In late March a 6 year old school girl was arrested, handcuffed (at her bicepts), fingerprinted, mug shot, charged with a felony %26 sat in the County jail until her mother picked her up. It seems that she was having a temper tantrum %26 the school called the police. Your opinion??
Answer:
I think that the 'no tolerance' policy of many schools is taken to the extreme. It seems to me, that it would be difficult to charge this child with a felony simply for a temper tantrum unless she caused someone intentional physical harm. Need more info to say one way or the other but, I do think it is taken to the extreme in a lot of cases.
I think her parents need to be charged with neglect for allowing a 6 year old to be such a brat. No doubt this kid has been trouble. I seriously doubt if she was a perfect little angel until that moment any of this would have happened. More likely, it was the last straw.
She's lucky they didn't taser her, shove a broom up her azz, or empty several clips into her unarmed body..
If she f@$%ed up, send her to the spot!! Who cares what freakin' age she is. She obviously is a tormented individual, and her parents are just as much to blame if that is the way she is being allowed to act.
this is a very sad day for teachers
The teachers are so afraid of legal implications that they do not dare to discipline a small child - a 6 years old
If I am a teacher I will discipline this kid, instead of calling the police and make his/her future life traumatic
The police were just doing their job, and as always they get hated for it. It is mainly the fault of the parents who undoubtedly cared nothing for rearing their child correctly, and a bit to the teachers and administration for failing to put their foot down. Keep it up Fl PD
What defines a temper tantrum...was she crying...or was she screaming and thrashing about???
I honestly would have to say that if it were my child who misbehaved, much less at the age of 6, and the school called the police..instead or before they called me, I would be pissed.
I guess some children can be very hard to manage when they throw fits....so I would have to say that if that was the only thing to do to manage the child......it's better than beating her.
The question I would like to see an answer to is...has this helped the little girls behavior or made it worse?
However--booking, handcuffing and fingerprinting the little girl...seem a little extreme to me. But hey, I wasn't there!
This is not surprising nowadays. Everything is overreacted to now. On top of that, most parents are terrified to discipline their kids lest CPS charge them with abuse and drag the kid off. The school personnel are terrified to do anything with a kid. they can't even deal with a tantrum anymore--more and more kids have to pay the price by receiving criminal records at earlier and earlier ages.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Should the attorney general be fired for his poor job performance?
or should george bush, ONE MORE TIME, GET HIS WAY?
Answer:
Have you noticed that W reaffirms his faith in his appointees just before he asks them to resign? (Rummy, Brownie, Ari, Snowy, etc.) I've been expecting the AG to turn in his letter of resignation any time now.
Be specific, why should he be fired???
What did he do that was wrong???
The Attorney General serves at the pleasure of the President, and only he can decide.
I think ANY elected official should be fired whenever they do NOT do whay they promised to do when we elected him/her!!!
He should be excuted for treason against the Constitution.
Answer:
Have you noticed that W reaffirms his faith in his appointees just before he asks them to resign? (Rummy, Brownie, Ari, Snowy, etc.) I've been expecting the AG to turn in his letter of resignation any time now.
Be specific, why should he be fired???
What did he do that was wrong???
The Attorney General serves at the pleasure of the President, and only he can decide.
I think ANY elected official should be fired whenever they do NOT do whay they promised to do when we elected him/her!!!
He should be excuted for treason against the Constitution.
Should the ACLU be financially boycotted for getting food stamps & SSI to "illegal immigrants" ?
Answer:
The American Civil Liberties Union was intended to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties of Americans but it has taken a 360 degree turn, boycott them is not enough, they should be dissolved for using taxpayer money for illegal activities..鈽?
Yes!
Yeah, you be sure to stop sending them the check you usually send them. That'll show 'em.
They deserve a lot more than just a boycott.... scumbags....
Yes they should be. They should be heavily fines and prosecuted for aiding and abetting breaking of laws of this land. No exceptions!
You don't want them to even eat?
They should be charged with treason.
What are you talking about? This is FreeLawAnswer.com , not Yahoo soapbox, but if you are trying to persuade us, you could at least state your argument in a semi-coherent fashion. Please offer some documentation to back up your assertion. This site is full of people who make laughably false claims against the ACLU, as if it's the bogeyman who's going to attack you in the middle of the night.
Should the 61 year old grandmother in Florida be required to care for her 9 year old grandson?
who recently killed two of her dogs and threatened to stab her. The court is returning him to her custody after his being institutionalized for the past several weeks. While in custody he was kept isolated from other children due to his violent behavior.
http://www.sptimes.com/2007/04/10/tampab...
Answer:
Pure total insanity.
Grandma is now the parent (legally), thus they are kind of accurate in saying that she has responsibility.,
What is being completely overlooked here is that the State also has the legal responsibility to TAKE ACTION in the reality that this child is mentally ill, and absolutely a danger to her (and himself). Thus, if the state refuses to find placement, and the grandmother is harmed by being forced to take him home... they would be liable. It won't bring her back, if she is killed.
This is not completely isolated. I was forced/ threatened by a doctor to take home my daughter, when she had been diagnosed as bipolar, and was violent and psychotic. The very real danger to my life pushed me into a break down, and she went into foster care. I was fortunate that the case worker herself KNEW what bipolar was, and insured that my daughter got the right treatment, and was stabilized before being returned to me.
On the day my daughter came home, the case worker suggested that I file a complaint against the doctor involved, with the state medical board, and that she personally would back me in that complaint.
Pray that someone in Florida gets their head out of their posterior, before this woman dies. Sad that they are more concerned about the safety of the animals, than the safety of the grandmother.
If the boy didn't get any psychiatric help, he needs to. Grandmother should take him to couseling and get his psyche evaluated.
Hmm why cant they just euthanize him? Sounds like a future killer waiting to happen.
sad story, but the grandmother is the child's legal guardian since she adopted him when he was 4 yrs old.
There are institutions that will keep him there arent' there? she need to get herself a good case worker to help her find the proper care for the child.
AnotherD...: that is just so evil to say that the boy should be euthanized!!!! how can anyone in their right mind say this??? you ahev no heart, or a brain for that matter...
well she adopted the grandson as well as he did not kill her dogs but other pets...............
THAT said this boy is a nutter and who on earth thinks its ok for him to go back home should have him for a week or two in their home......this is care in the community gone to the extreme IMO..............and if this is him at 9 years old god help us all when he gets into his teens...............
two sides to every story, too many dogs isnt good for anyone... maybe it is he who is getting a raw deal and not her
While the story is very sad and unfortunate, she did agree to take on the burden of being his mother. The story says that she has raised him since he was about 6 months old.
no way she should be required she isnt his mother she didnt create him and he is insane and a threat to her. he should be put in juvy
http://www.sptimes.com/2007/04/10/tampab...
Answer:
Pure total insanity.
Grandma is now the parent (legally), thus they are kind of accurate in saying that she has responsibility.,
What is being completely overlooked here is that the State also has the legal responsibility to TAKE ACTION in the reality that this child is mentally ill, and absolutely a danger to her (and himself). Thus, if the state refuses to find placement, and the grandmother is harmed by being forced to take him home... they would be liable. It won't bring her back, if she is killed.
This is not completely isolated. I was forced/ threatened by a doctor to take home my daughter, when she had been diagnosed as bipolar, and was violent and psychotic. The very real danger to my life pushed me into a break down, and she went into foster care. I was fortunate that the case worker herself KNEW what bipolar was, and insured that my daughter got the right treatment, and was stabilized before being returned to me.
On the day my daughter came home, the case worker suggested that I file a complaint against the doctor involved, with the state medical board, and that she personally would back me in that complaint.
Pray that someone in Florida gets their head out of their posterior, before this woman dies. Sad that they are more concerned about the safety of the animals, than the safety of the grandmother.
If the boy didn't get any psychiatric help, he needs to. Grandmother should take him to couseling and get his psyche evaluated.
Hmm why cant they just euthanize him? Sounds like a future killer waiting to happen.
sad story, but the grandmother is the child's legal guardian since she adopted him when he was 4 yrs old.
There are institutions that will keep him there arent' there? she need to get herself a good case worker to help her find the proper care for the child.
AnotherD...: that is just so evil to say that the boy should be euthanized!!!! how can anyone in their right mind say this??? you ahev no heart, or a brain for that matter...
well she adopted the grandson as well as he did not kill her dogs but other pets...............
THAT said this boy is a nutter and who on earth thinks its ok for him to go back home should have him for a week or two in their home......this is care in the community gone to the extreme IMO..............and if this is him at 9 years old god help us all when he gets into his teens...............
two sides to every story, too many dogs isnt good for anyone... maybe it is he who is getting a raw deal and not her
While the story is very sad and unfortunate, she did agree to take on the burden of being his mother. The story says that she has raised him since he was about 6 months old.
no way she should be required she isnt his mother she didnt create him and he is insane and a threat to her. he should be put in juvy
Should the 2nd Amendment have limitations?
This question is aimed at staunch conservatives. While I wholeheartedly believe in the constitution and one's right to bear arms, shouldn't that right only go as far as peaceful arming extends? Is gun control so horribly LIBERAL because we simply wish that guns in the household are not within reach of children, that they are not within reach of those who are legally prohibited to carry one and that they be properly licensed and locked? I am a rare Democrat who believes that if you want a gun, buy a gun, but I do believe that at all costs, we have an OBLIGATION to put safety over preference... So my question remains: should the 2nd Amendment (the right to bear arms) have limitations?
Answer:
It does have limitations, just not direct ones: the Second Amendment protects our right to keep and bear arms (personal property), but the whole rest of the document pounds on and on about the grievous consequences should one choose to take another's right to life. You can own a gun and do whatever you want with it -- so long as "whatever" doesn't involve violating another's rights.
I'm a fairly staunch conservative, (although I lean more libertarian than republican) but I would agree that the 2nd amendment shouldn't be seen as some sort of unalterable "law of nature." The founding fathers were wise men, but they couldn't see the future. Limitations on the 2nd amendment are not at all out of line.
I think it's pretty clear that ordinary citizens shouldn't be allowed to own bazookas, flame throwers or grenade launchers.
Only if you put limitations on the first. And I belive if i want a m1a1 abrams tank I should be able to have one why not??
The second amendment should only have the limits inherently in it. It stands fine just like it is.
Leave our Constitution Alone!
The second amendment already has limitations.
One of them is the Brady Bill.
I strongly support the right to bear arms.
A man has to be able to defend his wife and children.
The second amendment makes specific reference to a well-regulated militia. I think this authorizes certain limitations provided they don't fundamentally undermine the right to bear arms.
No, considering the reason the founding fathers put the 2nd in the bill of rights for a reason. so we could protect our selfs from not only dangers but the Govt also.
With gun ownership also comes reponisbilites. like teaching your children about guns, how they can be dangerous, how they are not toys, and should not be handled without supervison.
I own quite a few Guns, I shoot all of them, I teach my two daughters how to properly handle guns safely. Neither one of my kids ages 16 and 8 have ever messed with any of my firearms with out me being there. Why you may ask? Because guns are not a mystrey to them, they are educated about them. My oldest daughter loves to shoot with me, and the youngest is looking forward to being able to shoot and not just watch.
I dont think we need anymore gun laws, heck if we would just enforce what laws are already on the books we would be fine.
The thing to remember is a firearm is a tool, Guns do not kill people, people kill people.
Answer:
It does have limitations, just not direct ones: the Second Amendment protects our right to keep and bear arms (personal property), but the whole rest of the document pounds on and on about the grievous consequences should one choose to take another's right to life. You can own a gun and do whatever you want with it -- so long as "whatever" doesn't involve violating another's rights.
I'm a fairly staunch conservative, (although I lean more libertarian than republican) but I would agree that the 2nd amendment shouldn't be seen as some sort of unalterable "law of nature." The founding fathers were wise men, but they couldn't see the future. Limitations on the 2nd amendment are not at all out of line.
I think it's pretty clear that ordinary citizens shouldn't be allowed to own bazookas, flame throwers or grenade launchers.
Only if you put limitations on the first. And I belive if i want a m1a1 abrams tank I should be able to have one why not??
The second amendment should only have the limits inherently in it. It stands fine just like it is.
Leave our Constitution Alone!
The second amendment already has limitations.
One of them is the Brady Bill.
I strongly support the right to bear arms.
A man has to be able to defend his wife and children.
The second amendment makes specific reference to a well-regulated militia. I think this authorizes certain limitations provided they don't fundamentally undermine the right to bear arms.
No, considering the reason the founding fathers put the 2nd in the bill of rights for a reason. so we could protect our selfs from not only dangers but the Govt also.
With gun ownership also comes reponisbilites. like teaching your children about guns, how they can be dangerous, how they are not toys, and should not be handled without supervison.
I own quite a few Guns, I shoot all of them, I teach my two daughters how to properly handle guns safely. Neither one of my kids ages 16 and 8 have ever messed with any of my firearms with out me being there. Why you may ask? Because guns are not a mystrey to them, they are educated about them. My oldest daughter loves to shoot with me, and the youngest is looking forward to being able to shoot and not just watch.
I dont think we need anymore gun laws, heck if we would just enforce what laws are already on the books we would be fine.
The thing to remember is a firearm is a tool, Guns do not kill people, people kill people.
Should the "right to bear arms" be modified or abolished in order to prevent more tragedies like yesterdays
killings at Virginia Tech??
has america had enough to learn a lesson that such a right shouldn麓t be granted so freely and also,that it is rather unnecesary
to have that right in the constitution?
Answer:
I like it when people paraphrase very important statements or ideas. Does anyone know what goes before "right to bear arms"? Anyone?? 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.
Look at this statement. The right to bear arms was stated so that people as apart of a militia could protect our state. This does not mean one should have 2,000 rocket launchers to intentionally cause harm to one's neighbors in his state or country. This means one could keep arms with being apart of a regulated militia.
We should look at our gun laws and reexamine what these laws state. We have laws that state one can not have a firearm with a certain type of grip, or size of magazine, or rate of fire. I have no problem with responsible ownership of firearms. And our representatives should put together crime/gun/law enforcement bills that make sense and have real impact on crime. These are not rights but entitlements we are given with responsibility to use them for good.
Remember columbine high school, what was the number one reason why those two boys killed and wounded their classmates? Their parents not paying attention to their children for they are responsible. NO. The school system for allowing cruelty and bullying on those who seem not like the norm and cause an atmosphere of hate. NO. The answer: Marilyn Manson. Ok, we blame a crappy entertainer, who puts out music not many people listen to, for causing 2 kids to open fire in a high school. Us as americans, human beings, do not like to look in the mirror for the cause or the real answers for any tragedy.
I am sorry to say this wait a couple of years you might see an example of carnage at a university or school that will make the Virginia Tech tragedy look like a picnic.
We need that Right to keep the Gov't in check.
Absolutely not.
Its not so much that Americans have so many guns (although 300 million guns for one country is an awful lot), there are plenty of other countries out there that have the similar amounts of guns per capita. It's simply America's gun culture. What is it that makes Americans so trigger-happy? It almost seems normal for people to carry guns around with them. Even some policemen and not to mention the army are perfectly happy to go guns blazing.
No because then the guns will only be in the hands of the police force and criminals....common folks will have no recourse except to die.
Here in small town East Texas, in the deep pine forest and hardwood river bottoms that I call home, we have always owned guns. Between my dad, my two brothers and me, we counted 37 guns between us. none of us has ever killed a soul (unless you think animals have souls). Crime is low in East Texas. I cannot remember the last time we had a murder with a gun. Guns are great deterrents to would be maniacs, and even if you don't deter em, you can always kill em...... peace...... Always remember guns do not kill, people do... and the Texas Motto.. FROM MY COLD DEAD FINGERS
If some of those students were allowed to conceal carry, perhaps that tragedy could have been averted.
What for? If someone wants a gun in this society, he or she can get one. The collection of guns in some areas is a big fat joke. Even some rogue policemen put them right back on the street.
Or you could look at it another way. If those students had been armed, the kid would have probably been taken out before he killed as many as he did. By this I am not suggesting that we arm all college students, but I am just playing the part of devil's advocate to show that there is more than one side to any argument.
Nope, it should be highlighted and encouraged to prevent the creation of "victim rich zones".
People who had that belief ended up following Hitler. Look it up - one of the first things he did while in power was to make guns illegal so that no one could get rid of him.
Look at it this way - most people who commit crimes with guns obtain those guns illegally. Think of all the gangs in Los Angeles (those felons aren't supposed to own guns, but they still get them).
How exactly does abolishing the right to bear arms deal with the facts of loonies and a US culture that tolerates gun violence?
Other countries have similar per capita ownership rates %26 they don't have the problems the US has: the problem doesn't lie with the laws or the gun. It lies with the culture itself. You'll never stop loonies and criminals getting guns so that line of reasoning is spurious.
Hi. Banning guns won't prevent tragedy. Sorry.
Guns are banned in Japan, yet mayor of Nagasaki was shot today.
Lib Lesson: Banning guns doesn't prevent gun violence.
Thanks. Bye.
Do you know that every Swiss citizen is legally required to have his military equipment at home, including guns (M57 automatic assault rifles) and ammo ? They keep a very small army, but can mobilize the whole country in 2-3 hours !!! That's one of the reasons Switzerland was never invaded, and during WW2, Nazis were at war with the whole world, including US, UK, and Russia, they went 2000 miles east up to the gates of Moscow, but not in Switzerland, and please check where Switzerland is on the map...
Now, how many times have you heard about shootings in Switzerland ??? The gun crime rate is a small fraction of the American rate, and in fact it's so low that statistics are not even kept... The same for Israel, they all have guns, assault rifles, even machine guns at home, but you'll never see a Swiss killing another Swiss or an Israeli killing another Israeli...
I think it's a matter of EDUCATION and CULTURE, which lead to TOLERANCE and RESPECT for others. Forcing people to obey stupid laws and gun control is NOT the answer, that can only lead to rebellion and more chaos. Sane, responsible, educated FREE people do not have any reason to take a gun and shoot another human being ...
I don't believe we should abolish the right to bear arms. There are many law abiding citizens that own weapons and do not abuse them in a manner that was sadly reported about VA Tech.
Should we take everyone's cars away from them because there are so many drunk driving related accidents in the country? Answer is simple...No.
You cannot or rather should not punish everyone because of a selected few's crimes.
criminals will get guns anyway , if they want them , the only thing more laws will do is make it harder for the law abiding citizens to bear arms (I agree that a strong psychological evaluations should be in place before one can obtain a gun license). So some sort of reform would help!!!! .......but you can't take them away completely!!! its in the Constitution
NO... the only thing that should be modified or abolished are the idiots and morons who want to give up their guns and their rights for some "security" because, once the guns are gone then the security will be gone too.
...sigh...so much ignorance, so little time.
Guns do not kill people. People kill people. Have you ever read a history book? Did you miss the 10,000 years of people murdering each other before the gun was ever invented?
Guns are just tools, like cars, hammers, computers, pencils, or anything else. All of those things can be used to kill people. No tool is evil, only the people that choose to use them for evil. You can not get rid of evil people by banning the tools they use. If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.
Making drugs illegal got them off the streets didn't it?
Please, I beg you. For the good of yourself, your country, and your world, grow up and get an education.
I think that a very conservative reading of the 4th Amendment would be to take it completely at its world--The right to bear arms IN ORDER TO SUSTAIN A WELL-ORDERED MILITIA shall not be abridged." There are still hunters out there who use guns to put food on the table, but not too many who do it with a handgun. We already limit the types of weapons we allow--automatic machine guns are not allowed, for example. Maybe if we just excluded handguns, unless that person has a valid reason for carrying one, like a police officer, we would be in a lot better shape.
Absolutely not. Some problems can't be legislated away, and the human propensity for violence is one of them. The right to bear arms is our last line of defense against a government run amok.
Should the worst happen, and the rest of our rights be revoked, an armed citizenry able to form a militia is the only thing that stands between America and dictatorship. That's why the framers wrote it in, and that's why it's important to keep. With our current President's mishandling and negligence toward constitutional matters, I'd think Democrats would value that second amendment now more than ever. I understand the emotional backlash against guns today- I just feel it's misplaced.
I apologize for the bluntness of this next statement, but if handguns were unavailable, there are messier weapons he could have employed. Someone with a desire to cause harm will find a way. No governing body can protect you as well as you can protect yourself. Safety is illusory- complacency is more dangerous to the individual than any nutjob with a pistol.
No! My history teacher just discussed this with us this morning. The purpose of having the right to bear arms is to protect us from our government... Seriously if they tried changing this law... the innocent people the ones who wouldn't use them unless they needed to protect themselves would suffer. THe people WHO WANT TO KILL people are gonna figure out one way or the other to get the guns or whatever weapon they so chose... So we need the "right to bear arms" to protect us from those wackos... and if someone else carried a gun in there then they could have shot him down and the number would have never been so high!
You are entitled to your opinion although that is opinion is misguided and spoken under emotions is a wake of a bad event.
No, because it wouldn't have prevented it. What other rights are you willing to give up to feel good, without accomplishing anything? If gun control worked, there would not have been any killings at Virginia Tech, due to the total gun ban on campus.
Do you really think that if it were illegal to own guns that the criminals would comply???! There would still be plenty of guns for the criminals and people like the guy from yesterday!! The saying where there is a will there is a way - is 100% true. Taking a defense measure away as well as a deterrent for criminals away from law abiding citizens is UN-American as well as a very very dangerous for the innocent. The gun didn't go up to the person and say I want to go on a rampage just as baseball bats, metal pipes, fireplace pokers, kitchen knives and many everyday items did not do and are used in killings daily. Are we going to make them illegal????????
They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
So people will just buy guns on the street instead of at Galyans. Great Idea!
The right to bear arms was placed in the Constitution specifically to allow us to protect ourselves from tyrannical government and foreign invasion. Are you trying to imply that our government does not tax us excessively, infringe on our rights in any way, or ignore even the slightest detail of the law that gives it its' authority? And never will? That would be an incredibly naive position to take.
I think we should have the right to bear arms, but modify it so that it doesn't get into the wrong hands. I don't understand why these people don't want to change this law. America hasn't learned lessons from Columbine or the attack in Texas. "This is such a tragedy to be learned from" is the most popular quote from every single massacre that you'll hear, but this "tragedy" that keeps happening over and over again. In Europe and Canada common folk Have the right to carry hand guns and semi-automatics but under very strict gun laws. Thats why you don't hear some spree killing in those places.
Yesterday would have happened regardless of gun controls, someone that motivated would have found a way to get a weapon.
These sort of questions always bring out the extremists and you will no dounbt be called a Nazi and get the guns dont kill people etc spurious arguments.
The fact is that whilst your country seems to want to embroil itself in stupid unwinnable wars at monumental tax payer cost it doesnt have the funding to provide cheap or free mental health access so that people can get help and early intervention when they seemingly have no way out of crisis.
The American culture certainly contributes in that it portrays the use of a firearm as an acceptable resolution to issues, and has done so since the early cowboy flms.
Americans really need to ask themselves why they require so many weapons in the public arena. Why does the average Joe need to have access to a 50mm automatic weapon and why is it so available?
So your constituion gives you the right to "bear arms', perhaps your founding fathers were refering to the wearing of a sleeveless waistcoat.
Abolishing Guns will not solve the problem entirely. The problem (of violence) stems from a variety of societal ills. Mental health, absence of fathers in the home (this is esp. true, but not limited to the African American community), a narcissistic culture, and the absence of purpose in peoples lives.
It is true that countries who have strict gun control laws, have fewer incidents of gun violence. Of course in these countries fear of the government plays a powerful role in deterring all kinds of crimes. And besides all that, they are not free. America has always owned guns, it is only in the past 35 years that we have seen such a rise in gun violence, this tells us that the problem is not guns, the problem is in our soul.
The right to bear arms has nothing to do with what happen yesterday, even though some will jump on the bandwagon and claim laws should be abolished. Why change the law, only one person is guilty of that tragedy at VT, not every citizen in the US. Criminals and killers will get guns, regardless. So, why should we be forced to change "our right to bear arms", just what the criminals , murders and some politicians want, this way, we can not protect our self in our homes and other places. If that killer at VT had broke into my house or tried to shoot me, he would have been stopped forever immediately. Armed citizens do help prevent a lot more crime than ever covered by the Media. I think if a person is born in the US, has all identification, fingerprinted and can be a hundred percent verified that the person is who they say they are, then they have the right to bear arms, (not anyone with a criminal record) .Any and all others should not. It is our right, not their right. Abolishing or modified regarding "right to bear arms" is exactly what criminals , some politicians and terrorist would love to see happen, so why play into their hands. I say, stand up for our "right to bear arms". A lot more protection for the citizens.
has america had enough to learn a lesson that such a right shouldn麓t be granted so freely and also,that it is rather unnecesary
to have that right in the constitution?
Answer:
I like it when people paraphrase very important statements or ideas. Does anyone know what goes before "right to bear arms"? Anyone?? 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.
Look at this statement. The right to bear arms was stated so that people as apart of a militia could protect our state. This does not mean one should have 2,000 rocket launchers to intentionally cause harm to one's neighbors in his state or country. This means one could keep arms with being apart of a regulated militia.
We should look at our gun laws and reexamine what these laws state. We have laws that state one can not have a firearm with a certain type of grip, or size of magazine, or rate of fire. I have no problem with responsible ownership of firearms. And our representatives should put together crime/gun/law enforcement bills that make sense and have real impact on crime. These are not rights but entitlements we are given with responsibility to use them for good.
Remember columbine high school, what was the number one reason why those two boys killed and wounded their classmates? Their parents not paying attention to their children for they are responsible. NO. The school system for allowing cruelty and bullying on those who seem not like the norm and cause an atmosphere of hate. NO. The answer: Marilyn Manson. Ok, we blame a crappy entertainer, who puts out music not many people listen to, for causing 2 kids to open fire in a high school. Us as americans, human beings, do not like to look in the mirror for the cause or the real answers for any tragedy.
I am sorry to say this wait a couple of years you might see an example of carnage at a university or school that will make the Virginia Tech tragedy look like a picnic.
We need that Right to keep the Gov't in check.
Absolutely not.
Its not so much that Americans have so many guns (although 300 million guns for one country is an awful lot), there are plenty of other countries out there that have the similar amounts of guns per capita. It's simply America's gun culture. What is it that makes Americans so trigger-happy? It almost seems normal for people to carry guns around with them. Even some policemen and not to mention the army are perfectly happy to go guns blazing.
No because then the guns will only be in the hands of the police force and criminals....common folks will have no recourse except to die.
Here in small town East Texas, in the deep pine forest and hardwood river bottoms that I call home, we have always owned guns. Between my dad, my two brothers and me, we counted 37 guns between us. none of us has ever killed a soul (unless you think animals have souls). Crime is low in East Texas. I cannot remember the last time we had a murder with a gun. Guns are great deterrents to would be maniacs, and even if you don't deter em, you can always kill em...... peace...... Always remember guns do not kill, people do... and the Texas Motto.. FROM MY COLD DEAD FINGERS
If some of those students were allowed to conceal carry, perhaps that tragedy could have been averted.
What for? If someone wants a gun in this society, he or she can get one. The collection of guns in some areas is a big fat joke. Even some rogue policemen put them right back on the street.
Or you could look at it another way. If those students had been armed, the kid would have probably been taken out before he killed as many as he did. By this I am not suggesting that we arm all college students, but I am just playing the part of devil's advocate to show that there is more than one side to any argument.
Nope, it should be highlighted and encouraged to prevent the creation of "victim rich zones".
People who had that belief ended up following Hitler. Look it up - one of the first things he did while in power was to make guns illegal so that no one could get rid of him.
Look at it this way - most people who commit crimes with guns obtain those guns illegally. Think of all the gangs in Los Angeles (those felons aren't supposed to own guns, but they still get them).
How exactly does abolishing the right to bear arms deal with the facts of loonies and a US culture that tolerates gun violence?
Other countries have similar per capita ownership rates %26 they don't have the problems the US has: the problem doesn't lie with the laws or the gun. It lies with the culture itself. You'll never stop loonies and criminals getting guns so that line of reasoning is spurious.
Hi. Banning guns won't prevent tragedy. Sorry.
Guns are banned in Japan, yet mayor of Nagasaki was shot today.
Lib Lesson: Banning guns doesn't prevent gun violence.
Thanks. Bye.
Do you know that every Swiss citizen is legally required to have his military equipment at home, including guns (M57 automatic assault rifles) and ammo ? They keep a very small army, but can mobilize the whole country in 2-3 hours !!! That's one of the reasons Switzerland was never invaded, and during WW2, Nazis were at war with the whole world, including US, UK, and Russia, they went 2000 miles east up to the gates of Moscow, but not in Switzerland, and please check where Switzerland is on the map...
Now, how many times have you heard about shootings in Switzerland ??? The gun crime rate is a small fraction of the American rate, and in fact it's so low that statistics are not even kept... The same for Israel, they all have guns, assault rifles, even machine guns at home, but you'll never see a Swiss killing another Swiss or an Israeli killing another Israeli...
I think it's a matter of EDUCATION and CULTURE, which lead to TOLERANCE and RESPECT for others. Forcing people to obey stupid laws and gun control is NOT the answer, that can only lead to rebellion and more chaos. Sane, responsible, educated FREE people do not have any reason to take a gun and shoot another human being ...
I don't believe we should abolish the right to bear arms. There are many law abiding citizens that own weapons and do not abuse them in a manner that was sadly reported about VA Tech.
Should we take everyone's cars away from them because there are so many drunk driving related accidents in the country? Answer is simple...No.
You cannot or rather should not punish everyone because of a selected few's crimes.
criminals will get guns anyway , if they want them , the only thing more laws will do is make it harder for the law abiding citizens to bear arms (I agree that a strong psychological evaluations should be in place before one can obtain a gun license). So some sort of reform would help!!!! .......but you can't take them away completely!!! its in the Constitution
NO... the only thing that should be modified or abolished are the idiots and morons who want to give up their guns and their rights for some "security" because, once the guns are gone then the security will be gone too.
...sigh...so much ignorance, so little time.
Guns do not kill people. People kill people. Have you ever read a history book? Did you miss the 10,000 years of people murdering each other before the gun was ever invented?
Guns are just tools, like cars, hammers, computers, pencils, or anything else. All of those things can be used to kill people. No tool is evil, only the people that choose to use them for evil. You can not get rid of evil people by banning the tools they use. If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.
Making drugs illegal got them off the streets didn't it?
Please, I beg you. For the good of yourself, your country, and your world, grow up and get an education.
I think that a very conservative reading of the 4th Amendment would be to take it completely at its world--The right to bear arms IN ORDER TO SUSTAIN A WELL-ORDERED MILITIA shall not be abridged." There are still hunters out there who use guns to put food on the table, but not too many who do it with a handgun. We already limit the types of weapons we allow--automatic machine guns are not allowed, for example. Maybe if we just excluded handguns, unless that person has a valid reason for carrying one, like a police officer, we would be in a lot better shape.
Absolutely not. Some problems can't be legislated away, and the human propensity for violence is one of them. The right to bear arms is our last line of defense against a government run amok.
Should the worst happen, and the rest of our rights be revoked, an armed citizenry able to form a militia is the only thing that stands between America and dictatorship. That's why the framers wrote it in, and that's why it's important to keep. With our current President's mishandling and negligence toward constitutional matters, I'd think Democrats would value that second amendment now more than ever. I understand the emotional backlash against guns today- I just feel it's misplaced.
I apologize for the bluntness of this next statement, but if handguns were unavailable, there are messier weapons he could have employed. Someone with a desire to cause harm will find a way. No governing body can protect you as well as you can protect yourself. Safety is illusory- complacency is more dangerous to the individual than any nutjob with a pistol.
No! My history teacher just discussed this with us this morning. The purpose of having the right to bear arms is to protect us from our government... Seriously if they tried changing this law... the innocent people the ones who wouldn't use them unless they needed to protect themselves would suffer. THe people WHO WANT TO KILL people are gonna figure out one way or the other to get the guns or whatever weapon they so chose... So we need the "right to bear arms" to protect us from those wackos... and if someone else carried a gun in there then they could have shot him down and the number would have never been so high!
You are entitled to your opinion although that is opinion is misguided and spoken under emotions is a wake of a bad event.
No, because it wouldn't have prevented it. What other rights are you willing to give up to feel good, without accomplishing anything? If gun control worked, there would not have been any killings at Virginia Tech, due to the total gun ban on campus.
Do you really think that if it were illegal to own guns that the criminals would comply???! There would still be plenty of guns for the criminals and people like the guy from yesterday!! The saying where there is a will there is a way - is 100% true. Taking a defense measure away as well as a deterrent for criminals away from law abiding citizens is UN-American as well as a very very dangerous for the innocent. The gun didn't go up to the person and say I want to go on a rampage just as baseball bats, metal pipes, fireplace pokers, kitchen knives and many everyday items did not do and are used in killings daily. Are we going to make them illegal????????
They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
So people will just buy guns on the street instead of at Galyans. Great Idea!
The right to bear arms was placed in the Constitution specifically to allow us to protect ourselves from tyrannical government and foreign invasion. Are you trying to imply that our government does not tax us excessively, infringe on our rights in any way, or ignore even the slightest detail of the law that gives it its' authority? And never will? That would be an incredibly naive position to take.
I think we should have the right to bear arms, but modify it so that it doesn't get into the wrong hands. I don't understand why these people don't want to change this law. America hasn't learned lessons from Columbine or the attack in Texas. "This is such a tragedy to be learned from" is the most popular quote from every single massacre that you'll hear, but this "tragedy" that keeps happening over and over again. In Europe and Canada common folk Have the right to carry hand guns and semi-automatics but under very strict gun laws. Thats why you don't hear some spree killing in those places.
Yesterday would have happened regardless of gun controls, someone that motivated would have found a way to get a weapon.
These sort of questions always bring out the extremists and you will no dounbt be called a Nazi and get the guns dont kill people etc spurious arguments.
The fact is that whilst your country seems to want to embroil itself in stupid unwinnable wars at monumental tax payer cost it doesnt have the funding to provide cheap or free mental health access so that people can get help and early intervention when they seemingly have no way out of crisis.
The American culture certainly contributes in that it portrays the use of a firearm as an acceptable resolution to issues, and has done so since the early cowboy flms.
Americans really need to ask themselves why they require so many weapons in the public arena. Why does the average Joe need to have access to a 50mm automatic weapon and why is it so available?
So your constituion gives you the right to "bear arms', perhaps your founding fathers were refering to the wearing of a sleeveless waistcoat.
Abolishing Guns will not solve the problem entirely. The problem (of violence) stems from a variety of societal ills. Mental health, absence of fathers in the home (this is esp. true, but not limited to the African American community), a narcissistic culture, and the absence of purpose in peoples lives.
It is true that countries who have strict gun control laws, have fewer incidents of gun violence. Of course in these countries fear of the government plays a powerful role in deterring all kinds of crimes. And besides all that, they are not free. America has always owned guns, it is only in the past 35 years that we have seen such a rise in gun violence, this tells us that the problem is not guns, the problem is in our soul.
The right to bear arms has nothing to do with what happen yesterday, even though some will jump on the bandwagon and claim laws should be abolished. Why change the law, only one person is guilty of that tragedy at VT, not every citizen in the US. Criminals and killers will get guns, regardless. So, why should we be forced to change "our right to bear arms", just what the criminals , murders and some politicians want, this way, we can not protect our self in our homes and other places. If that killer at VT had broke into my house or tried to shoot me, he would have been stopped forever immediately. Armed citizens do help prevent a lot more crime than ever covered by the Media. I think if a person is born in the US, has all identification, fingerprinted and can be a hundred percent verified that the person is who they say they are, then they have the right to bear arms, (not anyone with a criminal record) .Any and all others should not. It is our right, not their right. Abolishing or modified regarding "right to bear arms" is exactly what criminals , some politicians and terrorist would love to see happen, so why play into their hands. I say, stand up for our "right to bear arms". A lot more protection for the citizens.
Should Texas Repeal/Review its Death Penalty because of the new wave of people freed due to DNA?
Texas killed 78 inmates last year, that is more than one a week. They refused to honor the Supreme Court suggestion on a moratorium on killing the mentally impaired. Most of the other states have either repealed or put a moratorium on the death penalty while they review all cases that hinged on DNA and a record number of people have been freed after being wrongfully convicted. Texas is not actively looking at reviewing cases where DNA or circumstantial evidence could free a inmate. Is this fair? I am not advocating freeing those who are guilty and believe that in most cases Life without the possibilityof parole is sufficient. BUT should we take the chance of killing innoncent people rather than admitting there maybe a mistake? The justice system is not set up to kill the innoncent, but instead protect them.
Answer:
The death penalty is there for a reason and I support it. I do think that with new evidence-DNA-you should have a right to appeal your sentence. And I do believe that a lot of poor people don't get the same treatment as those with $ for a good lawyer. On the other hand I have known people that are so evil they do not deserve to live among other humans and when they commit "that" crime they need to know that if they are caught and proven guilty, they are going to die. You don't do a simple murder and get the death sentence, you have to do something heinous. Look at it from the victim's viewpoint instead of the criminals. . .it will give you a whole new viewpoint about who really has the rights and who doesn't.
Death penalty should stay, but only when DNA or several witnesses (like a shooting in public) has been used to prove them guilty. If DNA isn't available, then they should get life. Before an execution, old evidence should be looked at, this should be mandatory.
The guy freed yesterday on DNA results after 20 years in prison is appalling. They should have done these tests to exonerate him many many years ago?
20 years to wait and be cleared by DNA?
I hope he sues for about a half billion dollars..
Texas now has life without parole on the books. It means what it says and spending the rest of ones life behind bars is no picnic.
There are 2 cases - both recent- in which it is highly likely that Texas executed an innocent person. In the case of Cameron Willingham the fire investigation techniques used to convict him of arson/murder are out of date and newer forensics have shown the fire was not arson, but was an accident. Willingham was killed by the state of Texas for a crime that never happened. The other case, that of Carlos de Luna, also in Texas, involved mistaken identification. (2006, Chicago Tribune)
DNA evidence is available in less than 10% of all homicides and it is not a guarantee that another innocent person will not be sent to his death.
Texas plans to execute Scott Panetti who is seriously mentally ill. Texas plans to execute James Lee Clark today. His IQ is 68, that is, he suffers from borderline mental retardation. Now that Texas has life without parole on the books I hope they will rethink whether they want to continue as a death penalty factory.
The justice system is set up to protect the innocent by killing those who in all probability have committed heinous crimes. The recidivism rate for murderers is about 6%. We have to balance the risk of executing an innocent with that of a convicted killer killing someone in the prison system of eventually getting paroled in 25 years and then killing again.
Plus other less relevant but still important factors of sending a message about what society thinks of murder, and hoping to deter others.
Answer:
The death penalty is there for a reason and I support it. I do think that with new evidence-DNA-you should have a right to appeal your sentence. And I do believe that a lot of poor people don't get the same treatment as those with $ for a good lawyer. On the other hand I have known people that are so evil they do not deserve to live among other humans and when they commit "that" crime they need to know that if they are caught and proven guilty, they are going to die. You don't do a simple murder and get the death sentence, you have to do something heinous. Look at it from the victim's viewpoint instead of the criminals. . .it will give you a whole new viewpoint about who really has the rights and who doesn't.
Death penalty should stay, but only when DNA or several witnesses (like a shooting in public) has been used to prove them guilty. If DNA isn't available, then they should get life. Before an execution, old evidence should be looked at, this should be mandatory.
The guy freed yesterday on DNA results after 20 years in prison is appalling. They should have done these tests to exonerate him many many years ago?
20 years to wait and be cleared by DNA?
I hope he sues for about a half billion dollars..
Texas now has life without parole on the books. It means what it says and spending the rest of ones life behind bars is no picnic.
There are 2 cases - both recent- in which it is highly likely that Texas executed an innocent person. In the case of Cameron Willingham the fire investigation techniques used to convict him of arson/murder are out of date and newer forensics have shown the fire was not arson, but was an accident. Willingham was killed by the state of Texas for a crime that never happened. The other case, that of Carlos de Luna, also in Texas, involved mistaken identification. (2006, Chicago Tribune)
DNA evidence is available in less than 10% of all homicides and it is not a guarantee that another innocent person will not be sent to his death.
Texas plans to execute Scott Panetti who is seriously mentally ill. Texas plans to execute James Lee Clark today. His IQ is 68, that is, he suffers from borderline mental retardation. Now that Texas has life without parole on the books I hope they will rethink whether they want to continue as a death penalty factory.
The justice system is set up to protect the innocent by killing those who in all probability have committed heinous crimes. The recidivism rate for murderers is about 6%. We have to balance the risk of executing an innocent with that of a convicted killer killing someone in the prison system of eventually getting paroled in 25 years and then killing again.
Plus other less relevant but still important factors of sending a message about what society thinks of murder, and hoping to deter others.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)