I get it, I have a right to keep and bear arms. Get over it.

Meanwhile, a Maryland legislator is pushing back against the silliness...

Quote:

---

‘Toaster Pastry Gun Freedom Act’ proposed in Maryland

A Maryland state senator has crafted a bill to curb the zeal of public school officials who are tempted to suspend students as young as kindergarten for having things — or talking about things, or eating things — that represent guns, but aren’t actually anything like real guns.

Sen. J. B. Jennings, a Republican who represents Baltimore Harford Counties, introduced “The Reasonable School Discipline Act of 2013″ on Thursday, reports The Star Democrat.

“We really need to re-evaluate how kids are punished,” Jennings told The Star Democrat. “These kids can’t comprehend what they are doing or the ramifications of their actions.”

“These suspensions are going on their permanent records and could have lasting effects on their educations,” he added.

A nationwide flurry of suspensions seemed to reach an absurd level recently when Josh Welch, a second-grader at Park Elementary School in Baltimore, Maryland, was suspended for two days because his teacher thought he shaped a strawberry, pre-baked toaster pastry into something resembling a gun. (RELATED: Second-grader suspended for breakfast pastry)

“I just kept on biting it and biting it and tore off the top of it and kind of looked like a gun,” the seven-year-old told Fox News.

“But it wasn’t,” he astutely added.

---

Smart kid. I particularly like this portion of the bill:

Quote:

---

The bill also includes a section mandating counseling for school officials who fail to distinguish between guns and things that resemble guns. School officials who fail to make such a distinction more than once would face discipline themselves.

---

I love it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello smoothy:

I'm not a threat. Commies, socialists and your local leaf blower aren't threats either..

I thought right wingers loved the Constitution... No, huh?

excon

---

Repeat offenders commit crimes... repeat offenders commit more than the two crimes they were convicted of... repeat offenders by definition don't stop after their first crime.

Communists and Socialists want the contitution gone because it prevents most of their policies... so they can impose their tyranny on the people.

The differences are... we have a written right to bear arms... the others have no rights to continue their behaviour specifically in writing...

What bill of rights specifically give the criminals.. the Socialists or the communists or the Lunatics... by name... the unabated right to do what they do? And what number would that one be?

Hello again, smoothy:

I'M a repeat offender. In fact, I'm committing a felony AS we speak. I'm going to do it again, too. Fully HALF of the people you lock up are like me. We owe you NOTHING.

Wanting the Constitution gone is Constitutionally protected thought. You might not LIKE what they think, but they have the RIGHT to think it. There's nothing illegal about BEING a lunatic either.

Where did you learn about the Constitution? Montgomery Wards?

excon

Early this AM in gun-free DC.

Eleven people shot on D.C. street corner overnight - The Washington Post

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smearcase

Early this AM in gun-free DC.

Eleven people shot on D.C. street corner overnight - The Washington Post

---

Yes they had a constitutional right to die

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, smoothy:

I'M a repeat offender. In fact, I'm committing a felony AS we speak. I'm gonna do it again, too. Fully HALF of the people you lock up are like me. We owe you NOTHING.

Wanting the Constitution gone is Constitutionally protected thought. You might not LIKE what they think, but they have the RIGHT to think it. There's nothing illegal about BEING a lunatic either.

Where did you learn about the Constitution? Montgomery Wards??

excon

---

I apparently know far more about it than you do...

Next time some repeat offender breaks in and beats the crap out of you during a robbery... keep your own words in mind... or the next time a repeat offender robs and kills someone close to you.

If you was younger and still had small children.. if some repeat offender Childmolestor got a hold of one of your kids... remember they don't owe you anything.

Like how often does that happen Smoothy, you have a three strike rule so there is a window there and little else, again nothing says you can't own a gun but remember you just might be putting a weapon in the hands of that offender. You don't need a semi automatic with a large magazine to defend yourself

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

like how often does that happen Smoothy, you have a three strike rule so there is a window there and little else, again nothing says you can't own a gun but remember you just might be putting a weapon in the hands of that offender. you don't need a semi automatic with a large magazine to defend yourself

---

I and every other American have the RIGHT to any damn gun we want... and until the government itself restricts itself to what kind THEY have... they have less than NO excuse to dictate to anyone else.

Why exactly does a police force need grenades and fully automatic weapons for anyway? I expect to hear a really good answer there... because they aren't the Military... and in the USA. No paramilitary Police force exists.

I know this might really upset you lefties... but I can actually own a Class 3 firearm if I so desire (look it up, It's for REAL assault weapons... not what the morons on the left THINK are assault weapons)... That actually requires a license... because there is no legal justification for a rejection if I so applied for it (my background actually is clean Unlike Obamas)... because I actually live in a state that believes in the Constitution.

They would also HAVE to give me a Concealed carry permit if I apply for the very same reason.. I think I might just get one of those just for sh*ts and grins.

The bottom line here is the FACT that the Second Amendment gives every American citizen the specific right to own firearms.That is the law. There is nothing in the amendment that specifically describes what type can or cannot be owned and the fact of what smoothy said reinforces that fact. If I want to own a fully automatic Tommy Gun,, I have to apply for a permit from the Government. If I have absolutely no type of criminal record, I CANNOT be denied that permit and firearm CONSTITUTIONALLY. If I were, The Supreme Court would over ride the decision as unconstitutional because there would no valid reason why I cannot own that weapon. It's simple. This argument has gone on for over 200 years and the law abiding citizens of this country ALWAYS prevail.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

Why exactly does a police force need grenades and fully automatic weapons for anyway? I expect to hear a really good answer there...because they aren't the Military...and in the USA. No paramilitary Police force exists.

---

Do you think it might be because you have an armed population and the police want to outgun their opponents. In any case isn't SWAT a paramilitary force within the various police forces. If you didn't have an armed population full of loonies it wouldn't be necessary

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

Do you think it might be because you have an armed population and the police want to outgun their opponents. In any case isn't SWAT a paramilitary force within the various police forces. If you didn't have an armed population full of loonies it wouldn't be necessary

---

Have you ever been here? I drive the streets every day and I've never seen "an armed population full of loonies," and I live in Texas where we all ride horses and still have gun fights on the street at noon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

Why exactly does a police force need grenades and fully automatic weapons for anyway? I expect to hear a really good answer there...because they aren't the Military...and in the USA. No paramilitary Police force exists.

---

Police are regarded as the first line in maintaining civil order, law enforcement and protection. Police have the power to use legal force when necessary to maintain this order.

In consultation with the states and local law enforcement commands police would be given the weaponry necessary to achieve these aims.


I think you will probably find this is close to the answer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tuttyd

Police are regarded as the first line in maintaining civil order, law enforcement and protection. Police have the power to use legal force when necessary to maintain this order.

In consultation with the states and local law enforcement commands police would be given the weaponry necessary to achieve these aims.


I think you will probably find this is close to the answer.

---

More like to assure the government can oppress the people when it gets down to it... because the people have the right to the very same weapons... as a defense against a government gone overboard...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

I drive the streets every day and I've never seen "an armed population full of loonies," and I live in Texas where we all ride horses and still have gun fights on the street at noon.

---

Well that certainly explains it!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

More like to assure the government can oppress the people when it gets down to it....because the people have the right to the very same weapons.....as a defense against a government gone overboard.....

---

Justice Scalia on the types of weapons that fall OUTSIDE of the Second Amendment:

If the purpose of the Second amendment is to ensure an armed militia, then we might think that it especially protects just these weapons that are made useful in military service.

In modern times, that would mean machine guns, rocket propelled grenades, tanks and other such heavy weaponry. But recognizing the danger such weapons in private possession would pose they fall outside the Second Amendment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tuttyd

Justice Scalia on the types of weapons that fall OUTSIDE of the Second Amendment:

If the purpose of the Second amendment is to ensure an armed militia, then we might think that it especially protects just these weapons that are made useful in military service.

In modern times, that would mean machine guns, rocket propelled grenades, tanks and other such heavy weaponry. But recognizing the danger such weapons in private possession would pose they fall outside the Second Amendment.

---

But apparenty it doesn't preclude muzzle loading cannons. You see Tut the definition of machine gun is a little vague but I would agree the founders really didn't see beyond single shot rifles, single shot hand guns and and even single shot cannon? Such weapons were common for many decades later. In the early days they overcame this by carrying as many guns as was practical and this thinking pervails today

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tuttyd

Justice Scalia on the types of weapons that fall OUTSIDE of the Second Amendment:

If the purpose of the Second amendment is to ensure an armed militia, then we might think that it especially protects just these weapons that are made useful in military service.

In modern times, that would mean machine guns, rocket propelled grenades, tanks and other such heavy weaponry. But recognizing the danger such weapons in private possession would pose they fall outside the Second Amendment.

---

Machine guns are legal if you get a special license. Same with Silencers... those are class 3 firearms.

I don't have one because I don't have the money for one just for the sake of having it... but if I wanted to... I could have one... legally.

The Police have no more legitimate need for a machine gun that I do... or is that really the intention of the left... to eventually impose their tyranny on the population? There is no other legitimate reason than that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

But apparenty it doesn't preclude muzzle loading cannons. You see Tut the definition of machine gun is a little vague but I would agree the founders really didn't see beyond single shot rifles, single shot hand guns and and even single shot cannon? Such weapons were common for many decades later. In the early days they overcame this by carrying as many guns as was practical and this thinking pervails today

---

We can legally own a cannon... in fact many hobbyists do... functioning ones, that shoot real projectiles... and not just make noise..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

We can legally own a cannon....in fact many hobbyists do....functioning ones, that shoot real projectiles...and not just make noise..

---

And there are enough of them to protect us from the evil federal government? Anyone have drones or nuclear bombs?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

Machine guns are legal if you get a special license. Same with Silencers...those are class 3 firearms.

I don't have one because I don't have the money for one just for the sake of having it....but if I wanted to....I could have one....legally.

The Police have no more legitimate need for a machine gun that I do....or is that really the intention of the left....to eventually impose their tyranny on the population? There is no other legitimate reason than that.

---

The states have the right to impose certain rules and regulations when it comes to weapons. Such things as licenses, restrictions on certain types of hardware, gun free zones, police having the right to certain types of weapons; all would fall inside the parameters of the Second Amendment.

A more specific example would be:

If you feel as though it is not constitutional for police to be armed with certain types of weapons then you can take the case to the Supreme Court. However, I am confident there would be a 9/0 ruling against your claim.

Justice Scalia is a conservative SCOTUS judge.