Non-Violent Resistance -
The philosophy of Satyagraha, holding on to The Truth
|
Wednesday, 14 March 2018
quote [ A teacher trained in weapons use has been suspended after accidentally firing his gun in a classroom in California, injuring three students.
Dennis Alexander was teaching a gun safety lesson for his administration of justice class at Seaside high school, near Monterey in northern California ] See? Arming teachers is a FANTABULOUS idea!
Wtf kind of class is "administration of justice" for high schoolers? I seem to remember a similar class being part of the curriculum for police academy recruits at a local city college.
|
Taxman said @ 12:03am GMT on 16th March
I'm aware of the constitution and I'm also aware of it's writers original intentions. If you'd like single shot weapons, have at it. If you'd like to join a militia and be well regulated, surprise, that's in there too. Anything else and you're extrapolating what you WANT the document to say and not what it ACTUALLY says. You don't 'deserve' weapons of war. You don't 'deserve' armor-piercing rounds. We as a society get to decide what the amendment means and change it, if need be.
Again, YOU knowing the rules, YOU personally not being a problem, YOU being trained... does not entitle you to a grenade. We should act in the living interest of the most amount of people living in a society, not the minority's FEELINGS on the situation. To be clear, the majority of America is NOT armed.
Knives, cars, gas-lines, -pick a thing- serves an alternative purpose to death. Water can kill you, but it's a facetious argument to imply people want to ban it because of it's fatality rate.
Guns, on the other hand, are specific tools meant to end the life of living things. A mistake with a kitchen knife can cause an unintended consequence of cutting a person. A mistake with a gun causes an intended result of a possible fatal wound.
For things that are dangerous: bulldozers, cars, gas lines, planes, drugs, explosives we naturally expect and REQUIRE nationwide a heightened level of training, licensing, and/or regulation and we watch the owners/users of these items very closely. I do not think it ridiculous, nefarious, or authoritarian to request the same level of regulation and monitoring that we do for EVERYTHING ELSE.
Taxman said @ 12:15am GMT on 16th March
I'm aware of the constitution and I'm also aware of it's writers original intentions. If you'd like single shot weapons, have at it. If you'd like to join a militia and be well regulated, surprise, that's in there too. Anything else and you're extrapolating what you WANT the document to say and not what it ACTUALLY says. You don't 'deserve' weapons of war. You don't 'deserve' armor-piercing rounds. We as a society get to decide what the amendment means and change it, if need be.
Again, YOU knowing the rules, YOU personally not being a problem, YOU being trained... does not entitle you to a grenade. We should act in the living interest of the most amount of people living in a society, not the minority's FEELINGS on the situation. To be clear, the majority of America is NOT armed.
Knives, cars, gas-lines, -pick a thing- serves an alternative purpose to death. Water can kill you, but it's a facetious argument to imply people want to ban it because of its fatality rate.
Guns, on the other hand, are specific tools meant to end the life of living things. A mistake with a kitchen knife can cause an unintended consequence of cutting a person. A mistake with a gun causes an intended result of a possible fatal wound.
For things that are dangerous: bulldozers, cars, gas lines, planes, drugs, explosives we naturally expect and REQUIRE nationwide a heightened level of training, licensing, and/or regulation and we watch the owners/users of these items very closely. I do not think it ridiculous, nefarious, or authoritarian to request the same level of regulation and monitoring that we do for EVERYTHING ELSE.
Taxman said @ 1:19am GMT on 16th March
I'm aware of the constitution and I'm also aware of its writers’ original intentions. If you'd like single shot weapons, have at it. If you'd like to join a militia and be well regulated, surprise, that's in there too. Anything else and you're extrapolating what you WANT the document to say and not what it ACTUALLY says. You don't 'deserve' weapons of war. You don't 'deserve' armor-piercing rounds. We as a society get to decide what the amendment means and change it, if need be.
Again, YOU knowing the rules, YOU personally not being a problem, YOU being trained... does not entitle you to a grenade. We should act in the living interest of the most amount of people living in a society, not the minority's FEELINGS on the situation. To be clear, the majority of America is NOT armed.
Knives, cars, gas-lines, -pick a thing- serves an alternative purpose to death. Water can kill you, but it's a facetious argument to imply people want to ban it because of its fatality rate.
Guns, on the other hand, are specific tools meant to end the life of living things. A mistake with a kitchen knife can cause an unintended consequence of cutting a person. A mistake with a gun causes an intended result of a possible fatal wound.
For things that are dangerous: bulldozers, cars, gas lines, planes, drugs, explosives we naturally expect and REQUIRE nationwide a heightened level of training, licensing, and/or regulation and we watch the owners/users of these items very closely. I do not think it ridiculous, nefarious, or authoritarian to request the same level of regulation and monitoring that we do for EVERYTHING ELSE.
<-- Entry / Current Comment
Taxman said @ 12:03am GMT on 16th March
I'm aware of the constitution and I'm also aware of its writers’ original intentions. If you'd like single shot weapons, have at it. If you'd like to join a militia and be well regulated, surprise, that's in there too. Anything else and you're extrapolating what you WANT the document to say and not what it ACTUALLY says. You don't 'deserve' weapons of war. You don't 'deserve' armor-piercing rounds. We as a society get to decide what the amendment means and change it, if need be.
Again, YOU knowing the rules, YOU personally not being a problem, YOU being trained... does not entitle you to a grenade. We should act in the living interest of the most amount of people living in a society, not the minority's FEELINGS on the situation. To be clear, the majority of America is NOT armed.
Knives, cars, gas-lines, -pick a thing- serves an alternative purpose to death. Water can kill you, but it's a facetious argument to imply people want to ban it because of its fatality rate.
Guns, on the other hand, are specific tools meant to end the life of living things. A mistake with a kitchen knife can cause an unintended consequence of cutting a person. A mistake with a gun causes an intended result of a possible fatal wound.
For things that are dangerous: bulldozers, cars, gas lines, planes, drugs, explosives we naturally expect and REQUIRE nationwide a heightened level of training, licensing, and/or regulation and we watch the owners/users of these items very closely. I do not think it ridiculous, nefarious, or authoritarian to request the same level of regulation and monitoring that we do for EVERYTHING ELSE.
