Fox tell Trump to arm Teachers

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by scottw

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

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by spence

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

[spence]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

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

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

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....

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

[Jim in CT]

[QUOTE=wdmso;1138142]

Originally Posted by scottw

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.

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by spence

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

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.

[Sea Dangles]

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;1138153]

Originally Posted by wdmso

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

[Jim in CT]

[QUOTE=Sea Dangles;1138156]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.

[Sea Dangles]

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

[Jim in CT]

[QUOTE=Sea Dangles;1138156]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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 in CT]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

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.

[Sea Dangles]

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

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"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.

[detbuch]

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;1138159]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

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/...&context=jcred

[Nebe]

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

[Sea Dangles]

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

[spence]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

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

[Sea Dangles]

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

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

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

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

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

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

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...

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by scottw

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

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

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

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by wdmso

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'

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

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

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.

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by wdmso

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'

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

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by scottw

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.

[Sea Dangles]

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