Another shooting. Defending the indefensible.

[ZNP]

You give up 0 rights to drive a car. Driving a car is not a right.

What we need are car control laws. Why do people in Australia need their own personal car? No, you can use the bus, it will be better on the environment and it will kill fewer people. It is such hypocrisy to be attacking gun owners because of an event where six people are killed while shrugging your shoulders and ignoring the 1,000+ people killed each year on Australian roads! That doesn't even take into account the destruction to the environment. Do you really want to get Greta angry again? Do you really want to hear another lecture from AOC?

How can a progressive people who claim to care about human life and the environment be so hypocritical?

Gideon, when will this horrible hypocrisy end?

 

[Dude653]

Not everyone is qualified to homeschool. If a grown adult is reading at a third grade level, he probably shouldn't be home schooling his kids

 

[ZNP]

Not everyone is qualified to homeschool. If a grown adult is reading at a third grade level, he probably shouldn't be home schooling his kids

I suppose you know a lot of adults reading at a 3rd grade level, my guess is they were all a product of the public school system.

The main argument for public school is "let the experts do it". Sadly, most parents are so foolish they don't realize they are the expert on their children. Homeschool can fashion an education plan specific for your children.

 

[HealthAndHappiness]

You give up 0 rights to drive a car. Driving a car is not a right.

I have heard that.
Guess who told me?
Someone who makes his living from those who pay his wages. The system was instituted to make big money by overstepping boundaries not given by the Constitution or the Bible.

I don't want to argue. It might not do you any good, but it might be interesting to read the history of transportation and the laws.
Our media has fed us too many lies to believe them any more.

The gvts and billionaires who control them know that you will jump when they say jump. Pay to junk and throw away that car you are making payments on ?
No problem. That's not a right. Ownership of property no longer exists. States world wide own it and charge those who bought it rent for the privilege to use it every year.

15 Minutes travel from home?
Just tell me whether that's by electric scooter or by walking. Am I allowed to walk beyond the designated zone?
Oh, btw, where an I allowed to live now Klause Swab? Oh, that place that belongs to the big company is not mine so you gave me a bed and three bugs a day at the Smart City?
Wonderful!

Do you see how this has escalated, Cameron?

 

[ZNP]

I have heard that.
Guess who told me?
Someone who makes his living from those who pay his wages. The system was instituted to make big money by overstepping boundaries not given by the Constitution or the Bible.

I don't want to argue. It might not do you any good, but it might be interesting to read the history of transportation and the laws.
Our media has fed us too many lies to believe them any more.

The gvts and billionaires who control them know that you will jump when they say jump. Pay to junk and throw away that car you are making payments on ?
No problem. That's not a right. Ownership of property no longer exists. States world wide own it and charge those who bought it rent for the privilege to use it every year.

15 Minutes travel from home?
Just tell me whether that's by electric scooter or by walking. Am I allowed to walk beyond the designated zone?
Oh, btw, where an I allowed to live now Klause Swab? Oh, that place that belongs to the big company is not mine so you gave me a bed and three bugs a day at the Smart City?
Wonderful!

Do you see how this has escalated, Cameron?

I get it 3 bugs a day doesn't seem like much when you are thinking of ants or some other insect, but the biggest bugs are 2.5 oz, so 3 bugs is like 1/2 pound of protein, per day! You could live off of that.

 

[HealthAndHappiness]

I get it 3 bugs a day doesn't seem like much when you are thinking of ants or some other insect, but the biggest bugs are 2.5 oz, so 3 bugs is like 1/2 pound of protein, per day! You could live off of that.

3 Square meals a day and a bunk bed to go with the community bathroom. It will probably be more when they factor in the cricket flour spaghetti. Haven't you heard? Food will no longer be a right, but a privilege.
😉

 

[Cameron143]

I have heard that.
Guess who told me?
Someone who makes his living from those who pay his wages. The system was instituted to make big money by overstepping boundaries not given by the Constitution or the Bible.

I don't want to argue. It might not do you any good, but it might be interesting to read the history of transportation and the laws.
Our media has fed us too many lies to believe them any more.

The gvts and billionaires who control them know that you will jump when they say jump. Pay to junk and throw away that car you are making payments on ?
No problem. That's not a right. Ownership of property no longer exists. States world wide own it and charge those who bought it rent for the privilege to use it every year.

15 Minutes travel from home?
Just tell me whether that's by electric scooter or by walking. Am I allowed to walk beyond the designated zone?
Oh, btw, where an I allowed to live now Klause Swab? Oh, that place that belongs to the big company is not mine so you gave me a bed and three bugs a day at the Smart City?
Wonderful!

Do you see how this has escalated, Cameron?

I'm not arguing that governments or employers have abusive policies. I'm merely pointing out that driving isn't a God given right or a constitutional right.
The right to own guns is not a God given right either. But it is constitutionally protected and without exception according to the constitution of the United States.

 

[HealthAndHappiness]

I'm not arguing that governments or employers have abusive policies. I'm merely pointing out that driving isn't a God given right or a constitutional right.
The right to own guns is not a God given right either. But it is constitutionally protected and without exception according to the constitution of the United States.

I see your point.
I ask myself where travel was restricted, forbidden or otherwise controlled in the Bible.
Jesus told us in Mark 16,
" Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature."

A battle blade called the machaira was carried by the Roman legion. It was plenty capable of taking life or saving it. It had an unlimited ammo capacity. Every thrust or slash could make a much.larger wound channel than the commonly used military ammunition today.

"And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing.36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.37 For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.38 And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough."
Luke 22

 

[ThereRoseaLamb]

Not everyone is qualified to homeschool. If a grown adult is reading at a third grade level, he probably shouldn't be home schooling his kids

All kinds of parents have little schooling and are smarter than so called teachers. My grandfather had a 3rd grade education. He raised 5 children, all went into professions, one an electrician, my mother was a nurse, the brother that had learning issues worked in a mine all his life and made more many than anyone else in the family who went into professions. My grandfather was a fisherman and also built houses. He also built his own boats. My mother said that he was so adept at what he did that when someone wanted a house built in their town they would insist on my grandfather doing the job. He built his own two story home, and that home, and the others he built still stand strong as a rock today long after he passed. All that on a 3rd level education.

 

[GaryA]

I get it 3 bugs a day doesn't seem like much when you are thinking of ants or some other insect, but the biggest bugs are 2.5 oz, so 3 bugs is like 1/2 pound of protein, per day! You could live off of that.

3 Square meals a day...

What kind of bugs are square...???

 

[Cameron143]

What kind of bugs are square...???

The ones that aren't hip.

 

[GaryA]

Every law is subject to interpretation. Define 'arms'. When that was written, there were no semi automatic rifles that could put a round through thick steel.

And, you are subjecting it to liberalized skewed thinking...

When that was written, the intent for it was that the common people had available every form of weapon for defense as the government might have for offense. It was not written to be based on "type of gun" - it was written to give citizens "as good or better" than whatever the government had that could be used against them.

If it were interpreted today as precisely as it was back then, the average citizen today would own a bazooka if they wanted one. Moreover, we would not have the national military as we know today; instead, in every state, 'We the People' would be the armed-to-the-teeth 'militia' that the Constitution specifies.

To properly understand our Constitution, you have to first understand the mind-set of the people who wrote it.

What were they up against? What was their experience? What did they want to make sure never happened again?

'arms' = "anything that can-and-must-be used by a citizen to protect themselves from [abuses of] the government"

How is that for an interpretation?

 

[GaryA]

Every law is subject to interpretation.

subject to proper interpretation - not just any interpretation

 

[Cameron143]

subject to proper interpretation - not just any interpretation

Few people have read the Federalist Papers. That's why they don't understand original intent. This is also why they don't push back against Supreme Court decisions that are unconstitutional.
But worst are those who believe that the Constitution is a living breathing document able to be interpreted as they please. It shows their ignorance of law or their deliberate intention to distort it, enabling them to change laws without ever having to go through the ammendment process.

 

[ZNP]

Few people have read the Federalist Papers. That's why they don't understand original intent. This is also why they don't push back against Supreme Court decisions that are unconstitutional.
But worst are those who believe that the Constitution is a living breathing document able to be interpreted as they please. It shows their ignorance of law or their deliberate intention to distort it, enabling them to change laws without ever having to go through the ammendment process.

Surely the Supreme court justices have, like Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Justice Sonya Sotomayor, ummm, on second thought scratch that.

Hopefully Jackson has focused on the definition of a woman and Sotamayor has stopped watching horror films

 

[GaryA]

Does a parent have the right to send their children to school without fearing for their safety?

The answer to your question would be dependent upon how a society chooses to conduct itself.

You are afraid of possible criminal incident. We know that - "if left to itself" - it will certainly happen if we allow it to occur.

If you really want to keep your children safe at school:

1) See to it that every person elected, appointed, and hired to oversee your children are good honest moral people who will personally take it upon themselves to protect your children at any-and-all cost to themselves.

If your children are not surrounded by these kind of people at school - their safety has already been compromised.

2) Make sure that they are well-armed and well-trained with their weapon of choice.

This is not to say that it should be mandatory for each person on a school staff to be armed. This is, and has to be, strictly on a volunteer basis.

How many people would be foolish enough to walk into such a school with the intend to do harm - accepting the risk of being shot multiple times by armed school staff - possibly even before they could begin to inflict that harm?

If you want to avoid all of this, there are two options:

1) See to it that every citizen is a good honest moral upstanding God-fearing Christian strong in his/her faith.

2) Homeschooling

(Now you know why homeschooling is such a popular solution.)

 

[GaryA]

Balance that against the right to bear arms.

Yes - 'balance' is what the right to bear arms is all about...

 

[GaryA]

The ones that aren't hip.

I was actually thinking while writing that question that someone would surely make such a remark - and wondered who would be the first to beat everyone else to it...

 

[Cameron143]

I was actually thinking while writing that question that someone would surely make such a remark - and wondered who would be the first to beat everyone else to it...

So what I'm hearing is that I am no smarter or funnier than anyone else but am faster or by dumb luck just happened across the right thread at the right time. Also, that had you chosen such professional endeavor, you would have been quite the straight man in a comic duo.

 

[HealthAndHappiness]

When that was written, the intent for it was that the common people had available every form of weapon for defense as the government might have for offense. It was not written to be based on "type of gun" - it was written to give citizens "as good or better" than whatever the government had that could be used against them.

If it were interpreted today as precisely as it was back then, the average citizen today would own a bazooka if they wanted one. Moreover, we would not have the national military as we know today; instead, in every state, 'We the People' would be the armed-to-the-teeth 'militia' that the Constitution specifies.

To properly understand our Constitution, you have to first understand the mind-set of the people who wrote it.

What were they up against? What was their experience? What did they want to make sure never happened again?

'arms' = "anything that can-and-must-be used by a citizen to protect themselves from [abuses of] the government"

How is that for an interpretation?

It's common knowledge of historians that the people used everything and anything in their private ownership when the war began. Some with enough wealth owned cannons. Some of those are still on display in prominent places.

Interesting Article