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.
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!!!!At least 10 injured in 30-plus car pileup on Indiana interstate
Published February 01, 2013
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/02/01...#ixzz2Jf8MFZBG
Ban Driving Whilst Snowy!
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.
Snow - the silent killer.
We should all start wearing white ribbons.
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
Last edited by Ruby2; 02-01-2013 at 11:39 AM.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Last edited by chiefst2000; 02-01-2013 at 12:51 PM.
-- 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.