Wednesday, December 19, 2012

WHO SHOULD HAVE THE GUNS?

Newtown is still in the news and on the minds of many, maybe most people.

As we knew would happen, the shooter, Adam Lanza, has been described as a loner, withdrawn, socially clumsy, and (according to at least one report) had a form of autism. 

One of the reasons so many people were shot and/or killed is that nobody had any "resources" to use against the kid.

I think it is time to have hall monitors in schools who are more than amateur psychologists to coddle the kids and look important. Many of them are "armed" with MACE.

Imaging how MACE could have been used to help protect those teachers and students.

Having imagined it, now explain it to me.

Personally, I think every school should have at least one person licensed and trained to carry a gun (Keyword: "trained").

Gun control advocates are fond of saying things like, “Let the police (or the National Guard, or the Army, Navy, Air Force or Marines) handle the taking down of the bad guy.

The police were called immediately to that Newtown, Connecticut elementary school. How much did it
help prevent the deaths of 20 children?

Don’t you care that more could have been saved if the perp had died sooner?

According to news reports it took almost 20 minutes for the police to get there. Yet it was reported by the communications officer that they rushed to the scene with every resource they had, along with the resources of other agencies.

But it was too late. The damage had been done.

Another report said it was not until the shooter heard the sirens that he turned the gun on himself and died.

How many kids were shot before help arrived?

It was impressive to see all the police cars, the S.W.A.T. team and the helicopter in the air.

All of those resources did not save one single kid or teacher.

“Well, if he just hadn’t had access to guns, this would never have happened!”

What is WRONG with you?

Do you think someone bent on a killing rampage isn’t going to be able to get hold of a gun or guns?

“Well, we ought to at least get assault weapons off the streets!”

Are you NUTS?

Those weapons were a a .223 caliber Bushmaster semiautomatic rifle, a modified civilian version of the military's M-16 similar to the AR-15 (but it was NOT an AR-15) and two handguns -- a Glock 10 mm and a Sig Sauer 9 mm.

None of those is an assault weapon. What good would banning assault weapons have done?

The Bushmaster AR-15 LOOKS like some assault weapons, but it functions very differently. It is NOT an assault weapon.

The MainStream media, Congress, the Senate, and liberal commentators and commenters are determined to override the Second Amendment and take citizens' guns from them. "If there had just been tougher gun laws this might not have happened."

You want to play the “if” game?

What if someone in that school had been trained and armed? What if that person heard what was going on and shot the perp?

Would that perp have killed anyone else after he died? Had you noticed? Once he died, he didn’t shoot anybody else.

Dead people don’t shoot people.

“Well, guns don’t always hit their intended target. If the perp had been shot at the bullet might have ricocheted and hurt somebody.”

ARE YOU KIDDING ME???

ARE     YOU     KIDDING     ME???

So one more person gets injured or maybe even killed.

What is better, 3 or 4 dead kids or 20?

WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU???

OK…OK. I agree that mentally ill people, social deviants, and people with anger management problems should not have access to dangerous weapons, including knives, box cutters, baseball bats and, yes, even guns. The should be a law. (Oh, wait! There IS a law. In fact there are MANY relevant laws).

How would that have helped?

This guy was about to do something ILLEGAL!! Do you think that because possessing a gun is made ILLEGAL a person who is going to commit an ILLEGAL ACT is going to obey the law making guns ILLEGAL???

WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU???

The only alternative is to collect all guns from all citizens (and illegal aliens) and only allow the police,
military and Congress to carry weapons.

You can call the police against a gang banger, but who do you call against the police?

Our government needs to be afraid of its citizens. Our “rulers” should think carefully about what they try to take from us.

The sentence structure of the Second Amendment DEMANDS that its subject and predicate be “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

One of my liberal commenters has made it clear that he thinks diagramming a sentence is a total bore and a waste of time.

WRONG!!!

Diagramming a sentence show which parts of that sentence are relevant to its point. Here's how the sentence should be diagrammed:





In the diagram, the top section, separated out, is a subordinate clause. It is subordinate to the main thought of the sentence, which is diagrammed in the lower section.

People who learned to properly diagram a sentence, learned how to properly read and interpret a sentence.

Those who did not learn how to diagram a sentence are likely to ascribe to the sentence meanings that it does not intend.

If the Second Amendment had been properly exercised, there might well be 20 dead kids who were still alive.

To answer the question asked in the title of this post, PEOPLE should have the guns. Stable, reasonable, trained people.

30 comments:

Xavier Onassis said...

Joe - "Personally, I think every school should have at least one person licensed and trained to carry a gun (Keyword: "trained")."

Oh yeah. That's brilliant. I can only imagine how much safer we would have felt in Excelsior Springs High School in 1972 if Vice Principal Haider who hated his job, his life and hippies would have been allowed to pack heat at school instead of being limited to assigning detentions.

That's a STUPID idea.

"Do you think someone bent on a killing rampage isn’t going to be able to get hold of a gun or guns?"

No. Because your beloved 2nd Amendment guarantees that there are MILLIONS of firearms and BILLIONS of rounds of ammunition floating free among the populace with little if any regulation. Any crazy idiot can load up and let loose because of your misguided interpretation of the amendment and complete dismissal of the "well regulated militia" clause.

"The Bushmaster AR-15 LOOKS like some assault weapons, but it functions very differently. It is NOT an assault weapon."

Google "converting a Bushmaster AR-15 to a fully automatic M-16" and tell me how many websites you find. It's in the THOUSANDS. Don't even try to hide behind the "Oh, it's just a hunting rifle that looks cool" argument.

"You want to play the “if” game?

What if someone in that school had been trained and armed? What if that person heard what was going on and shot the perp?

“Well, guns don’t always hit their intended target. If the perp had been shot at the bullet might have ricocheted and hurt somebody.”

So one more person gets injured or maybe even killed.

What is better, 3 or 4 dead kids or 20?"

So some kid in the lunchroom inflates a lunch sack and pops it to scare his buddy and some trigger happy lunch room monitor with an itchy trigger finger whips out his Glock and opens fire on the school cafeteria. Yeah, that sounds like something we want happening.

"So one more person gets injured or maybe even killed.

What is better, 3 or 4 dead kids or 20?

How about NONE! What a completely idiotic idea! Let's let teachers and principals pack heat and open fire at will and hope that only a few kids get killed by faculty collateral damage.

"Diagramming a sentence show which parts of that sentence are relevant to its point. Here's how the sentence should be diagrammed:"

Oh yes. The way to prevent 20 6 year old 1st Graders from being butchered at the business end of a civilian M-16 by a psychopath who was trained to shoot guns by his doomsday prepper mother who should have known better is to teach people how to properly diagram sentences.

"To answer the question asked in the title of this post, PEOPLE should have the guns. Stable, reasonable, trained people."

Your "stable, reasonable" qualification would rule out 99% of current gun owners.

And yes, I just made that statistic up.

But in keeping with the spirit of YOUR blog, I stand by it and will brook no challenge.








hardassamI said...

We protect our politicians with men with guns, why not our children?

hardassamI said...

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-IMjcAyUrSNE/UNEyO3tbpCI/AAAAAAAAUE0/xik8cAmkDFY/s640/.48+Adam.jpg

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

X.O.
What a great ad hominem argument: Your "stable, reasonable" qualification would rule out 99% of current gun owners

99% of current gun owners are the only "stable and reasonable" gun owners. The kid's mother was about to have him committed and yet didn't have the guns locked away. Connecticut has some of most strict gun controls in the USA, and yet he was able get his hands on them.

When guns are outlaws, only outlaws will have guns. It has been said over and over, and it is 100% truth.

Joe said...

XO: "How about NONE!"

I like none!

Only in your Utopian, liberal, give government the control, society that is not going to happen.

"...misguided interpretation of the amendment and complete dismissal of the "well regulated militia" clause."

Did you even check out the video linked to? No, you didn't or you would know better.

On second thought, you are incapable of learning anything new and too narrow minded to think you could be wrong about something.

"Your "stable, reasonable" qualification would rule out 99% of current gun owners. And yes, I just made that statistic up."

That is exactly where your problem lies...consistantly.

Joe said...

XO: "Don't even try to hide behind the "Oh, it's just a hunting rifle that looks cool" argument."

Why? What are you going to do if I try? Shoot me?

Do you think the shooter in this instance re-configured his rifle to fire automatically? That does not jibe with the accounts of what people heard.

In a simiautomatic, one has to pull the trigger each time he wants to fire. In an automatic, holding the trigger down continues to fire the weapon...like a machine gun.

The witness reported separate "pops", not continuing fire.

"...if Vice Principal Haider who hated his job, his life and hippies would have been allowed to pack heat..."

Guess you didn't read the part about stable.

Z said...

the naive liberal is scarier than the shooter. Don't forget NOTHING CAN GO WRONG IN THIS WORLD THAT CAN'T BE PREVENTED AND THERE MUST BE A LAW ENACTED TO MAKE SURE IT'S PREVENTED UNTIL ALL IS PERFECT AND NOBODY HURTS EVER AGAIN seems to be the liberal mantra. Inhuman, silly and wrong, but nevertheless...

The adults should be in charge, but Joe Biden's just been appointed to some new GUN COMMISSION. GOd help us.


I think it's very hard to sell the "gun at every school" idea....who really wants a gun at school handled by ANYBODY? it shows how deranged WE have become not GUNS! We have to protect our kids with guns from guns? MY GOD.

And, of course, 99% of the time, we do not. But that less than 1% becomes the rule suddenly in order to make more advances at banning guns.

scary times

Ducky's here said...

Joe, please explain why someone needs to own a Bushmaster.

I see it as two possibilities:

1. Prepare to kill a lot of people

2. Prepare for a zombie apocalypse.

Neither seems to meet the reasonable needs of self protection.

Ducky's here said...

@z --- The adults should be in charge

----
Good idea z.

Now that means that the lunatics who are stockpiling weapons and ammunition in order to take down the government should be excluded from the debate.

So should the extremists like Representative Louie Goombah from Texas and Diane Feinstein (D -- Milo Minderbinder).

The people who think the simplistic solution to the problem of firearms is simply more firearms can also leave the room.

There is a shortage of adults.

Myself, I'd start asking different questions.

Why did the shooter have such easy access to the school? Could a surveillance camera have picked out his car as out of place?
Could a more secure front door have reduced his likelihood of entry?

Why does America have a lower than average crime rate among industrial nations but an enormously higher murder rate?
Is our crime rate lower because or in spite of widespread firearms -- how can this be answered objectively?

Why did we give popular culture over to the kids?
My favorite director, Jean-Luc Godard was way ahead of the curve on this one and was concerned early on about the effects of the young being so immersed in pop culture and ideology (ref. Band of Outsiders, La Chinoise .
I bring this up because a supposed admirer of Godard, Quentin Tarantino, has a new piece of crap out in which he demonstrates that he really didn't understand Godard's analysis of violence.

But we have given the culture to these hacks who play to a lot of well off kids who like to say "awesome" a lot and get pandered to by arbiters of taste.

Then there's the whole complicated matter of mental health diagnosis and treatment. Do we want the drug manufacturers, who profit enormously, controlling this discussion.

Yeah, we need the adults and I will submit that what a group wrote in 1776 because a few of them thought a standing army was a detriment and thought we could get by with militias is an absolutely inadequate guide to how we should manage firearms in this culture.

WHY IS THIS CULTURE SO VIOLENT AND MILITARISTIC?

Joe said...

Z: Short of changing the hearts and minds of humans, I don't know what else would have helped in that situation. Whatever it was, it didn't.

Ducky: "please explain why someone needs to own a Bushmaster."

Because it's a really neat fire arm and looks good in my gun case, along with my howitzer, my Sherman tank and my bows and arrows. Oh, and my can of Mace.

"WHY IS THIS CULTURE SO VIOLENT AND MILITARISTIC?"

I don't know any explanation except that the soul of man is corrupt in every way.

There is only one real and permanant answer: change the hearts and minds of mankind.

Tell me, ducky, what would you do if a man entered your home and threatened to shoot you? Call the cops? Offer him a glass of orange juice? Explain to him the error of his ways?

None of those things would help and you'd be dead.

Oh, well.

Ducky's here said...

The kid's mother was about to have him committed and yet didn't have the guns locked away.

---
Statement not in evidence.

Proper storage is an issue but we have no idea what the storage details were here.

Ducky's here said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ducky's here said...

Tell me, ducky, what would you do if a man entered your home and threatened to shoot you?

-----
You know, Joe. It just isn't a concern.
That's my choice.

Please notice that your question is also irrelevant. At no time have I suggested that we shouldn't allow reasonable latitude for people to make their decisions on home defense.

Remember, Joe, the left is here to help you live the life of the mind.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

WHY IS THIS CULTURE SO VIOLENT AND MILITARISTIC?"

First, I don't see where the culture is "militaristic" - I'd like evidence for that charge.

As for why this culture is so violent, I submit the following:

1. God is being more and more excluded from schools and other public venues. Without God, no one has a standard for morality other than personal opinions - and those will always be at odds with each other.

2. Evolutionism teaches that people are nothing but accidents developed from pond scum, so there is no value for self.

3. The abortion mentality teaches that life has no intrinsic value.

4. The media saturates our lives with violent song lyrics, violent games, violent TV and Movies - all desensitizing people to violence.

And this is just for starters.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Proper storage is an issue but we have no idea what the storage details were here.

I would say the fact that he had the guns and the associated ammunition speaks for itself that they were not locked up somewhere. If they had been, how did he get them?

Xavier Onassis said...

G.E.C - "As for why this culture is so violent, I submit the following:

1. God is being more and more excluded from schools and other public venues. Without God, no one has a standard for morality other than personal opinions - and those will always be at odds with each other."

Really? God hasn't been excluded from churches and yet children keep getting molested by pederast priests.

I would submit, based on empirical evidence, that the presence or absence of "your god" makes absolutely no difference either way.

Which would cause a rational person to question the existence of such an All Powerful, All Knowing, Immortal, Supernatural Being.

But I doubt that anyone has ever accused you of being rational. I certainly haven't.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

X.O.

The priests are Christian - they are Catholic. But you wouldn't know the difference.

God is in the churches - that is, those who would have Him. A large percentage of the church today has gone apostate with teachings that don't differ much from the rest of society. But the few true Christians who still hold tight to the Bible's teachings, are too few to have a major say in the culture. Christians began losing the culture war when they began to compromise with the world.

If it wasn't for the Christians, this society would be in total anarchy, so we do make a difference.

It takes an irrational person to believe that nothing created something, that matter is eternal, and that matter made everything (after it was created from nothing).

Ducky's here said...

If it wasn't for the Christians, this society would be in total anarchy, so we do make a difference.
------
Please explain.





Ducky's here said...

The priests aren't Christian - they are Catholic. But you wouldn't know the difference.

---------
I know a cheap bigot when one walks in the room.

If you are a Christian then rejection of your ideology is sound.
Your witness isn't going to reach many folks.

Xavier Onassis said...

G.E.C. - So Catholics aren't Christians? That's an interestingly bigoted attitude.

So you're saying that in the 1500 years between the crucifiction of your Christ and the publication of Martin Luther's "Ninety-Five Thesis" there were no Christians?

Christians only appeared on the scene in 1517? The only true Christians are Protestants?

Where stand ye on Methodists, Baptists, Menonites, Mormons, Lutherans, Anglicans, 7th Day Adventists, Unitarians, Jehovah's Witnesses, African American Episcopals?

What judgement do you pass on which of those denominations of the followers of Christ are actually "Christians"?

I'm sure they are anxious to hear your pronouncements on their potential apostasy.

This is why I can't take you seriously.

You are so incredibly and hysterically misinformed about your own religion.

Do some research. Read a book. Take a class.

Ducky's here said...

“The question is not: do we believe in God? but rather: does God believe in us? And the answer is: only an unbeliever could have created our image of God; and only a false God could be satisfied with it.”
— Kenneth Patchen

Xavier Onassis said...

G.E.C. - My mistake, that should have been African Methodist Episcopal instead of African American Episcopal but I doubt that you are knowledgeable enough to have noticed the error. Consider this another another free lesson in your own faith by the atheist.

Ducky's here said...

So you're saying that in the 1500 years between the crucifixion of your Christ and the publication of Martin Luther's "Ninety-Five Thesis" there were no Christians?

-----

Solid, X.O. I'm sure we'll have an answer soon. Probably something to the right of John Calvin.

Xavier Onassis said...

This profile will be on your currency someday.

http://www.thehollywoodgossip.com/gallery/2012-person-of-the-year/

Joe said...

XO and Ducky: I don't mind if you disagree on some or all issues, but the disrespect has to stop.

Are you able to understand what that means?

(That was a question, not an accusation, in case you had trouble with it.)

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Ducky,

It was the Judeo-Christian God who gave morals. Without the Judeo-Christian influence of ethics and morality, there would be chaos. This isn’t to say that non-believers can’t have morals - they just have to borrow them from the Bible or else it’s just everyone’s opinion with no standard against which to measure.

It was Christians who started hospitals, it was Christians who stopped the practice of abandoning unwanted babies. It was Jews/Christians who established sexual morality and the sanctity of marriage. It was Christians who gave women dignity so they were no longer property. Charities were a Christian focus and the origin of most of them. Sanctity of life. And so on and so forth. I suggest you pick up the book, “”How Christianity Changed the World,” by Alvin J. Schmidt (old title is “Under the Influence: How Christianity Transformed Civilization”) You might learn something.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

For X.O., Ducky, et al.

Roman Catholicism does not represent the true Christian faith. There are many people in that system who are Christian in spite of the teachings of Rome, but the organization itself is apostate and has been since the 4th century when it started compromising with the world.

The Christian faith is founded on the teachings of Christ, and all our doctrines come from the Bible. Roman Catholicism added much teachings by fiat proclamation of the pope, all of which are contradictory to what the Bible teaches.

There are rules for every organization, and Christianity is no different in that regard. There are non-negotiable doctrines which establish what the Christian faith is. Those doctrines were established in the Bible. If a religious group calls themselves Christian and yet do not adhere to said doctrines, then they can’t be “members of the club,” so to speak. And it is not “bigoted” to compare someone’s beliefs/teachings with the “rule book.” You can dress up in SOF gear and tell everyone you are a Green Beret, but if you haven’t taken the training and adhere to all them, then it is not bigoted to say you are not a Green Beret. A dandelion can claim to be a rose, but it is still a dandelion nevertheless.

The Roman Catholic Church did not encompass all Christians before the 1500s. It in fact persecuted and killed those Christians who refused to compromise their faith. Eastern Orthodoxy split from Romanism in the 11th century over doctrinal issues. While the E.O. also has apostate teachings, it isn’t as far off as the RCC.

“Protestant” refers to those who protested against Romanism beginning at the Reformation. But there were those who protested since the 4th century!

Methodists (originally Methodist Episcopal) were a solid Christian faith once, and many individual assemblies still are, but for the most part that denomination has apostatized and no longer adhere to Biblical teachings on many issues.

Baptists are not a denomination, rather they are anyone who believes that only those who can confess the faith are to be baptized - i.e., no babies or infants. There are Baptist denominations. Some are going apostate in many ways and some are standing firm.

Mennonites are cultic and very legalistic in their beliefs. How legalistic they are depends upon the particular sect, but they are Christian.

Mormons have never been Christian. They worship a god who lives on another planet, have a Jesus totally unidentifiable with the Jesus of the Bible, have false prophets, and a whole raft of problems.

Lutherans come in branches. The Missouri Synod is still pretty solid, but the ECLA long ago left biblical teachings in many areas and are considered apostate. Anglicans/Episcopalians (same branch) have as a denomination long ago become apostate.
Seventh-day Adventists are a cult, and, as with the RCC, members may be Christian in spite of unbiblical doctrines.
Unitarians have never been Christian, since they deny all Christian doctrines.
Jehovah’s Witnesses, like the Mormons, have never been Christian because they deny virtually all Christian doctrines.
African Methodist Episcopals (unlike Methodists then didn’t drop the “Episcopal”) for the most part are pretty solid. And yes, I noticed your error and chuckled about it, but I understood what you meant.

What judgement do I pass? Straight from Scripture - comparing their teachings with the Bible. If you would research a wee bit into Christian apologetics you would understand this.

It is YOU who are misinformed about the Christian faith. I am very well informed, having been a Christian for 39 years and studying theology and Christian apologetics for almost that whole time. I have a person library of over 1000 volumes on various aspects of theology - and I have read all of them (you did tell me to read a book!), and I have done thorough research - but you apparently haven’t so you have no standing in this discussion.

Oh, and Ducky, I don’t use Calvin for anything. I use the Bible.

Ducky's here said...

Joe, wen Glenn starts in on his anti-Catholicism why is it disrespect and not simply a statement of fact to call him a bigot?

Glenn's a big boy. Let him handle himself.

We said nothing that you haven't sai about us many times.

Joe said...

Ducky: "...why is it disrespect and not simply a statement of fact to call him a bigot?"

First of all, he stated his own opinion which just happens to line up with the facts, if one defines Christianity correctly.

Secondly, by definition and use, "bigot" has become an emotionally charged word that is much more than a statement of fact, but is a purjoritive. It also makes you a bigot, since you are obviously bigotted against bigots.

Finally: It's my blog.

Why don't you get one of your own? You're pretty smart for a leftist and probably would attract millions of like-minded folks.

Blogger has spell-check.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Ducky,

It is not "anti-catholic" nor is it bigotry. It is demonstrating the teachings of a sect against the teachings of the Bible, and demonstrating that they do not match.

Speaking the truth is not bigotry.