It says NOTHING about us. It says the child was using imagination. Good grief, do you really believe there is something deep and psychological about every single move or thought in a child's life?
Tell me, what does it "say about us" that so many children will stick something into an electric receptacle?
What does it "say about us" when a 16 year old new driver speeds?
What does it "say about us" when someone is overawed by the capability of an F-16 fighter-jet? (After all, it is a weapon of war.)
What does it "say about us" when a child dislikes strained peas as their baby food but grows to love peas by the tmie they are 2 or 3?
Let's just analyze the heck out of everything and then make judgements based upon nothing just to make us feel superior. Good Grief.
Aaah. Thank you for clarifying.
Automobiles kill far more people (including infants) every year than guns. Yet ANYONE can buy an automobile and pay NO taxes nor register it unless they also buy license plates.
Yet, I hear no clamor about background checks for purchasers of automobiles.
Note: Sequuia does not answer your question, "Explain how states and cities with the most restrictive gun laws became the most dangerous". Instead he makes a snide comment and questions YOUR thinking ability.
He also advocates MORE laws that won't be obeyed by those whom we are trying to stop for disobeying current laws. (sounds convoluted, huh?)
Do you have a college degree? If you do I question the quality of your degree. It seems you managed to forget that history and at least, some, of the language skills are humanities programs -- that of which you demean in your statement.
How is it that you consider it a "complex issue?"
A third grader took a toy to school, and a very small toy at that. He pointed it at a classmate and the teacher and administrrators went berserk.
Children all over this country take toys to grade school. . . .
We now want to police their imaginations and tell them imagination is only right if it is within certain parameters.
How is that a complex issue?
My suggestion to you is this:
If you really "love these old guys" ---- READ
READ the many biographies concerning them.
I personally do not give a rats tail if you believe i have read any of them.
If you truly want to know, YOU WILL READ, if you do not read, you are merely trying to ARGUE. Please, grow up.
While my library is quite extensive, there are many works (especially biographies) that I borrowed from the library. It is getting more and more expensive to buy written works.
I do not read them to educate others. I read them to educate myself and I do not generally write down quotes or citations for debates.
If they want to know (as you wrote) they will research. Otherwise they simply want to argue.
The biographies of each of those men speak of the reasons for what they wrote and contain many quotations referring to (paraphrased here) how a democracy will die if they allow themselves to be disarms by the gov.t.
If you really do love those guys, then read the biographies that are available nearly anywhere.
While the court has much power and may define a skewed meaning with their opinions. There WILL come a time when the opression of citizens of this country arise against it. And, yes, it works. Consider the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, and the American revolution against the British (the most powerful military in the world at that time).
There is an old saying something like: "They cannot use you for a rug unless you lay down and let them walk on you."
The "National Guard"" is NOT a federal military force unless they are federalized for a specific purpose, they then, and ONLY then, become part of the U.S. military. At all other times they are under their commander-in-chief (the governor of whichever state to wihich they are attached.
Last login: Monday, February 4, 2013
© 2013 News Tribune Publishing.