Ok. Call up Trump and tell him how much more he needs to increase the budget to send approx 10 guns, bullets, vests and training for 10 people for every high, middle, elementary school in the country. Set your watch on how long it will take him to say no. After that don't forget the same for daycare centers.Yes, exactly.
Out of the goodness of our hearts and respect for America and the 2A? That's how. How do we pay to allow every criminal defendant a lawyer? Because we respect the constitution, that's why.
BTW - How many of the people's 2A rights were lost from 1994 to 2004?Pens and paper are not specifically enumerated in the bill of rights. This is whataboutism at its finest. The discussion here is about bringing the 2A to as many people as possible.
The question in the tweet is how do you pay for arming teachers?
BTW - How many of the people's 2A rights were lost from 1994 to 2004?
Its beginning to sound like a new era in home schooling is upon us.Any solution on school security should probably agreed upon/funded at the local community level. Metal detectors/Body scanners/Security at the entrance etc... Otherwise its going to come out of the standard school budget, the decision will come down to something like, will we sacrifice arts/theater/athletics for security? Choose one.
I didn't ask you that. I asked you how many of the people's 2A rights were lost/taken from 1994-2004?Every single person was infringed. Including non gun owners. We've been infringed since 1934.
That infringement doesn't seem to have hurt anyone. And by hurt, I mean murdered a child with a gun.Every single person was infringed. Including non gun owners. We've been infringed since 1934.
I didn't ask you that. I asked you how many of the people's 2A rights were lost/taken from 1994-2004?
Scalia already stated in the Heller decision that the ruling didn't preclude the government for regulating certain types of weapons.
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment ’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.
That infringement doesn't seem to have hurt anyone. And by hurt, I mean murdered a child with a gun.
The zealotry is full of fervor. Such deep insecurities being brought into the light. Very emotional issue, particular for those that need to hold onto their precious.
I don't know how you can claim something is "common use" when it was illegal from '94 - '04 and nobody lost their 2A rights.While the fundamentalist in me does not agree with him on it. it would be better to provide the pertinent quotes you are referring to.
AR-15 is definitely "in common use" it is also essentially a military rifle, except it cannot be switched to 3 round burst or fully automatic. Which is something we need to look at in the future lifting the NFA restrictions on fully automatic weapons.
You are skipping all the fraudulent peer reviewed medical papers that have been turning up lately.This is what peer review is for. If the evidence holds up the bias of the people generating it doesn't matter.
It's not as if biased peer review and falsification of medical data is so new and unusual. I just think steps must be take to keep political bias out of the CDC and other places if the Dickey Amendment is pulled. We'll need additional checks and balances to insure data isn't falsified.
BTW - How many of the people's 2A rights were lost from 1994 to 2004?
Pens and paper are not specifically enumerated in the bill of rights. This is whataboutism at its finest. The discussion here is about bringing the 2A to as many people as possible.
OK, we'll just make sure that 1/2 the scientists/doctors hired are Republicans and 1/2 are Democrats. Just to be fair you know.Who makes that decision? A politician? Let's just leave it up to science and scientists. They are far more capable. Science goes where the data leads it.
And no we are not going to let 5% derail the consensus of 95%. We'll use a strong plurality.
Just show me in the Constitution where the federal government is responsible for funding local schools.This was in regard to funding. You know what that is?
Also, derp.
Great. I want to see handguns banned, too.A child is 20x more likely to be killed by a handgun than any 1994 AWB restricted rifle. Just going off FBI crime stats.
We can start with the low hanging fruit first. Slippery slopeA child is 20x more likely to be killed by a handgun than any 1994 AWB restricted rifle. Just going off FBI crime stats.
You are skipping all the fraudulent peer reviewed medical papers that have been turning up lately.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/04/107-cancer-papers-retracted-due-to-peer-review-fraud/
https://www.statnews.com/2017/04/28/phony-peer-review/
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1512330
etc. etc. etc.
It's not as if biased peer review and falsification of medical data is so new and unusual. I just think steps must be take to keep political bias out of the CDC and other places if the Dickey Amendment is pulled. We'll need additional checks and balances to insure data isn't falsified.
Guns? He buys guns?
I'm not for sale, i'm not even for rent.
We can start with the low hanging fruit first. Slippery slope