fox new the day of the shooting was all about arming teacher and as if on cue Trump endorses guns for teachers to stop shootings and parroting the NRA taking points on Gun Free Zones

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43149694

Then says he didn't say it

“I never said ‘give teachers guns’ like was stated on Fake News @CNN & @NBC,” he posted on Twitter Thursday. “What I said was to look at the possibility of giving ‘concealed guns to gun adept teachers with military or special training experience – only the best. 20% of teachers, a lot, would now be able immediately fire back if a savage sicko came to a school with bad intentions.”

Here we go again Trump says something clearly ... now we are going to be told what he ment.

got to love his cheat sheet clearly written for him not by him

I think it's great that this gets your panties bunched up.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Just pointing out the daily inept Leadership in the White House .. to those who accept it ..

Just pointing out the daily inept Leadership in the White House .. to those who accept it ..

So what is your version of how Trump would be competent? Should he have said the NRA knows nothing, should not be listened to. That the Second Amendment should be repealed. That he would immediately make an executive order to ban AR15 type weapons and to implement everything wanted by Nancy Pelosi and the parents whose kids were killed. And that he would consult wdmso before he said or did anything again in order to be sure he would not be inept?

Not that it matters, but how do you know that he didn't write his cheat sheet?

Just pointing out the daily inept Leadership in the White House .. to those who accept it ..

a/k/a "It is OK as long as agree with my bias - if not then you are evil"

Short version, we do need school security, and a few armed teachers would not hurt, primarily those with mil/LEO experience and able to maintain significant proficiency. Some armed teachers would also help with refining issues and best practices as they will know far more about classroom teaching then the security personnel. Prominent positions on steering committees.

But armed teachers should be well down the list in the combination of solutions that are applied to address this issue.

First should be a stand up of local LEO to buy time for more formal investigations to occur, depending on what has been studied over the last few years as there may be more refined and agreeable efforts in discussion / implementation than we know about.

So we can continue to argue things are not gonna happen:repealing the 2A is NOT gonna happen nor is relying on teachers to be the armed security at school.

Or we can start looking at solutions:
Actual security for schools (those of us that lived overseas or in cities are more used to this).
Discuss improving the background system to prevent some with mental health issues from access to firearms.



We all need to get more knowledgeable on the issues and facts as their is a lot of disinformation going around.

Just pointing out the daily inept Leadership in the White House .. to those who accept it ..

In the 1950s, southern racists were threatening black students trying to attend newly de-segregated schools. Eisenhower sent the military down there to protect the students. It worked. This is the world we live in now. We can pretend it's not the case, but all that does is ensure more tiny caskets get used.

Read Trump's actual statement about teachers. He didn't say that all teachers should be given guns. He said look into the possibility of taking a small number of teachers, and training them to safely have guns at school. He didn't say to give a bazooka to everyone who works at the school, OK?

We have airline pilots who are trained to have firearms in the cockpits. My next door neighbor flies for Delta, he is always armed in the cockpit.

Also, like Trump or not (and I don't), it was politically VERY gutsy for him to do what he did yesterday. Invite victim's families into a meeting with him, live and unfiltered, on TV? Gutsy. And hopefully productive.

fox new the day of the shooting was all about arming teacher and as if on cue Trump endorses guns for teachers to stop shootings and parroting the NRA taking points on Gun Free Zones

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43149694

Then says he didn't say it

“I never said ‘give teachers guns’ like was stated on Fake News @CNN & @NBC,” he posted on Twitter Thursday. “What I said was to look at the possibility of giving ‘concealed guns to gun adept teachers with military or special training experience – only the best. 20% of teachers, a lot, would now be able immediately fire back if a savage sicko came to a school with bad intentions.”

Here we go again Trump says something clearly ... now we are going to be told what he ment.

got to love his cheat sheet clearly written for him not by him

Its actually that you hear what you want to hear.

This is what Trump actually said, which kind of echos what he said he said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2018/02/22/word-for-word-what-everyone-said-when-trump-met-with-students-and-parents-to-talk-about-guns/?utm_term=.c7af90f414fb

"Your concept and your idea about — it’s called concealed carry — and it only works where you have people very adept at using firearms, of which you have many, and it would be teachers and coaches. If the coach had a firearm in his locker when he ran at this guy — that coach was very brave. Saved a lot of lives, I suspect. But if he had a firearm, he wouldn’t have had to run; he would have shot and that would have been the end of it.

And this would only be, obviously, for people that are very adept at handling a gun. And it would be — it’s called concealed carry, where a teacher would have a concealed gun on them. They’d go for special training. And they would be there, and you would no longer have a gun-free zone. A gun-free zone to a maniac — because they’re all cowards — a gun-free zone is, let’s go in and let’s attack, because bullets aren’t coming back at us.

And if you do this — and a lot of people are talking about it, and it’s certainly a point that we’ll discuss — but concealed carry for teachers and for people of talent — of that type of talent. So let’s say you had 20 percent of your teaching force, because that’s pretty much the number — and you said it — an attack has lasted, on average, about three minutes. It takes five to eight minutes for responders, for the police, to come in. So the attack is over. If you had a teacher with — who was adept at firearms, they could very well end the attack very quickly."

If the weapon that the school shooter had was not semiautomatic I would surmise that the coach would have stopped him
Yesterday Rubio said maybe we should eliminate semis
I was quite surprised
The only time so far that a gun was fired by a pilot was by accident
Think about the flip side of arming teachers
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If the weapon that the school shooter had was not semiautomatic I would surmise that the coach would have stopped him
Yesterday Rubio said maybe we should eliminate semis
I was quite surprised
The only time so far that a gun was fired by a pilot was by accident
Think about the flip side of arming teachers
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"If the weapon that the school shooter had was not semiautomatic I would surmise that the coach would have stopped him "

Major Hasan used a pistol, and he killed 13 trained soldiers, and shot more than 30 others, before being stopped. I agree that a pistols are less deadly than rifles with high capacity magazines, but this is one small piece of the puzzle.

"The only time so far that a gun was fired by a pilot was by accident "

Not sure what your point is. In my town, I'm not sure a cop has fired a weapon on duty in 20 years. Does that mean they don't need guns?

"Think about the flip side of arming teachers"

I am thinking about it. The flip side might be a price we are willing to pay.

How about a national guardsman at every single school, every single day, just inside the front door, armed to the teeth. As I have said, I don't like the sight of that. But I like it more than the sight of tiny caskets being covered with dirt.

Its actually that you hear what you want to hear.

This is what Trump actually said, which kind of echos what he said he said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2018/02/22/word-for-word-what-everyone-said-when-trump-met-with-students-and-parents-to-talk-about-guns/?utm_term=.c7af90f414fb

"Your concept and your idea about — it’s called concealed carry — and it only works where you have people very adept at using firearms, of which you have many, and it would be teachers and coaches. If the coach had a firearm in his locker when he ran at this guy — that coach was very brave. Saved a lot of lives, I suspect. But if he had a firearm, he wouldn’t have had to run; he would have shot and that would have been the end of it.

And this would only be, obviously, for people that are very adept at handling a gun. And it would be — it’s called concealed carry, where a teacher would have a concealed gun on them. They’d go for special training. And they would be there, and you would no longer have a gun-free zone. A gun-free zone to a maniac — because they’re all cowards — a gun-free zone is, let’s go in and let’s attack, because bullets aren’t coming back at us.

And if you do this — and a lot of people are talking about it, and it’s certainly a point that we’ll discuss — but concealed carry for teachers and for people of talent — of that type of talent. So let’s say you had 20 percent of your teaching force, because that’s pretty much the number — and you said it — an attack has lasted, on average, about three minutes. It takes five to eight minutes for responders, for the police, to come in. So the attack is over. If you had a teacher with — who was adept at firearms, they could very well end the attack very quickly."

Thank you. It's being reported that he said that everyone at the school should get a howitzer if they want one. That's not even close to what he said. This is the state of the "news" today.

How about a national guardsman at every single school, every single day, just inside the front door, armed to the teeth. As I have said, I don't like the sight of that. But I like it more than the sight of tiny caskets being covered with dirt.


I would want someone more experienced, retired LEO, Guardsman with multiple years service. But not PFC Schmuckatelli.

I would want someone more experienced, retired LEO, Guardsman with multiple years service. But not PFC Schmuckatelli.

Agreed 100%.

I don't want ANYONE there with a gun. I have 3 kids in elementary school. But in this world, I'm not sure that's a responsible position to take anymore. Obviously experienced, trained people. But if we do that, there's a possibility that person could snap and kill everyone at the school. There are no perfect solutions, we have to find the least repugnant solution.

the real issue is that any gun control suggestions are opposed by the NRA just today their mantra Only Thing That Stops A Bad Guy With A Gun Is A Good Guy by LaPierre and any gun control talks equals confiscation or removal of 2a

the School had security it was secure it had an armed officer.. not sure people have realistic expectations ..

Last week we hated liberal Teachers now we want to arm them ??

this theory of Mutual Assured Destruction being promoted is non sense

Last week we hated liberal Teachers now we want to arm them ??



well...not the liberal ones....I suspect they'll probably pitch a fit (I know some that already have upon hearing this) and refuse to work in an environment where there may be guns present...could be a win...win

So what is your version of how Trump would be competent? Should he have said the NRA knows nothing, should not be listened to. That the Second Amendment should be repealed. That he would immediately make an executive order to ban AR15 type weapons and to implement everything wanted by Nancy Pelosi and the parents whose kids were killed. And that he would consult wdmso before he said or did anything again in order to be sure he would not be inept?

His actions or lack of actions since he has been in office have reinforced my observation his administration is inept .. its not based on feelings or Hate of republicans.. but tangible events



Not that it matters, but how do you know that he didn't write his cheat sheet? does that change its intent ?

Trump does what Fox news tells him to do ... and they know it

Leave it up to the individual teacher. You have to ask yourself what is the one thing that could make a difference and protect your kids in school tomorrow? Any sort of gun ban would take years, background checks will take a while, a licensed to carry teacher given proper permission takes place immediately.

Let the individual teachers decide.

David Clarke: Fla. students' gun control push has 'George Soros' fingerprints all over it'
Former Milwaukee Sheriff David Clarke Jr. insinuated Wednesday that student survivors of the Parkland, Florida school shooting were being manipulated by Democratic billionaire George Soros to organize for gun control.


This is how the Right deals responsibly with the Gun control conversation

Last week we hated liberal Teachers now we want to arm them ??


No, we want to LET those who want to carry be allowed to carry, if they are properly trained. I'm pretty sure, as scottw stated, the liberal ones are not going to want to, so nobody is going to make them. and that's not to say that there aren't liberal teachers that would still be willing to.

David Clarke: Fla. students' gun control push has 'George Soros' fingerprints all over it'
Former Milwaukee Sheriff David Clarke Jr. insinuated Wednesday that student survivors of the Parkland, Florida school shooting were being manipulated by Democratic billionaire George Soros to organize for gun control.


This is how the Right deals responsibly with the Gun control conversation

Florida shooting hero Colton Haab: CNN gave me “scripted question” after denying question about armed guards

“CNN had originally asked me to write a speech and questions and it ended up being all scripted,” Haab told Fort Lauderdale ABC affiliate WPLG-TV.

“I expected to be able to ask my questions and give my opinion on my questions,” he said.

“Colton wrote questions about school safety, suggested using veterans as armed school security guards, but claims CNN wanted him to ask a scripted question instead. So he decided not to go,” WPLG’s Janine Stanwood said.

the right clamors about Freedom but after 911 passed USA/Patriot Act," an overnight revision of the nation's surveillance laws that vastly expanded the government's authority to spy on its own citizens, in the Name of fear

rather than expand back ground checks increase the age of weapon ownership increase the waiting period , maintain a national gun registry.. demand better licence requirements

All the right can come up with is Turn schools into fortress and add more guns

as if mass shooting are only happening in schools

Florida shooting hero Colton Haab: CNN gave me “scripted question” after denying question about armed guards

“CNN had originally asked me to write a speech and questions and it ended up being all scripted,” Haab told Fort Lauderdale ABC affiliate WPLG-TV.

“I expected to be able to ask my questions and give my opinion on my questions,” he said.

“Colton wrote questions about school safety, suggested using veterans as armed school security guards, but claims CNN wanted him to ask a scripted question instead. So he decided not to go,” WPLG’s Janine Stanwood said.

what news interviewer including fox allows the person being interviewed to ask their own questions ? and then express his opinion of his own questions?

what news interviewer including fox allows the person being interviewed to ask their own questions ? and then express his opinion of his own questions?

it wasn't an interview, it was a town hall...you know....open flow of ideas.

another qoute from LaPierre

He defended 2nd Amendment rights and warned of a "socialist agenda" that wanted to strip away firearms from law-abiding citizens.


Base buzz words

it wasn't an interview, it was a town hall...you know....open flow of ideas.


I stand corrected

How do we know he wasn't a paid crisis Actor ?? For Fox (sarcasm )

Colton’s father withdrew his name from participation before the forum began,


“There is absolutely no truth to this. CNN did not provide or script questions for anyone in last night’s town hall, nor have we ever,” the company said in a statement ..

I would like to see the questions he was given

Well if CNN said they didn't do it, who am I to question them :rolleyes:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

After seeing all the memes on Face book of Gun supporters post stuff about text messages voter id i thought this was a good one Seeing they love simple arguments for complex issues

After seeing all the memes on Face book of Gun supporters post stuff about text messages voter id i thought this was a good one Seeing they love simple arguments for complex issues
Good one

the real issue is that any gun control suggestions are opposed by the NRA just today their mantra Only Thing That Stops A Bad Guy With A Gun Is A Good Guy by LaPierre and any gun control talks equals confiscation or removal of 2a

the School had security it was secure it had an armed officer.. not sure people have realistic expectations ..

Last week we hated liberal Teachers now we want to arm them ??

this theory of Mutual Assured Destruction being promoted is non sense

"the real issue is that any gun control suggestions are opposed by the NRA"

That's ONE issue, not THE issue.

Other issues are the fact that Democrat politicians (who take money from Hollywood the way that Republicans take money from the NRA) are opposed to curbing the violence we bombard our kids with. Democrats tend to oppose policies that encourage "traditional" family values, which like it or not, will reduce gun violence (maybe not mass shootings, but garden variety street crime).

Nothing gets done because each side is too beholden to special interests.

Gun control is one of a handful of things that are driving this. School safety, mental health protocols, etc...

Trump does what Fox news tells him to do ... and they know it

Foxnews told Trump to compromise on DACA and to ban bump stocks? Interesting...

Its actually that you hear what you want to hear.

This is what Trump actually said, which kind of echos what he said he said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2018/02/22/word-for-word-what-everyone-said-when-trump-met-with-students-and-parents-to-talk-about-guns/?utm_term=.c7af90f414fb

" A gun-free zone to a maniac — because they’re all cowards — a gun-free zone is, let’s go in and let’s attack, because bullets aren’t coming back at us.."

Two problems:
1. It wasn't a gun free zone. Guns didn't prevent Vegas, Douglas high, Fort Hood, Columbine...
2. Most of these crazed people are looking for a final shoot out, so the idea of "let's attack, because bullets aren't coming back" doesn't hold up.

See below in red
"If the weapon that the school shooter had was not semiautomatic I would surmise that the coach would have stopped him "

Major Hasan used a pistol, and he killed 13 trained soldiers, and shot more than 30 others, before being stopped. I agree that a pistols are less deadly than rifles with high capacity magazines, but this is one small piece of the puzzle. I suspect Major Hasan had some training and they are all small pieces

"The only time so far that a gun was fired by a pilot was by accident "
The pilot was in a plane and shot thru the fuselage,
not in a school surrounded by classrooms, #^&#^&#^&#^& happens
Not sure what your point is. In my town, I'm not sure a cop has fired a weapon on duty in 20 years. Does that mean they don't need guns?

"Think about the flip side of arming teachers"

I am thinking about it. The flip side might be a price we are willing to pay.
Have your children ever done something stupid or dangerous that you absolutely never would have thought possible, remember far more kids get killed in unintentional shootings than school shootings. There are 100,000 schools in the USA, now think about the statistical possibilities for accidents. And would you want to be the teacher with a gun in his hand when the pumped up and scared cop shows up. The statistics for friendly fire injuries in combat are between 2 and 20% of fatalities and the police have a plan to prevent those for swat teams but they do occur, now throw in some unknown players with guns just to make things interesting.

How about a national guardsman at every single school, every single day, just inside the front door, armed to the teeth. As I have said, I don't like the sight of that. But I like it more than the sight of tiny caskets being covered with dirt.

Foxnews told Trump to compromise on DACA and to ban bump stocks? Interesting...
He has not done anything but talk so far and his acceptable target keeps moving.
Of course he would want to ban bump stocks........Obama approved them.

Two problems:
1. It wasn't a gun free zone. Guns didn't prevent Vegas, Douglas high, Fort Hood, Columbine...
2. Most of these crazed people are looking for a final shoot out, so the idea of "let's attack, because bullets aren't coming back" doesn't hold up.

although not technically a gun free zone, only one allowed to carry was the security guard(s). How many did they have on campus vs how many buildings.

Vegas is not a school, lets stay on topic. that's a different argument.

Fort Hood is actually a Gun Free zone, not allowed to carry unless on security detail/duty. Most military bases are, that is why he killed so many UNARMED SOLDIERS

Columbine was a Gun Free zone.

and my post wasn't in response to arming teachers, it was in response to clarifying what Trump said in regards to arming teachers.

See below in red

"I suspect Major Hasan had some training "

True. My point was, banning the AR-15 does not mean we don't still have a big problem. You can do a lot of damage with a pistol in a confined space with a lot of people.

"Have your children ever done something stupid or dangerous that you absolutely never would have thought possible"

Yes, which is one reason why I don't allow guns in my house. I didn't say to arm the kindergarteners. I said trained professionals. Even that can backfire, one of them could accidentally or intentionally kill someone. Could happen, it's possible. It's also possible an armed professional can either prevent an attack, or make an attack less tragic with fewer victims. Time for an honest conversation. You talk about accidents, which is one side of the conversation. The other side, is how many lives might be saved? We need to look honestly at both sides, and see if it's worth it. You only brought one side of the conversation, the reasons not to do it.

Most decisions involve weighing the pros and cons. You listed the cons, and ignored the pros.

I know 17 families in FL and 20 in CT who would give ANYTHING for an armed pro to have been at those 2 schools. You forgot to mention that. It's dishonest to not mention that.

"the real issue is that any gun control suggestions are opposed by the NRA"

That's ONE issue, not THE issue.

Other issues are the fact that Democrat politicians (who take money from Hollywood the way that Republicans take money from the NRA) are opposed to curbing the violence we bombard our kids with. Democrats tend to oppose policies that encourage "traditional" family values, which like it or not, will reduce gun violence (maybe not mass shootings, but garden variety street crime).

Nothing gets done because each side is too beholden to special interests.

Gun control is one of a handful of things that are driving this. School safety, mental health protocols, etc...

Some one should tell that to the NRA and supporters ! because they are not getting the message...


PS the rest of the world plays the same video games they watch the same movies they have seen same sex marriage and gays and drink at a younger age see sexual things daily .. they have no more god in their lives than we do and they tend not to have mass shootings

and Most allow Guns https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_of_gun_laws_by_nation


So please stop the "traditional" family values, argument thats everyones responsibility as a parent

The USA and Panama are the only ones I see in Guns and Ammo's list of best countrys to own a gun that allow semiautomatics without a permit. I am making the assumption that the best is the most permissive.
http://www.gunsandammo.com/network-topics/culture-politics-network/best-countries-gun-owners/

Some one should tell that to the NRA and supporters ! because they are not getting the message...


PS the rest of the world plays the same video games they watch the same movies they have seen same sex marriage and gays and drink at a younger age see sexual things daily .. they have no more god in their lives than we do and they tend not to have mass shootings

and Most allow Guns https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_of_gun_laws_by_nation


So please stop the "traditional" family values, argument thats everyones responsibility as a parent

"Some one should tell that to the NRA "

Agreed. We agree on something!

"please stop the "traditional" family values, argument thats everyones responsibility as a parent"

Yes, it's everyone's responsibility. WAY too many people are derelict in that responsibility. It's irrefutable that it's a major contributor to violence.

http://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-43163710/nra-and-florida-seven-things-wayne-lapierre-blames-after-shooting

although not technically a gun free zone, only one allowed to carry was the security guard(s). How many did they have on campus vs how many buildings.

Vegas is not a school, lets stay on topic. that's a different argument.

Fort Hood is actually a Gun Free zone, not allowed to carry unless on security detail/duty. Most military bases are, that is why he killed so many UNARMED SOLDIERS

Columbine was a Gun Free zone.

and my post wasn't in response to arming teachers, it was in response to clarifying what Trump said in regards to arming teachers.

I was responding to Trump's quote. Wouldn't have mattered if you out someone else posted it. I should have just quoted Trump.

Columbine had two armed guards.

No need to tell me what the topic is. Thanks. Whether you think mass shootings outside of schools are relevant to Trumps idea about soft targets is your opinion.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Two problems:
1. It wasn't a gun free zone. Guns didn't prevent Vegas, Douglas high, Fort Hood, Columbine...
2. Most of these crazed people are looking for a final shoot out, so the idea of "let's attack, because bullets aren't coming back" doesn't hold up.

Were the shooters looking for or expecting bullets to come back? The Las Vegas shooter was in an upper story room of a building away from the festival. The festival itself was a gun free or weapons of any kind free zone (the shooter in the attack on the republican base ball game also was also operating outside of the kill area and was stopped by guards on the field using handguns.) Fort Hood massacre--the victims were not allowed to be armed on base. The armed guards at Douglas High and Columbine failed. Better security was required, lesson learned.

What is the evidence that gun free zones hold up? Aren't the vast majority of gun homicides a result of an armed person killing an unarmed person or persons rather than being a shoot out?

Were the shooters looking for or expecting bullets to come back? The Las Vegas shooter was in an upper story room of a building away from the festival. The festival itself was a gun free or weapons of any kind free zone (the shooter in the attack on the republican base ball game also was also operating outside of the kill area and was stopped by guards on the field using handguns.) Fort Hood massacre--the victims were not allowed to be armed on base. The armed guards at Douglas High and Columbine failed. Better security was required, lesson learned.

What is the evidence that gun free zones hold up? Aren't the vast majority of gun homicides a result of an armed person killing an unarmed person or persons rather than being a shoot out?
There were tons of armed police in Vegas. Arming every person at the Vegas concert wouldn't have prevented the massacre.

There were armed guards at multiple sites with school shootings and the armed guards didn't prevent the event, prevent death or limit the death.

So now we went from guards to multiple armed teachers.

Were the shooters looking for returned bullets? We can only go based on social media posts and post crime analyses It is often the case that the analysis indicates that the perpetrators plan to go down in a shootout with police. Would a shootout with teachers change that? I don't think we know.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This is worth reading.
https://www.charlottefive.com/arming-teachers/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Were the shooters looking for returned bullets? We can only go based on social media posts and post crime analyses It is often the case that the analysis indicates that the perpetrators plan to go down in a shootout with police.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The last shooting the kid dropped the gun and blended in with the students to escape.

Not exactly what I call a blaze of glory
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Reports are that a deputy showed up while the shooting was taking place and did not go in. I'm sure all the armed teachers would have taken down the gunman though.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Do the teachers have to buy bullets just like they have to. It their own classroom supplies?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Reports are that a deputy showed up while the shooting was taking place and did not go in. I'm sure all the armed teachers would have taken down the gunman though.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So since crime rates aren’t zero when cops are on duty, should we abandon the police? Come on Paul, nothing is 100 percent foolproof, but that doesn’t mean it’s not a good idea. All ideas look bad, if all you do is list the con’s and not the pro’s.

Armed guards aren’t foolproof. Reagan was shot in 1980. Does that mean the secret service doesn’t make the potus safer?

This is why nothing gets done. When either side responds to the other sides ideas, they list all the flaws of the suggestion. And none of the benefits. It’s not honest.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

On CNN, Marco Rubio was asked if he'd stop taking contributions from the NRA.

Because of course if you accept money from a group which lobbies on behalf of lawful and responsible gun owners, it is entirely your fault when a maniac shoots up a school.

Yep. Now we're THIS mindless.

Metal detectors will help


forget arming teachers but get rid of gun free zones, if a teacher wants to carry concealed and is proficient with that then let them. We can't arm kids who seem to be the ones under fire in these shootings so provide metal detectors like courthouses have and/or provide some kind of bulletproof cover to get behind.
Then work on the culture in this country that produces the unstable evil that exists.
Guns are not evil, just because they exist is not the place to lay blame and take rights away from others.

On CNN, Marco Rubio was asked if he'd stop taking contributions from the NRA.

Because of course if you accept money from a group which lobbies on behalf of lawful and responsible gun owners, it is entirely your fault when a maniac shoots up a school.

Yep. Now we're THIS mindless.

Or it could be that those constituents believe he votes with the dollars the NRA provides him in mind as opposed to their interests. That isn't what is mindless. There really is no hope.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So since crime rates aren’t zero when cops are on duty, should we abandon the police? Come on Paul, nothing is 100 percent foolproof, but that doesn’t mean it’s not a good idea. All ideas look bad, if all you do is list the con’s and not the pro’s.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think the best solution is to not sell someone a AR-15 so if a teacher with some training has a pistol he is not in a gunfight with someone who is shooting back with a weapon of war. Obviously metal detectors would help and every school that has probably been built in the last 10 years has metal doors that lock from the inside, bulletproof glass etc etc. The gym I play basketball in tonight had the signs on the inside of the doors where in an emergency they would just shift the sign from the right to the left side of the door which would be over the glass so the person on the outside cannot look in. there was just velcro strips there. Someone thought of a very cheap way to prevent a gunman from looking in.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think the best solution is to not sell someone a AR-15 so if a teacher with some training has a pistol he is not in a gunfight with someone who is shooting back with a weapon of war. Obviously metal detectors would help and every school that has probably been built in the last 10 years has metal doors that lock from the inside, bulletproof glass etc etc. The gym I play basketball in tonight had the signs on the inside of the doors where in an emergency they would just shift the sign from the right to the left side of the door which would be over the glass so the person on the outside cannot look in. there was just velcro strips there. Someone thought of a very cheap way to prevent a gunman from looking in.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"I think the best solution is to not sell someone a AR-15"

It might be effective. It also might not be constitutional. It also doesn't help anyone who will get killed in Chicago.

You brought up the fact that armed guards are not guaranteed to work 100% of the time. You were responding to an argument that nobody has ever made, not in the history of the world. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.

"Someone thought of a very cheap way to prevent a gunman from looking in"

And despite the fact that such methods would have been useless in FL (he pulled the fire alarms first to get everyone into the hallway), those methods can do dome good. So can armed guards.

Basketball has always been my favorite sport. I'm not very good at it, never was, but it's such a great game. Great to play, great to watch. Have a great weekend Paul.

"I think the best solution is to not sell someone a AR-15"

It might be effective. It also might not be constitutional. It also doesn't help anyone who will get killed in Chicago.

You brought up the fact that armed guards are not guaranteed to work 100% of the time. You were responding to an argument that nobody has ever made, not in the history of the world. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.

"Someone thought of a very cheap way to prevent a gunman from looking in"

And despite the fact that such methods would have been useless in FL (he pulled the fire alarms first to get everyone into the hallway), those methods can do dome good. So can armed guards.

Basketball has always been my favorite sport. I'm not very good at it, never was, but it's such a great game. Great to play, great to watch. Have a great weekend Paul.

I want to know why people think that fully automatic ar-15’s are “too scary” for civialian ownership if the argument that banning a semi automatic one is unconstitutional siting the well regulated militia argument. A militia needs military tools that are equal to the tools that our governments soldiers have access too. It does not make sense to me.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

On CNN, Marco Rubio was asked if he'd stop taking contributions from the NRA.

Because of course if you accept money from a group which lobbies on behalf of lawful and responsible gun owners, it is entirely your fault when a maniac shoots up a school.

Yep. Now we're THIS mindless.


States and share holders request their retirement or investments be divested for all sorts of reason environment human rights dictatorships ..

So a constituent asking his or her rep to stop taking money from the NRA who they see as caring only for its self and feel act irresponsibility .. isn't all that surprising, nor was his response or lack of one

Trump says violent video games 'shape' young minds

Last week, Kentucky Governor Matt Bevin, reacting to the Florida shooting, also singled out video games as an influence on the way younger people viewed the world.

But lets blame Video games who does he blame in Kentucky for the
1,330 overdose deaths in Kentucky in 2016, 31% were among people ages 35-44.

Hollywood lack of morals ?

So since crime rates aren’t zero when cops are on duty, should we abandon the police? Come on Paul, nothing is 100 percent foolproof, but that doesn’t mean it’s not a good idea. All ideas look bad, if all you do is list the con’s and not the pro’s.

Armed guards aren’t foolproof. Reagan was shot in 1980. Does that mean the secret service doesn’t make the potus safer?

This is why nothing gets done. When either side responds to the other sides ideas, they list all the flaws of the suggestion. And none of the benefits. It’s not honest.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


Jim the issue is the failed logic by the Right that some how arming people is the answer .. the failed response from the armed officer blow a hole so big in that theory .

some will call him a coward , maybe he was defending Covering the escape of other students , did he know it was only 1 shooter

Even in combat you cant predict how you or your men will respond under fire

One thing on this issue I haven't heard mentioned is if you have an armed teacher(s) and there's an active shooter they have to respond to...

...

Who's taking care of that classroom of kids?

Or it could be that those constituents believe he votes with the dollars the NRA provides him in mind as opposed to their interests. That isn't what is mindless. There really is no hope.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

In a neutral context, I have no problem with asking politicians about the donors they take money from. In that context, the obvious implication is that if Rubio won't reject the NRA, then he has no sympathy for this kid.

Both sides will occasionally weaponize tragedy to advance an agenda. It's repulsive when either side does it. That's what CNN did, they are a complete joke.

States and share holders request their retirement or investments be divested for all sorts of reason environment human rights dictatorships ..

So a constituent asking his or her rep to stop taking money from the NRA who they see as caring only for its self and feel act irresponsibility .. isn't all that surprising, nor was his response or lack of one

In that particular setting, it wasn't a question, it was a set up. And Rubio (though I agree with him on most issues) is too much of an intellectual lightweight to respond appropriately.

If Rubio dodges like he did, he looks like a coward. If he explains the facts of life to a teenager who probably has 5 funerals to go to this week, he comes across as heartless. It was a set up from which Rubio had no escape, because there is no escape.

When is CNN going to have an abortion survivor on, and ask a Democrat senator when they are going to stop taking money from Planned Parenthood? Never, because CNN is openly pursuing a left-wing ideology.

I believe there have been laws restricting semi automatics and large capacity magazines that have upheld by courts. The laws say the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to semi autos. Don't know if they have been challenged. Maybe Virginia or Maryland?

One thing on this issue I haven't heard mentioned is if you have an armed teacher(s) and there's an active shooter they have to respond to...

...

Who's taking care of that classroom of kids?

A fair and pertinent question. There would need to be a protocol, and there are ways to deal with that. Have a plan where a teacher can't leave his class to engage a shooter until he knows that his kids are in another class first.

Having the military in the school, would also eliminate that concern.

I believe there have been laws restricting semi automatics and large capacity magazines that have upheld by courts. The laws say the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to semi autos. Don't know if they have been challenged. Maybe Virginia or Maryland?

CT did something pretty aggressive after Sandy Hook, right? Can you still buy an AR-15 in CT?

The courts have long held that the 2nd Amendment isn't absolute. Which is a good thing, I don't want Maxine Waters buying a nuke.

Remember that town hall CNN sponsored after the Kate Steinle killing, when grieving family members of those who had been murdered by illegal aliens were able to question Democrat lawmakers who had voted in favor of sanctuary cities and open borders?

Neither do I.

A fair and pertinent question. There would need to be a protocol, and there are ways to deal with that. Have a plan where a teacher can't leave his class to engage a shooter until he knows that his kids are in another class first.
Sounds like a recipe for total chaos and inaction. The whole idea is so ridiculously stupid I can't even believe people are talking about it. Trump's remarks yesterday were laughable. I can't believe he really said you might have a teacher who had won a shooting contest so give them a bonus to carry in school.

Hell, even in FL a veteran police officer couldn't engage the shooter. You think a social studies teacher is just going to go all Rambo?

Even worse is taking the wrong actions...it's makes people think something has been done and they get complacent.

Remember that town hall CNN sponsored after the Kate Steinle killing, when grieving family members of those who had been murdered by illegal aliens were able to question Democrat lawmakers who had voted in favor of sanctuary cities and open borders?

Neither do I.
Probably because illegal immigrants commit much less violent crime than the population as a whole. It's not a top of mind issue like school shootings and mass shootings.

So please stop the "traditional" family values, argument thats everyones responsibility as a parent

Because everyone is doing such a fine job raising their kids.

I want to know why people think that fully automatic ar-15’s are “too scary” for civialian ownership if the argument that banning a semi automatic one is unconstitutional siting the well regulated militia argument. A militia needs military tools that are equal to the tools that our governments soldiers have access too. It does not make sense to me.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Interesting question. From a purely 2A perspective civilians should also have artillery and F22s. 2A as interpreted in Heller -v- DC, allows for firearms and allows for types of firearms for self defense. So based on this we should have access to full auto too. But we don't.


Hell, even in FL a veteran police officer couldn't engage the shooter. You think a social studies teacher is just going to go all Rambo?

Even worse is taking the wrong actions...it's makes people think something has been done and they get complacent.

That school SRO failed his charges, those kids. Some of those kids acted with far higher guts and integrity than did that SRO.

A lot of different people and organizations dropped the ball on Parkland.

NUMEROUS opportunities to prevent that tragedy where there, some ignored, some not followed through.

Reports are that a deputy showed up while the shooting was taking place and did not go in. I'm sure all the armed teachers would have taken down the gunman though.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Maybe they would have, maybe they wouldn't. But I can guarantee, with out a doubt, that if they weren't armed the answer is "Wouldn't"
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sounds like a recipe for total chaos and inaction. The whole idea is so ridiculously stupid I can't even believe people are talking about it. Trump's remarks yesterday were laughable. I can't believe he really said you might have a teacher who had won a shooting contest so give them a bonus to carry in school.

Hell, even in FL a veteran police officer couldn't engage the shooter. You think a social studies teacher is just going to go all Rambo?

Even worse is taking the wrong actions...it's makes people think something has been done and they get complacent.

You’re doing what every other ideologue does. Only talking about one side of the issue. Yes, Spence, there are useless cops out there. That doesn’t mean that police don’t add value. Similarly, armed guards in school can not prevent every death. But they might well save lives.

When evaluating an idea, you consider the pros and the cons. Not just the cons. You never learned that?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Maybe they would have, maybe they wouldn't. But I can guarantee, with out a doubt, that if they weren't armed the answer is "Wouldn't"
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Unless an idea is 100% guaranteed to work in every conceivable situation, the thoughtless ideologues won’t consider it. And because no idea is foolproof, nothing gets done. You cannot talk to these people, it’s not possible. Liberals won’t concede that armed guards might be a godsend in some situations, conservatives won’t concede that we might be better off without bump stocks and high capacity magazines. It’s not possible to talk to these people.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Interesting question. From a purely 2A perspective civilians should also have artillery and F22s. 2A as interpreted in Heller -v- DC, allows for firearms and allows for types of firearms for self defense. So based on this we should have access to full auto too. But we don't.
It's probably worth noting here that a big reason access to full auto firearms was restricted is because Congress at the time was concerned with their increasing use in violent crime. (and taxes)

It's also probably worth noting here that a big reason you rarely ever see full auto firearms used in violent crime today is because they're hard to get.

You’re doing what every other ideologue does. Only talking about one side of the issue. Yes, Spence, there are useless cops out there. That doesn’t mean that police don’t add value. Similarly, armed guards in school can not prevent every death. But they might well save lives.

When evaluating an idea, you consider the pros and the cons. Not just the cons. You never learned that?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
You're jumping to conclusions. Just because I don't weigh both sides of an argument in a post doesn't mean I don't hold them in my mind.

That being said, when the negatives outweigh the positives 10:1...

It's probably worth noting here that a big reason access to full auto firearms was restricted is because Congress at the time was concerned with their increasing use in violent crime. (and taxes)

It's also probably worth noting here that a big reason you rarely ever see full auto firearms used in violent crime today is because they're hard to get.

It is also worth noting that the vast significant majority of gun owners would not use them maliciously yet those same owners are being told they have blood on their hands in an Orwellian two minutes of hate (much longer actually).

There are enough bad guys (that have no intention of following the law) with fully automatic weapons - in addition to those with semi-auto - to be concerned with them.

It is also worth noting that the vast significant majority of gun owners would not use them maliciously yet those same owners are being told they have blood on their hands in an Orwellian two minutes of hate (much longer actually).

There are enough bad guys (that have no intention of following the law) with fully automatic weapons - in addition to those with semi-auto - to be concerned with them.
John, there have only been 2 homicides with legally held fully automatic weapons since they were controlled, the records are not easy to access. I was wondering how many with illegally held automatics?
No being a lawyer of any type, i wonder why if the 2nd A gives you the right to keep and bear arms you cannot have bombs, cannons, fully automatic weapons, etc.

It is also worth noting that the vast significant majority of gun owners would not use them maliciously yet those same owners are being told they have blood on their hands in an Orwellian two minutes of hate (much longer actually).
Blood on their hands is a bit of hyperbole, it may be fairer to say some gun owners are being told they don't need certain weapons or shouldn't have certain weapons.

There are enough bad guys (that have no intention of following the law) with fully automatic weapons - in addition to those with semi-auto - to be concerned with them.
So why don't they then? Crime with legally obtained full auto is statistically not even relevant. I haven't seen a stat on illegal full auto weapons but if it's out there it's pretty rare also.

In a neutral context, I have no problem with asking politicians about the donors they take money from. In that context, the obvious implication is that if Rubio won't reject the NRA, then he has no sympathy for this kid.

Both sides will occasionally weaponize tragedy to advance an agenda. It's repulsive when either side does it. That's what CNN did, they are a complete joke.

Those were victims of this tragedy asking him that. CNN gave them a forum to do it. Not sure Faux news did the same.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

John, there have only been 2 homicides with legally held fully automatic weapons since they were controlled, the records are not easy to access. I was wondering how many with illegally held automatics?
No being a lawyer of any type, i wonder why if the 2nd A gives you the right to keep and bear arms you cannot have bombs, cannons, fully automatic weapons, etc.

Some of the more basic readings of 2A would allow that, as well as Constitutional Carry. Nor am I a lawyer.

There are probably more illegally configured full auto than legal NFA firearms. That people willing to pay much more and jump thru more hoops can get on occasion.

Blood on their hands is a bit of hyperbole, it may be fairer to say some gun owners are being told they don't need certain weapons or shouldn't have certain weapons.


So why don't they then? Crime with legally obtained full auto is statistically not even relevant. I haven't seen a stat on illegal full auto weapons but if it's out there it's pretty rare also.

They are out there but yes the numbers are low, confirmed usage is low, but they are out there.

You're jumping to conclusions. Just because I don't weigh both sides of an argument in a post doesn't mean I don't hold them in my mind.

That being said, when the negatives outweigh the positives 10:1...


"You're jumping to conclusions"

Nope. Responding to your constant, consistent thoughtlessness.

"when the negatives outweigh the positives 10:1"

What are the positives? What might the positives have been, if there was an armed soldier at Sandy Hook and at this school?

You see the lack of perfect guarantee, as a downside. There was no downside to having the useless cop in FL. There was no upside because he failed, but there was no downside, wither. He didn't make it worse.

Let's make it simple Spence. If I propose to put an armed soldier in the schools your kids go to, do you think your kids are more safe, or less safe?

No go onto Rachael Maddow's website and paste her answer as a response...

You are descending further and further into the intellectual abyss.

They are out there but yes the numbers are low, confirmed usage is low, but they are out there.
Not sure why this matters to the discussion.

Those were victims of this tragedy asking him that. CNN gave them a forum to do it. Not sure Faux news did the same.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

But CNN doesn't let abortion survivors confront Democrats who take money from Planned Parenthood. Nor does CNN let Kate Steinle's family confront Democrats who advocate open borders and sanctuary policies. Only victims whose cause is sympathetic to liberals, get to confront their adversaries on CNN.

You see the lack of perfect guarantee, as a downside. There was no downside to having the useless cop in FL. There was no upside because he failed, but there was no downside, wither. He didn't make it worse.
Nothing is going to be perfect and I don't think most people have any issue with a trained officer providing school security, but as we've seen even this has to be part of a more comprehensive plan.

I'd assume that the killer in FL very knew the school had armed security and this did nothing to deter his intentions.

Blood on their hands is a bit of hyperbole, it may be fairer to say some gun owners are being told they don't need certain weapons or shouldn't have certain weapons.


So why don't they then? Crime with legally obtained full auto is statistically not even relevant. I haven't seen a stat on illegal full auto weapons but if it's out there it's pretty rare also.

Spence, you actually wrote a word "fairer"🤡. Have you been hanging out with Wayne too much?

Also ,it would be fair to say a veteran police officer wouldn't engage the shooter. You used the word couldn't,which is a stretch if speaking truthfully.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Nothing is going to be perfect and I don't think most people have any issue with a trained officer providing school security, but as we've seen even this has to be part of a more comprehensive plan.

I'd assume that the killer in FL very knew the school had armed security and this did nothing to deter his intentions.

People who are suicidal aren't going to be deterred by an armed guard. But they can be stopped by an armed guard.

You don't know what he knew, yet you leap to the conclusion which supports your side's ideology, and I for one am shocked, you never do that.

Spence, you actually wrote a word "fairer"🤡. Have you been hanging out with Wayne too much?

Also ,it would be fair to say a veteran police officer wouldn't engage the shooter. You used the word couldn't,which is a stretch if speaking truthfully.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Multi-tasking.

I almost changed couldn't to wouldn't but thought it was pretty much the same thing considering it was his sworn duty.

But CNN doesn't let abortion survivors confront Democrats who take money from Planned Parenthood. Nor does CNN let Kate Steinle's family confront Democrats who advocate open borders and sanctuary policies. Only victims whose cause is sympathetic to liberals, get to confront their adversaries on CNN.
Oh jeeze.

its funny Police shoot kill unarmed suspect The right supports them blue lives matter

Cop doesn't engage school shooter The right , his lack of action was pure cowardice


How does one choose who to protect out of a school of 3000 kids

who knows why he did what he did? was he covering and securing the wave of kids near him panicking as they ran by ,, did he know where the shooter was? was he waiting for back up like all officer are trained to do? or is the right pissed at him because it blew a whole in the good guy with a gun Fairy tale they have been promoting the past several
years

and if on Cue fox say's it Trump repeats it Trump suggests Florida officer a 'coward'

People who are suicidal aren't going to be deterred by an armed guard. But they can be stopped by an armed guard.


There is this unverified belief by gun controllers that there is no evidence that armed persons in schools would prevent mass shootings. Of course, the same gun controllers are silent when asked if there is any proof that gun free zones prevent mass shootings.

I thought I'd take a quick look online and found many articles and documentations of armed citizens ending or preventing mass shootings. Many of the armed citizens had military or police training or general gun training, one in the brief list linked here was a school principle. Most were not in schools, but the examples can easily be applied to schools. The article counters the idea which gun controllers pooh pooh, that some form of trained armed security as Trump proposes would not be effective. There are other articles and examples on the net, but I just posted this one from WAPO so that it could not be discounted as right wing propaganda:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/03/do-civilians-with-guns-ever-stop-mass-shootings/?utm_term=.ab592191b7af

Oh jeeze.

Explain how it's different, other than the lack of sympathy that liberals have for their cause?

There is this unverified belief by gun controllers that there is no proof that armed persons in schools would not prevent mass shootings.

Is that really what you meant to write? If so, I am perplexed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Is that really what you meant to write? If so, I am perplexed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Good catch. Fixed it. Thanks. I guess my eyes was goin' crazy when I made the typo. Meant to say . . . unverified belief by gun controllers that there is no evidence that armed persons in schools would [rather than "would not"] prevent mass shootings.

Good catch. Fixed it. Thanks. I guess my eyes was goin' crazy when I made the typo. Meant to say . . . unverified belief by gun controllers that there is no evidence that armed persons in schools would [rather than "would not"] prevent mass shootings.

Ok, got it. Can you provide evidence that armed persons would prevent mass shootings? There are at least two cases where armed persons at schools didn't, let alone assassinations by snipers, etc.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If they can't prevent such a happening,what do you think could given the current restrictions?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Multi-tasking.

I almost changed couldn't to wouldn't but thought it was pretty much the same thing considering it was his sworn duty.

Can you think of a fairer word than coward?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Ok, got it. Can you provide evidence that armed persons would prevent mass shootings? There are at least two cases where armed persons at schools didn't, let alone assassinations by snipers, etc.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The article I linked gave examples of mass shootings that were either prevented or ended before more could have been shot. For some, that is evidence that, under similar circumstances, many, if not most, mass shootings would either be prevented or cut short. For you, that is not evidence.

BTW, even a sniper was foiled from further damage in that Republican baseball game in June 1917 by two armed guards using hand guns.

If they can't prevent such a happening,what do you think could given the current restrictions?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think the point that gun-controllers would make is that the only thing that would totally prevent mass shootings would be the outlawing of rifle or pistol semi- automatic guns--actually the ELIMINATION of such guns or even other guns since criminals would not be stopped from getting guns merely by making them illegal.

I think the point that gun-controllers would make is that the only thing that would totally prevent mass shootings would be the outlawing of rifle or pistol semi- automatic guns--actually the ELIMINATION of such guns or even other guns since criminals would not be stopped from getting guns merely by making them illegal.

Gun control does not equal Prevention of Crime no more than a only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy can stop Mass shootings

people think Family values are to Blame and use the past as examples
but leave out what was missing (the availability of weapons and how differently they were marketed )


current / 1950

Gun control does not equal Prevention of Crime no more than a only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy can stop Mass shootings

people think Family values are to Blame and use the past as examples
but leave out what was missing (the availability of weapons and how differently they were marketed )


current / 1950

Handguns can be used quite effectively in mass shootings, ask major Hassan and the 13 families of his victims. Handguns were available back in the heyday if family values, yet mass shootings didn’t happen with this regularity.

It’s not just family values, and I never said it was. That’s one piece. Availability of sexy looking guns is another, guns whose loooks fuel the dark fantasies of a very small number of very sick people. Mental health issues, the internet, crappy parenting, lack of religion. And the violence we bombard our kids with, all play into it. And you’d have to be next generation thoughtless, to truly believe that trained, armed guards wouldn’t help just because of a recent failure. Reagan was shot in 1980, and no one was silly enough to say we don’t need the secret service.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I have to laugh at the blatant stupidity that gets shared here. Wayne,is your implication that the president of the country should not have armed security because Reagan got shot? Or is this more ramblings from the lunatic fringe? Perhaps they should just hug it out and make them promise not to shoot again.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I have to laugh at the blatant stupidity that gets shared here. Wayne,is your implication that the president of the country should not have armed security because Reagan got shot? Or is this more ramblings from the lunatic fringe? Perhaps they should just hug it out and make them promise not to shoot again.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Correct, they are saying that because having armed guards isn't 100% foolproof, that it's therefore not a good idea. Perfect is now the enemy of good.

No one idea is fool-proof. Gun control sure as hell isn't.

Correct, they are saying that because having armed guards isn't 100% foolproof, that it's therefore not a good idea. Perfect is now the enemy of good.
I think you're reading that completely wrong.

Spence and Wayne, it's easy to be an armchair quarterback in situations like this,but seriously, instead of mocking Trump what would be your suggestions in how this can realistically be fixed? Obama had 8 years as president,what improvements did he make that made you feel safer?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why is it the responsibility of the POTUS to stop mass shootings?

For you, that is not evidence.



No, it is that I didn't see your link. You tend to write so often and so much nonsense that I typically skim or skip your posts. My bad. Thanks for the evidence.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No, it is that I didn't see your link. You tend to write so often and so much nonsense that I typically skim or skip your posts. My bad. Thanks for the evidence.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Lmao !!!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I have to laugh at the blatant stupidity that gets shared here. Wayne,is your implication that the president of the country should not have armed security because Reagan got shot? Or is this more ramblings from the lunatic fringe? Perhaps they should just hug it out and make them promise not to shoot again.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No my implication is as it always been there are many parts to this problem. . Trump's is on the side of whom ever his audience is at the time

Spence and Wayne, it's easy to be an armchair quarterback in situations like this,but seriously, instead of mocking Trump what would be your suggestions in how this can realistically be fixed? Obama had 8 years as president,what improvements did he make that made you feel safer?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I think there's a lot you could do. Ensure schools have the proper security mechanisms so shooters can't get in, police guards, make high velocity weapons like the Ar-15 much harder to buy, integration of background checks with other data systems, Congressional appropriations to actually collect good data to study the issues including making it a requirement for states to pass data to the feds, better health studies on the impact of violence in media, buy backs etc... etc....not all of this is easy to implement I understand.

The 2ndA doesn't need to be repealed, people can still have plenty of guns for self protection and sport. You may not be able to get them immediately and there may be some that are really hard to get. But we can be doing a hell of a lot more than we are now.

No argument here, but using your logic the police guard idea is bad because of the coward who refused to do his job.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No argument here, but using your logic the police guard idea is bad because of the coward who refused to do his job.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Trump called him a coward not me. Police guards could still be effective if you can ensure there's limited modes of ingress. I know I can't get into my kids schools without being buzzed in through the front door. Not sure how the FL shooter managed to get inside.

The other thing to do is not treat all gun violence as the same. Suicides aren't the same as gang violence as mass shootings. We need to compartmentalize the issues for what they are and address accordingly.

It's not bad logic that says it's a bad idea to arm teachers it's actual data that makes the suggestion . And even trained officers have their challenges. Linear, thinking needs to change

The FBI’s analysis of active shooters between 2000 and 2013 has another relevant data point: “Law enforcement suffered casualties in 21 (46.7%) of the 45 incidents where they engaged the shooter to end the threat.” These are people trained to do this kind of thing full time, and nearly half were wounded or killed.

It's not bad logic that says it's a bad idea to arm teachers it's actual data that makes the suggestion . And even trained officers have their challenges. Linear, thinking needs to change

I read that the NYPD did a study and found even their own officers only hit their targets 18% of the time during real incidents.

Trump called him a coward not me. Police guards could still be effective if you can ensure there's limited modes of ingress. I know I can't get into my kids schools without being buzzed in through the front door. Not sure how the FL shooter managed to get inside.

The other thing to do is not treat all gun violence as the same. Suicides aren't the same as gang violence as mass shootings. We need to compartmentalize the issues for what they are and address accordingly.

Jeff,any person leaving your sons school would most likely hold the door open for an intruder. Getting in is most likely easy for anybody with the desire. If you use your common sense you will conclude that it is not quite as easy as you may think. This pile of #^&#^&#^&#^& got thrown on Trumps lap,let's hope he takes steps to help fix things,unlike his predecessors. It's a problem that warrants broad discussion more than your typical party blame game. I understand the suicide part but how does gang violence differ from mass shootings,isn't the intent the same?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jeff,any person leaving your sons school would most likely hold the door open for an intruder. Getting in is most likely easy for anybody with the desire. If you use your common sense you will conclude that it is not quite as easy as you may think. This pile of #^&#^&#^&#^& got thrown on Trumps lap,let's hope he takes steps to help fix things,unlike his predecessors. It's a problem that warrants broad discussion more than your typical party blame game.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I've been in that situation many times and nobody has held the door for me or nor have I. Regardless if that's the only entrance and you have an officer or someone inside you have another layer. School start and stop are more open but that's just another facet.

I still don't understand how he was able to enter the building with a long-gun. Lots of layers of failure here but his easy access to the weapon and access to the building seem key alongside the FBI #^&#^&#^&#^& up.

I've been in that situation many times and nobody has held the door for me or nor have I. Regardless if that's the only entrance and you have an officer or someone inside you have another layer. School start and stop are more open but that's just another facet.

I still don't understand how he was able to enter the building with a long-gun. Lots of layers of failure here but his easy access to the weapon and access to the building seem key alongside the FBI #^&#^&#^&#^& up.
You are sketchy looking so I am not exactly shocked. But if your wife is getting buzzed into the school and a kid who looks like he is a student runs up behind her to enter while wearing a long coat.......
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

PARKLAND, Fla. — Broward County deputies received at least 18 calls warning them about Nikolas Cruz from 2008 to 2017, including concerns that he "planned to shoot up the school" and other threats and acts of violence before he was accused of killing 17 people at a high school.

The warnings, made by concerned people close to Cruz, came in phone calls to the Broward County Sheriff's Office, records show. At least five callers mentioned concern over his access to weapons, according to the documents. None of those warnings led to direct intervention.

In February 2016, neighbors told police that they were worried he “planned to shoot up the school” after seeing alarming pictures on Instagram showing Cruz brandishing guns.

About two months later, an unidentified caller told police that Cruz had been collecting guns and knives. The caller was “concerned (Cruz) will kill himself one day and believes he could be a school shooter in the making,” according to call details released by the Sheriff's Office.

Can we at least agree that a shooter would target a gun free zone before a school that chose to have armed defense?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Can we at least agree that a shooter would target a gun free zone before a school that chose to have armed defense?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I don't think it matters at all. Mass shooters seem to pick their targets because of an emotional connection not because it seems easier. Additionally gun free zones don't mean their are no guns...there are plenty of exemptions.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Additionally gun free zones don't mean their are no guns...

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

brilliant

Can we at least agree that a shooter would target a gun free zone before a school that chose to have armed defense?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Gun free zone have very little to do with how theses people plan their attacks, that's more speculation from the gun lobby .. they are not rational people . I suggest he was familiar with the school and they expelled him and how he gained access he fit in he used the same thing when he left most kill out of anger and they possibility of death isn't a much of a factor

It will be interesting once the investigation concludes how much was planned and how much was spontaneous . Seeing he's sadly alive to talk to investigators.

[QUOTE=scottw;1138130]PARKLAND, Fla. — Broward County deputies received at least 18 calls warning them about Nikolas Cruz from 2008 to 2017, including concerns that he "planned to shoot up the school" and other threats and acts of violence before he was accused of killing 17 people at a high school.

The warnings, made by concerned people close to Cruz, came in phone calls to the Broward County Sheriff's Office, records show. At least five callers mentioned concern over his access to weapons, according to the documents. None of those warnings led to direct intervention.

In February 2016, neighbors told police that they were worried he “planned to shoot up the school” after seeing alarming pictures on Instagram showing Cruz brandishing guns.

About two months later, an unidentified caller told police that Cruz had been collecting guns and knives. The caller was “concerned (Cruz) will kill himself one day and believes he could be a school shooter in the making,” according to call details released by the Sheriff's

The NRA and 2nd supporters would have pitched a fit if they took his guns over instargram, or Internet posts yelling confiscation or FREEDOM of speech. .. they are now blaming everyone else . To insulate them from the laws they supported which gave assistance and legal standing for Cruz to have what he had .... law enforcement was toothless until he committed a crime ...

The NRA and 2nd supporters would have pitched a fit if they took his guns over instargram, or Internet posts yelling confiscation or FREEDOM of speech. .....

ummmm....no

In Ms. Deschamps’s 911 call, she told the dispatcher that Mr. Cruz already had about eight guns that he kept at a friend’s house and that he had just been thrown out of the house after the tantrum in which he punched the walls, hurled things around her home and got into a fight with Rock, her 22-year-old son.

“He got pissed off and then he came in the house and started banging all the doors and banging in the walls and hitting the walls and throwing everything in the room,” she said. “And then my son got in there and he said, ‘Stop it,’ and he didn’t want to stop.”

She added: “It’s not the first time he put a gun on somebody’s head.” Ms. Deschamps made it clear that her new houseguest was obsessed with firearms and had threatened both his mother and his brother. “That’s all he wants is his gun,” she said. “And that’s all he cares about is his gun. He bought tons of bullets and stuff and I took it away from him.”

ummmm....no

Wayne is a lot like Trump actually. He talks without giving much thought to what he is spewing and it is usually just to get a rise from the group he feels threatened by.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't think it matters at all. Mass shooters seem to pick their targets because of an emotional connection not because it seems easier. Additionally gun free zones don't mean their are no guns...there are plenty of exemptions.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
If you don't think it matters at all then why would you suggest police at schools as an improvement on keeping schools safe? Aren't you contradicting yourself?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If you don't think it matters at all then why would you suggest police at schools as an improvement on keeping schools safe? Aren't you contradicting yourself?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Ive never said police at schools wouldn't help. I said in this one instance the officer couldn't go in. Doesn't mean his behavior wasn't an outlier.

The point being, if a trained officer can fail how would you expect a teacher to respond.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Ive never said police at schools wouldn't help. I said in this one instance the officer wouldn't go in. Doesn't mean his behavior was typical.

The point being, if a trained officer can fail how would you expect a trained teacher to respond.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

fixed it... and...

you are suggesting a trained teacher would turtle like this officer...and you don't know that....

Trump called him a coward not me. Police guards could still be effective if you can ensure there's limited modes of ingress. I know I can't get into my kids schools without being buzzed in through the front door. Not sure how the FL shooter managed to get inside.

The other thing to do is not treat all gun violence as the same. Suicides aren't the same as gang violence as mass shootings. We need to compartmentalize the issues for what they are and address accordingly.

The guy is a coward (though I can't say I like the POTUS saying that on TV, I'd hate to see the guy commit suicide over this).

The problem, Spence, is that people are pointing to his failure to act, as evidence that armed guards in schools are not a good idea. His failure to act is irrefutable evidence that armed guards are not fool-proof, it's not evidence that it's not a good idea. Anyone who says "see, this guy didn't act, therefore let's not talk about armed guards in schools" is beyond thoughtless. It's not all we need to consider, it won't eliminate the problem.

[QUOTE=scottw;1138130]PARKLAND, Fla.

The NRA and 2nd supporters would have pitched a fit if they took his guns over instargram, or Internet posts yelling confiscation or FREEDOM of speech. .. they are now blaming everyone else . To insulate them from the laws they supported which gave assistance and legal standing for Cruz to have what he had .... law enforcement was toothless until he committed a crime ...

You literally have no idea what you are talking about. The NRA is appalled that this kid was able to buy this gun, given his history. This is a law enforcement failure at every level, not an NRA failure. I don't particularly like the NRA, but they have no fingerprints on this. Zip.

Law enforcement could not have failed more spectacularly. This kid did everything but walk around with a sign saying "I am a mass murderer, please stop me'.

It's evidence that the government isn't as omnipotent as we might wish to think they are.

Ive never said police at schools wouldn't help. I said in this one instance the officer couldn't go in. Doesn't mean his behavior wasn't an outlier.

The point being, if a trained officer can fail how would you expect a teacher to respond.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Jeff, you can not fail at something you never tried to do. Don't be so hard on yourself.

When you said"I don't think it matters at all" and then said "I've never said police at schools wouldn't help" that is contradicting yourself. Just saying.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you are suggesting a trained teacher would turtle like this officer...and you don't know that....

He assumes this, despite the fact that an unarmed teacher gave his goddamn life using his body as a shield to protect his kids. Spence would have us believe that if he had a gun and was trained, that then he would have hidden under a desk?

He cannot contemplate that which doesn't support liberalism. All liberals want to talk about, is guns. And in my opinion, they have a point. But there are a handful of other factors we need to address.

But because the possibility for human error exists, let's disband the police altogether. We don't need them.

[QUOTE=wdmso;1138142]

You literally have no idea what you are talking about. The NRA is appalled that this kid was able to buy this gun, given his history. This is a law enforcement failure at every level, not an NRA failure. I don't particularly like the NRA, but they have no fingerprints on this. Zip.

Law enforcement could not have failed more spectacularly. This kid did everything but walk around with a sign saying "I am a mass murderer, please stop me'.

It's evidence that the government isn't as omnipotent as we might wish to think they are.
Jim, you could not be more wrong in regards to the NRA. Maybe you need to familiarize yourself with the organization which is remarkably powerful and goes to great expense to allow access to guns for those who wish to own them. I am not saying they are not appalled,just that their efforts through the years are why guns are so accessible.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;1138153]
Jim, you could not be more wrong in regards to the NRA. Maybe you need to familiarize yourself with the organization which is remarkably powerful and goes to great expense to allow access to guns for those who wish to own them. I am not saying they are not appalled,just that their efforts through the years are why guns are so accessible.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I am sure that you have a point, which is why I'm not a huge fan. But I don't think the NRA opposes the tiny speck of common sense that would say that this kid shouldn't have been allowed to have a toy gun.

I think we need more restrictions than the NRA would support, which is why I'm not a huge fan. However I don't think the NRA would oppose policy that would say that people like this should not be allowed to own a gun. I could be wrong, but I don't think they're that crazy.

Jim, they don't want the government involved in saying who gets to own guns. Period,end of story.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;1138153]
Jim, you could not be more wrong in regards to the NRA. Maybe you need to familiarize yourself with the organization which is remarkably powerful and goes to great expense to allow access to guns for those who wish to own them. I am not saying they are not appalled,just that their efforts through the years are why guns are so accessible.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you may have been more right than I thought, this was on Foxnews..."However, the Washington Post reported that the NRA fought the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, which mandated federal background checks on firearm purchasers, suing the federal government once the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) was up and running. The NRA had argued that the entire law, including the NICS provision, be struck down as unconstitutional, the report said. "

Maybe they're so fanatical that they want everyone to have a gun?

Can a member comment? Must be some NRA members here...

Jim, they don't want the government involved in saying who gets to own guns. Period,end of story.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Maybe they are worse than I thought. Hard to contemplate...but it appears you were correct as usual, I'm sorry to say.

I am a member.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"However, the Washington Post reported that the NRA fought the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, which mandated federal background checks on firearm purchasers, suing the federal government once the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) was up and running. The NRA had argued that the entire law, including the NICS provision, be struck down as unconstitutional, the report said. "



maybe read a little more...guess you have to wonder about the supreme court too

The NRA argued that the Brady Act was unconstitutional because its provisions requiring local law enforcement officers to conduct background checks was a violation of the 10th Amendment to the Constitution.

In its 1997 decision in the case, the Supreme Court ruled that the provision of the Brady Act that compelled state and local law enforcement officials to perform the background checks was unconstitutional on 10th amendment grounds. The Court determined that this provision violated both the concept of federalism and that of the unitary executive.

[QUOTE=Sea Dangles;1138156]

you may have been more right than I thought, this was on Foxnews..."However, the Washington Post reported that the NRA fought the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, which mandated federal background checks on firearm purchasers, suing the federal government once the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) was up and running. The NRA had argued that the entire law, including the NICS provision, be struck down as unconstitutional, the report said. "

Maybe they're so fanatical that they want everyone to have a gun?

Can a member comment? Must be some NRA members here...

Here is the NRA's objection to the Brady Bill at that time. It does not object to government having a say in gun ownership. You might not agree with the NRA's reasoning at that time, but here's the transcript of the NRA's objection to the Brady Bill:

https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.bing.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1401&context=jcred

Dangles- the NRA most certainly wants everyone to have a gun.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That is not true Nebe.
They just go overboard enforcing your constitutional rights. Self serving but their mission is definitely not to put a firearm in the hands of every citizen.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

When you said"I don't think it matters at all" and then said "I've never said police at schools wouldn't help" that is contradicting yourself. Just saying.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
My remark was in context of the shooter.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Thanks for clearing up your words Jeff.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That is not true Nebe.
They just go overboard enforcing your constitutional rights. Self serving but their mission is definitely not to put a firearm in the hands of every citizen.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You are correct. After some thought, the NRA wants everyone over 18 to be able to freely purchase a firearm. They don’t think everyone needs one.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Wayne is a lot like Trump actually. He talks without giving much thought to what he is spewing and it is usually just to get a rise from the group he feels threatened by.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


So you think the NRA and its supporters would agree with law enforcement and the Government when they took his guns based on internet posts and others strangers concerns and he had yet committed a crime?

if so you clearly dont understand the NRA or it members they are unable to see pass Confiscation

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20150821/a-decade-later-remember-new-orleans-gun-confiscation-can-and-has-happened-in-america
A Decade Later, Remember New Orleans … Gun Confiscation Can (and Has) Happened in America'

So you think the NRA and its supporters would agree with law enforcement and the Government when they took his guns based on internet posts and others strangers concerns and he had yet committed a crime?



ummm...yes...

ummm...yes...





President Trump ended an Obama-era gun law that required background checks to block the sale of guns to people with mental illnesses.

It was strongly opposed by the National Rifle
Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, a leading supporter of the rule's repeal, has stated that "if a specific individual is likely to be violent due to the nature of their mental illness, then the government should have to prove it."

What your yes based on ? It surely can't be based on their words or past or current actions.. or your overly optimistic

President Trump ended an Obama-era gun law that required background checks to block the sale of guns to people with mental illnesses.

It was strongly opposed by the National Rifle
Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, a leading supporter of the rule's repeal, has stated that "if a specific individual is likely to be violent due to the nature of their mental illness, then the government should have to prove it."

What your yes based on ? It surely can't be based on their words or past or current actions.. or your overly optimistic

you need to check your 'facts' on that

So you think the NRA and its supporters would agree with law enforcement and the Government when they took his guns based on internet posts and others strangers concerns and he had yet committed a crime?

if so you clearly dont understand the NRA or it members they are unable to see pass Confiscation

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20150821/a-decade-later-remember-new-orleans-gun-confiscation-can-and-has-happened-in-america
A Decade Later, Remember New Orleans … Gun Confiscation Can (and Has) Happened in America'

Maybe the fact he held a gun to someone's head would be valid.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

President Trump ended an Obama-era gun law that required background checks to block the sale of guns to people with mental illnesses.



I'll help you ....this is from snopes because everyone on the left loves snopes...

As we explained in a 17 February 2017 post, this rule — which never went into effect before being rescinded — did not change any existing laws regulating who is allowed to purchase guns. It merely would have provided a new way to enforce existing restrictions on gun sales by allowing a transfer of information from one agency to another. There are now, and have been for some time, laws that seek to limit gun sales to anyone “who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution” per Title 18 section 922(g) of the United States Code.

So you think the NRA and its supporters would agree with law enforcement and the Government when they took his guns based on internet posts and others strangers concerns and he had yet committed a crime?

if so you clearly dont understand the NRA or it members they are unable to see pass Confiscation

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20150821/a-decade-later-remember-new-orleans-gun-confiscation-can-and-has-happened-in-america
A Decade Later, Remember New Orleans … Gun Confiscation Can (and Has) Happened in America'

If you could actually read something and then digest it then perhaps you may have noticed my recent comments regarding the NRA and its members. Keep moving forward and don't let the facts get in the way of your filibustering.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'll help you ....this is from snopes...

so is this stuff from the same page:

Claim: In February 2017, President Trump repealed an Obama-era regulation that would have made it easier to block the sale of firearms to people with certain mental illnesses.


That rule would have given the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, which is used for gun sales, access to Social Security Administration data including the names of individuals receiving certain federal mental health benefits.

The Obama rule would have prevented an estimated 75,000 people with mental disorders from being able to purchase a firearm. It was crafted as part of Obama’s efforts to strengthen the federal background check system in the wake of the 2012 massacre of 20 young students and six staff at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.

While the law did not change who is required to be the subject of background checks, it is true that Trump signed into law the repeal of a measure that would have plausibly prevented certain classes of mentally ill people from purchasing firearms by allowing a new data source to be included the system that runs those background checks. As such we rank the claim mostly true.

Zimmy, any idea why 5 years after Sandy Hook this was still just an idea? That's right,5 years and even the mighty Obama was still spinning the wheels.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Zimmy, any idea why 5 years after Sandy Hook this was still just an idea? That's right,5 years and even the mighty Obama was still spinning the wheels.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think you might be able to look that up yourself. It wasn't "just an idea" it was set to take effect. But you are able to read and writes so you should be able to find out the date it was enacted and maybe even why there was a time period before implementation.

But as far as spinning wheels, he issued 23 executive orders related to gun control and school safety in January 2013.

On the law making side, he called on Congress to pass laws that would: require background checks on all gun sales; restore a ban on "military-style assault weapons"; ban gun magazines with capacities of more than 10 rounds; and toughen penalties on people who sell guns to those who can't have them.

What do you think Bird Sht-Traffic Cone-Comrade will have put together in the next month? Probably not much more than some tweets misquoting his Faux News teachers.

That's right,5 years and even the mighty Obama was still spinning the wheels.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Again, this isn't rocket science to figure out, but this is relevant to why take-all-your-guns-away-do-nothing(?) Obama was spinning his wheels:

"April 17, 2013
President Obama’s ambitious effort to overhaul the nation’s gun laws in response to December’s school massacre in Connecticut suffered a resounding defeat Wednesday, when every major proposal he championed fell apart on the Senate floor."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gun-control-overhaul-is-defeated-in-senate/2013/04/17/57eb028a-a77c-11e2-b029-8fb7e977ef71_story.html?utm_term=.5549decd1035

Thank you for making my point. There have not been many advances made in gun control for a long time. So you probably understand that it is not easy by this point. Obama was forced to make reactionary attempts to appease the nation and came out swinging. Trump will do the same and get criticized for getting nothing done.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That was your point? I like that you said appease the nation. Republicans stopped everything in its tracks even if it was overwhelmingly supported by the nation. Why? They are afraid of the NimRod Association. Pretty sure if the Dems controlled the congress in 2013, Obama would have gotten most of what he called for. Trump has mentioned background checks, age limits for "assault rifles", arming teachers. He will get dem support on two out of three, though dems want no more AR's sold. Guessing once La Pierre gets a hold of Trump, he will get nothing done and you will be right. I will certainly criticize him if that happens.

Every time one of these massacres happens, I come across articles from ER doctors and the like. Totally changed my view on the AR vs handgun side of the debate.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/what-i-saw-treating-the-victims-from-parkland-should-change-the-debate-on-guns/553937/

so is this stuff from the same page:

[/B]

try to follow along....

Originally Posted by wdmso View Post

President Trump ended an Obama-era gun law(which never went into effect, their words not mine) that required background checks(the law did not change who is required to be the subject of background checks, their words not mine) to ("plausibly", their word not mine)block the sale of guns to people with mental illnesses.

this is Mostly False...but that's why the left likes Snopes:rolleyes:

and...

you understand the president does not write laws...right? I know the left was happy to have Obama act as legislator... so it was effectively a rule...not a law.......Trump signed a bill that repealed an Obama rule that never went into effect

and....

The ACLU, and mental health advocacy organizations backed the repeal that was signed by Mr Trump. Civil libertarians and disability rights activists had serious reservations about the potential for privacy violations and a chilling effect the rule might have on those who need counseling services.

seems as though the Supreme Court, ACLU and disability activists are standing in the way of common sense gun laws

That was your point? I like that you said appease the nation. Republicans stopped everything in its tracks even if it was overwhelmingly supported by the nation. Why? They are afraid of the NimRod Association. Pretty sure if the Dems controlled the congress in 2013, Obama would have gotten most of what he called for. Trump has mentioned background checks, age limits for "assault rifles", arming teachers. He will get dem support on two out of three, though dems want no more AR's sold. Guessing once La Pierre gets a hold of Trump, he will get nothing done and you will be right. I will certainly criticize him if that happens.

Bold statement Zimmy. You really go out on a limb with your revisionist history. Too bad the dems didn't control congress. Those pesky checks and balances in our constitution reared their ugly head again.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

try to follow along....

Originally Posted by wdmso View Post

President Trump ended an Obama-era gun law(which never went into effect, their words not mine) that required background checks(the law did not change who is required to be the subject of background checks, their words not mine) to ("plausibly", their word not mine)block the sale of guns to people with mental illnesses.

this is Mostly False...but that's why the left likes Snopes:rolleyes:

and...



you understand the president does not write laws...right? I know the left was happy to have Obama act as legislator... so it was effectively a rule...not a law.......Trump signed a bill that repealed an Obama rule that never went into effect

and....

The ACLU, and mental health advocacy organizations backed the repeal that was signed by Mr Trump. Civil libertarians and disability rights activists had serious reservations about the potential for privacy violations and a chilling effect the rule might have on those who need counseling services.

seems as though the Supreme Court, ACLU and disability activists are standing in the way of common sense gun laws




snopes is good because its based on the facts as they are not as we wish them to be

obamas exec order didn't change the law you are correct i should have stated Rule .... but in the end it was rescinded

It merely would have provided a new way to enforce existing restrictions on gun sales by allowing a transfer of information from one agency to another.

The rule was rescinded using a legal procedure called the the Congressional Review Act, which, prior to the Trump Administration, was obscure and little-used. It allows regulations passed in the final days of one administration to be rescinded with a simple majority vote in both chambers of Congress during the first 60 days of a new administration. The Senate sent their repeal of the Obama-era measure for Trump’s signature on 15 February 2017

Republicans choose resend over fix its what they do ACA repeal no fix
the list is endless

snopes is good because its based on the facts as they are not as we wish them to be
Funny nobody on the Right started hating on Snopes until people started using it to debunk made up stuff passed around online.

Thank you for making my point. There have not been many advances made in gun control for a long time. So you probably understand that it is not easy by this point. Obama was forced to make reactionary attempts to appease the nation and came out swinging. Trump will do the same and get criticized for getting nothing done.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
You have to choose your battles. Nothing is going to get done unless the Dem's take total control or a lot of Republicans rise above the NRA.

Trump will support a few token actions and then claim he tried. The NRA's actions could very well be self defeating.

brilliant
I guess you've never read the legislation.

Every time one of these massacres happens, I come across articles from ER doctors and the like. Totally changed my view on the AR vs handgun side of the debate.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/what-i-saw-treating-the-victims-from-parkland-should-change-the-debate-on-guns/553937/

it should change your view on people

most people don't carry concealed Ar's for protection, nobody that I know of. Have you read doctors reports of what a shotgun blast does to ones organs?

people kill people, the guns don't pull their own triggers and shoot themselves.

Liberty built this country and if you take it away, we will lose this country.

people kill people, the guns don't pull their own triggers and shoot themselves.



Nuclear weapons don't "pull their own triggers and shoot themselves" yet for some reason we don't want NK to have them.

most people don't carry concealed Ar's for protection, nobody that I know of. Have you read doctors reports of what a shotgun blast does to ones organs?

Well, perhaps it's just because it's not practical and even in open carry states doesn't seem like it's regarded very favorably by the general public or police. As for shotguns, now you get into range and capacity neither of which favor violent crime.

You have to choose your battles. Nothing is going to get done unless the Dem's take total control or a lot of Republicans rise above the NRA.

Trump will support a few token actions and then claim he tried. The NRA's actions could very well be self defeating.

Hold your breath and count backwards from 100
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Bold statement Zimmy. You really go out on a limb with your revisionist history. Too bad the dems didn't control congress. Those pesky checks and balances in our constitution reared their ugly head again.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Oh, the dems controlled congress in 2013? If that is the case, I am confused about history.

it should change your view on people

most people don't carry concealed Ar's for protection, nobody that I know of. Have you read doctors reports of what a shotgun blast does to ones organs?

people kill people, the guns don't pull their own triggers and shoot themselves.

Liberty built this country and if you take it away, we will lose this country.

Doctors and law enforcement are much more concerned about ARs than shotguns for mass shootings. You know guns, so you would be too if that were your concern. I defer to them over people with a infatuation for a weapon. AR is fun to shoot. Has no effect on my liberty if I can'r have one any more than not having a rocket launcher or tommy gun. A gun isn't liberty.

Oh, the dems controlled congress in 2013? If that is the case, I am confused about history.

Are you talking Senate or House of Representatives?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

On the law making side, he called on Congress to pass laws that would:


try to follow along....



you understand the president does not write laws...right? s

You can see the irony of your follow along comment, right? :scream:

Bold statement Zimmy. You really go out on a limb with your revisionist history. Too bad the dems didn't control congress. Those pesky checks and balances in our constitution reared their ugly head again.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

They did control congress (both houses), for Obama's first two years. For a good chunk of that time they had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. I don't think the GOP could have stopped them from doing a thing. Yet they didn't.

Lots of blame here, both parties, the NRA, law enforcement, lots of blame...

A gun isn't liberty.

Not for you. Not for me. But for many it is.

They did control congress (both houses), for Obama's first two years. For a good chunk of that time they had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. I don't think the GOP could have stopped them from doing a thing. Yet they didn't.

Lots of blame here, both parties, the NRA, law enforcement, lots of blame...

Obama effectively had 72 days of filibuster-proof majority- from September 24. 2009 to February 4, 2010. That is also an aside given that my statement was about 2013, when congress voted down every Obama and democrat backed measure.

Obama effectively had 72 days of filibuster-proof majority- from September 24. 2009 to February 4, 2010. That is also an aside given that my statement was about 2013, when congress voted down every Obama and democrat backed measure.

Looks like 8 years of "Blue" Senate to me. Maybe not FB proof, but dem controlled.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/72/Combined--Control_of_the_U.S._House_of_Representatives_-_Control_of_the_U.S._Senate.png

Hold your breath and count backwards from 100
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Quite lucid and relaxed here. I'll put on another pot for tea if it will make you feel good.

Obama effectively had 72 days of filibuster-proof majority- from September 24. 2009 to February 4, 2010. That is also an aside given that my statement was about 2013, when congress voted down every Obama and democrat backed measure.

And for the entire first 2 years, the Democrats controlled both houses. They got a lot of big stuff done, like the stimulus. The could have done something with guns, right? They chose not to.

I hear you about 2013. But for 08-09 he had both houses. He did zip on guns and immigration.

Looks like 8 years of "Blue" Senate to me. Maybe not FB proof, but dem controlled.
[/IMG]
Yes, congress is what I said. And he didn't have a filibuster proof majority in the senate for but 72 days. That is how Republicans were able to block his agenda after Sandy Hook. He also only had any majority in the senate for 7 years, not 8.

And for the entire first 2 years, the Democrats controlled both houses. They got a lot of big stuff done, like the stimulus. The could have done something with guns, right? They chose not to.

I hear you about 2013. But for 08-09 he had both houses. He did zip on guns and immigration.

House passed stimulus in January 2009 with no Republican votes. Senate passed it with 61 votes (3 republicans). Signed into law in February 2009. You are right though, he did get big things done during those few days when they had control. Don't think he could have tied gun legislation into the stimulus though...

House passed stimulus in January 2009 with no Republican votes. Senate passed it with 61 votes (3 republicans). Signed into law in February 2009. You are right though, he did get big things done during those few days when they had control. Don't think he could have tied gun legislation into the stimulus though...

Not sure why gun control would had to have been tied to the stimulus. No rule saying they couldn't pass more than one bill during that time. You cannot say that the GOP kept him from passing gun reform during his presidency. Not during the early days. Let's be honest.

Not sure why gun control would had to have been tied to the stimulus. No rule saying they couldn't pass more than one bill during that time. You cannot say that the GOP kept him from passing gun reform during his presidency. Not during the early days. Let's be honest.
Sure you can, dealing with the recession and health care were the priorities. With zero bi-partisan support gun control would have still been nearly impossible and a mid-term issue as well.

Not sure why gun control would had to have been tied to the stimulus. No rule saying they couldn't pass more than one bill during that time. You cannot say that the GOP kept him from passing gun reform during his presidency. Not during the early days. Let's be honest.

Ok. Gop didn't literally keep him from passing gun control until 2013, when they actually did. Feel better about that? We should probably ignore all parts of a presidency outside the first hundred days.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Nuclear weapons don't "pull their own triggers and shoot themselves" yet for some reason we don't want NK to have them.

We don't allow Criminals and mental defectives to have guns, so what the heck is your point?

We don't allow... mental defectives to have guns, so what the heck is your point?

Now THAT is funny!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

We don't allow Criminals and mental defectives to have guns, so what the heck is your point?

The problem is, based on what happened in FL, we are allowing mental defectives to have guns.

Doctors and law enforcement are much more concerned about ARs than shotguns for mass shootings. You know guns, so you would be too if that were your concern. I defer to them over people with a infatuation for a weapon. AR is fun to shoot. Has no effect on my liberty if I can'r have one any more than not having a rocket launcher or tommy gun. A gun isn't liberty.

I never said it was not my concern


You and others are never going to understand and it's not my job to inform you, just like it was not my job, but the FBI's job to follow up on the multiple warnings by people about the unstable Cruz. But I am not going to be silent and be thought of as condoning it.

That's cute, a gun isn't liberty. no chit

We are privileged to live in the greatest nation ever and you can thank our founders for framing a constitution that allows us liberties for Capitalism to thrive. Without that you would not have the freedoms you take for granted every single day of your life. Those same liberties can take away liberty, none of us should let that happen.

Like I said, Obama was spinning his wheels and made a reactionary attempt at gun reform. I agree with a lot of what Spence suggested as options for an improved system of gun control. I am not a fan of the NRA although I am sure that without their efforts we would have less liberties. There is no doubt that something is wrong here in the good ole USA with the senseless acts of killing. Let's hope it gets figured out because it is sad to see the innocent die.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

We are privileged to live in the greatest nation ever and you can thank our founders for framing a constitution that allows us liberties for Capitalism to thrive. Without that you would not have the freedoms you take for granted every single day of your life. Those same liberties can take away liberty, none of us should let that happen.
What is the definition of greatest nation ever, other than we are always told that?
What measurements did you use to define that?
Here are the things I found that we are statistically #1 in:
Gun possession, incarceration, women's olympic figure skating medals, the most super rich, wine consumption, number of plastic surgeons, horse exports, breast augmentation, death by violence, Christians, Jews, small arms imports, small arms exports, non-methane voc emissions, corn oil production, cheese, cinnamon imports, etc.
Here is where i found these rankings and maybe someone can find ones that confirm we are the greatest ever.
https://rankingamerica.wordpress.com/

What is the definition of greatest nation ever, other than we are always told that?



what would be your pick for "greatest nation ever"?...and why?

I am proud of what we have. If you are trying to reinvent the wheel,you will never be happy. There are plenty of shortcomings and a lot to improve upon but that was a very shallow post.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

We're probably near the top of the list for Freedoms and Opportunities
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What is the definition of greatest nation ever, other than we are always told that?
What measurements did you use to define that?
Here are the things I found that we are statistically #1 in:
Gun possession, incarceration, women's olympic figure skating medals, the most super rich, wine consumption, number of plastic surgeons, horse exports, breast augmentation, death by violence, Christians, Jews, small arms imports, small arms exports, non-methane voc emissions, corn oil production, cheese, cinnamon imports, etc.
Here is where i found these rankings and maybe someone can find ones that confirm we are the greatest ever.
https://rankingamerica.wordpress.com/

Oh for Christ's sake. You sound like a sociology professor character in a bad sitcom.

How about the most free, the most generous (by far), providing the most upward economic opportunity, being one of the few to elect an ethnic minority as President.

We're probably near the top of the list for Freedoms and Opportunities
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pfffttt, what do freedom and opportunity have to do with making a country great.

Before all of this freedom and liberties there was a way to gain riches and power, it was by plundering and force. Now we have Capitalism so hard work,competitive prices, and satisfied consumers are the way to success. Do you see that anywhere else where we have the choices we have here? America= land of opportunity.
That is why we are the best and those who want to continue to erode on our freedoms and liberties will be the ones who destroy this country, not maniac mass murderers with a gun.
Taking the lazy easy way out removing guns for the answer to protect our kids in schools is asinine. Put in safeguards like metal detectors and other solutions for immediate protection. Improve the system to keep arms out of the hands of violent people. Taking away from law abiding is NOT the answer yet half the country seems to think so like Bloomberg and Soros. If they get their way you can kiss your ass goodbye.

Pete, Sea Dangles is right, your post is very shallow. Try to see the positive.

We don't allow Criminals and mental defectives to have guns, so what the heck is your point?

It looked like you were trying to make the point that guns don't kill people - people kill people.

Using that logic nukes don't kill people.

So why is it different between nukes and ARs?

We don't allow Criminals and mental defectives to have guns, so what the heck is your point?
Felons can still buy guns from unlicensed sellers online or at gun shows. Regarding the mentally ill, we don't do anything to establish mental fitness before a gun purchase like some countries do, so unless the buyer was involuntary committed or has a court order declaring they are unfit...they can certainly buy guns.

It looked like you were trying to make the point that guns don't kill people - people kill people.

Using that logic nukes don't kill people.

So why is it different between nukes and ARs?

so go ahead and build one then if you want one

Felons can still buy guns from unlicensed sellers online or at gun shows. Regarding the mentally ill, we don't do anything to establish mental fitness before a gun purchase like some countries do, so unless the buyer was involuntary committed or has a court order declaring they are unfit...they can certainly buy guns.

not in my state

not in my state
Maybe that's one of the reasons why Mass has the lowest gun violence of any state in the USA?

Maybe that's one of the reasons why Mass has the lowest gun violence of any state in the USA?

Maybe Florida should have learned it's lesson from the Pulse Night Club shooting and fixed the problem themselves. Nobody is stopping them from being like Mass.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think we were the Greatest, probably still are but I think we are in danger of losing our position economically, socially and morally.
The entire nation gets upset about a school shooting and since the 14th how many children have been killed by guns?
Do you think it is more or less than 17?

so go ahead and build one then if you want one

shows the hypocrisy of the right I guess.

shows the hypocrisy of the right I guess.

Does that mean the Left wants to give North Korea Nukes??

Shows the idiocy of the left I guess

Does that mean the Left wants to give North Korea Nukes??

Shows the idiocy of the left I guess

I don't think anyone from the left said that so I guess the right are the idiots using your logic.

what hypocrisy? that people don't kill people?
A bullet striking someone at a high rate of speed hitting a vital organ can kill someone just as dead as a nuke can, of course. So your point is to take the guns out of the hands of those who cannot be trusted? Like trying to keep a maniac dictator from getting one? Last I checked most lawful gun owners are not threatening mankind, so why gun control? there are laws that don't get enforced, do that first, if that doesn't work then work harder and smarter but don't put blame on others rights. So get rid of all weapons on earth and man will still kill even with bare hands. This could go on forever with your hypocrisy. Live in fear about every little thing that could end your life possibly. Stay inside if a revolution starts.

I don't think anyone from the left said that so I guess the right are the idiots using your logic.

I just figured if you can make the leap by comparing owning a scarrrry looking gun to arming a known lunatic with a nuclear arsenal, then it was OK for me to make the leap that the left was cool with it, because to the left its always "Opposite Day"

what hypocrisy? that people don't kill people?no the hypocrisy that we hear every time that there is a mass shooting w/a semi - that guns don't kill people, people kill people. Yet, NK can't have a nuke bc the nuke could kill us all.
A bullet striking someone at a high rate of speed hitting a vital organ can kill someone just as dead as a nuke can, of course. So your point is to take the guns out of the hands of those who cannot be trusted? Like trying to keep a maniac dictator from getting one? Last I checked most lawful gun owners are not threatening mankind, so why gun control? there are laws that don't get enforced, do that first, if that doesn't work then work harder and smarter but don't put blame on others rights. So get rid of all weapons on earth and man will still kill even with bare hands. This could go on forever with your hypocrisy. Live in fear about every little thing that could end your life possibly. Stay inside if a revolution starts.

Yhea, I live in fear:lama:

Don't think I ever heard anyone here claim all weapons on earth should be banned.

sounds like you are paranoid someone is going come knocking on your door to take your gun away - And I'm the one living in fear:rotf3:

what hypocrisy? that people don't kill people?
A bullet striking someone at a high rate of speed hitting a vital organ can kill someone just as dead as a nuke can, of course. So your point is to take the guns out of the hands of those who cannot be trusted? Like trying to keep a maniac dictator from getting one? Last I checked most lawful gun owners are not threatening mankind, so why gun control? there are laws that don't get enforced, do that first, if that doesn't work then work harder and smarter but don't put blame on others rights. So get rid of all weapons on earth and man will still kill even with bare hands. This could go on forever with your hypocrisy. Live in fear about every little thing that could end your life possibly. Stay inside if a revolution starts.

"Last I checked most lawful gun owners are not threatening mankind, so why gun control?"

Because too many guns (legally or otherwise) get in the hands of maniacs. You really don't understand that point of view at all? Yes, cars kill more people, heart attacks kill more people, but we cannot eliminate cars or legislate heart health.

I'd say as a start, no more bump stocks or high capacity magazines. The right wouldn't go for it, the left would say it's not enough. So we do nothing.

"there are laws that don't get enforced, do that first"

I keep hearing that, but it doesn't seem to be happening does it...What law on the books, would have prevented Sandy Hook from happening with proper enforcement?

"So get rid of all weapons on earth and man will still kill even with bare hands"

This is the argument that drives me crazy, this is the kind of extremist thinking that almost always happens on the left, but on this one issue, occurs on the right. Conservatives claim that if we get rid of AR-15s and high capacity magazines, then as sure as the day follows the night, eventually we will "get rid of all weapons on Earth".

The second amendment isn't absolute, it was never intended to be without limits.

"Stay inside if a revolution starts"

Another argument I hear is that we need guns to hold off a tyrannical government. Maybe in the 1930s that was true. But today, in this country? If the feds want to kill me and take my 401(k), they can launch a laser-guided missile through my bedroom window from a thousand miles away, and I'm not sure I can prevent that with an AR-15.

This is the argument that drives me crazy, this is the kind of extremist thinking that almost always happens on the left, but on this one issue, occurs on the right. Conservatives claim that if we get rid of AR-15s and high capacity magazines, then as sure as the day follows the night, eventually we will "get rid of all weapons on Earth".

The second amendment isn't absolute, it was never intended to be without limits.
Why isn't the NRA publicly pushing to repeal the National Firearms Act?

no more bump stocks or high capacity magazines.


that and some laws regarding mental health and maybe age limits (21) would be a great start.

just exaggerating obviously disgusted with the panic talk and hard push to go after peoples' rights. Don't piss on me because you can't have utopia. Nothing is 100 percent, not going to happen.

"Last I checked most lawful gun owners are not threatening mankind, so why gun control?"

Because too many guns (legally or otherwise) get in the hands of maniacs. You really don't understand that point of view at all? Yes, cars kill more people, heart attacks kill more people, but we cannot eliminate cars or legislate heart health.

I'd say as a start, no more bump stocks or high capacity magazines. The right wouldn't go for it, the left would say it's not enough. So we do nothing.

"there are laws that don't get enforced, do that first"

I keep hearing that, but it doesn't seem to be happening does it...What law on the books, would have prevented Sandy Hook from happening with proper enforcement? like we all know,
nothing is foolproof

"So get rid of all weapons on earth and man will still kill even with bare hands"

This is the argument that drives me crazy, this is the kind of extremist thinking that almost always happens on the left, but on this one issue, occurs on the right. Conservatives claim that if we get rid of AR-15s and high capacity magazines, then as sure as the day follows the night, eventually we will "get rid of all weapons on Earth".

The second amendment isn't absolute, it was never intended to be without limits.the states individually put limits and in our state we have a tyrant as AG who puts in her own edicts

"Stay inside if a revolution starts"

Another argument I hear is that we need guns to hold off a tyrannical government. Maybe in the 1930s that was true. But today, in this country? If the feds want to kill me and take my 401(k), they can launch a laser-guided missile through my bedroom window from a thousand miles away, and I'm not sure I can prevent that with an AR-15.

oh, so now we need laser guided missiles? :hihi:

Jim, you don't get it that they take an inch, then another inch and keep on taking. Stand up for your rights.

blaming guns is like blaming the internet, cop out


As far as the thread title, I don't agree with Trump saying arm the teachers , but I don't agree with Biden making up gun free zones either. But taking away some teachers' choice if they wanted to carry is not cool. When I went to school there were some teachers that carried concealed and I bet there were when you went as well, you just did not know it. It did not end badly.

that and some laws regarding mental health and maybe age limits (21) would be a great start.

Agreed, though having an age limit higher than the minimum age to serve in the military could be viewed as strange...

I think violence in the entertainment industry ought to be a part of the discussion, too.

What law on the books, would have prevented Sandy Hook from happening with proper enforcement?



What new laws could be enacted to prevent a Sandy Hook from happening again. Prevent is the key word.

What we need to do is to look at each incident and figure out where it went wrong.

People screaming about banning AR-15's distracts from what actually needed to be fixed to possibly (nothing is 100%) deter the next one, and that was the flow of information that was reported and the inaction by agencies that had some this information. This is what we should focus on fixing right now.

If half of this was addressed that halfwit wouldn't have been able to legally get his hands on a gun.

that and some laws regarding mental health and maybe age limits (21) would be a great start.

I think 26 would be better since that's the age that they're consider adults now thanks to Obamacare....

I think 26 would be better since that's the age that they're consider adults now thanks to Obamacare....

But they still gotta be eligible to vote at 16...

If half of this was addressed that halfwit wouldn't have been able to legally get his hands on a gun.

quite a few adults, many with badges were aware that he had guns, was troubled and was threatening to do bad things with his guns over and over...no one did anything....and somehow it's Washington's job to fix it....looking for solutions in the wrong places

oh, so now we need laser guided missiles? :hihi:

Jim, you don't get it that they take an inch, then another inch and keep on taking. Stand up for your rights.

blaming guns is like blaming the internet, cop out


As far as the thread title, I don't agree with Trump saying arm the teachers , but I don't agree with Biden making up gun free zones either. But taking away some teachers' choice if they wanted to carry is not cool. When I went to school there were some teachers that carried concealed and I bet there were when you went as well, you just did not know it. It did not end badly.

"nothing is foolproof"

I get that, I do. But this kid put up every imaginable red flag, and he passed the background check? We don't need to be flawless, but we need to be at least good enough to keep that kid from being able to buy a firearm, or we might as well pull the plug on the whole thing and arm everybody.

"Jim, you don't get it that they take an inch, then another inch and keep on taking"

You're right, I don't get that. I see zero reason to believe that it's an all or nothing situation. I haven't heard any liberal who has any meaningful influence, suggest they have their sights set on handguns and riles that aren't semi-automatic.

"Stand up for your rights"

I believe I do. I also have the burden of feeling obligated to stand up for the rights of others, not just mine. Including defenseless children.

"blaming guns is like blaming the internet"

I believe each plays a role in this. I am sure I am correct.

"I don't agree with Trump saying arm the teachers "

That's not really what he said...

"When I went to school there were some teachers that carried concealed and I bet there were when you went as well, you just did not know it"

I wonder. I went to Catholic schools, and on more than one occasion I was hit in the face with a ruler when misbehaving. I wonder what would have happened if they were armed...

"It did not end badly"

99.999% of the time it doesn't end badly. If you had a machine gun in your house, I would probably feel safe letting my kids sleep over. It's not you I'm worried about. The next Adam Lanza is out there. And he's not carrying a sign identifying himself as amass murderer.

What new laws could be enacted to prevent a Sandy Hook from happening again. Prevent is the key word.

What we need to do is to look at each incident and figure out where it went wrong.

People screaming about banning AR-15's distracts from what actually needed to be fixed to possibly (nothing is 100%) deter the next one, and that was the flow of information that was reported and the inaction by agencies that had some this information. This is what we should focus on fixing right now.

If half of this was addressed that halfwit wouldn't have been able to legally get his hands on a gun.

"What new laws could be enacted to prevent a Sandy Hook from happening again. Prevent is the key word."

How about this. A law saying that if you live in a house with a person who has mental issues (like Adam Lanza's mother did), then if you want a gun, maybe you have to keep it in a gun range. Or maybe you can only have a gun with fingerprint id so no one else can shoot it.

You are correct, we can't legislate everything. The question is, are we doing enough? I'm not saying we aren't. But I'm saying it's past time for that conversation.

I'm also interested in laws that don't prevent, but possibly reduce the carnage. Like banning high capacity magazines.

"What we need to do is to look at each incident and figure out where it went wrong"

Correct, none are identical.

"If half of this was addressed that halfwit wouldn't have been able to legally get his hands on a gun"

In this case, I completely agree.

Maybe we pass laws saying that if you want an AR-15 because they are fun to shoot, fine, but you have to keep it at the gun range, you can't take it home with you.

I wonder. I went to Catholic schools, and on more than one occasion I was hit in the face with a ruler when misbehaving. I wonder what would have happened if they were armed...


trust me, them nuns could decapitate a fly when they swing those yardsticks if they wanted to...they LET you live

trust me, them nuns could decapitate a fly when the swing those yardsticks if they wanted to...they LET you live

Oh, I hear THAT. No gold medal winning fencer was ever more accurate or deadly with his foil, than the nuns were with the yardsticks. Indigo Montoya from The Princess Bride, wasn't as good with his sword.

How about this. A law saying that if you live in a house with a person who has mental issues (like Adam Lanza's mother did), then if you want a gun, maybe you have to keep it in a gun range. Or maybe you can only have a gun with fingerprint id so no one else can shoot it.


How do we define what mental health issues? Adam Lanza had Autism (Aspergers), that is hardly a violent mental illness. So a parent that has an autistic child loses their rights or has them infringed upon?

Columbine was just two angry A-Holes

Cruz from what I've read was a Violent Sociopath (and that should be a HUGE disqualifier).

When the towers fell on 911 we immediately changed airline security guidelines. Armed Marshalls, armed pilots, Metal detectors at every entrance, Steel doors on the cockpits

We didn't tell people they couldn't buy box cutters, we shored up security everywhere that could be a weakness.

A bunch of kids get killed and the gut reaction is to outlaw the "Box Cutters". Why wouldn't we put Armed Guards in the schools, Allow teachers to carry, metal detectors at the entrances to the school and secure doors on the classrooms. We need to change security procedures to ensure their safety.

They said on 911 that we were forever changed, I think with these school shootings we may need to change again

and of Note, since the Airlines implemented their Security procedures, I haven't seen another plane hijacked.

How do we define what mental health issues? Adam Lanza had Autism (Aspergers), that is hardly a violent mental illness. So a parent that has an autistic child loses their rights or has them infringed upon?



ADD, ADHD...

I was listening to my classical music station this morning and there was a doctor being interviewed regarding binge eating which is apparently now categorized as a serious mental illness and people with eating disorders apparently have the highest risk of suicide...according to her...


so we need to ban people with eating disorders(mental illness) from owning guns...this will be very effective because we know that the majority of the country is obese

if you are fat...no gun for you

It looked like you were trying to make the point that guns don't kill people - people kill people.

Using that logic nukes don't kill people.

So why is it different between nukes and ARs?
Paul, if you get raped would you blame the penis?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Some lady on the radio put it this way..

there is a flood in America (availability of guns and violence that comes with them)

And all the Right can come up with is lets just put sandbags around schools .... (as if thats the only place kids get killed by fire arms)

they wont even try to stem the flow

In 1996, the Republican-majority Congress threatened to strip funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention unless it stopped funding research into firearm injuries and deaths. The National Rifle Association accused the CDC of promoting gun control.

why would they be afraid???

How do we define what mental health issues? Adam Lanza had Autism (Aspergers), that is hardly a violent mental illness. So a parent that has an autistic child loses their rights or has them infringed upon?

Columbine was just two angry A-Holes

Cruz from what I've read was a Violent Sociopath (and that should be a HUGE disqualifier).

When the towers fell on 911 we immediately changed airline security guidelines. Armed Marshalls, armed pilots, Metal detectors at every entrance, Steel doors on the cockpits

We didn't tell people they couldn't buy box cutters, we shored up security everywhere that could be a weakness.

A bunch of kids get killed and the gut reaction is to outlaw the "Box Cutters". Why wouldn't we put Armed Guards in the schools, Allow teachers to carry, metal detectors at the entrances to the school and secure doors on the classrooms. We need to change security procedures to ensure their safety.

They said on 911 that we were forever changed, I think with these school shootings we may need to change again

and of Note, since the Airlines implemented their Security procedures, I haven't seen another plane hijacked.

"How do we define what mental health issues?"

The same we define that label when deciding whether or not to involuntarily commit someone.

"Adam Lanza had Autism (Aspergers), that is hardly a violent mental illness."

It's not often associated with violence. He had other issues.

Screening for mental health isn't perfect. We will miss some crazy people, we will mis-diagnose some healthy people as being sane. Those are the con's. We will also likely save some lives. Those are the pro's. Let's have an honest conversation about whether or not the pro's outweigh the con's. Maybe they do, maybe they don't. But one side says every idea has nothing but con's, the other side says it has no con's. Zero honesty.

"So a parent that has an autistic child loses their rights or has them infringed upon?"

Maybe, if the impediment is severe enough. I'm not saying I am advocating for this. You asked what new laws might have prevented Sandy Hook, and this is what I came up with of the top of my head. I'm not a constitutional lawyer or a lawmaker or a mental health expert.

"Columbine was just two angry A-Holes "

Yep. I have said many times, there is no law that would stop every conceivable situation. But when you think any flaws mean a law is therefore not a good idea, then you are letting perfect be the enemy of good.

Speeding laws also aren't perfect. Because they don't stop everyone from speeding, and sometimes speeding is a good idea. When my wife gave birth to my middle son, we almost didn't make it to the hospital (he was born 14 minutes after we walked through the door, waddled in her case, if I went 25 mph we might not have made it). Despite the shortcomings of speeding laws, I have never heard anyone suggest we do away with them.

"We didn't tell people they couldn't buy box cutters, we shored up security everywhere that could be a weakness."

That's a completely valid point, and part of what we need to do, unfortunately, is fortify the schools. At the same time, we do have no-fly lists...

"and of Note, since the Airlines implemented their Security procedures, I haven't seen another plane hijacked"

You are correct again, it seems to be working. But there are a lot more schools than there are major airports, not sure if that makes it harder...

Not all mass shootings happen within the confines of a school building, either.

"How about this. A law saying that if you live in a house with a person who has mental issues (like Adam Lanza's mother did), then if you want a gun, maybe you have to keep it in a gun range. Or maybe you can only have a gun with fingerprint id so no one else can shoot it. "

Jim, Kevin commented on this but I want to add

Since analogies are a thing today, we don't make people who live with drunks have those breathalyzer kill switches installed in all their cars do we? But give it time and progressives will have that happening in the name of progress and safety.

Most gun shops can tell someone is a bit "#^&#^&#^&#^& when they try to buy a gun and they refuse, but plenty just see dollars so the whole background check stuff is a complicated issue for sure. There is room for improvement.

Paul, if you get raped would you blame the penis?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

My penis has a mind of its own
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"How about this. A law saying that if you live in a house with a person who has mental issues (like Adam Lanza's mother did), then if you want a gun, maybe you have to keep it in a gun range. Or maybe you can only have a gun with fingerprint id so no one else can shoot it. "

Jim, Kevin commented on this but I want to add

Since analogies are a thing today, we don't make people who live with drunks have those breathalyzer kill switches installed in all their cars do we? But give it time and progressives will have that happening in the name of progress and safety.

Most gun shops can tell someone is a bit "#^&#^&#^&#^& when they try to buy a gun and they refuse, but plenty just see dollars so the whole background check stuff is a complicated issue for sure. There is room for improvement.

not sure why we haven't heard more about these

http://fortune.com/2015/04/22/smart-guns-theyre-ready-are-we/


Biometric Trigger Guard or Biometric Guns are not far from being a reality we unlock our phones now with biometrics this would be a huge leap forward in Gun safety and should be a win win for 2a and gun control advocates ..

It does not solve the issue of some one wanting to commit murder , but would do much to prevent accidental shootings the stolen gun market

I still can't believe that I have to say I don't smoke pot to buy a gun but there are no questions about alcohol use.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not reliable

do they work when your finger is the slightest bit wet? or very wet?

But this kid put up every imaginable red flag, and he passed the background check?



what does this tell you?....we are going to learn why...you aren't going to like it.... and it will have nothing to do with the effectiveness of a background check......

Miami Herald reported on Friday that, in November 2017, a tipster called the Broward Sheriff's Office (BSO) to say Cruz "'could be a school shooter in the making,' but deputies did not write up a report on that warning."

The Herald added that this tip came just weeks after a relative called urging BSO to seize his weapons. Two years prior, "A deputy investigated a report that Cruz 'planned to shoot up the school' – intelligence that was forwarded to the school's RESOURCE OFFICER, with no apparent result."

CNN's Jake Tapper cited the 23 incidents before the shooting that involved Cruz and questioned whether the PROMISE program might have been responsible for the inaction by the sheriff's office.

"It's helping many, many people," Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel said in defense of the program. "What this program does is not put a person at 14, 15, 16 years old into the criminal justice system."


In 2014, Scot Peterson was named School Resource Officer of the Year by the Broward County Crime Commission for handling issues "with tact and judgment."


some sad irony there....


http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/broward/article201887629.html

if you are fat...no gun for you

...or too skinny (Anorexia, Bulimia)

the list of people they can say No to just keeps growing

Here is a site, admittedly antigun, but it has a list of school shootings since Newtown. Look at the categories and see how many are Gun fired unintentionally with injury or death resulting.
It might make you think about having more guns in schools
https://everytownresearch.org/school-shootings/

I still can't believe that I have to say I don't smoke pot to buy a gun but there are no questions about alcohol use.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
True.

Who says The NRA are not buying Politicians

"I will kill any tax legislation that benefits @Delta unless the company changes its position and fully reinstates its relationship with @NRA," Mr Cagle wrote on Twitter.

"Corporations cannot attack conservatives and expect us not to fight back."

Georgia lieutenant Governor Casey Cagle

So much for freedom of association

Who says The NRA are not buying Politicians

"I will kill any tax legislation that benefits @Delta unless the company changes its position and fully reinstates its relationship with @NRA," Mr Cagle wrote on Twitter.

"Corporations cannot attack conservatives and expect us not to fight back."

Georgia lieutenant Governor Casey Cagle

So much for freedom of association

But yet if it was a Rainbow Cake......

But yet if it was a Rainbow Cake......

I think you are confusing refusal of service with a discount. :bs:

I think you aren't seeing a business treating people differently based on what they believe, whether it be Gay Marriage or the 2nd amendment.

personally I believe they can both do whatever they want, just funny how nobody whips out the Hypocrisy word for this.

oops almost forgot the flag

:bs:

I think you aren't seeing a business treating people differently based on what they believe



No, they are treating them the same, just not special treatment. The analogy would be if Delta refused to sell NRA members plane tickets.

But yet if it was a Rainbow Cake......

Are there any Republican action or words or in this case threats that you dont support ? heres a site so you'll love

https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5cvphc/official_rthe_donald_list_of_companies_to_boycott/

ORGANIZATIONS TO BOYCOTT:
Pepsico

MACY'S

Amazon - owned by Jeff Bezos

The NFL - this is a big one but has been requested multiple times. Any opposition?

GrubHub (CEO is a total cuck) and their subsidiary, Seamless

OREOS (moved production to Mexico)

CARRIER Air Conditioning (moved production to Mexico)

Moz

Dreamworks

Netflix - spreads propaganda for Al Qaeda

Lifeway Foods - CEO Julie Smolyansky trashed President Trump.

PacketSled *

ConAgra - they're closing up and moving to MEXICO

Comet Ping Pong, Besta Pizza, Terasol, Politics and Prose and Beyond Borders - see r/pizzagate

Required mention: social media such as Facebook, Google, Twitter, Imgur, YouTube - all censored pro-Trump stuff. If you use these to post pro-Trump stuff, weigh the benefits. Trump did use SM to win the election.

Disney - they're cucked and many are clamoring for them to be added.

Ben & Jerry's for supporting BLM

Starbucks (by popular demand)

Dell


Love that Info wars is on they support them section

Here is a site, admittedly antigun, but it has a list of school shootings since Newtown. Look at the categories and see how many are Gun fired unintentionally with injury or death resulting.
It might make you think about having more guns in schools
https://everytownresearch.org/school-shootings/

Which is why I like the idea of putting trained, professional soldiers in the schools, not yahoos.

Which is why I like the idea of putting trained, professional soldiers in the schools, not yahoos.

yeah....whenever I see one of these teachers doing the..."I'm an educator and Trump wants me to carry a weapon and I can't afford paste and crayons for my kids to eat"....I'm thinking....yeah, I don't think he had you in mind...:laugha:

yeah....whenever I see one of these teachers doing the..."I'm an educator and Trump wants me to carry a weapon and I can't afford paste and crayons for my kids to eat"....I'm thinking....yeah, I don't think he had you in mind...:laugha:

No I don't think he had all that many of them in mind...

Well in West Virginia they figured out a solution to school shootings, the teachers are all on strike for 3 consecutive days, forcing every school (I think) in the state to close.

Because it's "all about the children". I bet the teachers are genuinely concerned that their students have insufficient pensions.

Are there any Republican action or words or in this case threats that you dont support ? heres a site so you'll love

https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5cvphc/official_rthe_donald_list_of_companies_to_boycott/

ORGANIZATIONS TO BOYCOTT:
Pepsico

MACY'S

Amazon - owned by Jeff Bezos

The NFL - this is a big one but has been requested multiple times. Any opposition?

GrubHub (CEO is a total cuck) and their subsidiary, Seamless

OREOS (moved production to Mexico)

CARRIER Air Conditioning (moved production to Mexico)

Moz

Dreamworks

Netflix - spreads propaganda for Al Qaeda

Lifeway Foods - CEO Julie Smolyansky trashed President Trump.

PacketSled *

ConAgra - they're closing up and moving to MEXICO

Comet Ping Pong, Besta Pizza, Terasol, Politics and Prose and Beyond Borders - see r/pizzagate

Required mention: social media such as Facebook, Google, Twitter, Imgur, YouTube - all censored pro-Trump stuff. If you use these to post pro-Trump stuff, weigh the benefits. Trump did use SM to win the election.

Disney - they're cucked and many are clamoring for them to be added.

Ben & Jerry's for supporting BLM

Starbucks (by popular demand)

Dell


Love that Info wars is on they support them section

really don't give a chit, Boycotts are stupid.

Which is why I like the idea of putting trained, professional soldiers in the schools, not yahoos.

67 of these were Gun fired no one injured, yet they classify this as a school shooting. No Bias on this website. :rolleyes:

some were people with no affiliation to the schools.

and a large number were students who brought guns in from home.

don't see where this has much of a bearing on allowing legally licensed employees the right to carry.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman
I think you aren't seeing a business treating people differently based on what they believe

[QUOTE:zimmy]
No, they are treating them the same, just not special treatment. The analogy would be if Delta refused to sell NRA members plane tickets.[QUOTE]

The bakery was treating the gays the same, just not special treatment. They served their wares to everybody, including gays. Their wares did not include goods intended for any use which did not accord with their religion.

If you read this and can figure out where in the current police scenario depicted herein a teacher with a gun fits in and can feel safe, feel free to explain it to me.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2000/10/shoot-to-kill/305313/

If you read this and can figure out where in the current police scenario depicted herein a teacher with a gun fits in and can feel safe, feel free to explain it to me.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2000/10/shoot-to-kill/305313/

Simple, they don't.

A teacher shouldn't be cruising the halls looking for an active shooter.

Students/teacher shelter in place (classroom), lock doors til threat is over. Teacher armed, with focus on door of classroom. 26 people in room, better chance of 26 people leaving at the end of the day.

Not a fan of this fleeing mentality, just leads to chaos that the shooter can take advantage of.

This would also rely on the Deputies entering the school to track down the shooter instead of waiting outside for the fairy god mother to help.

Now if the Active shooter finds them, at least they have option to defend themselves.

Everybody is under this impression that the teachers are going to be some rogue SWAT team for the school.

67 of these were Gun fired no one injured, yet they classify this as a school shooting. No Bias on this website. :rolleyes:

some were people with no affiliation to the schools.

and a large number were students who brought guns in from home.

don't see where this has much of a bearing on allowing legally licensed employees the right to carry.

"67 of these were Gun fired no one injured, yet they classify this as a school shooting. No Bias on this website. :rolleyes:
"

There are a lot of zealots on both sides, and they can be shameless in the way they mislead people, can't they?

TDF, sometimes I have absolutely no idea what unites us anymore. None. When a country can't agree on who should pee in the mens room and who can pee in the ladies' room, maybe we are becoming too stupid to survive.

Now please tell me why this

When the towers fell on 911 we immediately changed airline security guidelines. Armed Marshalls, armed pilots, Metal detectors at every entrance, Steel doors on the cockpits

We didn't tell people they couldn't buy box cutters, we shored up security everywhere that could be a weakness.

A bunch of kids get killed and the gut reaction is to outlaw the "Box Cutters". Why wouldn't we put Armed Guards in the schools, Allow teachers to carry, metal detectors at the entrances to the school and secure doors on the classrooms. We need to change security procedures to ensure their safety.


Coupled with this

Simple, they don't.

A teacher shouldn't be cruising the halls looking for an active shooter.

Students/teacher shelter in place (classroom), lock doors til threat is over. Teacher armed, with focus on door of classroom. 26 people in room, better chance of 26 people leaving at the end of the day.

Not a fan of this fleeing mentality, just leads to chaos that the shooter can take advantage of.

This would also rely on the Deputies entering the school to track down the shooter instead of waiting outside for the fairy god mother to help.

Now if the Active shooter finds them, at least they have option to defend themselves.

Everybody is under this impression that the teachers are going to be some rogue SWAT team for the school.

is not a better plan than banning an inanimate object.