Arapahoe HS Shooting

[oldcatholicguy]

Maybe gun owners should take on the full costs of their rights instead of confiscating my property. For example, more secure doors on schools, special entry systems, armed security forces, etc. I’m not sure why I have to forfeit the right to my property for another’s right to own a weapon.

REASON FOR EDIT: Used ‘rites’ instead of ‘rights’.

What Amendment explicitly states you have a right to own property?

Edit-

I’m going to be off the computer for most of the day so here’s my response to the 5th Amendment (the one that mentions property) in advance-

It doesn’t give you a right to own property, it gives you a right to the use of “due process” and “just compensation” for when the government takes your property. In other words, the government can’t just say “Hey, nice house here, it’s mine now, bye,” but instead has to say “Hey, nice house here, it’s mine now, here’s the legal paperwork showing it’s mine, here’s “just” compensation for it (don’t bother arguing, our “experts” figured out how much it’s actually worth), bye.” The “right” to own property is a myth.

 

[Mark121359]

So the shooter was a liberal Democrat.

Perhaps, but that claim requires some reading between the lines which may or may not be accurate. I expect we will learn much more about the shooter during the coming week.

Adding to the shock of Pierson’s sudden meltdown was the fact he once cracked wise about Republican opposition to gun control. Prior to that terrifying day Pierson, described by students as having communist views, hinted he felt strongly about curbing gun violence.

Worse than a liberal democrat. He’s described as having communist views…although some would argue they’re one and the same.

Peace, Mark

 

[Coatimundi]

Adding to the shock of Pierson’s sudden meltdown was the fact he once cracked wise about Republican opposition to gun control. Prior to that terrifying day Pierson, described by students as having communist views, hinted he felt strongly about curbing gun violence.

(emphasis mine)

The quote you provided is from the revised article. What I was responding to was the original article, which vaguely said he had “very strong beliefs about gun laws.” I was thinking he was opposed to restrictions on guns. Such a view, along with his other attitudes, might fit a libertarian perspective more than a liberal perspective.

Yes, support for restrictions on gun availability, along with his other views posted on Facebook, do point to describing him as a liberal.

 

[Crossbones]

Not sure how locked doors on a school interfere with “your” rights when you do not own the school?

Incidentally my right to own a weapon is codified into our law.

In any event I’ll take the risks inherent with freedom over the** illusion ** of safety promised by totalitarianism any day.

Somebody has to pay for them (and I’m not talking about using existing equipment, but the add-ons). They do this through raising my taxes. I.e., taking away my property.

My right to property is also codified into law. We’re talking about balancing rights here.

 

[miguel]

…A politician will say that a mother has a right to kill her own child with abortion, and the same politician will suddenly express moral outrage when a child gets killed in a school shooting.

Kids grow up in a culture where they’re told to accept baby killing. And people wonder why some of these kids are so violent. If baby killing’s OK, anything’s OK. As for the rest of us who are merely terrorized, the devil wants us to be terrorized. That’s his game. Baby killing is part of his game. Fear not brothers and sisters! “Yahweh is my shepherd, I lack nothing. In grassy meadows he lets me lie. By tranquil streams he leads me to restore my spirit. He guides me in paths of saving justice as befits his name. Even were I to walk in a ravine as dark as death I should fear no danger, for you are at my side. Your staff and your crook are there to soothe me. You prepare a table for me under the eyes of my enemies You anoint my head with oil, my cup brims over. Kindness and faithful love pursue me every day of my life. I make my home in the house of Yahweh for all time to come.” Thank you God for protecting my sweet daughter Emily who heard those shots go off. Let your healing come to Claire Davis and her family.

 

[Crossbones]

What Amendment explicitly states you have a right to own property?

Edit-

I’m going to be off the computer for most of the day so here’s my response to the 5th Amendment (the one that mentions property) in advance-

It doesn’t give you a right to own property, it gives you a right to the use of “due process” and “just compensation” for when the government takes your property. In other words, the government can’t just say “Hey, nice house here, it’s mine now, bye,” but instead has to say “Hey, nice house here, it’s mine now, here’s the legal paperwork showing it’s mine, here’s “just” compensation for it (don’t bother arguing, our “experts” figured out how much it’s actually worth), bye.” The “right” to own property is a myth.

Yes, I think I understand. So, as long as the government puts forth a legal framework to take my property, it is allowed through the Constitution through taxation. With that in mind, then I think it is reasonable that gunowners are taxed to pay for the necessary security precautions that the schools take (more secure doors, entry systems, armed security guards, etc.) instead of taxing all people evenly.

 

[Crossbones]

You know some people have knowledge from what they have read in the past, discussion through their jobs or current learning. They may not have exact citations. I think your a little fixated on people providing links and proof. Now if we were writing a paper for a grade then that would be fine. But most of us are simply sharing knowledge we have from a life time of working, study and simple learning. If I have a reference I’ll use it. If not I won’t. But be assured I will not state something that I believe to be false or for which I can’t find the proof.

This is not a high school class were we need graded or reprimanded for failing to have a citation.

I think it is reasonable to ask if we are to access a poster’s comments and whether or not we should take that person seriously in the future. For example, I followed up on your comments about ADHD and kids being disrespectful, etc, but you didn’t respond.

 

[starshiptrooper]

Maybe gun owners should take on the full costs of their rights instead of confiscating my property. For example, more secure doors on schools, special entry systems, armed security forces, etc. I’m not sure why I have to forfeit the right to my property for another’s right to own a weapon.

REASON FOR EDIT: Used ‘rites’ instead of ‘rights’.

Or perhaps you can do the responsible thing and take care of your own need for security, which is incidentally what those gun owners are doing. Besides, why should I be taxed to exercise a right?

 

[Norm640]

Here we go again. Someone going off on gun control without knowing the facts.

He bought the guns legally. How would a gun law, short of a law banning all guns, have stopped this? He appeared to have no mental issues.

Criminals are going to commit crimes. The goal is not to deprive people of their God-given freedom, but to raise better people that respect the law in the first place.

Speaking of which, the guy was an admitted atheist and socialist. This was scrubbed by the media, but initial interviews revealed him to be, basically, the kind of person who has no regard for human life.

Someone said on here that the 60s were a better time re: school shootings. That may be true. But as far as gun massacres go, in general, studies by John Lott show that all violent crime is at historic lows compare to the rest of our history. And, we didn’t have wall-to-wall media exposure like we do now.

There is a strong socialist bent in a lot of lay Catholics to think that more laws = less crime. The facts regarding gun laws don’t bear this out.

And by the way, I’ll say it again, the kid was an atheist and a socialist. Methinks that might have been the reason why the little darling committed these sins.

johnrlott.blogspot.com/

Ps. My entire family hunts. I’ve been around guns my entire life. I don’t hunt, I don’t want to sit out on a log at 5am, when I can buy meat at the store, but I don’t hate guns. And I believe in having them for protection- from criminals, and from the government. Hitler and Stalin took guns first. No one in my family went beserk and shot up a school. Why? Our parents were good Catholics and we were reared correctly.

 

[Crossbones]

Or perhaps you can do the responsible thing and take care of your own need for security, which is incidentally what those gun owners are doing. Besides, why should I be taxed to exercise a right?

Oh, I can defend myself just fine, thank you. But I have several children that attends different schools. So, what’s your solution to that?

 

[Crossbones]

Here we go again. Someone going off on gun control without knowing the facts.

He bought the guns legally. How would a gun law, short of a law banning all guns, have stopped this? He appeared to have no mental issues.

Criminals are going to commit crimes. The goal is not to deprive people of their God-given freedom, but to raise better people that respect the law in the first place.

Speaking of which, the guy was an admitted atheist and socialist. This was scrubbed by the media, but initial interviews revealed him to be, basically, the kind of person who has no regard for human life.

Someone said on here that the 60s were a better time re: school shootings. That may be true. But as far as gun massacres go, in general, studies by John Lott show that all violent crime is at historic lows compare to the rest of our history. And, we didn’t have wall-to-wall media exposure like we do now.

There is a strong socialist bent in a lot of lay Catholics to think that more laws = less crime. The facts regarding gun laws don’t bear this out.

And by the way, I’ll say it again, the kid was an atheist and a socialist. Methinks that might have been the reason why the little darling committed these sins.

johnrlott.blogspot.com/

Ps. My entire family hunts. I’ve been around guns my entire life. I don’t hunt, I don’t want to sit out on a log at 5am, when I can buy meat at the store, but I don’t hate guns. And I believe in having them for protection- from criminals, and from the government. Hitler and Stalin took guns first. No one in my family went beserk and shot up a school. Why? Our parents were good Catholics and we were reared correctly.

I’m not suggesting that guns be banned. I’m suggesting that gun owners bare the responsibility through taxation of protecting our most vulnerable citizens.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Yes, I think I understand. So, as long as the government puts forth a legal framework to take my property, it is allowed through the Constitution through taxation. With that in mind, then I think it is reasonable that gunowners are taxed to pay for the necessary security precautions that the schools take (more secure doors, entry systems, armed security guards, etc.) instead of taxing all people evenly.

It’s only reasonable if you also think citizens should be taxed for exercising their rights in regards to-
-free speech (this includes voting)
-freedom of religion
-equal protection
-and for African American citizens- the right not to be a slave

 

[Crossbones]

It’s only reasonable if you also think citizens should be taxed for exercising their rights in regards to-
-free speech (this includes voting)
-freedom of religion
-equal protection
-and for African American citizens- the right not to be a slave

There are limitations on all of those freedoms. You cannot yell “Fire!” in a crowded theatre; you cannot vote without a state issued ID card (which is a burden on many elderly people; a tax if you will); you cannot use Freedom of Religion as an excuse for abusing children; etc.

So, what I’m proposing is a limitation on the freedom of gunownership; that the gun owners take financial responsibility for those that abuse this freedom and require us to have to protect schools beyond what would be necessary if this right did not exist. I don’t see how that is unreasonable.

 

[HappyCatholic01]

I’m not suggesting that guns be banned. I’m suggesting that gun owners bare the responsibility through taxation of protecting our most vulnerable citizens.

Sure - let’s make a deal -

As soon as you pay the taxes that fund the public schools I have never attended and that my children will never attend, I’ll consider your request.

 

[Crossbones]

Sure - let’s make a deal -

As soon as you pay the taxes that fund the public schools I have never attended and that my children will never attend, I’ll consider your request.

Well, I do pay taxes that support the public schools that you never attended, so I don’t know what we’re dealing.

 

[captainrick]

So gunowners should be “taxed to pay for the necessary security precautions that the schools take (more secure doors, entry systems, armed security guards, etc.) instead of taxing all people evenly.”

Security would also prevent children from attack by nut cases with knives, bombs, military weapons that are illegal to own, or who want to choke the children. So why should only gun owners pay? What a ridiculous idea.

 

[Crossbones]

So gunowners should be “taxed to pay for the necessary security precautions that the schools take (more secure doors, entry systems, armed security guards, etc.) instead of taxing all people evenly.”

Security would also prevent children from attack by nut cases with knives, bombs, military weapons that are illegal to own, or who want choke the children. So why should only gun owners pay? What a ridiculous idea.

But in the last few major massacres, legal weapons were used. No one came in with a knife, no one choked kids, no one used bombs, they were legally bought guns. So, it is fair to talk about the cost associated with legal gun ownership as taking on the burden of these additional safety measures needed.

 

[Mumbles140]

But in the last few major massacres, legal weapons were used. No one came in with a knife, no one choked kids, no one used bombs, they were legally bought guns. So, it is fair to talk about the cost associated with legal gun ownership as taking on the burden of these additional safety measures needed.

Well let’s start charging more on the sale of alcohol - then, the majority of people who responsibly consume (or, at the very least, know not to drive when consuming too much) can pay for the damage done by drunk drivers when they crash their cars, requiring responses by police, fire, and EMT’s, not to mention the damage done to the road, any potential barriers (i.e. guard rails), the environment (maybe they crashed into a tree?), the court costs associated with trial for the drunk driving, etc…

If you applied your logic, you could literally add taxes to almost any activity you do if there is a certain frequency (pretty low if it is total school shootings a year out of the number of schools in the USA) that causes any sort of damages, additional precautions, or any ‘undue’ costs that didn’t exist (or at least weren’t properly addressed and identified) prior to the current conditions.

Should gun owners also be taxed for the Secret Service, since pretty much every presidential assassination attempt has been with a gun?

Again, if anyone wants to talk about a change in enforcement, a change in laws, etc, I’m interested in participating as someone who believes in gun rights but will never own a gun. But this line of reasoning here doesn’t really seem to hold water, and it definitely doesn’t provide any sort of feasible solution for the issue of gun violence in America, specifically in schools.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

There are limitations on all of those freedoms. You cannot yell “Fire!” in a crowded theatre; you cannot vote without a state issued ID card (which is a burden on many elderly people; a tax if you will); you cannot use Freedom of Religion as an excuse for abusing children; etc.

So, what I’m proposing is a limitation on the freedom of gunownership; that the gun owners take financial responsibility for those that abuse this freedom and require us to have to protect schools beyond what would be necessary if this right did not exist. I don’t see how that is unreasonable.

-No you can’t yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater, but you also don’t have to pay a tax/fee every time you use your right to free speech in order to pay the expenses of policing those who abuse free speech.

-State issued ID’s for voting are free and are in line with the requirement to register to vote. Those programs that require one to pay a fee for said ID have actually been struck down as unconstitutional. Hardly comparable.

-Your example for something you can’t do because of freedom of religion is abusing children? Um…ok. Mind telling me how you came to the conclusion that this was a good example to use?

-You do understand that currently people who own land have to pay for schools regardless if they have children attending or not? I mean if you are going to get all hot and bothered over non-gun owners having to pay for upgraded security at schools you must be climbing the walls about people paying for schools they aren’t using.

-Lastly, here’s a list of activities your line of thinking would require law abiding citizens to pay an additional fee/tax to engage in- driving (speeders, drunk driving, car theft), internet usage (fraud, identity theft, internet crime), taking legal medications (abuse of legal medications is quickly becoming the biggest drug problem), attending a sports event (riots, vandalism, petty crime), flying (security concerns, smuggling), and breathing (air pollution). Might as well hand over your entire check to the government (additional fees will apply due to check fraud crimes).

 

[Cricket2]

What’s your educational background to draw such a conclusion?

An educational background is not needed. However it was in genetics and non-profit management. I worked with the disabled for 15 years as well.

What is needed is some darn common sense. My sister worked on ranches for over 25 years in four different states. The folks on these ranches, the workers and families, didn’t even know what Attention Deficite Disorders were until she told them. They scoffed at the notion. You see, by the time most of those kids are 2 years old they are learning to rope cattle and sheep, rounding up sheep and hogs for games and learning to ride and care for horses, etc. If you don’t pay attention to what is going on around you, at all times you can land up kicked in the head by an animal, ran over by a tractor or stampeded. The adults know and the kids do. They don’t have time to “Not be able to pay attention, sit still, or shush when told to do so.”

If a child is not expected to focus, made to pay attention, or sit still or have the patience to take their time doing something they won’t do it. My expectation that this is most of what is going on. Sure there are those who truly have a problem, but a truly think it is less than proclaimed.