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

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

fixed it... and...

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

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=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.

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

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=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

[QUOTE=Sea Dangles;1138156]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=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...

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

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=Jim in CT;1138159]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/...&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

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

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

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/2015...ned-in-america
A Decade Later, Remember New Orleans … Gun Confiscation Can (and Has) Happened in America'

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

you need to check your 'facts' on that

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

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.

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

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

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.

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/polit...=.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...n-guns/553937/

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

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

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

Funny nobody on the Right started hating on Snopes until people started using it to debunk made up stuff passed around online.

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.