A Call to Action from the Nationís Nurses in the Wake of Newtown - page 7

by NRSKarenRN Admin

14,506 Visits | 219 Comments

Reposting from PSNA Communications email. Karen A Call to Action from the Nationís Nurses in the Wake of Newtown More Than 30 Nursing Organizations Call for Action in Wake of Newtown Tragedy (12/20/12) Like the rest... Read More


  1. 0
    Quote from Laurie52
    The difference is that no one and no organization has said that there is a constitutionally gaurenteed right to the internet, TV and cell phones
    *** Wow, really? Do me a favor and type "groups advocating for the first amendment" into Google. You will see there are many and varied groups advocating for freedom of the press and freedom of speech.
  2. 1
    Quote from InfirmiereJolie

    Secondly, you completely ignoring the fact that amendment was written in the 1700's when these weapons were not available is appalling. The constitution has since been amended and changed from 300 years ago as it was imperfect. E.g., the 14th amendment and universal suffrage. An argument basing it off the fact SIMPLY due to it being instituted (during a time when the any use of guns would have required minutes to load not split seconds, extreme difficulty not ease, and only shoot one bullet at a time not dozens in seconds...) into the constitution is circular as the constitution was imperfect and since changed. This is fundamentalism.. further the amendment states militias as well, meaning for the military. As we move forward with technology, we MUST accommodate in order to protect people or fail to adapt to change.

    Moreover, I sense some fear of the government here. Just because YOU are afraid does not mean OTHERS are. This is essentially selfish as well since you want to stop all laws to fit your views/your OWN fears (which OTHERS do NOT share) and yes this is illogical as there is NO reason to fear the government so much. Other countries have bans (e.g., all of Europe, Australia) and they are very happy. They have had bans for years. Further, this is a slippery slope argument that doom will happen when in fact, it is simply getting dangerous, killing weapons off the streets. Then nurses and first responders don't have to care for as many bleeding, injured people in the hospitals and outside the hospital.

    There is NO reason to use a semi-automatic assault weapon for "recreational hunting" use when there is another which fits the SAME method which CANNOT be used to kill massive amounts of people. How did people before these inventions hunt? They could hunt then successfully, cannot you? They also had guns, but not those with numerous rounds of ammunition and military capabilities.
    You are correct. The Bill of Rights was adopted in 1791. A few years years before the internet came about. Does this mean the First Amendment should not apply to the internet since it had not been put into the Bill of Rights? Hey, it's much more powerful than a newspaper.

    Actually the reason for the Second Amendment is so we will not have to fear our government.

    You keep confusing the so-called assault rifles with hunting rifles. Big difference.
    workingharder likes this.
  3. 6
    First off, PMRB-RN, just merely because you aren't afraid of semi-automatic assault weapons (e.g., copy cats of those used in the military)

    *** Actually I am not afraid of any inanimate objects. Your assertion that they are copy cats of military weapons is only true in apperence. In function they are not very different than other very old and widely used firearms.


    DOES NOT mean they are not dangerous and harmful on the streets, being used to kill and injure people. There are OTHERS who ARE afraid; I find this argument self-centered and selfish.

    *** Me too.


    Also, what about the military men and women who come home and are FOR this ban of assault weapons? They've seen them used also and are AGAINST it. These people know they are used primarily to kill people.
    *** I respectfully disagree with my brothers and sisters in arms. If any of them wish to discuss the issue with me I am willing to have that discussion. However I don't view their opinions as being more valid than the opinions of all the vets who happen to disagree with them.

    Secondly, you completely ignoring the fact that amendment was written in the 1700's when these weapons were not available is appalling.

    *** I am doing no such thing. I understand that the authors of the constitution were wise men who, having witnessed world changing technology in their own lives, fully understood that things would continue to change. It's why in documents like the Fedralists Papers they expand on their thinking. As it relates to the current subject we are discussing the "arms" mentioned in the Second Amendment refer to those "of current type". The First Amendment was also written in the late 1700's before the invention of TV, radio and the internet. Should we ban waching TV news since the authors of the constitution could not possibly forsee the effects of mass media?

    The constitution has since been amended and changed from 300 years ago as it was imperfect. E.g., the 14th amendment and universal suffrage. An argument basing it off the fact SIMPLY due to it being instituted (during a time when the any use of guns would have required minutes to load not split seconds, extreme difficulty not ease, and only shoot one bullet at a time not dozens in seconds...) into the constitution is circular as the constitution was imperfect and since changed
    *** Well theres your answer. If you no longer believe in the protections afforded to Americans in the Bill of Rights you are welcome to advocate for amending the constitution. Doing so would be much more honest than simply ignoring our constitution and gutting the protections for Americans it provides.


    further the amendment states militias as well, meaning for the military
    .


    ***The milita is NOT the military. I am AM in the milita. As is your husband, brother, maybe son depending on his age. In any event the the justification clause doesn't negate the right clause. If you care to read further and educate yourself on this issue I suggest reading this, it's from UCLA Law School, hardly a bastion of conservative thought.
    The Commonplace Second Amendment:

    As we move forward with technology, we MUST accommodate in order to protect people or fail to adapt to change.
    *** Well as I said you can advocate for amending the constitution. That is perfectly within your rights as a citizen of a free society and country like the USA. I wish you luck.

    Moreover, I sense some fear of the government here. Just because YOU are afraid does not mean OTHERS are.
    *** Your sense is way off. I do not fear my government at all. I suggest you stop attempting to read into my comments things that are not there. Your not very good at it.

    This is essentially selfish as well since you want to stop all laws to fit your views/your OWN fears (which OTHERS do NOT share) and yes this is illogical as there is NO reason to fear the government so much.
    *** Wow, so I am not only illogical but selfish and fearful of the goverment too? I am actually none of those things and your name calling won't change that.

    Other countries have bans (e.g., all of Europe, Australia) and they are very happy.

    *** I think if you look into it those countries demonstrate the ineffectivness of bans like are being proposed here. You might remeber the 2011 shootings in Norway were 77 people were killed in a country that bans military style assault rifles. Australia has had it's share of tragic school shootings resulting in the deaths of children. Fewer than us but it's a MUCH MUCH smaller country. Also consider Switzerland. A country where most house holds are required by law to keep and maintain a real assault rifle (as opposed to cosmetic appearing like we have been discussing) in the home. Switzerland has the highest rate of gun ownership in the world and their government subsidizes the sale of assault rifle ammunition.

    They have had bans for years. Further, this is a slippery slope argument that doom will happen when in fact, it is simply getting dangerous, killing weapons off the streets.
    *** But it doesn't get anything off the streets. I know this. You only have to look to Connecticut where the shooting occured. They already have an "assault weapons" ban in place. We also have examples from other states like California and the federal ban from 1994 until 2004. They simply did not work and neither will a new law.


    when there is another which fits the SAME method which CANNOT be used to kill massive amounts of people. How did people before these inventions hunt? They could hunt then successfully, cannot you? They also had guns, but not those with numerous rounds of ammunition and military capabilities.
    *** Nearly all firearms in cilivian use are based off military models. In WWI our soldiers learned to use bolt action rifles since there were standard issue at the time. When they came home the bold action became very popular. The same thing happend in WWII when the semiautomatic was standard issue. The troops came home and the semi auto became very popular. This has alwasy been true in US history. Semi automatic firearms have been very popular and heavily used in sports for over a hundred years. There is no new technology here, though the look of the firearms has changed, not their function.
    In any event a particular firearms usefulness for sporting purposes is irrelevent as shooting sports are not related to the reason we have Second Amendment protections in our Bill of Rights.

    This is not about being self-centered for your own wishes;
    *** So not only illogical, selfish, fearful but I am also self centered? Why stick to valid arguments when you can insult and name call?

    this is about helping others and preventing further deaths. This is about stopping the continuous road blocks to improvement
    *** No, it's not. It's about passing feel good laws that will not make any children safer.
    Last edit by PMFB-RN on Dec 22, '12
  4. 9
    Horse-puckey!

    Stick to what you know. Yes to more mental health services, yes to student access to mental health professionals. No, no, no to meaningless, useless, gun bans.

    I am sick and tired of this tirade about so-called assault weapons by people and politicians who know nothing of the existing statutes or the proposed new ones. There are gun laws, if law enforcement had the ability to enforce all of them maybe some of this wouldn't have happened. Maybe some of this would have happened regardless of any new laws you want politicians to push through without looking at facts.

    Answer a simple question first before you jump all over this; what is an assault weapon? Specifically. Are you informed enough to know what constitutes an assault weapon vs. any other? If not, then I would suggest you read the former "weapons ban" and you quickly learn it was a farce. In fact, murder rates have steadily gone down for over a decade even after the ban was lifted. Murders with so-called assault weapons, statistically, are so rare that banning them has negligible effect on over all murder rates.

    Do people need dozens of guns? No, of course not but we don't need dozens of cars either and how many people die from drunk drivers every year? Do you want the gov't to start telling you how many cars you can own? What you can own? (oh, wait...they are trying to do that anyway). Quit thinking the answer to everything is some federal government intervention. It isn't.

    The answer may actually lie in the opposite of what anti-gun activists are ranting about. We have school nurses, why not campus police at every school; on-site, trained and armed? I actually think communities would gladly pay for the extra protection and peace of mind. At the very least arm teachers, administrators with non-lethal devices and have the ability to lock rooms/windows from off-site.

    Yes, what happened is a sick tragedy. Yes, everyone wants to "feel" like something was done about it. Yes, you would "think" that laws would prevent bad events from happening but the TRUTH is they don't. Do you want to just "feel" better that something was done or do you want a real solution? Politicians act on public sentiment and not facts just to gain favor. They are not as intelligent and omnipotent as we would assume so handing them our keys to our rights out of pure trust is not very wise.

    Wait. Get all the facts. Get some real proposals from the people who do the work and then try it before slapping a new federal law. Has anyone ever asked the local PD what they want?

    I'm not a true gun rights activist. I'm fine with some meaningful scrutiny with commensurate rights and privileges. Is it a little to easy to own a gun? Yes, but guns aren't the problem...people are. Find a better way to ban people and not guns. If criminals obeyed laws then new laws might work...but that doesn't happen. Frankly, I'm more scared of people having the right to vote without the intelligence to know the issues or candidates. Anyway, this is just 1 person's opinion.
  5. 1
    Quote from chiromed0
    The answer may actually lie in the opposite of what anti-gun activists are ranting about. We have school nurses, why not campus police at every school; on-site, trained and armed? I actually think communities would gladly pay for the extra protection and peace of mind. At the very least arm teachers, administrators with non-lethal devices and have the ability to lock rooms/windows from off-site.

    .
    We have school nurses but not on every campus except for some states back east. I'm on the West Coast and school nurses have to cover the entire school district which might have 11-12 campuses and thousands of students. Very few work full time. There is just no money for it.

    There is some bubbling up of talk about volunteers taking on the idea of someone on campus with access to a firearm. Some of the stories are local vets who might volunteer time. Here's one I read today:

    http://www.redding.com/news/2012/dec...artner=popular
    tewdles likes this.
  6. 0
    LaPierre volunteered NRA resources to help train and protect America’s children as part of a National School Shield Safety Program. The NRA has 16,000 trained police officers ready and willing to train others. Former Drug Enforcement Administration Director Asa Hutchinson reiterated the need for trained and armed security at American schools.

    “I believe trained, qualified, armed security is one key component among many that can provide the first line of difference and the last line of defense,” Hutchinson said, adding that the National School Shield Safety Program won’t require massive federal and local resources, but is based on local volunteering and can be tailored to fit the needs of each school.
    Another idea for volunteers being trained to help out. It was in LaPierre's speech the other day but the focus was on the more inflammatory comments.
  7. 0
    10 Facts for Liberals: Why Gun Control Can't Stop Another Newtown Massacre - John Hawkins - [page]

    There are now calls from the Left for gun control legislation in response to Adam Lanza's unconscionable mass killing of innocent children at Sandy Hook Elementary. However, very few people seem to be asking the most basic question of all before getting started: What gun control legislation could have stopped Adam Lanza?
    The answer is "none."
    Let's consider a few alternatives:
  8. 0
    Our police are over burdened now with trying to stop the drug trafficking. What are they going to do when gun smuggling comes to town. You all know that when we ban all guns, there are still going to be those that want to keep a weapon in their home- they will purchase it illegally. If it's purchased illegally does that mean a kid can't get ahold of it and take it to school? I just don't see how a ban on guns is going to stop anyone from doing these things. There a ban on illegal drugs, does it stop those who want to use- NO.

    Then what about the guys that go deer hunting or duck hunting every season?

    we need to build better people and try to repair the ones we have. The money woud be better spent in the mental health arena.
    Why don't we start teaching people respect and boundaries, spell it out for them- this is what you say and what your don't say because.....!! Our entire culture needs to change- stop the emotional violence and the verbal violence.
    Last edit by kcmylorn on Dec 23, '12
  9. 0
    Quote from HM-8404
    You are correct. The Bill of Rights was adopted in 1791. A few years years before the internet came about. Does this mean the First Amendment should not apply to the internet since it had not been put into the Bill of Rights? Hey, it's much more powerful than a newspaper.

    Actually the reason for the Second Amendment is so we will not have to fear our government.

    You keep confusing the so-called assault rifles with hunting rifles. Big difference.
    The First Amendment is NOT about technology which can be used to kill and injure an entire crowd of people. Therefore, it is unrelated to the discussion.

    I knew you feared the government... Further, there is no use in needing to overthrow it with semi-automatic weaponry. This is, yes, illogical and based purely off your OWN fears (many others do NOT fear it, but feel it is PROTECTIONIST).

    I am not confusing the two. This entire time I have been discussing weapons which are semi-automatic, have numerous rounds, and have to capabilities to injure numerous people in seconds (and excessive... ultimately useless in recreational use).
  10. 0
    You are chopping up my arguments and not responding to my post in full... nevertheless, I will not chop up yours and I will respond to it with a fluid, complete thought.

    Although you are not afraid of these objects capable of being used to kill, others are, as I already stated. Further, you are speaking of continuously advancing technology of the military. Your argument supporting to "never attempt to create improvement or ban any assault weapons ever, because the military will always have stronger weapons," is a futile and pointless attempt to halt all progress, creating a climatic affect of conflict. If we following this argument, we would continuously allow stronger weapons onto the streets, no matter the cost of life or its potential danger, simply due to the fact the military will always have stronger weapons. This is not only dangerous, this is never-ending, as your position is inflexible.

    Using the internet and other forms of media are not only irrelevant, they are straw arguments. You are using straw men to deflect the subject of the discussion.

    Further, "the militia" segment can be interpreted in various ways. However, seeing this segment in context to the time period, the 1700's. There was a rising up against the government to create a new one. They created militias to do this, i.e., what we would consider to be soldiers, i.e., part of the military. "Militia" does, yes, mean military. Centuries later with more governmental protection, branches of power, a supreme court system, more amendments to protect us (e.g., from the states as well), support from other countries by the UN "Universal Human Rights Agreement," there is LITTLE use to arm the public with semi-automatic assault weapons as if part of a modern militia, especially since these weapons will be used, 99.9% of the time, not against the government, but against other PEOPLE doing little to no harm to the person wielding them. Not only this, they are FAR more dangerous today than they were then.

    I think it is interesting that you point to Norway. Norway, however, has other correlating effects causing this narrow event, as there are other countries which have bans, but far less violence, even great success. One does not necessarily cause the other, post hoc. E.g., Norway has weak punishments for crime. The person who perpetuated this event in Norway ONLY received 22 years in prison - Norway's maximum sentence for ANY crime. This by itself would be a significant cause of the problem, as this person and others would not feel they would be punished for their crimes, no matter their negative effects. Since laws differ for punishment by each country with these bans, yet many of these countries have SUCCESS, this likely to be one, if the most, important of the main issues.

    The so-called "ban" you point to in Connecticut did NOT ban the sale of the semi-automatic assault weapon bought legally and used in the crime. This person also bought the ammunition LEGALLY. This "ban" you speak of is a mild, watered down version and not TRULY the semi-automatic assault weapon ban needed to stop many of these events, nor is it strong enough. Essentially, you are attacking this "ban" and trying to use this as a failed example to support your argument for full use of semi-automatic assault weapons, no matter how dangerous they are, when this event ACTUALLY would portray an event OF NOT ENOUGH regulation, since EVEN WITHOUT the ban (as you are arguing for) this event would have STILL occurred.

    I'm not attacking you personally, I am attacking your argument, which I found to not be thoughtful to others views and fears of semi-automatic weapons capable of shooting entire crowds of people in seconds, minutes (as if minutes are any better).
    Quote from PMFB-RN
    *** Actually I am not afraid of any inanimate objects. Your assertion that they are copy cats of military weapons is only true in apperence. In function they are not very different than other very old and widely used firearms.

    *** Me too.

    *** I respectfully disagree with my brothers and sisters in arms. If any of them wish to discuss the issue with me I am willing to have that discussion. However I don't view their opinions as being more valid than the opinions of all the vets who happen to disagree with them.

    *** I am doing no such thing. I understand that the authors of the constitution were wise men who, having witnessed world changing technology in their own lives, fully understood that things would continue to change. It's why in documents like the Fedralists Papers they expand on their thinking. As it relates to the current subject we are discussing the "arms" mentioned in the Second Amendment refer to those "of current type". The First Amendment was also written in the late 1700's before the invention of TV, radio and the internet. Should we ban waching TV news since the authors of the constitution could not possibly forsee the effects of mass media?

    *** Well theres your answer. If you no longer believe in the protections afforded to Americans in the Bill of Rights you are welcome to advocate for amending the constitution. Doing so would be much more honest than simply ignoring our constitution and gutting the protections for Americans it provides.

    ***The milita is NOT the military. I am AM in the milita. As is your husband, brother, maybe son depending on his age. In any event the the justification clause doesn't negate the right clause. If you care to read further and educate yourself on this issue I suggest reading this, it's from UCLA Law School, hardly a bastion of conservative thought.
    The Commonplace Second Amendment:

    *** Well as I said you can advocate for amending the constitution. That is perfectly within your rights as a citizen of a free society and country like the USA. I wish you luck.

    *** Your sense is way off. I do not fear my government at all. I suggest you stop attempting to read into my comments things that are not there. Your not very good at it.


    *** Wow, so I am not only illogical but selfish and fearful of the goverment too? I am actually none of those things and your name calling won't change that.


    *** I think if you look into it those countries demonstrate the ineffectivness of bans like are being proposed here. You might remeber the 2011 shootings in Norway were 77 people were killed in a country that bans military style assault rifles. Australia has had it's share of tragic school shootings resulting in the deaths of children. Fewer than us but it's a MUCH MUCH smaller country. Also consider Switzerland. A country where most house holds are required by law to keep and maintain a real assault rifle (as opposed to cosmetic appearing like we have been discussing) in the home. Switzerland has the highest rate of gun ownership in the world and their government subsidizes the sale of assault rifle ammunition.

    *** But it doesn't get anything off the streets. I know this. You only have to look to Connecticut where the shooting occured. They already have an "assault weapons" ban in place. We also have examples from other states like California and the federal ban from 1994 until 2004. They simply did not work and neither will a new law.

    *** Nearly all firearms in cilivian use are based off military models. In WWI our soldiers learned to use bolt action rifles since there were standard issue at the time. When they came home the bold action became very popular. The same thing happend in WWII when the semiautomatic was standard issue. The troops came home and the semi auto became very popular. This has alwasy been true in US history. Semi automatic firearms have been very popular and heavily used in sports for over a hundred years. There is no new technology here, though the look of the firearms has changed, not their function.
    In any event a particular firearms usefulness for sporting purposes is irrelevent as shooting sports are not related to the reason we have Second Amendment protections in our Bill of Rights.

    *** So not only illogical, selfish, fearful but I am also self centered? Why stick to valid arguments when you can insult and name call?

    *** No, it's not. It's about passing feel good laws that will not make any children safer.


Top