Student Shot In GA Middle School...

[chiefst2000]

I think the ironic part about the GA shooting is that apparently the kid with the gin was stopped by an armed security officer at the school. Somehow the freedom hating leftists that panned the NRA for suggesting that schools have armed security are ignoring the fact that an armed security officer at a school may have just prevented another Sandy Hook.

[chirorob]

Originally Posted by intelligentjetsfan

mentally ill patients with knives.....scary.

mentally ill patients with guns........very scary.

Yes, the bad people who want to kill children will turn in their weapons because they are against the law.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by intelligentjetsfan

mentally ill patients with knives.....scary.

mentally ill patients with guns........very scary.

So since both are scary and dangerous, lets imprison them all.

After all, if we can save just ONE life doing so...

Originally Posted by quantum

Can you fly to Vegas to do a press conference? We'll have snowmen in the background.

[intelligentjetsfan]

Originally Posted by chirorob

Yes, the bad people who want to kill children will turn in their weapons because they are against the law.

So the answer is to arm everyone with a pulse and a valid I.D.?

[intelligentjetsfan]

Originally Posted by Warfish

So since both are scary and dangerous, lets imprison them all.

After all, if we can save just ONE life doing so...

I would never advocate treating the mentally ill on the same level as others in the eyes of the law.

[Warfish]

In more news:

At least 10 injured in 30-plus car pileup on Indiana interstate


Published February 01, 2013

Associated Press


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/02/01...#ixzz2Jf8MFZBG

The danagers of "Driving Whilst Snowy" rears it's head for a second major event in less than TWO DAYS!!!! Clearly, Congress MUST address this on the Federal level, since locals are failing to act, and lives are being destroyed DAILY!!!!



Ban Driving Whilst Snowy!

[Ruby2]

Originally Posted by Warfish

In more news:



The danagers of "Driving Whilst Snowy" rears it's head for a second major event in less than TWO DAYS!!!! Clearly, Congress MUST address this on the Federal level, since locals are failing to act, and lives are being destroyed DAILY!!!!



Ban Driving Whilst Snowy!

Cmon dude. You are better than this.

[chiefst2000]

Originally Posted by Ruby2

Cmon dude. You are better than this.

Curious to your thoughts on reports that the GA school gunman was stopped by an armed school security officer?

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by Ruby2

Cmon dude. You are better than this.

Better than what? Pointing out the obvious, that REAL gun crime is a minor irritant compared to many many things we take for granted, like driving?

Why is "ban guns" a legitimate discourse, but "ban snowy driving" is not. Guns are a right, drivign int he snow is not, and snowy driving kills more Americans and more kids than guns do.

[quantum]

Snow - the silent killer.


We should all start wearing white ribbons.

[Ruby2]

Originally Posted by Warfish

Better than what? Pointing out the obvious, that REAL gun crime is a minor irritant compared to many many things we take for granted, like driving?

Why is "ban guns" a legitimate discourse, but "ban snowy driving" is not. Guns are a right, drivign int he snow is not, and snowy driving kills more Americans and more kids than guns do.

Better than making such an extreme analogy. The two are clearly different and you know that. You are too smart to be doing this and definitely capable of making a more valid argument.

And I don't think anyone is saying "ban guns". More like increase the measures needed to obtain one, and restrict weapons made for soldiers from getting into the hands of everyday looney tunes.

Honestly, I could care less about the gun issue. I think both sides act ridiculous for the most part. I just thought your analogy sucked

[Ruby2]

Originally Posted by chiefst2000

Curious to your thoughts on reports that the GA school gunman was stopped by an armed school security officer?

That's great. I dont think having armed guards in every school is feasible or promotes a good environment for children, but I am glad it worked in this instance.

[intelligentjetsfan]

The Straw Men are out in full force today!



The great majority of gun control advocates that I have seen or heard from are not pushing for an end to the second amendment. They are not attempting to take everyone's guns away

Most gun control advocates are calling for responsible measures to try to make it safer, balancing the rights of responsible gun owners with legitimate safety concerns for the population. As with any complex issue, the devil is in the details so compromise is necessary.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by intelligentjetsfan

The Straw Men are out in full force today!



The great majority of gun control advocates that I have seen or heard from are not pushing for an end to the second amendment. They are not attempting to take everyone's guns away

Most gun control advocates are calling for responsible measures to try to make it safer, balancing the rights of responsible gun owners with legitimate safety concerns for the population. As with any complex issue, the devil is in the details so compromise is necessary.

Just like I remember hearing "Most Obamacare supporters are not pushing for Nationalized Universal Healthcare...."

Except last night on the radio, I got a nice interview with a (D) Congressman who was very clear in saying that "Obamacare was just the first step, the real goal in Nationalized, Universal healthcare".

You'll have to forgive me if I don't trust a liberal when he says he "only" wants, X, y, or Z. History shows they never stop there, they always want more. Just look at EVERY social welfare program, every one of which i vastly expanded over their original intentions today.

So when you say "we don;t want to ban guns", "we don't want to nationalize healthcare" or "we don't want to have a welfare state", frankly, I don;t believe you. I believe what I see happen, law gets passed and immediately it's on to the work of expanding/further bannign whatever.

The same folsk who say they don;t want to ban guns were the folks who were all in support of banning 16 oz. sodas.

[Axil]

Originally Posted by intelligentjetsfan

The Straw Men are out in full force today!



The great majority of gun control advocates that I have seen or heard from are not pushing for an end to the second amendment. They are not attempting to take everyone's guns away

Most gun control advocates are calling for responsible measures to try to make it safer, balancing the rights of responsible gun owners with legitimate safety concerns for the population. As with any complex issue, the devil is in the details so compromise is necessary.

No?

Second Amendment: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Infringe: Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.

if your "responsible measures" in any way LIMIT or UNDERMINE the ability to own a firearm... guess what? You are indeed disregarding the second amendment.

[Warfish]

The Right to Vote: Even asking for an ID is a huge racist infringement.

The Right to Bear Arms: 5,000 Laws already on the books, 5,000 more inbound, band and licences, and insurence and restirctions and bans, bans, bans.

[chiefst2000]

Originally Posted by Ruby2

That's great. I dont think having armed guards in every school is feasible or promotes a good environment for children, but I am glad it worked in this instance.

Most schools have security guards already, are you saying that giving security personell already in place the ability to carry a concealed pistol would be bad for the students environment? How so?

What action would provide the highest likely hood of saving childrens lives and preventing tragedies in your opinion? New national gun laws which would have less teeth than laws already inplace in places like CT or arming already in place security guards that currently are unarmed due to gun free zone laws at most schools?

[chiefst2000]

Originally Posted by intelligentjetsfan

The Straw Men are out in full force today!



The great majority of gun control advocates that I have seen or heard from are not pushing for an end to the second amendment. They are not attempting to take everyone's guns away

Most gun control advocates are calling for responsible measures to try to make it safer, balancing the rights of responsible gun owners with legitimate safety concerns for the population. As with any complex issue, the devil is in the details so compromise is necessary.

Odd, because most of the gun control advocates I speak with say things along the lines of "I hate guns and wish they were all off the streets but new restrictions are a good start"

[freestater]

Originally Posted by intelligentjetsfan

The Straw Men are out in full force today!



The great majority of gun control advocates that I have seen or heard from are not pushing for an end to the second amendment. They are not attempting to take everyone's guns away

Most gun control advocates are calling for responsible measures to try to make it safer, balancing the rights of responsible gun owners with legitimate safety concerns for the population. As with any complex issue, the devil is in the details so compromise is necessary.

"We cannot negotiate with those who say, 'What's mine is mine, and what's yours is negotiable.'"

-- John F. Kennedy, Address to the American People, 25 JUL 1961

Most people tend to substitute the word 'compromise' for the first 'negotiate' in that quote, and it does tend to fit the current circumstances.

Once again the anti-gun people are starting to trot out the tired and hackneyed meme of "compromise" in the "national gun conversation".

One of the more highly linked of my posts is the one about the "Gun Rights Cake" analogy, which I will now re-post and expand a bit:

I hear a lot about "compromise" from the gun-control camp ... except, it's not compromise.

Allow me to illustrate:

Let's say I have this cake. It is a very nice cake, with "GUN RIGHTS" written across the top in lovely floral icing. Along you come and say, "Give me that cake."

I say, "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise. Give me half." I respond by asking what I get out of this compromise, and you reply that I get to keep half of my cake.

Okay, we compromise. Let us call this compromise The National Firearms Act of 1934.

This leaves me with half of my cake and there I am, enjoying my cake when you walk back up and say, "Give me that cake."

I say -- again: "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise." What do I get out of this compromise? Why, I get to keep half of what's left of the cake I already own.

So, we compromise -- let us call this one the Gun Control Act of 1968 -- and this time I'm left holding what is now just a quarter of my cake.

And I'm sitting in the corner with my quarter piece of cake, and here you come again. You want my cake. Again.

This time you take several bites -- we'll call this compromise the Clinton Executive Orders -- and I'm left with about a tenth of what has always been MY DAMN CAKE and you've got nine-tenths of it.

Let me restate that: I started out with MY CAKE and you have already 'compromised' me out of ninety percent of MY CAKE ...

... and here you come again. Compromise! ... Lautenberg Act (nibble, nibble). Compromise! ... The HUD/Smith and Wesson agreement (nibble, nibble). Compromise! ... The Brady Law (NOM NOM NOM). Compromise! ... The School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act (sweet tap-dancing Freyja, my finger!)

After every one of these "compromises" -- in which I lose rights and you lose NOTHING -- I'm left holding crumbs of what was once a large and satisfying cake, and you're standing there with most of MY CAKE, making anime eyes and whining about being "reasonable", and wondering "why we won't compromise" as you try for the rest of my cake.

In 1933 I -- or any other American -- could buy a fully-automatic Thompson sub-machine gun, a 20mm anti-tank gun, or shorten the barrel of any gun I owned to any length I thought fit, silence any gun I owned, and a host of other things.

Come your "compromise" in 1934, and suddenly I can't buy a sub-machine gun, a silencer, or a Short-Barreled Firearm without .Gov permission and paying a hefty tax. What the hell did y'all lose in this "compromise"?

In 1967 I, or any other American, could buy or sell firearms anywhere we felt like it, in any State we felt like, with no restrictions. We "compromised" in 1968, and suddenly I've got to have a Federal Firearms License to have a business involving firearms, and there's whole bunch of rules limiting what, where and how I buy or sell guns.

In 1968, "sporting purpose" -- a term found NOT ANY DAMNED WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION, TO SAY NOTHING OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT -- suddenly became a legal reason to prevent the importation of guns that had been freely imported in 1967.

Tell me, do -- exactly what the hell did you lose in this 1968 "compromise"?

The Lautenberg Act was a "compromise" which suddenly deprived Americans of a Constitutional Right for being accused or convicted of a misdemeanor -- a bloody MISDEMEANOR! What did your side lose in this "compromise"?

I could go on and on, but the plain and simple truth of the matter is that a genuine "compromise" means that both sides give up something. My side of the discussion has been giving, giving, and giving yet more -- and your side has been taking, taking, and now wants to take more.

For you, "compromise" means you'll take half of my cake now, and the other half of my cake next time. Always has been, always will be.

I've got news for you: That is not "compromise".

I'm done with being reasonable, and I'm done with "compromise". Nothing about gun control in this country has ever been "reasonable" nor a genuine "compromise", and I have flat had enough.

Source: http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2.../a-repost.html

[Ruby2]

Originally Posted by chiefst2000

Most schools have security guards already, are you saying that giving security personell already in place the ability to carry a concealed pistol would be bad for the students environment? How so?

What action would provide the highest likely hood of saving childrens lives and preventing tragedies in your opinion? New national gun laws which would have less teeth than laws already inplace in places like CT or arming already in place security guards that currently are unarmed due to gun free zone laws at most schools?

You make some good points, but I still just don't like the idea of kids having to go to school with armed guards. That just doesn't sit right with me. Maybe it is the best solution, I don't know, but if it is it is a pretty sad reflection on our society.