Gunman wielded AK-47 inside Georgia school

[shintao]

"Gun control" does NOT = "banning guns".

Correct.

There are many regulatory measures concerning guns that are perfectly appropriate and Constitutional.

No right is absolute, including the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment, and those rights are subject to reasonable restrictions by the government, as is the case with all rights.

No, there are absolutely NO measures that are appropriate or constitutional. The 2nd is a reserved right of all Americans, and clearly states "Shall Not Be Infringed." You might want to look up the definition so you understand what that word means.

There are NO reasonable restrictions that thrump the 2nd Amendment. Every law on the books is unconstitutional and subversive to American freedom.

I will leave you with this quote, since you are willing to surrender you rights rather than fight for them,.........Everytime you take away someone else's rights, you have just limited your own.

 

[shintao]

Down here there are campus police and Resource officers in schools do they not have that up north or in GA?

Question: Is that avatar the University of Pacific?

University of Florida

UOP in CA., has the same tower. well kinda like it.

 

[shintao]

I cannot be sure of your tone, as this post lacks foundational clarity. So I'm going to make two separate responses, depending upon which manner you intended in this post.

1: If are you are PRO-GUN, I assume you're saying that federal government should mandate armed guards in the schools, just like they protect themselves with armed guards, and protect their government buildings with armed guards, and protect airports with armed guards and other law enforcement measures/deterrents.

2: If you are ANTI-GUN, I assume that you are retarded, because you just admitted that the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with gun (unless he voluntarily ceases his evil behavior).

You can take approach #1, I am the most pro-2nd Amendment person on this board.

No, guns are not enough to keep a predator off the school grounds. There needs to be non-climbable fencing that can be electrically activated. Ground sensors on the perimeter, cameras, turnstiles, xray for anything entering, clearance procedures with background checks, guards that ride in with the students on buses-spend the day at school & escort them back home again. Shared safe rooms between two classrooms with communications. Bullet proof windows, steel doors with electronic locks, electronic gates to isolate a predator from running free.

When we do this then it pulls the anti gunners teeth out of the argument, but most importantly, the children will be safe and we will have our 2nd Amendment rights restored.

I would say that an armed society is enough to prevent mass shootings, just look at the Oregon Mall, an armed citizen forced the shooter to take cover.

You are over reacting. We would have to do this for movie theaters, theme parks, oh --- everywhere where you'll find kids, in order to pull the teeth out of anti-gunners.

We live in a tragic world, that's something the Libtards don't realize, nothing can prevent tragedy, but there are measures that can reduce their frequency and effectiveness, an armed public is one of them.

Did the Aurora shooter not bypass the closer move theaters that permitted armed guests? This suggests that if all movie theaters permitted armed guests, he would have either chosen another industry to asssault (like a theme park) or abandoned the idea altogether.

I don't see this as overreacting, this slaughter of children has been going on since July 26, 1764 List of school shootings in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia .

If I provide a bank with no door on the safe, robbers will come and empty it. Point is, we are providing open schools in every neighborhood, for any nut to kill children by any means. The slaughter has to stop.

Movie theaters? I am talking schools here full of children in the hands of nuts willing to die to massacre them. If you feel like it is over reacting, why don't we pull all airport security measures and government building security measures and see what you think in about a year of that. 3000 911 and 3000 American school children eventually. Or maybe you feel we should sacrifice the children to save a little money?? Maybe you just don't understand the magnitude of the problem - you will going to that wiki link.

And like I said, you want to lose your gun rights to paranoid anti gunners, just keep doing what you are doing like the republicans did.

 

[Missourian]

I am a gun owner but I don't think certain guns should be sold. Period. Where does it end? Nukes for everyone?

The gun isn't the issue.

From a security perspective...it's a lot harder to sneak in an AK-47 than a handgun.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Yeah. Gun rights advocates stand and cheer every time a maniac blows away a child. That's what they're fighting for, more dead kids. Yup.

There is more anger over the thought of having your precious guns removed than about saving the lives of schoolkids.

Banning guns from law abiding citizens will not stop murder or school shootings you retard.

We've banned firearms before and still had columbine and a large number of other school shootings.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I am a gun owner but I don't think certain guns should be sold. Period. Where does it end? Nukes for everyone?

I could care less you blooming idiot whether or not you have a firearm. Why don't we get rid of these targets of opportunity? If you want to ban something ban gun free zones.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

I would say that an armed society is enough to prevent mass shootings, just look at the Oregon Mall, an armed citizen forced the shooter to take cover.

You are over reacting. We would have to do this for movie theaters, theme parks, oh --- everywhere where you'll find kids, in order to pull the teeth out of anti-gunners.

We live in a tragic world, that's something the Libtards don't realize, nothing can prevent tragedy, but there are measures that can reduce their frequency and effectiveness, an armed public is one of them.

Did the Aurora shooter not bypass the closer move theaters that permitted armed guests? This suggests that if all movie theaters permitted armed guests, he would have either chosen another industry to asssault (like a theme park) or abandoned the idea altogether.

I don't see this as overreacting, this slaughter of children has been going on since July 26, 1764 List of school shootings in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia .

If I provide a bank with no door on the safe, robbers will come and empty it. Point is, we are providing open schools in every neighborhood, for any nut to kill children by any means. The slaughter has to stop.

Movie theaters? I am talking schools here full of children in the hands of nuts willing to die to massacre them. If you feel like it is over reacting, why don't we pull all airport security measures and government building security measures and see what you think in about a year of that. 3000 911 and 3000 American school children eventually. Or maybe you feel we should sacrifice the children to save a little money?? Maybe you just don't understand the magnitude of the problem - you will going to that wiki link.

And like I said, you want to lose your gun rights to paranoid anti gunners, just keep doing what you are doing like the republicans did.

If someone is willing to confront ARMED guards and teachers, I can assure you that no other measure will keep them away either.

Judging the spirit and essence of your post, you must love the NSA, TSA, FBI, DHS and other federal agencies creating a prison state, since that's exactly what you want at the schools.

 

[idb]

I blame the school for not having every teacher armed.

 

[idb]

When will Congressional republicans write laws to protect all American schools from predators even getting onto the school grounds? They can write it for airports to protect the rich flyer's, they can write for government buildings to protect their own selves, but they can't seem to write it to protect America's children. Pathetic!!!

I cannot be sure of your tone, as this post lacks foundational clarity. So I'm going to make two separate responses, depending upon which manner you intended in this post.

1: If are you are PRO-GUN, I assume you're saying that federal government should mandate armed guards in the schools, just like they protect themselves with armed guards, and protect their government buildings with armed guards, and protect airports with armed guards and other law enforcement measures/deterrents.

2: If you are ANTI-GUN, I assume that you are retarded, because you just admitted that the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with gun (unless he voluntarily ceases his evil behavior).

You can take approach #1, I am the most pro-2nd Amendment person on this board.

No, guns are not enough to keep a predator off the school grounds. There needs to be non-climbable fencing that can be electrically activated. Ground sensors on the perimeter, cameras, turnstiles, xray for anything entering, clearance procedures with background checks, guards that ride in with the students on buses-spend the day at school & escort them back home again. Shared safe rooms between two classrooms with communications. Bullet proof windows, steel doors with electronic locks, electronic gates to isolate a predator from running free.

When we do this then it pulls the anti gunners teeth out of the argument, but most importantly, the children will be safe and we will have our 2nd Amendment rights restored.

Yeah,
Just like they do in every other lawless third world country....sorry, let me correct that...I meant to say...Just like they do in NO other country.

 

[idb]

Your title should have read, Gunman wielded AK-47 inside Georgia school and no body got shot.

Which clearly proves the system works.

 

[idb]

You can take approach #1, I am the most pro-2nd Amendment person on this board.

No, guns are not enough to keep a predator off the school grounds. There needs to be non-climbable fencing that can be electrically activated. Ground sensors on the perimeter, cameras, turnstiles, xray for anything entering, clearance procedures with background checks, guards that ride in with the students on buses-spend the day at school & escort them back home again. Shared safe rooms between two classrooms with communications. Bullet proof windows, steel doors with electronic locks, electronic gates to isolate a predator from running free.

When we do this then it pulls the anti gunners teeth out of the argument, but most importantly, the children will be safe and we will have our 2nd Amendment rights restored.

I would say that an armed society is enough to prevent mass shootings, just look at the Oregon Mall, an armed citizen forced the shooter to take cover.

You are over reacting. We would have to do this for movie theaters, theme parks, oh --- everywhere where you'll find kids, in order to pull the teeth out of anti-gunners.

We live in a tragic world, that's something the Libtards don't realize, nothing can prevent tragedy, but there are measures that can reduce their frequency and effectiveness, an armed public is one of them.

Did the Aurora shooter not bypass the closer move theaters that permitted armed guests? This suggests that if all movie theaters permitted armed guests, he would have either chosen another industry to asssault (like a theme park) or abandoned the idea altogether.

I don't see this as overreacting, this slaughter of children has been going on since July 26, 1764 List of school shootings in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia .

If I provide a bank with no door on the safe, robbers will come and empty it. Point is, we are providing open schools in every neighborhood, for any nut to kill children by any means. The slaughter has to stop.

Movie theaters? I am talking schools here full of children in the hands of nuts willing to die to massacre them. If you feel like it is over reacting, why don't we pull all airport security measures and government building security measures and see what you think in about a year of that. 3000 911 and 3000 American school children eventually. Or maybe you feel we should sacrifice the children to save a little money?? Maybe you just don't understand the magnitude of the problem - you will going to that wiki link.

And like I said, you want to lose your gun rights to paranoid anti gunners, just keep doing what you are doing like the republicans did.

Point is, we are providing open schools in every neighborhood, for any nut to kill children by any means.

That's right, imagine having schools without barricades, guard towers, armed security and armed teachers?
Really, the kids should be armed as well.
What other country is that lax?
It's dangerous, and the irresponsibility of parents that are prepared to put them in harms way by sending them to a minimum security school is unfathomable.

 

[Esmeralda]

I am a gun owner but I don't think certain guns should be sold. Period. Where does it end? Nukes for everyone?

No individual citizen, non-police, non-military, needs to own or have in his/her possession an AK 47. It is insane and absolutely indefensible that it is legal and considered reasonable for the average citizen to own such a weapon.

 

[Esmeralda]

I am a gun owner but I don't think certain guns should be sold. Period. Where does it end? Nukes for everyone?

The gun isn't the issue.

From a security perspective...it's a lot harder to sneak in an AK-47 than a handgun.

It's a lot easier to shoot a lot more people in a few seconds with an AK-47 than it is with a handgun.

 

[idb]

I am a gun owner but I don't think certain guns should be sold. Period. Where does it end? Nukes for everyone?

The gun isn't the issue.

From a security perspective...it's a lot harder to sneak in an AK-47 than a handgun.

It's a lot easier to shoot a lot more people in a few seconds with an AK-47 than it is with a handgun.

Really, when the gun-rights discussion gets down to the need to arm your teachers and barricade your schools to protect your kids from your own citizens...isn't there something wrong?

Remember, we are talking about locking American kids away to protect them from other Americans.
Not foreign terrorists...other Americans, in their own country!!!!

Can no-one see the absurdity of this?
It's more than absurd...it's grotesque.

 

[Missourian]

I am a gun owner but I don't think certain guns should be sold. Period. Where does it end? Nukes for everyone?

The gun isn't the issue.

From a security perspective...it's a lot harder to sneak in an AK-47 than a handgun.

It's a lot easier to shoot a lot more people in a few seconds with an AK-47 than it is with a handgun.

No...it isn't.

That's something that a person with no firearm experience says.

I need to do a youtube video on this to prove the point once and for all.

 

[Politico]

Leftytoons hate guns we get it.

 

[idb]

Leftytoons hate guns we get it.

You get nothing.

 

[idb]

I am a gun owner but I don't think certain guns should be sold. Period. Where does it end? Nukes for everyone?

I could care less you blooming idiot whether or not you have a firearm. Why don't we get rid of these targets of opportunity? If you want to ban something ban gun free zones.

Welcome back bigrednec...have you been on holiday or have you been in the Naughty Corner?

 

[NightFox]

Yanks don't give a shit. All they care about is their 'right' to walk around with dangerous weapons, and murder innocent schoolkids.

Yeah. Gun rights advocates stand and cheer every time a maniac blows away a child. That's what they're fighting for, more dead kids. Yup.

There is more anger over the thought of having your precious guns removed than about saving the lives of schoolkids.

How do you propose to prevent this sort of thing? More laws? If a person is willing to commit MURDER (an egregiously immoral and illegal act) do you think some gun control provision is going to deter them in the least from obtaining the means to carry it out.

How about using a little bit of common sense and trying to figure out the root cause of this type of violence and taking steps to mitigate that? Doesn't that make more sense than simply engaging in a futile attempt to control the means? Did we learn nothing from the Prohibition Era?

 

[Zona]

Nukes for everyone!