Elementary school shooting

[LoneLaugher]

Nobody considers this ideal, but the FACT is that there are murderous scum in Israel that have shown us that they have no problem murdering Israeli children. In this nation, Columbine, VA Tech, CT, etc has shown us that we have murderous scum in this nation that have no problem going into schools and murdering our children, so yeah, you can poiint to many Israeli mothers that prefer seeing an armed school teacher than seeing their kids being slaughtered because there is NOT an armed teacher nearby, just as there would be many American mothers who would be thankful today if Sandy Hook, VA Tech, Columbine, etc, had some armed teachers. Nobody is saying it's the ideal but it is reality, your "ideal" is not.

In a moment of sanity, this lunatic acknowledges that arming teachers is not the ideal. Wonderful.

My ideal would be if people like you were never born. Unlike you, I don't see a need to force everyone to conform to my ideal.

Lucky for you and your children, my seed is strong and I have given life to three more just like me.....only biracial and even MORE liberal.

Life is good. We are making progress.

 

[LoneLaugher]

There will be an armed revolt.

And loons like you are going to be slaughtered, I'm afraid. Probably by your own heroes.

Promise me that YOU and yours will be the ones who knock on my door first.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If there is an uprising by the loony far right, they will die.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Do you have serious reasons you need a military type assault rifle to justify the threat to public safety?

The Supreme Court will want to know

Um, yes actually. Though many will disagree. the original intent of the second amendment. That the government knows the citizenry is armed and can take action against tyranny. It's not really about protecting your home or going hunting but keeping the Government from taking your freedoms... My 308 and shotgun for instance is no match for a dumb private with an M4......

Ridiculous.

England has a gun ban.

In England it is illegal to write a story about what it will be like after the Queen dies and Charles is made King.

Just saying.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Do you have serious reasons you need a military type assault rifle to justify the threat to public safety?

The Supreme Court will want to know

Um, yes actually. Though many will disagree. the original intent of the second amendment. That the government knows the citizenry is armed and can take action against tyranny. It's not really about protecting your home or going hunting but keeping the Government from taking your freedoms... My 308 and shotgun for instance is no match for a dumb private with an M4......

Bull

The country never envisioned the need for a standing Army. National defense was built around local militias. The ability of a citizen to be armed to support his local militia was paramount

In terms of controlling the government. If you have a strong first amendment, you don't need a second

Tell that to Cuba.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Do you have serious reasons you need a military type assault rifle to justify the threat to public safety?

The Supreme Court will want to know

Um, yes actually. Though many will disagree. the original intent of the second amendment. That the government knows the citizenry is armed and can take action against tyranny. It's not really about protecting your home or going hunting but keeping the Government from taking your freedoms... My 308 and shotgun for instance is no match for a dumb private with an M4......

Bull

The country never envisioned the need for a standing Army. National defense was built around local militias. The ability of a citizen to be armed to support his local militia was paramount

In terms of controlling the government. If you have a strong first amendment, you don't need a second

Wrong my friend, I quote The Constitution of the United States, copyright 1937 By William Guitteau and Hanson Webster. (This appears to be a teachers handbook)

"This amendment prohibits Congress from passing any law to prevent the people from keeping and carrying arms. Without this right the people would be helpless if an attempt were made to take away their liberties by force.
The State Constitutions generally contain a similar provision. But this does not prohibit laws against the carry of concealed weapons, or measures to regulate the sale and use of firearms."

 

[LoneLaugher]

Um, yes actually. Though many will disagree. the original intent of the second amendment. That the government knows the citizenry is armed and can take action against tyranny. It's not really about protecting your home or going hunting but keeping the Government from taking your freedoms... My 308 and shotgun for instance is no match for a dumb private with an M4......

Bull

The country never envisioned the need for a standing Army. National defense was built around local militias. The ability of a citizen to be armed to support his local militia was paramount

In terms of controlling the government. If you have a strong first amendment, you don't need a second

Wrong my friend, I quote The Constitution of the United States, copyright 1937 By William Guitteau and Hanson Webster. (This appears to be a teachers handbook)

"This amendment prohibits Congress from passing any law to prevent the people from keeping and carrying arms. Without this right the people would be helpless if an attempt were made to take away their liberties by force.
The State Constitutions generally contain a similar provision. But this does not prohibit laws against the carry of concealed weapons, or measures to regulate the sale and use of firearms."

Who gives a shit? Are we in a 4th grade Social Studies class?

 

[rightwinger]

Um, yes actually. Though many will disagree. the original intent of the second amendment. That the government knows the citizenry is armed and can take action against tyranny. It's not really about protecting your home or going hunting but keeping the Government from taking your freedoms... My 308 and shotgun for instance is no match for a dumb private with an M4......

Bull

The country never envisioned the need for a standing Army. National defense was built around local militias. The ability of a citizen to be armed to support his local militia was paramount

In terms of controlling the government. If you have a strong first amendment, you don't need a second

Wrong my friend, I quote The Constitution of the United States, copyright 1937 By William Guitteau and Hanson Webster. (This appears to be a teachers handbook)

"This amendment prohibits Congress from passing any law to prevent the people from keeping and carrying arms. Without this right the people would be helpless if an attempt were made to take away their liberties by force.
The State Constitutions generally contain a similar provision. But this does not prohibit laws against the carry of concealed weapons, or measures to regulate the sale and use of firearms."

Nonsense...that is just a textbooks interpretation

The people do not have the power to take over the government with arms. The Constitution gave them a stronger weapon, the power to take over the Government by vote and a free press to inform the people exactly what their government is doing

 

[koshergrl]

Except in the event the government becomes tyrannical.

In the course of human events....

 

[JakeStarkey]

We the People in our laws enacted by our state and federal legislators are far stronger than wack radicals from the far right or the far left.

 

[koshergrl]

Lol...

 

[JoeB131]

I find it amusing that the people who want to reduce the number of government employees are now calling for MORE government employees... if the alternative is giving up their penis subsitutes....

Are you saying that if Sandy Hook had trained and armed security it wouldn't have made any difference?

Getting rid of redundant and useless gov't employees is good. Why do you have a problem with that?

Because he is JoeB and he knows everything, ask him he'll tell you........

I know that hiring a minimum wage Rent a Cop wouldn't have made a difference. WHich is what I think this moron was suggesting.

 

[koshergrl]

You don't know that, liar.

I know that if the principal had been armed, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Well, maybe the progressive nutters would claim that she was the reason the boy tried to kill anyone...

 

[JoeB131]

Are you saying that if Sandy Hook had trained and armed security it wouldn't have made any difference?

Getting rid of redundant and useless gov't employees is good. Why do you have a problem with that?

Because they are only "Redundant" and "useless" when you guys get to tax time.

A hurricane hits, a crazy person storms a school, terrorists slam a plane into a building and those "useless" government workers become "Brave first responders". At least until after the crisis is over.

Ignoring my question and changing the subject, nicely done.




Are you saying that if Sandy Hook had trained and armed security it wouldn't have made any difference?

Yeah, that's pretty much what I'm saying....

First, how many armed guards do you think Newton CT, which had only one homicide in a decade, was going to really spring for?

Second, what kind of quality of a guard do you think they were going to get?

I've been to security buildings, and frankly, they are pretty much good at making you sign in and that's about it.

For those playing along at home, I do resumes as a side business. And one of my clients told me he used to work for an Armored Car company. He got no training and the company issued gun they gave him "Was used to play floor hockey", it was in such poor shape.

And that was an armored car company. Where real money was involved.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Bull

The country never envisioned the need for a standing Army. National defense was built around local militias. The ability of a citizen to be armed to support his local militia was paramount

In terms of controlling the government. If you have a strong first amendment, you don't need a second

Wrong my friend, I quote The Constitution of the United States, copyright 1937 By William Guitteau and Hanson Webster. (This appears to be a teachers handbook)

"This amendment prohibits Congress from passing any law to prevent the people from keeping and carrying arms. Without this right the people would be helpless if an attempt were made to take away their liberties by force.
The State Constitutions generally contain a similar provision. But this does not prohibit laws against the carry of concealed weapons, or measures to regulate the sale and use of firearms."

Nonsense...that is just a textbooks interpretation

The people do not have the power to take over the government with arms. The Constitution gave them a stronger weapon, the power to take over the Government by vote and a free press to inform the people exactly what their government is doing

Tyranny will not be overcome by vote or a free press...

Try reading up on a guy named Tench Coxe....

 

[koshergrl]

I know, it's funny. Did we overcome the tyranny of England via vote?

Hilarious.

 

[jillian]

You don't know that, liar.

I know that if the principal had been armed, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Well, maybe the progressive nutters would claim that she was the reason the boy tried to kill anyone...

Right ... B/c there was nooooo possible way that a semi auto would have taken her out before she could even reach for her weapon

This fantasy you have is beyond naive... It's dangerous

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Bull

The country never envisioned the need for a standing Army. National defense was built around local militias. The ability of a citizen to be armed to support his local militia was paramount

In terms of controlling the government. If you have a strong first amendment, you don't need a second

Wrong my friend, I quote The Constitution of the United States, copyright 1937 By William Guitteau and Hanson Webster. (This appears to be a teachers handbook)

"This amendment prohibits Congress from passing any law to prevent the people from keeping and carrying arms. Without this right the people would be helpless if an attempt were made to take away their liberties by force.
The State Constitutions generally contain a similar provision. But this does not prohibit laws against the carry of concealed weapons, or measures to regulate the sale and use of firearms."

Nonsense...that is just a textbooks interpretation

The people do not have the power to take over the government with arms. The Constitution gave them a stronger weapon, the power to take over the Government by vote and a free press to inform the people exactly what their government is doing

Really? The vote? What was your opinion of the vote in 2004?

 

[koshergrl]

Uh huh.

Do you even know what a semi-auto is?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You don't know that, liar.

I know that if the principal had been armed, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Well, maybe the progressive nutters would claim that she was the reason the boy tried to kill anyone...

Right ... B/c there was nooooo possible way that a semi auto would have taken her out before she could even reach for her weapon

This fantasy you have is beyond naive... It's dangerous

How many non free gun zones have had a mass shooting?