Zero gun tolerance needs to be eradicated!

First let me post some actual stories from news sources which relate to ridiculous “zero gun tolerance” rules implemented in schools across our country.

1. Nebraska, a 3-year-old-deaf boy has been told by his school district to change the way he signs his name because the gesture resembles shooting a gun.
3-Year-Old Deaf Boy, Told By Preschool To Change Way He Signs His Name
The Huffington Post | By Ron Dicker
08/28/2012 12:25 pm Updated: 10/04/2012 9:12 am

2. Maryland First Grader Suspended for Pointing Finger in Shape of Gun › US for pretending his fingers were scissors and then a gun. After the third incident , he was suspended, according to the letter, obtained by WJLA …
Jan 3, 2013

3. Maryland Parents Furious After Boys Suspended For Using Fingers As Guns
TALBOT COUNTY, Md. (WJZ) — Is it child’s play or a serious threat of gun violence? For the second time in less than a month, a Maryland child is kicked out of school for using his finger in the shape of a gun.
January 15, 2013 11:23 PM

4. Pennsylvania girl, 5, suspended for talk of ‘shooting’ a Hello Kitty ‘bubble gun’
From Meridith Edwards, CNN A Pennsylvania school suspends a kindergarten girl for making a “terroristic threat”. Her lawyer says she playfully talked of “shooting” a Hello Kitty bubble gun with friends. The school later reduces the suspension, but still finds she made a “threat to harm others
Tue January 22, 2013 updated 10:49 AM EST

5. Philadelphia Fifth-grader reprimanded for bringing paper ‘gun’ to school
By Mike Krumboltz, Yahoo! News | The Lookout –
Wed, Jan 23, 2013

6. Colorado Boy, 7, suspended for throwing imaginary grenade, playing a game of ‘rescue the world,’ he tossed an imaginary grenade into a box. Because of the school’s ‘no real or play fighting’ rule, the boy was kicked out of school for an undisclosed period of time.
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 2013, 6:24 PM
Read more:

7. Florida Student Suspended After Disarming Teen Who Had Gun On The School Bus, Officials Say (VIDEO) The Huffington Post | By Cavan Sieczkowski
03/05/2013 2:30 pm EST

8. Maryland Student Suspended For Pop-Tart Gun, Josh Welch, Files Appeal With Maryland County School System
The Baltimore Sun | By Joe Burris
03/18/2013 8:00 am EDT | Updated: 03/19/2013 3:13 pm EDT

9. Massachusetts Boy, 5, suspended for bringing plastic toy gun to school
March 22, 2013
Read more:

On Monday, a North Carolina high school senior, honor student and Eagle Scout realized as he pulled into the school parking lot that he had his skeet shooting rifle in his car. He went inside the school to call his mom to come pick it up and take it home. But the school found out and David “Cole” Withrow was arrested just weeks before his graduation.
May. 2, 2013 10:00pm

11. Zero tolerance: Virginia 2nd-grader suspended for pretending his pencil was a gun.
He was suspended from Driver Elementary School in Suffolk, Va. for two days after pretending to be a Marine shooting at a ‘bad guy’ played by a friend, who was also suspended.
TUESDAY, MAY 7, 2013, 2:58 PM
Read more:

May. 29, 2013 1:20am Jason Howerton, The Blaze

13. Maryland 5yo Kindergartener interrogated over Cowboy style cap gun until he pees his pants, then suspended 10 days from school in Calvert County
The Daily Caller –
Fri, May 31, 2013

14. FLORENCE, AZ – A high school student in Florence said he has been suspended because of a picture of a gun. By: Corey Rangel
Read more:

And seriously the list goes on and on over irrational zero gun tolerance guidelines. For hundreds of years kids have been playing out scenarios with guns, from cowboys and Indians, cops and robbers, and acting like soldiers/army men and these boys grew up without becoming psychopathic homicidal blood thirsty killers!

Contrary to my title I do not actually think “zero gun tolerance” needs to be eradicated, however it certainly needs a massive overhaul. This rule that every and any type or image of a gun or any explosive device is cause for disciplinary action is moronic. How about a realistic set of rules and guidelines which would outline: Disciplinary action for any gun that has the ability to fire a projectile, any material used in making gun powder or explosives, bullets(live or spent). In a situation where a student brings a firearm to school or a extension of school(field trips, buses, away games, etc) and another student may attempt in disarming the student(added because this incident did occur in Fla), the student who was disarming would only be disciplined after statements were taken from witnesses and reviewed to determine whether the student was truly acting for the safety of all present.

Additionally, other exceptions need to be considered. Like the boy who was arrested after realizing he left his rifle in his truck and called his mom to come pick it up. No consideration was given for a young man who tried to do the right thing after he realized the mistake. Same thing for the boy who disarmed the gun toting student. In both these instances they tried to do the right thing and both were penalized. So what would be the lesson learned here?

Well for the first case it shows “never” to talk around a school official, that creates distrust. Secondly it shows to either disregard the rules and try to hide the rifle or to get in your vehicle and leave school premises without authorization. And though you may get in trouble for ditching school you won’t get arrested!(not yet anyway)
The second incident is far more tragic in its potential outcome, which is why I’m sure the boy felt compelled to intervene in the first place. And the lesson learned there is… Let the guy shoot people. Because if you instill this fear of penalization for being even remotely involved in a gun incident, more people will get shot and less people will help!

So people do you want your children and grandchildren to be freaking out at the sight of a gun for fear they will be ostracized and penalized by their educators? Remember these are the people who care for your child 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, 10 months a year for 13 years of their most formidable years. If we don’t take a stand now and beat down this policy to a more realistic policy our children may not have the tenacity to strike a fly!


Radical division

Because of the tension in the nation with division on political affiliation, gay marriage, gun rights, illegal immigration and whatever else I may have missed, it seems that both sides of the arguments are becoming more opposed and entrenched in their views with such vigor as to not even consider what the other side has got to say. And I for one have begun to think that way. Which is precisely why I am writing this.

We are all entitled to our own beliefs and lifestyles, within reason. And this nation affords us that freedom almost limitlessly. But what I see almost daily from both sides of every issue I mentioned and a few others is a narrow-mindedness, egocentric, self-serving attitude that does not even listen let alone consider another persons stand. When I comment on different threads I usually try to stay on topic, factual and fair while still maintaining my stand and not resort to name calling because someone objects to my belief. But with constant exposure to this type of behavior from oppositionist who usually do not conduct themselves with the same considerations as I try to maintain, I find myself becoming hateful to groups and issues I have no true ill will against. These are extremists fueling the divisive fires with such inflammatory lies, name calling, etc… vile trolls they are. And I am a victim of their hateful rhetoric no longer.

For my hope remains in Christ not in man, as I believe it should be with all men(humans). But my goal here is not to turn everyone to Christ but hopefully to establish middle ground on some very sensitive subjects. I will start with “gay marriage/same sex marriage”. The word “marriage” is viewed by almost every(if not every) civilization as a union of a “man” to a “woman” made official by coitus when the female has come of age(for those civilizations). Whether or not it is or is not a religious union is not the subject entirely, because not every man and woman joined in marriage are religious or even accept God. But historically speaking on the whole from ancient books of law, and stories, archaeological finds, historical accounts and general global acceptance and knowledge of marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Now is that to say that no homosexual marriage has ever existed, no, but to declare that marriage by law should expand its definition to include the union of homosexuals regardless of the fact that most religions view homosexuality as sinful is just as narrow-minded and self-serving as those you accuse the same of.

Semantics always seems to play a major role in issues like these so I’m trying to by mindful of my words, so what I’ve heard is gays want equal rights to be treated the same as “same-sex” or have the same benefits as same-sex marriages. And I personally have no qualms about those requests, they are fair and valid. But if the biggest issue is the word “marriage” and wanting a “marriage” license and not a “civil union” license, then it seems no agreement will ever be reached without dissension from one side or another. Now obviously I’m not gay so I can’t really speak for the importance or need of the word marriage in lieu “civil union” but what I see to be the most important part of this issue would be the legal recognition of a “civil union” which affords the same benefits as a marriage in regards to spousal benefits, taxes, estate death benefits, SS benefits, etc.

In short a “civil union” allowing gays to marry without changing the word “marriage” adding in “civil union” for legal purposes, would allow gays same marriage benefits and at the same time appease the religious communities, securing and respecting their views on the sanctity of “marriage”, thereby ,in my opinion, satisfying the majority from both sides. Because I doubt you could ever get everyone to agree on all things.

Gun control, rights, limits and everything else it includes is another subject where the divide is great especially by those who have guns vs those who have lost a loved one or have been injured from a gun crime. Most parents who have lost a child to a gun are adamantly opposed to the current gun availability in our nation, which is understandable if you look at how easy it is to kill someone from afar with a gun or how many people you can kill with a gun in a limited amount of time. But what it doesn’t show is who are the majority of gun murder victims. It is not innocent kids, as a matter of fact the majority of murderers of children ages 5 and younger are their parents(67%)followed by a male friend of the family(23%)then other relatives(7%)with the last and least by a stranger(3%). Also more than half of the gun deaths listed yearly are self-inflicted suicides, which are included in the gun death numbers thus creating a preconceived idea that gun deaths lead in violent deaths. But death by poisons and bludgeoning(don’t have the stabbing stats) out number gun deaths(no suicides by bludgeoning). Just a few more facts on death numbers 2011 drugs 40,239; motor vehicle 26,256; alcohol 34,677; guns 32,163 of which 19,766 were self-inflicted bringing the number to 12,397gun deaths. Included in that number are accidental and law enforcement related shootings.
So before you take away anyone’s right to bear and keep arms, try convincing your local and federal LEOs and politicians to enforce current laws and make criminal punishment something criminals fear, not laugh at! Then and only then when the punishment befits the crime and criminals fear punishment: I’m hoping for hangings, drawn and quartered, cutting off fingers, etc., if crime still exists I will be open to reviewing a gun control bill as I’m sure most would agree.

Gun control

Assault Weapons Ban of 2013

What the bill does:

Bans the sale, transfer, manufacturing and importation of:

All semiautomatic rifles…
All semiautomatic pistols…
All semiautomatic rifles and handguns that have a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
All semiautomatic shotguns… or shotgun with a revolving cylinder.
All magazine feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.
157 specifically-named firearms (can be found on Feinsteins website)

The legislation excludes the following weapons from the bill:

Any weapon that is lawfully possessed at the date of the bill’s enactment;
Any firearm manually operated by a bolt, pump, lever or slide action;
Assault weapons used by military, law enforcement, and retired law enforcement; and
Antique weapons.

The legislation protects hunting and sporting firearms:

The bill excludes 2,258 legitimate hunting and sporting rifles and shotguns by specific make and model.

The legislation strengthens the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and state bans by:

Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test.
The bill also makes the ban harder to evade by eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the characteristics test.
Banning dangerous aftermarket modifications and workarounds.
Bump or slide fire stocks, which are modified stocks that enable semi-automatic weapons to fire at rates similar to fully automatic machine guns.
So-called “bullet buttons” that allow the rapid replacement of ammunition magazines, frequently used as a workaround to prohibitions on detachable magazines.
Thumbhole stocks, a type of stock that was created as a workaround to avoid prohibitions on pistol grips.
Adding a ban on the importation of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines.
Eliminating the 10-year sunset that allowed the original federal ban to expire.

The legislation addresses the millions of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines currently in existence by:

Requiring a background check on all sales or transfers of a grandfathered assault weapon.
This background check can be run through the FBI or, if a state chooses, initiated with a state agency, as with the existing background check system.
Prohibiting the sale or transfer of large-capacity ammunition feeding devices lawfully possessed on the date of enactment of the bill.
Allowing states and localities to use federal Byrne JAG grant funds to conduct a voluntary buy-back program for grandfathered assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition feeding devices.
Imposing a safe storage requirement for grandfathered firearms, to keep them away from prohibited persons.
Requiring that assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition feeding devices manufactured after the date of the bill’s enactment be engraved with the serial number and date of manufacture of the weapon.

Now what this fails to (do):

Keep these weapons away from criminals.
Make criminals fill out a background check form.
Protect law abiding citizens from well armed criminals.
Allow citizens from being well armed against a possible tyrannical government overthrow, one that wants to control every aspect of its citizens; education, gun possession, freedom of speech, taxation and government spending without regard to the usefulness of the program being funded, federal employees having better healthcare and retirement options while our future seniors may not have SS.

Many of our founding fathers and others over the centuries many have spoken in favor and knew the importance of the people being able to have weapons comparable to the government (armed forces). And in numerous countries over the years nationals who have had their arms removed became subject to government overthrow and death.

If you think that this can not happen here you are mistaken. The holocaust did not happen overnight it progressed over nearly 10 years before people knew that Jews were being exterminated, along with the Polish, the Russians, the infirmed, handicapped, etc…

Indoctrination has already begun and is progressing under our noses. Children are being suspended for gun images, toy guns, finger guns, imaginary guns, disarming a student with a gun because they were part of a “gun” situation!(all real & verifiable).

Now I like to think like a criminal at times(too many episodes of Criminal Minds maybe) and I see numerous ways around the laws here.
First: limited magazine in which they state a criminal will only get off X amount of shots before needing to reload, which gives the police time to retaliate . Well obviously Feinstein does not watch Hollywood movies! Simply bring more guns, that’s assuming you are a law abiding citizen up until the point where you decide to go on a psycho shooting spree, and you’ve only purchased the allowable items. Lol.
Second, unless the first amendment comes under attack and I’m sure it will, there are innumerable websites and books which show people how to build guns, modify guns, make ammo, bombs, poison, etc… so yeah, criminals will just get craftier.
Third: black market gun sales will go through the roof and the economy will suffer greatly, because the money will not be taxed but I’m quite sure sales will not stop.

Besides what part of criminal do these libs not understand? This ban if passed will do the same thing photo traffic tickets and photo red light running tickets did, make criminals out of normally law abiding citizens. Congratulations!

If they really want to stop gun crimes how about tougher more severe penalties, not more jail time, there needs to be corporeal punishment befitting the crime.
To give some examples leading with 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th offense:

Theft- cut off 1 finger, cut off 2nd finger, cut off hand, death.
Rape- cut off testicles, cut off hand or johnson, cut off hand or johnson, death.
Murder- removal of 1 organ to be used for donor transplant(kidney, liver, skin graph), removal of another organ, removal of another organ, death.
Child abuse(sexual in nature)- torture, death.
Child abuse(physical in nature)- torture, torture, death.
All carry jail time as well, and any physical or financial difficulties arising from the corporeal punishment can not be held against the people, government, state or anyone. And the individual is also forbidden from any and all government subsidy equal to amount of years in prison, once released.
The corporeal punishment would not take affect until a person reaches the age of 25 unless the person’s first offense has more than one charge of the same crime.

Well that’s my thought on the matter.