"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
There's no wiggle room whatsoever there.
Posted on 04/20/2006 12:34:48 PM PDT by My Favorite Headache
I hear ya.
I was on the rifle team in high school.
More is the pity we have lost that.
Never published any threats.
Of course, being a teenager, threats were made against the school in the nature of, "Someday I'm gonna blow that school up".
There was never any actual intent to follow through, but.............
Do you know how many guns were found? There were five kids. If, for example, they only found two guns, I'd tend to agree with you that the kids are just fooling around.
When it comes to five kids plotting a Columbine-type massacre, uh, yeah, it does.
What is it with you? You interpret any question with the word "gun" in it as a challenge to the second amendment?
Forget I asked. I'll get back to you the next time I think I need you to tell me about the constitution. Which is never.
I don't care about any issue of kids plotting or not plotting anything.
We either have the Bill of Rights or we don't. There's no shades of gray here. Its an absolutist thing.
Yes, I take ANY perceived threat to the Second Amendment very seriously....especially when it comes from government and their police powers.
It sounds like you'd rather trade essential liberty for security, my friend. And as Franklin observed, people who do deserve neither.
ALL gun laws are unconstitutional. Regardless of what activist idiot judges have ruled.
This isn't a Second Amendment issue at all. Merely having the means to commit a criminal act alone isn't what got these kids busted - it was having the means combined with establishing intent via the MySpace posting that did it. Likewise, if no weapons had been found at all then the defense would have an easier time explaining away the intent part by claiming it was just kids blowing off steam on the internet.
Instead now all the prosecution has to do is establish motive and they will have the holy trinity of motive, means, and intent.
Lesson to be learned here is if you want to be a gun owner, be a responsible one and practice self discipline in what you say and do. In my mind any kid that can't even control himself to that extent shouldn't have unsupervised access to guns anyway, at least not until he matures some more.
My point is I despise gun owners that are not mature or disciplined enough to conduct themselves in a responsible manner. At the very least their lack of respect for their guns and the right to have them reflects poorly on other gun owners, and may very well be an indicator of a reckless individual that is indeed a real threat.
There is no second amendment threat. The federal government is not involved in this case -- the State of Kansas is bringing charges. Every single time it's come before them, the federal courts have ruled that the second amendment of the U.S. Constitution only protects against federal infringement -- the states are bound only by their State Constitutions.
The Supreme Court of Kansas has held that the Bill of Rights, Section 4, in the Kansas State Constitution does not confer an individual right to "bear arms." Rather, it only protects the rights of a member of the state militia or other military organization provided for by law. City of Salina v. Blaksley, 83 P. 619 (1905).
What is it with you? You interpret any question with the word "gun" in it as a challenge to the second amendment?
Forget I asked. I'll get back to you the next time I think I need you to tell me about the constitution.
Which is never.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
We either have the Bill of Rights or we don't. There's no shades of gray here.
Crispus Attucks
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Be aware that Paulsen insists that the Bill of Rights does not apply to State or Local governments.
"-- **************Ready for the big one? California can ban all guns if they so chose. There's nothing in the state constitution (one of six states, I believe) about the right to keep and bear arms. --"
129 posted on 11/20/2003 1:30 PM PST by robertpaulsen
I understand your point of being mature and disciplined enough.
My father made sure that I knew exactly what could and could not and should and should not be done with a firearm.
By the time I was 13 I was hunting with a shotgun or a rifle and setting my own traps in the deep piney woods so I could sell the fur.
Every single time it's come before them, the federal courts have ruled that the second amendment of the U.S. Constitution only protects against federal infringement -- the states are bound only by their State Constitutions.
And every single time it's come before them, the federal courts have ~erroneously~ ruled that the second amendment of the U.S. Constitution "only protects against federal infringement", -- thereby ignoring the clear words in the rest of the Constitution that States are bound to support the "Law of the Land" [Art VI] and the 14th Amendments due process clause.
Our Constitution is based on protecting our rights to life, liberty or property. -- Guns are essential property. -- Only trolls insist that they can be prohibited.
Schools should be no gun zones! Oops - never mind.
It would crack me up to learn the guns and ammo were in a safe.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.