for the next few day, weeks, or even months, using feelings vice logic to make decisions. I mean, it makes sense that if there were no more guns then there would be no more gun violence. The problem with this, as most of us here know, is that it is impossible to get rid of all guns and even if we could, if someone means to do harm to someone else they will figure out how. There was that thread a few weeks ago about how the gun makes the 90 lbm girl on equal footing as the 250 lbm man wanting to rape here. Suddenly he cannot have his way where with any other weapon the man has a definate advantage. This is what I am working to get people to understand.

My next line of argument will be another that we have mentioned in other threads. If the school and the administration had not been disarmed (read a "Gun Free Zone") then there may have been someone with the ability to stand between the shooter and the children and do something more than just suck up bullets.

FunkyPertwee
12-15-2012, 10:54 AM
Shotguns and handguns are ok but no semi-auto rifles. Wow.

The shooter used two handguns, used NO rifles, and I've always considered the pump-shotgun to be the quintessential ass-kicking long arm.

ltorlo64
12-15-2012, 11:57 AM
Shotguns and handguns are ok but no semi-auto rifles. Wow.

The shooter used two handguns, used NO rifles, and I've always considered the pump-shotgun to be the quintessential ass-kicking long arm.

I remember reading that you can fire a pump as fast, if not faster, than a semi-auto shotgun. I have never had any issues emptying my 870 very quickly. While my bedside gun is a handgun, my secondary, sitting close by is my shotgun with a short barrel for ease of manuverability inside my house. Not any of my rifles, but my shotgun.

ltorlo64
12-15-2012, 12:00 PM
Another person whom I have never met jumped into the converstation with this well used and underthought statement.
I seriously doubt that the founding fathers could scarcely image what kind of "arms" we would have the right to bear. When you think about terrorist and national security, I'm not so worried about Al Qaeda suicide bombers as I am some little jerk who has access to a drum magazine that holds 100 rounds.

My response to this person.
The Founding Fathers did not need to forsee what king of weapons that would be available as their concern was protecting citizens from over-reaching governments and evil people. Their concern was that the citizens be able, should they choose, to be armed comparatively to the government for their and our countries protection.

itsme1738
01-01-2013, 03:12 PM
soon we will not be allowed to walk around with a sharp stick