Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Still Waters

5-year-old girl suspended over bubble-gun

89 posts in this topic

Like you? Now I think your just looking for advice.

Hey now, he does have a point that after Newtown some people are wary about other people with guns in public.

So it takes a dead person to figure out who had a right or not and that does not include the right to live. Both may have been at fault in my case above but who wins if both are legal gun carriers. What if the guy started shooting people and others joined in. Who is the bad guy in a shoot up where nowbody knows. People just end up shooting people with guns. I fell safer in a nation where that is very unlickly to happen. For example the shooting in Colorado, what if everyone started shooting in a dark theater. I will say the death toll would double having inocients killing inocients all in the name of being some hero.

I believe guns provide an opportunity to protect one's right to live. If a man saw another come up into his store with an assault rifle I suppose he has every right to be suspicious. The owner runs the place and owns the property; he has a few more rights than a customer because the customer voluntarily enters said man's property, so he's subjected to the owner's will to an extent. Would it be fair for one of them to get paranoid and start shooting? No, I don't believe that works out for any one. With both sides pointing fingers at one another and calling each other paranoid, it would be a hard confrontation to work out.

But then again, would you rather legislate someone out of the right to have a concealed license than let them keep it? Sure, lives could have been on the line if someone pulled out a gun in the theaters in Colorado - but lives were already on the line. If I was in the theater I would have tried my best to get other people out of harms way while I drew the shooter with my fire. In situations like those there's a ridiculous amount of stress and risk. Humanly, dealing with those stresses isn't always easy. In that scenario, could a person with a pistol do more harm than good? Definitely. But in a life in death situation there aren't many choices other than to fight, flee, or die.

Does a gun provide the illusion of safety? I guess. We're all going to die anyways. How and when don't really matter.

But if that illusion of safety allows me enough courage to save another person from unnecessary pain, I'll take that.

Edited by Eonwe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even in the event that someone else had a gun in that theater and in the unfortunate event that he killed someone else I don't think they would carelessly go on shooting as many people as possible just to find his target. And all around gun brawls are rare. When's the last time you heard of one?

Bing so tell me would a gun in the theater have stopped a nut bar from killing or make it worse. Would a guy in the school in Sandy hook have stopped it oe made it worse. Did an armed gaurd at Columbine make things better or worse. No it would have made thing much worse further intising the shooter to shoot more. Insanity is the thinking that guns save lives as there sole purpose is to take them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So it takes a dead person to figure out who had a right or not and that does not include the right to live. Both may have been at fault in my case above but who wins if both are legal gun carriers. What if the guy started shooting people and others joined in. Who is the bad guy in a shoot up where nowbody knows. People just end up shooting people with guns. I fell safer in a nation where that is very unlickly to happen. For example the shooting in Colorado, what if everyone started shooting in a dark theater. I will say the death toll would double having inocients killing inocients all in the name of being some hero.

The law down there works the same as up here in Canada bro. A individual is not allowed to drag another individual onto their property and shoot him in cold blood. They have to prove their innocence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey now, he does have a point that after Newtown some people are wary about other people with guns in public.

I believe guns provide an opportunity to protect one's right to live. If a man saw another come up into a store with an assault rifle I suppose he has every right to be suspicious. The owner runs the place and owns the property; he has a few more rights than a customer because the customer voluntarily enters another man's property, so he's subjected to the owner's will to an extent. Would it be fair for one of them to get paranoid and start shooting? No, I don't believe that works out for any one. With both sides pointing fingers at one another and calling each other paranoid, it would be a hard confrontation to work out.

But then again, would you rather legislate someone out of the right to have a concealed license than let them keep it? Sure, lives could have been on the line if someone pulled out a gun in the theaters in Colorado - but lives were already on the line. If I was in the theater I would have tried my best to get other people out of harms way while I drew the shooter with my fire. In situations like those there's a ridiculous amount of stress and risk. Humanly, dealing with those stresses isn't always easy. In that scenario, could a person with a pistol do more harm than good? Definitely. But in a life in death situation there aren't many choices other than to fight, flee, or die.

Did guns and armed personal gaurds save Kennedy or Reagan from getting shot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The law down there works the same as up here in Canada bro. A individual is not allowed to drag another individual onto their property and shoot him in cold blood. They have to prove their innocence.

Not sure what you mean by dragging someone into your house or property and shooting them and thinking thats ok man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did guns and armed personal gaurds save Kennedy or Reagan from getting shot.

Have guns and armed personal prevented anyone from ever getting shot?

They certainly didn't save Lincoln or Kennedy.

Does ice melt? Do wheels turn? Does the moon come out at night?

Again, we're all going to die. When and where ultimately don't matter.

All that matters is we have enough time to enjoy what we have.

Guns, although an illusion of safety in a fatalist sense, can buy people more time they might deserve.

Edited by Eonwe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey now, he does have a point that after Newtown some people are wary about other people with guns in public.

I believe guns provide an opportunity to protect one's right to live. If a man saw another come up into his store with an assault rifle I suppose he has every right to be suspicious. The owner runs the place and owns the property; he has a few more rights than a customer because the customer voluntarily enters said man's property, so he's subjected to the owner's will to an extent. Would it be fair for one of them to get paranoid and start shooting? No, I don't believe that works out for any one. With both sides pointing fingers at one another and calling each other paranoid, it would be a hard confrontation to work out.

But then again, would you rather legislate someone out of the right to have a concealed license than let them keep it? Sure, lives could have been on the line if someone pulled out a gun in the theaters in Colorado - but lives were already on the line. If I was in the theater I would have tried my best to get other people out of harms way while I drew the shooter with my fire. In situations like those there's a ridiculous amount of stress and risk. Humanly, dealing with those stresses isn't always easy. In that scenario, could a person with a pistol do more harm than good? Definitely. But in a life in death situation there aren't many choices other than to fight, flee, or die.

I hear what you are saying.

At the batman shooting more than one men died shielding his wife or girlfriend. ...................

.......imagine if one of them had a weapon to defend with?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have guns and armed personal prevented anyone from ever getting shot?

They certainly didn't save Lincoln or Kennedy.

Does ice melt? Do wheels turn? Does the moon come out at night?

Again, we're all going to die. When and where ultimately don't matter.

All that matters is we have enough time to enjoy what we have.

Guns, although an illusion of safety in a fatalist sense, can buy people more time they might deserve.

I guess the threat of mutual distruction ended the cold war but not in the case of the lawless nature of the right to have what ever gun one deems fit. I see that as a call to war against not only the government but fellow citizens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure what you mean by dragging someone into your house or property and shooting them and thinking thats ok man.

Its because its not the number of guns in the USA that is the problem. This is only a symptom of a larger problem of why these GOV drugged addicts are committing these horrendous crimes in the first place. Punishing the whole mass for mistakes committed by few is not the answer.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hear what you are saying.

At the batman shooting more than one men died shielding his wife or girlfriend. ...................

.......imagine if one of them had a weapon to defend with?

One shooter fires aka the bat man then another and another then another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its because its not the number of guns in the USA that is the problem. This is only a symptom of a larger problem of why these GOV drugged addicts are committing these horrendous crimes in the first place. Punishing the whole mass for mistakes committed by few is not the answer.

Its not about a gun ban it`s about what guns. Never has been never will be about a ban on guns. Canadians have a crap load of guns something like 23 million guns for a population of 32 million thats alot.

Edited by The Silver Thong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have guns and armed personal prevented anyone from ever getting shot?

They certainly didn't save Lincoln or Kennedy.

Does ice melt? Do wheels turn? Does the moon come out at night?

Again, we're all going to die. When and where ultimately don't matter.

All that matters is we have enough time to enjoy what we have.

Guns, although an illusion of safety in a fatalist sense, can buy people more time they might deserve.

show me a stat that states private gun ownership prevents gun crime if you may.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess the threat of mutual distruction ended the cold war but not in the case of the lawless nature of the right to have what ever gun one deems fit. I see that as a call to war against not only the government but fellow citizens.

Right. Once humanity finally had the power to off itself the discussion changed from ending all life to extending it in ways realistic.

People own guns responsibly - and many people own guns in America. It's why no country has ever invaded us.

Having 88/100 owning a gun, that's millions of guns in America. On the east coast that's more than I can count.

We've gotten along with people owning semi-automatic guns, bolt action rifles, sidearms, etc.

People need semi-automatic guns to protect themselves from government.

And no matter what the Left media tells you, they want you disarmed. History proves governments kill people.

And an expressed warning in our Bill of Rights about keeping the ability of a sovereign citizen to bare arms is one that should not be ignored.

Common sense points to history and the trend of countries; innovation and production - then apathy and complacency - then corruption.

Its because its not the number of guns in the USA that is the problem. This is only a symptom of a larger problem of why these GOV drugged addicts are committing these horrendous crimes in the first place. Punishing the whole mass for mistakes committed by few is not the answer.

Exactly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

show me a stat that states private gun ownership prevents gun crime if you may.

Crime from GOV tyranny? YES.... keep counting because gun ownership is the sole reason America is still the freest developed nation on Earth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Up here in Canada we take it up the ass. In the USA, they still have the balls to stand up to authority.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crime from GOV tyranny? YES.... keep counting because gun ownership is the sole reason America is still the freest developed nation on Earth.

So are you saying the second aamendment protects the US people from a government you have called the most corrupt ever. Are you sure what you say about the freest on the planet is true or just a que ball behind the eight. I think you might be hinting at something you are not out right saying. to say the fattest lazest nation on the planet hold the government by the tail because the people have guns in a completly un organized militia and little ladies with .22 hold the power.

Up here in Canada we take it up the ass. In the USA, they still have the balls to stand up to authority.

give me an example

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

show me a stat that states private gun ownership prevents gun crime if you may.

I can cite that in majority of cases where private gun ownership has deterred crime, the weapon usually isn't fired.

After Columbine studies were conducted in 2000 and the results were the 31 states that allowed citizens to carry concealed weapons had a 24 percent lower violent crime rate, a 19 percent lower murder rate and a 39 percent lower robbery rate than states that legislated against concealed weapons licences. The 9 states with lowest crime rates were apart of the 31 states that had/have concealed.

Edited by Eonwe
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So are you saying the second aamendment protects the US people from a government you have called the most corrupt ever. Are you sure what you say about the freest on the planet is true or just a que ball behind the eight. I think you might be hinting at something you are not out right saying. to say the fattest lazest nation on the planet hold the government by the tail because the people have guns in a completly un organized militia and little ladies with .22 hold the power.

If little ladies can't defend themselves in a nation that is supposed to be run by the people via popular sovereignty, and you admit a .22 doesn't have enough power to kill someone outright; although the bullet itself can bounce around in a head and destroy the brain, so a .22 is lethal - then it does make sense to have higher caliber weaponry in the hands of the citizenry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right. Once humanity finally had the power to off itself the discussion changed from ending all life to extending it in ways realistic.

People own guns responsibly - and many people own guns in America. It's why no country has ever invaded us.

Having 88/100 owning a gun, that's millions of guns in America. On the east coast that's more than I can count.

We've gotten along with people owning semi-automatic guns, bolt action rifles, sidearms, etc.

People need semi-automatic guns to protect themselves from government.

And no matter what the Left media tells you, they want you disarmed. History proves governments kill people.

And an expressed warning in our Bill of Rights about keeping the ability of a sovereign citizen to bare arms is one that should not be ignored.

Common sense points to history and the trend of countries; innovation and production - then apathy and complacency - then corruption.

Exactly.

Finaly a person with balls. Use your second amendment god damit. Your nation as well as mine has been hojacked. I`m not kidding I want you guys to use and I`m messing with you to do so. Blow the fed reserve to the ground. They have stolen your nation and you are now occupied. How much of me poking you guys does it take to act.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If little ladies can't defend themselves in a nation that is supposed to be run by the people via popular sovereignty, and you admit a .22 doesn't have enough power to kill someone outright; although the bullet itself can bounce around in a head and destroy the brain, so a .22 is lethal - then it does make sense to have higher caliber weaponry in the hands of the citizenry.

Yes a .22 is deadly now use your second amendment and do something. Your nation is no longer yours. Use it or lose it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So are you saying the second aamendment protects the US people from a government you have called the most corrupt ever. Are you sure what you say about the freest on the planet is true or just a que ball behind the eight. I think you might be hinting at something you are not out right saying. to say the fattest lazest nation on the planet hold the government by the tail because the people have guns in a completly un organized militia and little ladies with .22 hold the power.

give me an example

the 2nd amendment... duh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finaly a person with balls. Use your second amendment god damit. Your nation as well as mine has been hojacked. I`m not kidding I want you guys to use and I`m messing with you to do so. Blow the fed reserve to the ground. They have stolen your nation and you are now occupied. How much of me poking you guys does it take to act.

The quote about the Second Amendment I find the most accurate, real or not, is that we don't need it until they take it away.

Although, we should remind ourselves the topic is about a girl being punished because of a toy gun - so let's not stray considerably.

When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor it was like poking a bear with a stick.. The American people, if they fully realized their potential, could be a formidable force to be reckoned with... I realize my nation is full of people with different political ideologies, and as of right now the US is more polarized than it has been since the 19th century. Washington was wise to point out the dangers of partisan politics, because most people identify with political parties more than their political beliefs. Whereas the US was founded for political freedom for a very simple reason; anti-corruption. In many ways if we, the people, had to poke back or shove back, it would be extremely difficult because 80% of the population exists in urban environments that have a militarized police presence.

In times of civil strife, cities are essentially death traps. In the time of a civil uprising, cities would be the main areas of friction at first.

Besides, while I don't not advocate self-defense, America's revolution must be peaceful.

People must stand up all at once in defiance and say no. And if our government simply looks at us and says no and punishes us, then is the time.

As for right now, the best thing to do to preserve rights is addressing topics like these - little girls being punished for having imagination and the eagerness to play. The very same people who spread the mentality that led to this girl's punishing grew up in the Baby Boom generation and played Cowboys and Indians with cap guns, or shot BB guns - so it's not as if they don't know what they are doing.

Edited by Eonwe
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the 2nd amendment... duh

So when are they going to use it for what it was ment for. Or was that shooting schools and robbing 7-11`s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So when are they going to use it for what it was ment for. Or was that shooting schools and robbing 7-11`s.

There is no reason for Americans to act upon these acts committed by few psychopaths . It's a symptom of a much larger problem. Punishing everybody for a problem committed by few is exactly what the investment banks screwed us all with back in '08. It's the same pattern.. recognize it and learn from it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The quote about the Second Amendment I find the most accurate, real or not, is that we don't need it until they take it away.

Although, we should remind ourselves the topic is about a girl being punished because of a toy gun - so let's try not stray considerably.

When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor it was like poking a bear with a stick.. The American people, if they fully realized their potential, could be a formidable force to be reckoned with... I realize my nation is full of people with different political ideologies, and as of right now the US is more polarized than it has been since the 19th century. Washington was wise to point out the dangers of partisan politics, because most people identify with political parties more than their political beliefs. Whereas the US was founded for political freedom for a very simple reason; anti-corruption. In many ways if we, the people, had to poke back or shove back, it would be extremely difficult because 80% of the population exists in urban environments that have a militarized police presence.

In times of civil strife, cities are essentially death traps. In the time of a civil uprising, cities would be the main areas of friction at first.

Besides, while I don't not advocate self-defense, America's revolution must be peaceful.

People must stand up all at once in defiance and say no. And if our government simply looks at us and says no and punishes us, then is the time.

As for right now, the best thing to do to preserve rights is addressing topics like these - little girls being punished for having imagination and the eagerness to play. The very same people who spread the mentality that led to this girl's punishing grew up in the Baby Boom generation and played Cowboys and Indians with cap guns, or shot BB guns - so it's not as if they don't know what they are doing.

The walk on wall street was peacefull but shot down and played down or up by the 1 percent that control media and the militery police. Its purpose was just but handled by a media that panders to the one percent. One needs another 60`s type movement that stopped Veitnam and busted Nixion. Corrupt government with corrupt big business with corrupt nations needs to end. Shut down the fed the banks. over 200000 people showed up at the national mall to worship a new-old prez do that around government buildings, post offices embassies and make them suffer till they listen if you don`t want to pull a gun against your government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.