Nra calls for armed police officer in every school

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
American have ALWAYS been distrustful of government and anyone who seeks to be in government. To think differently is to declare a fundamental lack of understanding of our history.
Yea, I have the lack of understanding, right.

Partisanship has blinded some so they forget they are Americans, which is a democracy of the majority rules; not ‘majority rules, as long as I agree with it.’ America was not built on me, me, me.
 
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I think we’ve more than covered a well regulated Militia necessary to the security of a free State.
Militia is being interpreted by some to assume a state run or goverment militia but that is not what the early statesmen and others saw it as meaning

cap-n-ball.com/fathers.htm

Richard Henry Lee wrote in a letter to the Republican from the Federal Farmer XVIII 1788, May
A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselvesCalled the father of the Constitution, James Madison spoke of in 1784

the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation

He compared that too

the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms

I Annuals of Congress 434 June 8, 1789 he said

The right of the people to keep and bear … arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country

Called father of the Bill of Rights, George Mason said

I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them

There is zero evidence from federalist papers, founding fathers, supreme court decisions or American legal commentators from the earliest days of the founding of America that say the 2nd amendment was only for a state or goverment ran militia
 
If we hadn’t been armed, there would be no free United States of America. If we are disarmed, there will not continue to be one.
 
Problem is militia is being interpreted by some to assume a goverment makeup but that is not what the early statesmen and others saw it as meaning
There is not a draft and we are all free to serve in today’s ‘militia’. It’s interpreted differently by those who have a self interest. People are not holding guns to prevent government from doing anything. We have good lives in this country, and no one wants to give up the way of life they have now. People are more honest when they say, ‘self defense,’ and that comes with moral consequences. As I said, ‘I have an armament and will kill those who trespass against me,’ is not the Gospel, as I understand it. We are Christians first and above all things.
 
Yea, I have the lack of understanding, right.

Partisanship has blinded some so they forget they are Americans, which is a democracy of the majority rules; not ‘majority rules, as long as I agree with it.’ America was not built on me, me, me.
Um you do have the lack of understanding. The entire American form of government is based on distrust. The Constitution is the prime example in support of this idea. Checks and balances against the abuse of power (between the federal branches, between federal and state, between federal and citizen) are written into to it. The first 10 amendments to the Constitution deal specifically with what the federal government could not do. Then there is the historical context of who the framers of the Constitution were, the time in which the Constitution was written, and the views of the populace toward government and how this new government needed to be fundamentally different from the ones they had before. Then throw in the distrustful view Americans have had toward government (at all levels) over the course of American history. American political and popular culture, history, and governance are based on “The government? I don’t trust it.”

As for America being “a democracy of the majority rules” that wouldn’t sit too well with Jefferson who didn’t have a very high opinion of what the majority would do to the minority in regards to rights and protections.
 
There is not a draft and we are all free to serve in today’s ‘militia’. It’s interpreted differently by those who have a self interest. People are not holding guns to prevent government from doing anything. We have good lives in this country, and no one wants to give up the way of life they have now. People are more honest when they say, ‘self defense,’ and that comes with moral consequences. As I said, ‘I have an armament and will kill those who trespass against me,’ is not the Gospel, as I understand it. We are Christians first and above all things.
Being Christian first has nothing to do with Constitutional theory or Constitutional history or American governance or interpreting what the 2nd Amendment means or was supposed to mean.
 
Um you do have the lack of understanding. The entire American form of government is based on distrust. The Constitution is the prime example in support of this idea. Checks and balances against the abuse of power (between the federal branches, between federal and state, between federal and citizen) are written into to it. The first 10 amendments to the Constitution deal specifically with what the federal government could not do. Then there is the historical context of who the framers of the Constitution were, the time in which the Constitution was written, and the views of the populace toward government and how this new government needed to be fundamentally different from the ones they had before. Then throw in the distrustful view Americans have had toward government (at all levels) over the course of American history. American political and popular culture, history, and governance are based on “The government? I don’t trust it.”

As for America being “a democracy of the majority rules” that wouldn’t sit too well with Jefferson who didn’t have a very high opinion of what the majority would do to the minority in regards to rights and protections.
We the people, do not trust ourselves for a better way…

As I said, ‘yea, right.’

Jefferson, was the the only rule at the time, or was it a collective group; you know, like a majority?

Have you ever noticed how the constitution protects criminal rights? Now, we have confused ‘law abiding’ citizens standing behind any phrase they can use for their own personal interests…
 
Being Christian first has nothing to do with Constitutional theory or Constitutional history or American governance or interpreting what the 2nd Amendment means or was supposed to mean.
So, if our country had a law that say, ‘gave women the right to abortion,’ we Christians just accept it as such, because of Constitutional history and American governance?

These arguments are in the self interest of gun rights.
 
Um you do have the lack of understanding. The entire American form of government is based on distrust. The Constitution is the prime example in support of this idea. Checks and balances against the abuse of power (between the federal branches, between federal and state, between federal and citizen) are written into to it. The first 10 amendments to the Constitution deal specifically with what the federal government could not do. Then there is the historical context of who the framers of the Constitution were, the time in which the Constitution was written, and the views of the populace toward government and how this new government needed to be fundamentally different from the ones they had before. Then throw in the distrustful view Americans have had toward government (at all levels) over the course of American history. American political and popular culture, history, and governance are based on “The government? I don’t trust it.”

As for America being “a democracy of the majority rules” that wouldn’t sit too well with Jefferson who didn’t have a very high opinion of what the majority would do to the minority in regards to rights and protections.
+1. The founders considered democracy as a form of tyrranical mob rule. One only need to look at ancient Athens (see the trial of the generals after the Battle of Arginusae) to see how it can quickly devolve. I’m thankful of our Republic.
 
We the people, do not trust ourselves for a better way…

As I said, ‘yea, right.’

Jefferson, was the the only rule at the time, or was it a collective group; you know, like a majority?

Have you ever noticed how the constitution protects criminal rights? Now, we have confused ‘law abiding’ citizens standing behind any phrase they can use for their own personal interests…
Interesting comments, now if you’ll actually respond to my post we can move the discussion forward.
 
I was born in the late 1950s. The nation has changed. I saw huge and major changes in the 60s, and I have been watching the fruition of those attempts since the 1990s, when members of that generation achieved positions of power.

What has happened to our nation?
Feminism; Secular Progressivism
“progressivism;” Secular Progressivism
erosion of subsidiarity esp in education; Secular Progressivism
erosion of families through ill-conceived welfare laws, Secular Progressivism
sex ed, Secular Progressivism
abc, Secular Progressivism
no-fault divorce, Secular Progressivism
co-habitation…Secular Progressivism

What has happened to our nation? A huge drop in [Catholic] church attendance since the 1950s, from over 80% to around 25%.

What has happened to our nation? The necessity of both parents to work *just *to keep up with inflation. Continual encroachment on property rights. Increased control of minutae in businesses.

What happened to our nation? It was based on Calvinist principles, and lasted only as long as what little Catholic social capital existed at the beginning lasted.

And in the end, what happened to or nation? Concupiscence, just like every other society.
In the name of “progress” secular progressives are driving us back to the pre-convenant dark ages of primordial chaos, where men were little more than beasts with an innate craving to mate and breed.
 
Yea, I have the lack of understanding, right.

Partisanship has blinded some so they forget they are Americans, which is a democracy of the majority rules; not ‘majority rules, as long as I agree with it.’ America was not built on me, me, me.
America, which is a REPUBLIC where the minority is protected from the whims of the majority.
 
So, if our country had a law that say, ‘gave women the right to abortion,’ we Christians just accept it as such, because of Constitutional history and American governance?

These arguments are in the self interest of gun rights.
No, we don’t have to accept it as such. However we also can’t present an argument that claims Christian morality and values are the instrument by which we have to filter our understanding of the Constitution, Constitutional history and theory, our legal system, and our form of governance through. That’s basically what you are trying to do in regards to the 2nd Amendment and gun rights.

Now, if you wish to base your anti-abortion argument on Constitutional history and theory I would suggest you do so by examining the Constitutional law and history that deals with the protection of life and individual liberties.
 
You left out, we gave up on our country and grabbed on to our partisan political views for self interest! ME, ME, ME, that’s all that matters.
For at least two elections, I heard the *Democrats *say that people, esp those of lower income, who voted Republican “voted against their own self-interest.”

I have seen almost an entire US industry disappear, and it will be gone by the next generation, because of federal actions. An entire industry which once supported many people in many communities, many of which are now empty.

When a small business owner votes for less government restriction, he is not voting for his own self-interest. If he was looking out for his own self-interest, he would get rid of his business and get a 9-5 job as a friend of mine recently did.

When a small business owner votes for fewer government restrictions, he is voting for te ability of businesses to afford to hire more people and to expand and hire even more people. He is voting to become more responsible and more worn out.

What happens when those on wepfare vote for tgose who promise peiple on welfare more, more, more? What happens when unions “encourage” their members to vote for those who promise more benefits to union members, not to mention giving hundreds of thousands of dollars from union dues to that party which promises them the most?
Look at these discussions now, social justice; well, let’s see, we have 2000 years of Catholic writings, I’m sure I can find something to support ‘not for the common good, but my own personal good, according to my own views.’
These are matters of prudence. We all know we need to help the poor, and on a private level, conservatives give a higher percentage of their income, volunteer more, and even donate more blood than do liberals.

Social justice is *not *about willy-nilly throwing money at any person who has little money. Socual justice is *not *about bankrupting people, states, and nations for those who for whatever reason have little money. And social justice is *not about crippling people and making it too difficult for them to rise up out of poverty that they remain stuck in their situation.
The Bishops spoke on gun control; well, let’s see, ‘I’m at liberty to disagree.’ Only disagree has become totally ignore. Ignore has gone over to disrespect, ‘well, they have no experience,’ and much worse, that I won’t repeat.
The bishops each have their own opinion. The USCCB has no standing in te Church, there is nothing about a USCCB statement which makes it any more important than anyone else’s statement when it comes to issues like this. The USCCB is simply an organizational tool which has done things like donate hundreds of thousands of Catholics’ donations to abortion- and contraception-supporting organizations for decades.
The list can go on and on.
The fact that a Carholic disagrees with you on how something should be accomplished does not mean that that Catholic does not agree that something should be done. It is not right to try to align Catholic thinking with *either *party.

It’s so wrong, in my opinion, to have politicized our Church, which politicizes Christ. There is a Gospel message, and it was never intended to become litigious. Christ did not command that the Apostles go out and make lawyers of everyone, so they can understand His Gospel. His truth is so that the simplest person can understand it, and hear His voice. Love God, and love one another, even your enemies. Pray for forgiveness, as you forgive. Feed the hungry, clothe the naked, give shelter to the poor, care for the sick, and visit the imprisoned. No one is left out.

People have confused the differences between Church and state, so that they are now on par with each other in their eyes. We are to give to Caesar that which is Caesar’s. It doesn’t say, take your rights from Caesar, it says give unto God, that which is God’s. That is our total selves.*
 
You left out, we gave up on our country and grabbed on to our partisan political views for self interest! *ME, ME, ME, that’s all that matters.
For at least two elections, I heard the *Democrats *say that people, esp those of lower income, who voted Republican “voted against their own self-interest.”

I have seen almost an entire US industry disappear, and it will be gone by the next generation, because of federal actions. An entire industry which once supported many people in many communities, many of which are now empty.

When a small business owner votes for less government restriction, he is not voting for his own self-interest. If he was looking out for his own self-interest, he would get rid of his business and get a 9-5 job as a friend of mine recently did.*

When a small business owner votes for fewer government restrictions, he is voting for te ability of businesses to afford to hire more people and to expand and hire even more people. He is voting to become more responsible and more worn out.

What happens when those on wepfare vote for those who promise people on welfare more, more, more? What happens when unions “encourage” their members to vote for those who promise more benefits to union members, not to mention giving hundreds of thousands of dollars from union dues to that party which promises them the most?
Look at these discussions now, social justice; well, let’s see, we have 2000 years of Catholic writings, I’m sure I can find something to support ‘not for the common good, but my own personal good, according to my own views.’
These are matters of prudence. We all know we need to help the poor, and on a private level, conservatives give a higher percentage of their income, volunteer more, and even donate more blood than do liberals.*

Social justice is *not *about willy-nilly throwing money at any person who has little money. Social justice is *not *about bankrupting people, states, and nations for those who for whatever reason have little money. And social justice is *not *about crippling people and making it too difficult for them to rise up out of poverty that they remain stuck in their situation.
The Bishops spoke on gun control; well, let’s see, ‘I’m at liberty to disagree.’ *Only disagree has become totally ignore. *Ignore has gone over to disrespect, ‘well, they have no experience,’ and much worse, that I won’t repeat.
The bishops each have their own opinion. The USCCB has no standing in the Church, there is nothing about a USCCB statement which makes it any more important than anyone else’s statement when it comes to issues like this. The USCCB is simply an organizational tool which has done things like donate hundreds of thousands of Catholics’ donations to abortion- and contraception-supporting organizations for decades.
The list can go on and on.
The fact that a Carholic disagrees with you on how something should be accomplished does not mean that that Catholic does not agree that something should be done. It is not right to try to align Catholic thinking with *either *party.
It’s so wrong, in my opinion, to have politicized our Church, which politicizes Christ. *
Who is politicizing the Church? We are each showing that what we believe does not violate Church teaching, are we not?*
There is a Gospel message, and it was never intended to become litigious. *Christ did not command that the Apostles go out and make lawyers of everyone, so they can understand His Gospel. *His truth is so that the simplest person can understand it, and hear His voice. *Love God, and love one another, even your enemies. *Pray for forgiveness, as you forgive. *Feed the hungry, clothe the naked, give shelter to the poor, care for the sick, and visit the imprisoned. *No one is left out.
And we should do this. But I guess I missed the part where Christ said we should become doormats for every bully who comes along.
People have confused the differences between Church and state, so that they are now on par with each other in their eyes. *We are to give to Caesar that which is Caesar’s. *It doesn’t say, take your rights from Caesar, it says give unto God, that which is God’s. *That is our total selves.
I am not sure how this applies more to one set of people than to another.
 
Where was all the ‘mob’ mentality against the majority rules when conservatives had the administration? :rolleyes:

It’s only majority, for some, when they are the majority, otherwise America is not democratic, or free rule. I see…
 
We the people, do not trust ourselves for a better way…

As I said, ‘yea, right.’

Jefferson, was the the only rule at the time, or was it a collective group; you know, like a majority?

Have you ever noticed how the constitution protects criminal rights? Now, we have confused ‘law abiding’ citizens standing behind any phrase they can use for their own personal interests…
And would you say that abortion is all right because the majority wants that?

The US was founded as a republic and not a democracy precisely to avoid the rule of the majority. Some of the changes we have made since then have caused the protections the FFs put in place against majority to disappear, but it is still pretty much there.
 
And would you say that abortion is all right because the majority wants that?

The US was founded as a republic and not a democracy precisely to avoid the rule of the majority. Some of the changes we have made since then have caused the protections the FFs put in place against majority to disappear, but it is still pretty much there.
I thought that through American governance, the people standing on the 2nd amendment, would see those people as ‘law abiding’ citizens. I thought Catholics were a culture of life, from conception until natural death, in ALL instances.

So the US was formed, from a monarchy rule, which was a minority, to protect the minority?

And in those protections, again comes the discussion of abortion. Those people are protected through American governance, and are law abiding citizens. The Bishops call for a call to action, for reasonable controls, and they are quickly dismissed and all their suggestions won’t work, or are labelled ‘political’. There’s a moral side to how we choose to live, and our Bishops offer guidance, because we are Christians first above all things.

Here’s reasonable, in my opinion. Smoker’s pay a tax, because of the burden the ills place on the healthcare system. Gun owners should pay a tax, so we can have those ‘armed guards’, at the facilities where guns have burdened our society.
 
I thought that through American governance, the people standing on the 2nd amendment, would see those people as ‘law abiding’ citizens. I thought Catholics were a culture of life, from conception until natural death, in ALL instances.

So the US was formed, from a monarchy rule, which was a minority, to protect the minority?

And in those protections, again comes the discussion of abortion. Those people are protected through American governance, and are law abiding citizens. The Bishops call for a call to action, for reasonable controls, and they are quickly dismissed and all their suggestions won’t work, or are labelled ‘political’. There’s a moral side to how we choose to live, and our Bishops offer guidance, because we are Christians first above all things.

Here’s reasonable, in my opinion. Smoker’s pay a tax, because of the burden the ills place on the healthcare system. Gun owners should pay a tax, so we can have those ‘armed guards’, at the facilities where guns have burdened our society.
Monarchy would be a government in which power is held by one individual (this of course is a simplified definition as there are several sub-forms of monarchy; but none of these sub-forms approaches the situation you are trying to apply the term to). The term you meant to use is oligarchy (and even here it’s not really a good application of the term as oligarchy usually means rule by an elite minority) or dominant minority (here once again not a good application in that the term is usually used in regards to a distinct non-political based minority holding power).
 
Here’s reasonable, in my opinion. Smoker’s pay a tax, because of the burden the ills place on the healthcare system. Gun owners should pay a tax, so we can have those ‘armed guards’, at the facilities where guns have burdened our society.
Why should a gun owner pay a tax for armed guards? We don’t want or need them. The tax should be paid by people who DON’T own a gun, because they are the ones that are in need of outside protection. Smokers should pay a tax because smoking cigarettes isa disaster for your health and the health of the people around you. 99.9% of gun owners are no more of a threat to anyone than a Buddist monk. Why should they pay extra for anything. In fact, gun owners are LESS of a burden on society than non-gun owners. The ones that are placing the burden on society should foot the bill.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top