Elementary school shooting

[SFC Ollie]

why do you guys even try to debate with joe????It is a exercise in futility. He has proven he cant understand the simplest of things and is programed to lick progressive boots.

But he is entertaining.........

 

[Dreamy]

I am still disgusted by those who went after Guns and the 2nd Amendment before the bodies were cold and counted.

Motherfuck each and every single one of you Shameless Douchebags.



peace...

Political opportunists are everywhere. That is what a life seen only through a political eye sees.

Personally I am aching deeply for all those who are suffering and for all that we have lost. I want to understand more than anything what happened to this killer in his life to cause him to decide this path of violence. We know now that he should not have been free to harm others but did we know that before Friday morning?

In the end I know there are many more good and sane people in our lives and that going to school, the mall or the movies is really quite a safe thing to do because it is almost all of the time. However the horror of these events still makes myself and others person wanting more understanding.

 

[Katzndogz]

Did the tragic phenomena of mass shooting exist before citizens were allowed to have the weaponry of soldiers and law enforcement? Was it at all possible to fire four or five shots per second into a crowd, mowing them down like summer wheat? Is there a legitimate need for citizens to own the weaponry designed for warfare and law enforcement? And is that need greater than the right of citizens to assemble in schools, theaters and restaurant without the fear of semi or fully automatic weapon fire? Don't give me the esoteric speculative answer of a 'free citizenry is an armed citizenry'. There is no freedom for the victims of mass shootings.

It's time to take "mass" out of "mass murder". If the only reason people want high capacity magazines and semi or fully automatic firing actions is to satisfy a prurient adolescent desire to play army or act out scenes form Rambo movies, I submit that the rights of people not to be subjected to gun violence on a 'mass' scale far outweigh the childish desires of a few to be able to fire 5 shots a second.

The second amendment says "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Do assault rifles and semi automatic weapons belong on the streets, or are they the type of weaponry that belong in the hands of a well regulated militia?

There is no freedom for the UNARMED victims of mass shootings. There is freedom for the man with the gun, which is the whole point of having guns. This shooting started in the administrative office. That's where it should have ended. If the staff had been armed that's where it would have ended.

 

[koshergrl]

Did the tragic phenomena of mass shooting exist before citizens were allowed to have the weaponry of soldiers and law enforcement? Was it at all possible to fire four or five shots per second into a crowd, mowing them down like summer wheat? Is there a legitimate need for citizens to own the weaponry designed for warfare and law enforcement? And is that need greater than the right of citizens to assemble in schools, theaters and restaurant without the fear of semi or fully automatic weapon fire? Don't give me the esoteric speculative answer of a 'free citizenry is an armed citizenry'. There is no freedom for the victims of mass shootings.

It's time to take "mass" out of "mass murder". If the only reason people want high capacity magazines and semi or fully automatic firing actions is to satisfy a prurient adolescent desire to play army or act out scenes form Rambo movies, I submit that the rights of people not to be subjected to gun violence on a 'mass' scale far outweigh the childish desires of a few to be able to fire 5 shots a second.

The second amendment says "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Do assault rifles and semi automatic weapons belong on the streets, or are they the type of weaponry that belong in the hands of a well regulated militia?

The weapons didn't belong to the kid. They belonged, legally, to his mother...who may or may not have been well regulated militia. She used to take her kids to the shooting range, this was a hobby she engaged in with them.

This isn't an issue of whether or not gun control actually reduces gun crime. In our country, there's zero evidence that it does..but that's not the issue.

The issue is, should we provide our schools with the tools to protect children from armed gunmen? Obviously, they are going to occasionally come under attack from them...so should we train school personnel to protect them and give them the capability to do so?

What sort of idiot says no to that question?

Progressives. They are not motivated by any desire to protect the vulnerable..let alone children. Children, to progressives, are chattel.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Did the tragic phenomena of mass shooting exist before citizens were allowed to have the weaponry of soldiers and law enforcement? Was it at all possible to fire four or five shots per second into a crowd, mowing them down like summer wheat? Is there a legitimate need for citizens to own the weaponry designed for warfare and law enforcement? And is that need greater than the right of citizens to assemble in schools, theaters and restaurant without the fear of semi or fully automatic weapon fire? Don't give me the esoteric speculative answer of a 'free citizenry is an armed citizenry'. There is no freedom for the victims of mass shootings.

It's time to take "mass" out of "mass murder". If the only reason people want high capacity magazines and semi or fully automatic firing actions is to satisfy a prurient adolescent desire to play army or act out scenes from Rambo movies, I submit that the rights of people not to be subjected to gun violence on a 'mass' scale far outweigh the childish desires of a few to be able to fire 5 shots a second.

The second amendment says "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Do assault rifles and semi automatic weapons belong on the streets, or are they the type of weaponry that belong in the hands of a well regulated militia?

I don't know of a semi automatic weapon that can fire 5 shots per second.........
just saying...........

 

[LoneLaugher]

I am still disgusted by those who went after Guns and the 2nd Amendment before the bodies were cold and counted.

Motherfuck each and every single one of you Shameless Douchebags.



peace...

Holy shit. Shut the fuck up about it. The conversation needed to be had before the fucking massacre. It needs to be had now. If you were disgusted by anything, you'd have stayed away from the board instead of shitting all over it the way you have.

You suck.

 

[Nosmo King]

Did the tragic phenomena of mass shooting exist before citizens were allowed to have the weaponry of soldiers and law enforcement? Was it at all possible to fire four or five shots per second into a crowd, mowing them down like summer wheat? Is there a legitimate need for citizens to own the weaponry designed for warfare and law enforcement? And is that need greater than the right of citizens to assemble in schools, theaters and restaurant without the fear of semi or fully automatic weapon fire? Don't give me the esoteric speculative answer of a 'free citizenry is an armed citizenry'. There is no freedom for the victims of mass shootings.

It's time to take "mass" out of "mass murder". If the only reason people want high capacity magazines and semi or fully automatic firing actions is to satisfy a prurient adolescent desire to play army or act out scenes form Rambo movies, I submit that the rights of people not to be subjected to gun violence on a 'mass' scale far outweigh the childish desires of a few to be able to fire 5 shots a second.

The second amendment says "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Do assault rifles and semi automatic weapons belong on the streets, or are they the type of weaponry that belong in the hands of a well regulated militia?

There is no freedom for the UNARMED victims of mass shootings. There is freedom for the man with the gun, which is the whole point of having guns. This shooting started in the administrative office. That's where it should have ended. If the staff had been armed that's where it would have ended.

Fortress Kindergarten. Armed guards in schools, on campuses, in theaters, all over. That's the answer? An assailant firing hundreds of rounds a minute seems to be the problem. And that seems to be the way to eliminate this modern and tragic phenomena of mass shootings. Such tragedies were impossible before weapons designed to kill as many human beings as possible were foisted upon the American public by gun manufacturers and their lackey lobbyists. There certainly were shootings, but not on a mass scale. The answer to the fire isn't pour on more gasoline. The answer is to stop access to weapons better held by a well regulated militia.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

When DC's gun laws became the most restrictive in the land, that instantly became the place where innocent civilians were most likely to be gunned down.

Progressive yahoos know this, just as they know that abortion for all results in increased abortions. THEY DON'T CARE. Their primary objective is #1, disarm law abiding people, and #2, reduce the population.

Seriously. DO NOT LISTEN TO THEM. They do not care if children are mowed down. Dead children are secondary to establishing a totalitarian regime. In fact, they generally have plans of their own for reducing the population.

THEY DON'T CARE. Their primary objective is #1, disarm law abiding people, and #2, reduce the population.

You may have hit the target on this.
Wouldn't more gun control be an effective tool to gain number 2.
Reduce the population?

 

[LoneLaugher]

The worst attack on a school ever was almost 100 years ago and done with Bombs by a Disgruntled School Board Member...

Fuck you.



peace...

DO WE REGULATE EXPLOSIVES? Idiot.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I am still disgusted by those who went after Guns and the 2nd Amendment before the bodies were cold and counted.

Motherfuck each and every single one of you Shameless Douchebags.



peace...

Holy shit. Shut the fuck up about it. The conversation needed to be had before the fucking massacre. It needs to be had now. If you were disgusted by anything, you'd have stayed away from the board instead of shitting all over it the way you have.

You suck.

 

[Si modo]

When DC's gun laws became the most restrictive in the land, that instantly became the place where innocent civilians were most likely to be gunned down.

Progressive yahoos know this, just as they know that abortion for all results in increased abortions. THEY DON'T CARE. Their primary objective is #1, disarm law abiding people, and #2, reduce the population.

Seriously. DO NOT LISTEN TO THEM. They do not care if children are mowed down. Dead children are secondary to establishing a totalitarian regime. In fact, they generally have plans of their own for reducing the population.

THEY DON'T CARE. Their primary objective is #1, disarm law abiding people, and #2, reduce the population.

You may have hit the target on this.
Wouldn't more gun control be an effective tool to gain number 2.
Reduce the population?

 

[LoneLaugher]

I am still disgusted by those who went after Guns and the 2nd Amendment before the bodies were cold and counted.

Motherfuck each and every single one of you Shameless Douchebags.



peace...

Holy shit. Shut the fuck up about it. The conversation needed to be had before the fucking massacre. It needs to be had now. If you were disgusted by anything, you'd have stayed away from the board instead of shitting all over it the way you have.

You suck.

Nope. Annoyed. Different.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Did the tragic phenomena of mass shooting exist before citizens were allowed to have the weaponry of soldiers and law enforcement? Was it at all possible to fire four or five shots per second into a crowd, mowing them down like summer wheat? Is there a legitimate need for citizens to own the weaponry designed for warfare and law enforcement? And is that need greater than the right of citizens to assemble in schools, theaters and restaurant without the fear of semi or fully automatic weapon fire? Don't give me the esoteric speculative answer of a 'free citizenry is an armed citizenry'. There is no freedom for the victims of mass shootings.

It's time to take "mass" out of "mass murder". If the only reason people want high capacity magazines and semi or fully automatic firing actions is to satisfy a prurient adolescent desire to play army or act out scenes form Rambo movies, I submit that the rights of people not to be subjected to gun violence on a 'mass' scale far outweigh the childish desires of a few to be able to fire 5 shots a second.

The second amendment says "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Do assault rifles and semi automatic weapons belong on the streets, or are they the type of weaponry that belong in the hands of a well regulated militia?

There is no freedom for the UNARMED victims of mass shootings. There is freedom for the man with the gun, which is the whole point of having guns. This shooting started in the administrative office. That's where it should have ended. If the staff had been armed that's where it would have ended.

Fortress Kindergarten. Armed guards in schools, on campuses, in theaters, all over. That's the answer? An assailant firing hundreds of rounds a minute seems to be the problem. And that seems to be the way to eliminate this modern and tragic phenomena of mass shootings. Such tragedies were impossible before weapons designed to kill as many human beings as possible were foisted upon the American public by gun manufacturers and their lackey lobbyists. There certainly were shootings, but not on a mass scale. The answer to the fire isn't pour on more gasoline. The answer is to stop access to weapons better held by a well regulated militia.

Connecticut has done it the gun grabbers way for years . Now Connecticut has proven gun control does not work. Now it's time to do it my way. Arm the citizens of the state.

 

[LoneLaugher]

What is your way, SPECIFICALLY? Where is it done your way? Any examples?

 

[koshergrl]

When DC's gun laws became the most restrictive in the land, that instantly became the place where innocent civilians were most likely to be gunned down.

Progressive yahoos know this, just as they know that abortion for all results in increased abortions. THEY DON'T CARE. Their primary objective is #1, disarm law abiding people, and #2, reduce the population.

Seriously. DO NOT LISTEN TO THEM. They do not care if children are mowed down. Dead children are secondary to establishing a totalitarian regime. In fact, they generally have plans of their own for reducing the population.

THEY DON'T CARE. Their primary objective is #1, disarm law abiding people, and #2, reduce the population.

You may have hit the target on this.
Wouldn't more gun control be an effective tool to gain number 2.
Reduce the population?

This chart would be effective if progressives actually cared about protecting school children.

They don't.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

What is your way, SPECIFICALLY? Where is it done your way? Any examples?

Can you read?

 

[LoneLaugher]

What is your way, SPECIFICALLY? Where is it done your way? Any examples?

Can you read?

Don't want to repeat yourself? Can't sum it up in a few sentences? Don't know the answer? What is your reason for not responding to a direct question?

 

[LoneLaugher]

What is your way? How would you regulate firearms? Specifically.

 

[squeeze berry]

Did the tragic phenomena of mass shooting exist before citizens were allowed to have the weaponry of soldiers and law enforcement? Was it at all possible to fire four or five shots per second into a crowd, mowing them down like summer wheat? Is there a legitimate need for citizens to own the weaponry designed for warfare and law enforcement? And is that need greater than the right of citizens to assemble in schools, theaters and restaurant without the fear of semi or fully automatic weapon fire? Don't give me the esoteric speculative answer of a 'free citizenry is an armed citizenry'. There is no freedom for the victims of mass shootings.

It's time to take "mass" out of "mass murder". If the only reason people want high capacity magazines and semi or fully automatic firing actions is to satisfy a prurient adolescent desire to play army or act out scenes form Rambo movies, I submit that the rights of people not to be subjected to gun violence on a 'mass' scale far outweigh the childish desires of a few to be able to fire 5 shots a second.

The second amendment says "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Do assault rifles and semi automatic weapons belong on the streets, or are they the type of weaponry that belong in the hands of a well regulated militia?

There is no freedom for the UNARMED victims of mass shootings. There is freedom for the man with the gun, which is the whole point of having guns. This shooting started in the administrative office. That's where it should have ended. If the staff had been armed that's where it would have ended.

Fortress Kindergarten. Armed guards in schools, on campuses, in theaters, all over. That's the answer? An assailant firing hundreds of rounds a minute seems to be the problem. And that seems to be the way to eliminate this modern and tragic phenomena of mass shootings. Such tragedies were impossible before weapons designed to kill as many human beings as possible were foisted upon the American public by gun manufacturers and their lackey lobbyists. There certainly were shootings, but not on a mass scale. The answer to the fire isn't pour on more gasoline. The answer is to stop access to weapons better held by a well regulated militia.

I belong to a wll regulated militia.. There is one member at the moment.

Capt Squeeze Berry

 

[Si modo]