Elementary school shooting

[JoeB131]

You have the right to resist an unjust law.

Murderers think the murder laws are "unjust". Rapists think the sexual assault laws are "unjust".

That's pretty much the most restarded thing you've said yet, and frankly, you say retarded things all day.

You really should stop posting when you are drunk. Name one murderer that ever argued that laws against murder were unjust.

Murderers don't argue anything, their lawyers do.

Are you always this stupid, or just when your medications aren't kicking in?

 

[CMike]

Most gun deaths are suicides and domestic arguments and accidents. That hoarde of criminals you think are out there being not white with intent isn't actually out there anywhere.

You've bought into an industry based on fear...

Isn't pushing gun control based on fear?

No, it's based on pragmatism.

You don't need a fucking gun, and the cost of your lifestyle is too high for the rest of us to pay.

You don't need a fucking right to vote but you have one anyway.

 

[idb]

How do you know she was carrying at the time her son shot her?

I never claimed that, and I don't know.

You said she was armed? How do you know? Owning guns doesn't mean you are armed at any given time.

I'm not going to argue semantics with you.
She did everything that the NRA advises by purchasing suitable weapons for self defence, but she's still dead.
Oh, I know, she's only got herself to blame for not carrying them on her.

Would teachers be required to carry weapons at all times?
Should they penalised if they put them down for a moment?

 

[CMike]

I never claimed that, and I don't know.

You said she was armed? How do you know? Owning guns doesn't mean you are armed at any given time.

I'm not going to argue semantics with you.
She did everything that the NRA advises by purchasing suitable weapons for self defence, but she's still dead.
Oh, I know, she's only got herself to blame for not carrying them on her.

Would teachers be required to carry weapons at all times?
Should they penalised if they put them down for a moment?

I think they should be allowed to carry.

However, in almost all states schools are pistol free zones, and they are not allowed to carry. Aside from that they would probably get fired if they did.

Conn. has one of the most anti-gun ownership rights laws. It didn't help, did it?

The problem is that criminals don't care about pistol free zones. If anything, it attracts them to attack this target, because they know honest citizens are not allowed to carry firearms in this area.

Also, the firearms is useless if it's not accessible when you need it.

 

[JoeB131]

Isn't pushing gun control based on fear?

No, it's based on pragmatism.

You don't need a fucking gun, and the cost of your lifestyle is too high for the rest of us to pay.

You don't need a fucking right to vote but you have one anyway.

There's a right to vote enshrined in the constitution.

There's only a right to militias in the second Amendment. If you aren't part of a well-regulated militia, you don't need a gun.

Now, personally, I'd have no problem with reasonable people having guns... if you guys could police yourselves. you simply refuse to do it.

So again, if we have to impose a bunch of laws on you, I'm completely good with that.

 

[LoneLaugher]

If there were people at the school who were armed they may have stopped the shooter.

Guess what? It is a pistol free zone, however, the psycho didn't care,

It only stoped law abiding people who could make a difference.

The way to put out a fire is not adding gasoline. More guns aren't the answer. Eliminating the one tool that makes "Mass Shootings" "Mass" is the answer.

Ban weapons designed for military and law enforcement use to the general public. No one "needs" a semi or fully automatic firing system. No one "needs" a high capacity magazine. In fact, before such horrid weapons were made cheaply and in great quantities, there was no such thing as a "Mass Shooting".

No, the way to stop gun violence isn't adding more guns, it's subtracting them.

My constitutional rights are not based on what you think I need.

No one needs the right to give any stupid opinion but they have a right to do so.

And what is wrong with a semi-automiatic firearm? You want only revolvers to be legal? That's rather rediculous.

Any yeah it is needed. Why? Because criminals will obtain them whether they are legal or not. They don't care about following laws.

However, if a criminal that is armed breaks into my house, I want to have my AR-15 to defend myself, not a Swiss Army Knife.

I am a gun collector myself.

I have a:

S&W Model 15 AR-15
Glock 19 9 mm
Glock 35 9 mm
Sig Sauer P220 .45
S&W M&Pc 9 mm
Kimber Pro Raptor II .45
A Colt Python .357
Two shotguns

Why? Because it's fun. I enjoy shooting. It's my hobby.

Also both my wife and my wife have a Concealed Pistol License, so we also use our firearms for self defense.

My goodness! What a cache! And both of your wives are prepared for action.....you are
my hero.

Are all of those firearms legally owned by you? How long have you had them?

 

[Si modo]

Tell me what you want done. Is that simple enough of a question to ask you? I have read your posts and you seem to be here, there and everywhere. You mention concessions. Tell me more. You have the floor. You are the boss. What should we do boss to prevent mass killings?

My goodness. A demand for a plan! Whatever shall I do? I think this really sweet cookie wants to catch me contradicting myself.....and thinks I will surely do so if I accept her sugary challenge.

Shall I discuss my ideal society? Or shall I consider the realities of our American society? Surely, if I choose one, she will reply to the other! Worry....worry...worry!

Listen here, miss.

I am a gun owner and have been one all my life. I am someone who has never fired a gun at another human being, but who thinks he could if the threat was clear. I like having my gun in my home. It is a little ol' thing...but it shoots real bullets and I can shoot straight. I don't anticipate ever having to give it up.

Now....I cannot imagine ever needing a weapon that can mow down a half dozen humans in a few seconds. I'm thinking that we could do something about those kinds of guns. You know....make it really hard to get one and even harder to get ammunition for one.
I'm not too confident that you and BigReb and Matthew, with your full arsenal, could hold off the US Military if they went nuts and decided to turn their weapons on the citizens. I'd probably live longer than you in that situation.

As I have said.....our system of government is based on the will of the people. And the will of the people is that we shall have the right to own guns. But I think that there is an appetite for a real discussion about what types of guns are necessary to meet the will of the people. I am advocating that we have that discussion. Being silly and equating bullets aimed and fired with car accidents and plane crashes......and an attempt to avoid having the discussion.....gets us nowhere fast. As we have seen in this thread.

Along with that discussion..........there is a need to discuss other causes of the increase in these types of slaughters. The guns need a finger. The finger is operated by a brain that has problems. Those problems were caused by something.

let me know if you want that ideal society plan too. My ideal society kicks ass!

Ruffled feathers noted. You talk in broad terms but go weak when asked to commit to anything with details. I honestly don't care but if you are going to claim to want change and concession then perhaps some details to what you are wanting to see happen would help aid the discussion here.

So which weapons would you like regulations or changes put on?

Assault weapons and cars can do the same thing in the hands of crazy people even if you do think that premise is silly.

Too many whine about a problem but are too timid (or stupid) to be part of a solution.

 

[JoeB131]

I think they should be allowed to carry.

However, in almost all states schools are pistol free zones, and they are not allowed to carry. Aside from that they would probably get fired if they did.

Conn. has one of the most anti-gun ownership rights laws. It didn't help, did it?

The problem is that criminals don't care about pistol free zones. If anything, it attracts them to attack this target, because they know honest citizens are not allowed to carry firearms in this area.

Also, the firearms is useless if it's not accessible when you need it.

You really think this guy picked out this school because it was a "gun free zone"?

He picked it out because he had a history with it, dumbass.

Only in NRA bizarro world do you think the answer to too many guns is more guns.

 

[uscitizen]

a semi 22 is a weapon of mass destruction?

You are a loon

If it is fitted with a magazine capable of holding more than ten rounds I submit that the presence of a .22 semi automatic weapon in any public venue can be used as a weapon of mass destruction. We're not talking about some rednecks at the gun range or a few hillbillies shooting rats behind the trailer park. I'm talking about someone carrying a semi automatic rifle into a school, a theater, a restaurant and opening up on the innocent. Wouldn't you agree that then a semi auto .22 is a weapon of mass destruction?

You are a jack ass.

Yeah, the US military found tons of nerve gas stockpiled in Iraq but that wasnt enough to justify our invasion, and yet a 22 with more than ten rounds is a WMD?

Apparently you libtard fascists are not realizing that people are catching on to your bullshit.

We have tons (literally) of chemical WMDs stockpiled here in KY.
Will we be invaded?

 

[Si modo]

No, it's based on pragmatism.

You don't need a fucking gun, and the cost of your lifestyle is too high for the rest of us to pay.

You don't need a fucking right to vote but you have one anyway.

There's a right to vote enshrined in the constitution.

There's only a right to militias in the second Amendment. If you aren't part of a well-regulated militia, you don't need a gun.

Now, personally, I'd have no problem with reasonable people having guns... if you guys could police yourselves. you simply refuse to do it.

So again, if we have to impose a bunch of laws on you, I'm completely good with that.

The SCOTUS says otherwise. I would bet they are much brighter and wiser than you are and would bet a king's ransom that they know the Constitution better than you do (except for that idiot Ginsberg...she's a bit scatterbrained). Plus, a not-so-minor detail, it's the law.

 

[squeeze berry]

How many criminals do you think will allow the firearms they have to be licensed, registered and insured
How many gang banger will march in lock step to have this done?

Most gun deaths are suicides and domestic arguments and accidents. That hoarde of criminals you think are out there being not white with intent isn't actually out there anywhere.
You've bought into an industry based on fear...

the DOJ statistics say otherwise but keep on a lyin Joe

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Most gun deaths are suicides and domestic arguments and accidents. That hoarde of criminals you think are out there being not white with intent isn't actually out there anywhere.

You've bought into an industry based on fear...

Isn't pushing gun control based on fear?

No, it's based on pragmatism.

You don't need a fucking gun, and the cost of your lifestyle is too high for the rest of us to pay.

Gun control is not based on fear? if their is no fear why push for it?

You don't need a fucking gun

Who the fuck are you to say what I do and don't need? I guess your religion is faith based in the government prayer line 911.
Do you know the police are not legally obligated to protect you?

 

[JoeB131]

The SCOTUS says otherwise. I would bet they are much brighter and wiser than you are and would bet a king's ransom that they know the Constitution better than you do (except for that idiot Ginsberg...she's a bit scatterbrained).

Sorry, mutants like Scalia and Clarance Thomas were not picked for their "brilliant minds".

They were picked because they vote for stupid shit.

Scalia has a heart attack, Obama appoints his replacement, and the Second Amendment is about Miliitias again.

This is not a game you're going to win. Not with the Democrats dominating the presidency for the next few decades. Alito was the last knuckled dragger you guys are going to get, so you might as well enjoy him.

Oh, and you don't think Kennedy and Roberts aren't having second thoughts about Heller this evening? Betcha they are!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Here it is.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/6275111-post42.html

Silly, huh?

OH that constitutes a lie? a spelling error?

The spelling error was not the lie. But you knew that.

Silly lie.........silly liar.

Now....please convince me that you were once a cop. Please.

What lie was that liar?

 

[squeeze berry]

I think they should be allowed to carry.

However, in almost all states schools are pistol free zones, and they are not allowed to carry. Aside from that they would probably get fired if they did.

Conn. has one of the most anti-gun ownership rights laws. It didn't help, did it?

The problem is that criminals don't care about pistol free zones. If anything, it attracts them to attack this target, because they know honest citizens are not allowed to carry firearms in this area.

Also, the firearms is useless if it's not accessible when you need it.

You really think this guy picked out this school because it was a "gun free zone"?

He picked it out because he had a history with it, dumbass.

Only in NRA bizarro world do you think the answer to too many guns is more guns.

show us one post that clamors for "more guns"

the world is waiting for your brilliant retort

 

[koshergrl]

I think they should be allowed to carry.

However, in almost all states schools are pistol free zones, and they are not allowed to carry. Aside from that they would probably get fired if they did.

Conn. has one of the most anti-gun ownership rights laws. It didn't help, did it?

The problem is that criminals don't care about pistol free zones. If anything, it attracts them to attack this target, because they know honest citizens are not allowed to carry firearms in this area.

Also, the firearms is useless if it's not accessible when you need it.

You really think this guy picked out this school because it was a "gun free zone"?

He picked it out because he had a history with it, dumbass.

Only in NRA bizarro world do you think the answer to too many guns is more guns.

show us one post that clamors for "more guns"

the world is waiting for your brilliant retort

Lol..the world is going to be waiting a looong time.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The way to put out a fire is not adding gasoline. More guns aren't the answer. Eliminating the one tool that makes "Mass Shootings" "Mass" is the answer.

Ban weapons designed for military and law enforcement use to the general public. No one "needs" a semi or fully automatic firing system. No one "needs" a high capacity magazine. In fact, before such horrid weapons were made cheaply and in great quantities, there was no such thing as a "Mass Shooting".

No, the way to stop gun violence isn't adding more guns, it's subtracting them.

My constitutional rights are not based on what you think I need.

No one needs the right to give any stupid opinion but they have a right to do so.

And what is wrong with a semi-automiatic firearm? You want only revolvers to be legal? That's rather rediculous.

Any yeah it is needed. Why? Because criminals will obtain them whether they are legal or not. They don't care about following laws.

However, if a criminal that is armed breaks into my house, I want to have my AR-15 to defend myself, not a Swiss Army Knife.

I am a gun collector myself.

I have a:

S&W Model 15 AR-15
Glock 19 9 mm
Glock 35 9 mm
Sig Sauer P220 .45
S&W M&Pc 9 mm
Kimber Pro Raptor II .45
A Colt Python .357
Two shotguns

Why? Because it's fun. I enjoy shooting. It's my hobby.

Also both my wife and my wife have a Concealed Pistol License, so we also use our firearms for self defense.

My goodness! What a cache! And both of your wives are prepared for action.....you are
my hero.

Are all of those firearms legally owned by you? How long have you had them?

Liar.

 

[idb]

You said she was armed? How do you know? Owning guns doesn't mean you are armed at any given time.

I'm not going to argue semantics with you.
She did everything that the NRA advises by purchasing suitable weapons for self defence, but she's still dead.
Oh, I know, she's only got herself to blame for not carrying them on her.

Would teachers be required to carry weapons at all times?
Should they penalised if they put them down for a moment?

I think they should be allowed to carry.

However, in almost all states schools are pistol free zones, and they are not allowed to carry. Aside from that they would probably get fired if they did.

Conn. has one of the most anti-gun ownership rights laws. It didn't help, did it?

The problem is that criminals don't care about pistol free zones. If anything, it attracts them to attack this target, because they know honest citizens are not allowed to carry firearms in this area.

Also, the firearms is useless if it's not accessible when you need it.

But, should they be required to carry, to keep the kids safe?

The gun lobby in the US seems unable to accept any discussion at all on gun laws.
Although I'm sure there are many people that would like to get rid of guns altogether, the sensible discussion is more nuanced than that.
Things like the appropriateness of assault weapons, automatics, open or concealed carry, handguns.
Where I come from, these sorts of weapons are allowed, but only to registered collectors.

 

[CMike]

The way to put out a fire is not adding gasoline. More guns aren't the answer. Eliminating the one tool that makes "Mass Shootings" "Mass" is the answer.

Ban weapons designed for military and law enforcement use to the general public. No one "needs" a semi or fully automatic firing system. No one "needs" a high capacity magazine. In fact, before such horrid weapons were made cheaply and in great quantities, there was no such thing as a "Mass Shooting".

No, the way to stop gun violence isn't adding more guns, it's subtracting them.

My constitutional rights are not based on what you think I need.

No one needs the right to give any stupid opinion but they have a right to do so.

And what is wrong with a semi-automiatic firearm? You want only revolvers to be legal? That's rather rediculous.

Any yeah it is needed. Why? Because criminals will obtain them whether they are legal or not. They don't care about following laws.

However, if a criminal that is armed breaks into my house, I want to have my AR-15 to defend myself, not a Swiss Army Knife.

I am a gun collector myself.

I have a:

S&W Model 15 AR-15
Glock 19 9 mm
Glock 35 9 mm
Sig Sauer P220 .45
S&W M&Pc 9 mm
Kimber Pro Raptor II .45
A Colt Python .357
Two shotguns

Why? Because it's fun. I enjoy shooting. It's my hobby.

Also both myself and my wife have a Concealed Pistol License, so we also use our firearms for self defense.

My goodness! What a cache! And both of your wives are prepared for action.....you are
my hero.

Are all of those firearms legally owned by you? How long have you had them?

I made a typo. I meant by me and my wife.

My wife owns the S&W M&Pc 9 mm. That's her carry gun.

I have accumulated them.

What does the period of time matter?

 

[squeeze berry]

Isn't pushing gun control based on fear?

Isn't fear the preferred tactic of the NRA every election? I live in a very pro-gun area and every four years I'm told by NRA advertisement that Democrats want to take away our guns.

Look, we're never going to be able to take away crazy. We can't ever take away violent impulses. But we have to do something to take "mass" out of "mass shooting".

The tool used to accomplish mass shooting is the high capacity magazine and the semi and fully automatic firing system. The second amendment clearly states the need for a well regulated militia. That doesn't mean forty guys dressed in camouflage re-enacting scenes from their favorite action movies or a batch of paranoid reactionaries who believe that the federal government is their darkest adversary. It means a well regulated militia. It means placing the weapons that make mass shootings possible unavailable to the general public and in control of the well regulated militias.

No gun enthusiasts rights will be infringed. Guns for sport and personal defense aren't the problem. But the guns that tear up city streets, our schools and our public places with fusillade after fusillade of bullets ARE the problem. These weapons are living up to the reason they were designed: to kill as many people as quickly as possible. They are not used legitimately for any other purpose and deserve to be banned from our society.

You forget the other NRA tactic of blaming the victims for not being armed themselves.

link?