Last year Va Assembly rejected all gun-carry permits for VaTech

[Edward]

Again amazing how much you know about my 'psychotic ass'.

I know what you have said here and that is sufficient information for me to draw a conclusion from. Now why don't you find a retarded ass in public office who is as psychotic as you are and vote for him or her.

 

[Edward]

It's not about drawing a line really. It's about in what instances is the most efficient way of keeping people safe. On a college campus, honestly I'm undecided.

It is obvious how to keep people safe and only morons such as you are in doubt as to how to keep people safe in public places. It is also quite obvious that guns do not belong on college campuses and in classrooms and that the way to keep people safe is to rely on campus security and the police while preventing people from bringing guns onto campus. Only morons such as you are undecided.

When I was in school I ran a trap shooting club. Members brought there guns to school and campus security allowed us to use a locker that was kept shut at all times except for when we went to the range.

Good for them. You shouldn't have been carrying guns on campus and they were correct for allowing you to use a locker to keep the guns in a safe place in case your retarded ass decided to do more than use the gun as a part of your club activities.

Instead of college students carrying concealed guns maybe the most efficient thing to do would be to have an armed security gaurd in every building on every campus. I don't know how feasible that would be.

It wouldn't be feasible and you are a moron for suggesting it. It is one thing to train campus security and police to react quickly and another to decrease the availability of campus security and police by having an armed security guard in every building because it would decrease reaction time. I cannot believe that you would even suggest something so stupid but the more I read what you have to say the more convinced I am that you surpass my previous conclusions about your intelligence and mental state and are more retarded and psychotic than I had previously thought.

But in college or otherwise people need an efffective means to protect themselves.

There are already effective means to protect people and the solution isn't to give people the right to carry guns on campus because that in the end does the exact opposite and decreases the ability of people to protect themselves unless they aren't the first victim.

For whatever reason some people on this board (Edward) seem to be under the impression that simply carrying a gun turns people into raving lunatics.

Some people on this board are asses and you are one of them. I am also not under the impression that carrying a gun turns people into raving lunatics but you are so stupid that you cannot grasp that guns aren't the cause of these shootings but the instrument by which such massacres take place and that is why it does not make sense to give the killer the right to carry a concealed weapon on campus so that people will have a gun to protect themselves if someone chooses to use a gun on campus because it only increases the liklihood that these kind of shootings will increase. It doesn't matter if 33 die in one incident or if 33 die in 33 separate incidents and it doesn't matter to the 33 that 32 others died. Those who died in 33 separate incidents aren't going to be grateful that 32 others did not die because they will still be dead. It won't matter to them that someone shot the shooter shortly after he put a bullet in their head. It wouldn't have mattered to the first professor who was shot in this incident that one of their students was able to gun down the killer because they are dead.

I have no problem with people carrying guns and don't think the gun turns them into raving lunatics but when raving lunatics carry a gun in a place where they are more likely to become raving lunatics we are going to find that they are more likely to use them and that is why we don't have guns in certain places. For whatever reason some people (Bern80) are morons and think that raving lunatics should be allowed to carry guns in places where they are more likely to use them so that others may have a gun just in case a raving lunatic decides to use one.

On a plane? I would say at the very least if you were transporting one it would have to be checked and not kept on your person. If we could put an armed air marshall on every flight that would be the best IMO.

Are you suggesting that people who fly should not have a gun to protect themselves? What if someone was able to get pass security and get a gun on a plane and kills 33 people. Why wouldn't you argue that giving everyone a gun on a plane would make it safer? The answer is obvious that giving guns to people on a plane is simply stupid becuase there is an increased liklihood that they will use the gun in a way that we don't want them too.

Guns are one of those things where 99.9% of people know how to and do handle them safely and responsibily. But, incidents like the one at VA Tech and columbine are then used to start yet another crusade on gun control. Yet neither incident really has anything to do with guns.

Yet, each incident has to do with guns and with those who use those guns to do these sort of things. In the Columbine incident it is obvious that these children should not have had access to guns based on their age and that it should have been almost impossible for them to obtain access to a gun. More parental control and supervision would have been a good start but than the government should have made it almost impossible for them to get guns by other methods including criminal ones. This isn't simply a matter of gun control instead it is a matter of keeping our communities (in this I speak of the college community) safe. Gun regulation is acceptable and should be practiced because it balances the rights of people to own and carry guns against the rights of people to be safe, and secure. A professor should feel safe knowing that they can fail a student or give them a bad grade and not have to worry that they will gun them down in a moment of rage. The recent knowledge that the Chairwoman of the English Department who tutored this man because he had to be taken out of class had used a code word with her assistant as a safety tool should tell us that professors and faculty are well aware of how dangerous their profession is.

In this incident it is obvious to everyone that this man had a long history of problems and that he could have done this a lot sooner had he had a gun sooner than March and it is also obvious that he purchased this gun legally even though police had been notified about his problems by the Chairwoman of the English Department in 2005 and yet no red flags were raised when he bought a gun in March of this year. So this issue is one of access to guns as well as how easy it is for people to bring guns on college campuses. There will never be a perfect solution yet the solution isn't to give people the right to carry guns into a place where they are far more likely to use them to kill people. There is a good reason employers do not want their employees to carry guns on company property or to store them in their vehicle while on company property and the reason is obvious and that is the emotional nature of the workplace. When an employer must fire an employee they must think they are safe to do so and that the employee will be forced to leave to obtain access to a gun and thus give the employee time to reconsider any rash decision. This incident wasn't a rash one instead it was a calculated one and that is where stronger security must come into play while other incidents of a rash nature can easily be prevented by not allowing students and faculty to carry guns on college campuses.

 

[Edward]

Have any of you campus pro gun ever thought of this scenario.


Law abiding student with no past criminal history or mental illness + carries concealed gun + bullied/bad grades/financial problems/dumped by GF/depression + ALCOHOL.

No they haven't and that is why they are morons. Almost without doubt these fucking retards put their own interests ahead of the life and safety of me and my loved ones and I hate them for it rather they are public officials or private citizens. I have no problem saying that I hate these evil bastards when they risk the safety of people who should feel a sense of security knowing that they have gone to a public institution or facility. These people especially the jackasses who live in our towns who hold public office don't care about anyone but themselves and the retarded assholes who voted for them and this is an issue that people get upset about. When it comes to my safety and the safety of my loved ones I hope bastards like Bern80 and the retards like him who hold office burn in hell.

 

[Edward]

If I had been there, I may have been shot, but I can guarantee that I would have been the last one shot. The only thing that would have prevented that from happening is that I am a law abiding citizen, and because of an un-Constitutional law I would have been un-armed.

This statement is the statement of someone who is mentally unstable. That you mock the deaths of those who died by suggesting that you would have been the last person shot is offensive and someone should beat the shit out of you for that comment because it mocks the loss people have suffered. That you think that those who would have died for matter for nothing so long as you have the right to be armed is sickening because in your right to be armed you guarantee the killer the same right and therefore guarantee him the right to kill the first or second person with impunity so your retarded ass can shoot him before he shoots you. I would laugh my ass off if you were the first person to have been shot in the head like the professor in the German class was so than your retarded ass would understand the cost of your right to carry a gun on a college campus to those who die.

It may be that the killer set out to commit mass murder, or it may be that he had no real plan other than to kill the first two victims. Then upon 2 hours of reflection decided that his life was over and he was taking as many students as he could with him.

What his plan was and how many people he wanted to kill has little bearing on this issue you sick bastard. Even if he planned to kill only two people it is still two dead you sick bastard. How you could minimize the death of two innocent people is truly beyond understanding.

If some armed person or persons had been on campus, some lives would have been spared and the killer would have been shot. Another advantage of this scenario is that most people are not killers.

We do not know how many lives would be saved but what we do know is that when you allow people to carry guns on college campuses you increase the liklihood that those guns will be used in these types of situations. It may be true that a few lives could be saved in a single incident if someone was armed and was able to take out the shooter but the cost of that situation is far to great because more of these incidents are likely to occur as a result of more guns on campus and these other incidents are more likely to be rash decisions instead of planned and calculated. That you would minimize the deaths of a few by suggesting that "if some armed person had been on campus" than "some lives would be spared" is sick. There was an armed person on campus and he was the killer and people died. It doesn't fucking matter how many died you sick bastard for even one death is horrible and if you can't see that than you are a depraved psychotic piece of shit.

Most armed people including myself, would have tried to have disabled him without dispatching him if at all possible. If he had been taken out alive, many questions would eventually have been answered.

What the fuck? Are you a fucking retard? If I had a gun on me and he did this I would have shot his fucking ass and asked questions later. It is one thing to debate this issue in the abstract and another to say that you would have sought to disable him without killing him when he killed so many people. We will get the answers we need one way or the other and will seek to prevent this from happening in the future and if you are twisted enough to put people's lifes in danger when you could have ended the situation because you want to have certain questions answered than you aren't worth debating with you fucking retard.

 

[Edward]

Campus Security and law enforcement did not help 32 innocent victems. You seem to have watched too many shoot 'em up westerns. In those golden Lone Ranger days, the fact that many chose to be armed for protection against rattlesnakes, indians, etc., keep violence low. The law was not always around to protect the citizens of yester-year, same goes for today.

You are fucking nuts and you are disgusting. Violence was not kept low in those dangers. The fucking country was a violent one where many people died, where robbery, theft, rape and murder were common occurences and where the only people who mattered were those who were able to survive and find ways to keep themselves safe. It was when the railroad came and where civilization came that people began to enforce the law and that the west became tame. Campus security and law enforcement reacted to this situation quickly yet they were not quick enough which only goes to show that we need to improve the funding law enforcement and colleges receive so that they can improve their reaction time and institute better plans to protect their students and faculty while on campus. It isn't sane to suggest that more guns in the hands of more people is the solution to lowering violence on college campuses when in reality more guns will only increase the number of incidents and deaths while decreasing the number of deaths in each incident. The loss is still great even though it doesn't make the news and doesn't amount to 33 dead in one incident. These people who died in 33 or more separate incidents are still dead you sick bastard and it is shocking that you would want to give the killer the right to kill his first couple of victims so long as you can shoot him after they die. I would laugh my ass off if you were the first to die in one of these types of incidents because than someone with more brains and humanity might live.

 

[Edward]

I am not saying that multiple scenarios are not possible. Some are more likely than others. What a rationale person does not do is try to create balnket policy over the least likely one. the raw emotion in your posts clearly shows that you don't yet have the capability of thinking things through rationally.

What a rationale person does not do is listen to total fucking idiots like you whether you hold public office or only vote for idiots that agree with you. It is absolutely necessary to make policy based on scenarios including the least likely because that is what policy is about. If we do not make policy based on the least likely scenarios than we are violating the rights of those who are affected by those scenarios you stupid jackass.

The raw idiocy of your posts makes it clear that you are a fucking bastard and are a moron who is letting your emotions and retarded opinions cloud your judgment.

For the record I never said I am for arming kids in the class room. In fact I have stated there are better ways to protect students. All I was arguing was your asanine scenario.

For the record you are a moron and I have said you are a moron. On the other hand his scenario was not asinine but you on the other hand are an asshole. It is clear that only idiots such as you would even suggest that his scenario is asinine.

 

[Bern80]

It isn't worth debating you edward. You're too busy calling people morons and idiots to carry on a conversation of any type or open your mind long enough to try to understand another point of view. If you weren't so busy calling people stupid and morons you might find that we agree on more than you think.

 

[Edward]

It isn't worth debating you edward. You're too busy calling people morons and idiots to carry on a conversation of any type or open your mind long enough to try to understand another point of view. If you weren't so busy calling people stupid and morons you might find that we agree on more than you think.

Good for you because I don't give a shit enough about your retarded ass to care that you don't think it is worth your time to debate with me. If you are stupid enough to think that I would waste my time debating your retarded ass than you are more stupid than I thought. I am not debating you instead I am telling you and fucking retards who agree with you that not only are you wrong but that your opinion put me and my loved ones in danger and that I hate your retarded asses for that regardless if you are private citizens or public officials. If you don't like me calling you a moron than maybe you might try not being a moron because I will continue to state the obvious even if you do not like it bitch. It also doesn't matter to me that we agree on some things when the things we disagree on are so important that it comes down to a question of the safety of myself and my loved ones asshole.

 

[Bern80]

Good for you because I don't give a shit enough about your retarded ass to care that you don't think it is worth your time to debate with me. If you are stupid enough to think that I would waste my time debating your retarded ass than you are more stupid than I thought. I am not debating you instead I am telling you and fucking retards who agree with you that not only are you wrong but that your opinion put me and my loved ones in danger and that I hate your retarded asses for that regardless if you are private citizens or public officials. If you don't like me calling you a moron than maybe you might try not being a moron because I will continue to state the obvious even if you do not like it bitch. It also doesn't matter to me that we agree on some things when the things we disagree on are so important that it comes down to a question of the safety of myself and my loved ones asshole.

Clearly the response of an open minded and listening individual. You so busy name calling you don't even know what my opinion is. But feel free to tell me what my opinion is and I'll be more than happy to correct you when you have stick your foot in your mouth. You made a whole bunch of stupid assumptions and generalizations because a proposed a different view point without looking at what I actually said.

 

[Edward]

Clearly the response of an open minded and listening individual.

I am laughing my ass off. I am not open minded when it comes to my loved ones nor have I given your retarded opinion any serious considertion nor do I intend to stand by idly while you and the retards who agree with you who hold public office try to put me and my loved ones in danger. You are under a serious delusion if you believe that this is an issue for debate. I haven't been debating you nor do I intend to do so because I won't waste my time you fucking moron. If you don't like it that people speak their minds and tell you how much they hate you for your retarded opinions than you should try moving to a country where people will simply debate out of their ass while motherfuckers like you do exactly what you want.

 

[Bern80]

I am laughing my ass off. I am not open minded when it comes to my loved ones nor have I given your retarded opinion any serious considertion nor do I intend to stand by idly while you and the retards who agree with you who hold public office try to put me and my loved ones in danger.

What position is it you assume I have that puts your loved ones in danger?

I haven't been debating you nor do I intend to do so because I won't waste my time you fucking moron. If you don't like it that people speak their minds and tell you how much they hate you for your retarded opinions than you should try moving to a country where people will simply debate out of their ass while motherfuckers like you do exactly what you want.

I don't like it when people make assumptions about what I think when I haven't actually stated what I think.

 

[Edward]

What position is it you assume I have that puts your loved ones in dange?

Nice try jackass but I won't fall for it. You can try to re-phrase the issue and to divert attention from the central issue but I am not willing to do so and I won't fall for the same hook, line and sinker that others might fall for when it is obvious you are a fucking moron who is trying to pull the oldest trick in the book. It is obvious based on my posts here what position you have that puts me and my loved ones in danger and it is one of the oldest tricks in the Book of Jackasses to try to re-direct attention from the central issue.

I don't like it when people make assumptions about what I think when I haven't actually stated what I think.

I don't care what you like or don't like or whether you think I am assuming something when I am in fact not making an assumption but instead am making an observation. Just in case you don't know the earth doesn't revolve around you or your opinion or your likes or dislikes jackass.

 

[Bern80]

Nice try jackass but I won't fall for it. You can try to re-phrase the issue and to divert attention from the central issue but I am not willing to do so and I won't fall for the same hook, line and sinker that others might fall for when it is obvious you are a fucking moron who is trying to pull the oldest trick in the book. It is obvious based on my posts here what position you have that puts me and my loved ones in danger and it is one of the oldest tricks in the Book of Jackasses to try to re-direct attention from the central issue.

It isn't a trick. It is an opportuniy for you to tell me what you believe my position is. I am asking you this because I am fairly certain I haven't clearly stated what my position is. But if you are so certain I have it should be fairly easy for to succinctly state what it is. You are right if you believe what you believe and everyone else is an idiot and no one can change your mind then there is no point in debating with you. But my guess we agree on more than you think.

I don't care what you like or don't like or whether you think I am assuming something when I am in fact not making an assumption but instead am making an observation.

What you are doing is the definition of an assumption. You beleive I have a specific opinion based on no evidence and now you are afraid to tell me what my opinion is because you are clearly more interested in maintaining my persona of 'moron' then you are of really understanding what some one said.


P.S. My hook has already caught it's prey

 

[Edward]

It isn't a trick. It is an opportuniy for you to tell me what you believe my position is. I am asking you this because I am fairly certain I haven't clearly stated what my position is.

I thought about not responding but that would give your retarded ass far to much pleasure so I am more than happy to say that I don't give a shit about you or your opinions. My number one rule is to never re-state my position or the positions of others to satisfy some stupid ass moron who wants me to. I have dealt with enough assholes to know this tactic and to avoid it.

I don't care about you enough to care what you think. I know what you said and I know what your position is on the subject I take issue with and I have no need to re-state your position and there is no real reason other than your being an ass that you would want me to re-state the obvious. If you are so fucking upset that I don't know your fucking position than fucking feel free to pontificate out of your ass and tell me exactly what your position is and feel free to disabuse me of my false notions about what you believe. Otherwise shut the fuck up because I am not going to respond to a stupid trick by a stupid moron who thinks he can bait me like the asshole that he is and that all of his fucking attempts to get me to fall for it will work. They won't work. Nothing you can say will get me to fall for what I have seen practiced by a lot of other retards in the past.

So if it makes your retarded ass feel good that I won't answer your stupid question because I know it for what it is than you can fuck off and believe whatever you want of me because my opinion of you is so low that even if you held office it would not change my opinion and you would still be the retarded moron that you. You don't have to accept the fact that you are a fucking moron but that won't change the fact that you are a fucking moron and so are the individuals that agree with your retarded ass who hold public office and it would be no different than if your fucking ass held their office.

Your position is clear enough for me and here it is word for word, "I am for people having the ability to protect themselves from danger. Not for arming psychopaths" and "if more of them were introduced into society not because people are in fear but just for protection's sake, then we would reach a point where you think nothing of your class mate having a gun in his back pack."

Enough said about that retard. You can deny this or try to twist what you have said to mean something else but the fact remains that this position puts me and my loved ones in danger. You can debate that this is the case out of your ass but I don't play that game and I am not going to start now. I am going to tell you that I think you are fucking moronic ass and if you don't like it find someone stupid enough to play nice with those whose positions put them and their loved ones in danger. My passion on this subject has to do with my love for my family and I will never back down from an evil piece of shit such as yourself. If your position isn't that there should be more guns in society than I apologize for calling you a fucking retard but if it is that position than you can fucking to to hell because I don't play nice with my enemies.

But if you are so certain I have it should be fairly easy for to succinctly state what it is.

Nice try jackass but my number one rule is to never re-state what I have said or what someone else has said just because a fucking retarded piece of shit wants me to. So why don't you simply tell me what your fucking position is if you are so fucking adament that it be known jackass.

You are right if you believe what you believe and everyone else is an idiot and no one can change your mind then there is no point in debating with you. But my guess we agree on more than you think.

I never said I believed everyone else is an idiot jackass instead I said you are an idiot but nice try bitch. You can try to make this about everyone else jackass when it isn't but I am not foolish enough to fall for it jackass. I also didn't say that no one can change my mind instead I said those who I hate for putting me and my loved ones in danger cannot change my mind which includes your retarded ass.

I never said that there was no point in debating with me asshole and I can't be right about something I did not say moron. Also, how much we agree on means nothing to me when that which we disagree on is so important as to put me and my loved ones in danger. It is these issues that I do not debate and will not change my mind on now or in the future and I tell you to go to hell where you assholes belong because your position on more guns in society puts me and my loved ones in danger and I don't care enough about your retarded ass not to tell you what I think of you.

What you are doing is the definition of an assumption. You beleive I have a specific opinion based on no evidence and now you are afraid to tell me what my opinion is because you are clearly more interested in maintaining my persona of 'moron' then you are of really understanding what some one said.

Nice try jackass but you don't speak for me nor do I care what your retarded ass thinks. If you don't want to be thought of ass a moron than maybe you should stop acting like a moron and if you know what my position is and what yours is and think that I don't know what yours is than feel free jacakass to tell me exactly where I am wrong but don't think that I am going to play your game because I am not.

P.S. My hook has already caught it's prey

Good for you retard! Now you can log off of the computer thinking highly of your retarded ass and go away knowing that your hook has caught its prey while I sit on this end of my computer laughing my fucking ass off at your retarded ass because that is what I am doing.

 

[Bern80]

I thought about not responding but that would give your retarded ass far to much pleasure so I am more than happy to say that I don't give a shit about you or your opinions. My number one rule is to never re-state my position or the positions of others to satisfy some stupid ass moron who wants me to. I have dealt with enough assholes to know this tactic and to avoid it.

I don't care about you enough to care what you think. I know what you said and I know what your position is on the subject I take issue with and I have no need to re-state your position and there is no real reason other than your being an ass that you would want me to re-state the obvious. If you are so fucking upset that I don't know your fucking position than fucking feel free to pontificate out of your ass and tell me exactly what your position is and feel free to disabuse me of my false notions about what you believe. Otherwise shut the fuck up because I am not going to respond to a stupid trick by a stupid moron who thinks he can bait me like the asshole that he is and that all of his fucking attempts to get me to fall for it will work. They won't work. Nothing you can say will get me to fall for what I have seen practiced by a lot of other retards in the past.

So if it makes your retarded ass feel good that I won't answer your stupid question because I know it for what it is than you can fuck off and believe whatever you want of me because my opinion of you is so low that even if you held office it would not change my opinion and you would still be the retarded moron that you. You don't have to accept the fact that you are a fucking moron but that won't change the fact that you are a fucking moron and so are the individuals that agree with your retarded ass who hold public office and it would be no different than if your fucking ass held their office.

Your position is clear enough for me and here it is word for word, "I am for people having the ability to protect themselves from danger. Not for arming psychopaths" and "if more of them were introduced into society not because people are in fear but just for protection's sake, then we would reach a point where you think nothing of your class mate having a gun in his back pack."

Enough said about that retard. You can deny this or try to twist what you have said to mean something else but the fact remains that this position puts me and my loved ones in danger. You can debate that this is the case out of your ass but I don't play that game and I am not going to start now. I am going to tell you that I think you are fucking moronic ass and if you don't like it find someone stupid enough to play nice with those whose positions put them and their loved ones in danger. My passion on this subject has to do with my love for my family and I will never back down from an evil piece of shit such as yourself. If your position isn't that there should be more guns in society than I apologize for calling you a fucking retard but if it is that position than you can fucking to to hell because I don't play nice with my enemies.



Nice try jackass but my number one rule is to never re-state what I have said or what someone else has said just because a fucking retarded piece of shit wants me to. So why don't you simply tell me what your fucking position is if you are so fucking adament that it be known jackass.



I never said I believed everyone else is an idiot jackass instead I said you are an idiot but nice try bitch. You can try to make this about everyone else jackass when it isn't but I am not foolish enough to fall for it jackass. I also didn't say that no one can change my mind instead I said those who I hate for putting me and my loved ones in danger cannot change my mind which includes your retarded ass.

I never said that there was no point in debating with me asshole and I can't be right about something I did not say moron. Also, how much we agree on means nothing to me when that which we disagree on is so important as to put me and my loved ones in danger. It is these issues that I do not debate and will not change my mind on now or in the future and I tell you to go to hell where you assholes belong because your position on more guns in society puts me and my loved ones in danger and I don't care enough about your retarded ass not to tell you what I think of you.



Nice try jackass but you don't speak for me nor do I care what your retarded ass thinks. If you don't want to be thought of ass a moron than maybe you should stop acting like a moron and if you know what my position is and what yours is and think that I don't know what yours is than feel free jacakass to tell me exactly where I am wrong but don't think that I am going to play your game because I am not.



Good for you retard! Now you can log off of the computer thinking highly of your retarded ass and go away knowing that your hook has caught its prey while I sit on this end of my computer laughing my fucking ass off at your retarded ass because that is what I am doing.

That's an awful lot to say for someone who claims I'm not worth the time of day. Congratulations you officially have the debate capacity of two yr old.

YOU DO NOT KNOW ME. If you meet me on the street on struck up a conversation with me you would most likely not know who were talking to.

You are wrong for many reasons:

1) primarily because you can't seem to go more than two phrases w/o making a personal attack. Not once in your last dozen posts have come close to debate the actual topic. You have been content to do nothing but name call every other word for the past two pages.

2) I am being completely sincere when I ask questions and expect an answer. What is it exactley you think I'm trying to get you to fall for? I am trying like hell to understand your psychotic ranting but you are too busy name calling and making personal attacks for anyone to figure where you stand. The only thing you have established is that you don't like me for God knows what reason except the following

3) I am putting your loved ones in danger. give me a fucking brake you arrogant prick. I'm not doing anything to put your "loved ones" in danger. I am making an argument as to how schools can be safer. They can be safer by haveing more armed security which I believe we both agree on. that is a competly different topic from when and where and what age people should be carrying firearms. Should they be on campuses for kids in their back packs? probably not. there aren't many realistic scenarios where that would be logical. Yet you adamantly claim that it what I'm for. Well there you have it, I'm not.

4)you are wrong because you have no respect for people, myself in this case. If you are going to call someone, asshole, retard, stupid etc. You better make damn sure they fit the bill. I don't fit your convenient description despite the labels you have attempted to put on me. Would your "loved ones" love you so much when they see how how much you rail on people and how little you actually listen?

5) you are wrong because at this point you have dug a real hole. Because I have established that we probably agree to large extent, but you have been so busy name calling, cussing and making personal attacks that you can't really afford to admit that can you?

P.S. Be careful you don't stick your foot so far down your throat you can't get it out. Guess that's tuff when your head is in your ass though.

 

[red states rule]

I am laughing my ass off. I am not open minded when it comes to my loved ones nor have I given your retarded opinion any serious considertion nor do I intend to stand by idly while you and the retards who agree with you who hold public office try to put me and my loved ones in danger. You are under a serious delusion if you believe that this is an issue for debate. I haven't been debating you nor do I intend to do so because I won't waste my time you fucking moron. If you don't like it that people speak their minds and tell you how much they hate you for your retarded opinions than you should try moving to a country where people will simply debate out of their ass while motherfuckers like you do exactly what you want.

School Shooting Reveals the Need for Bigger Gun-Free Zone Signs
One day after the deadliest shooting rampage in American history, many are left wondering why it happened and what can be done to prevent it from happening again. Certainly, more thorough background checks would reveal whether a prospective gun owner had gone on any wild murder-suicide sprees in the past. Mandatory creative writing classes for all firearm purchases would also be a way to determine if someone has an unhealthy obsession with violence and gore, or is simply applying for a job at CBS.

Whether you’re in favor of such sensible gun control laws, or a mind-numbed minion of Chuck Heston, everyone can at least agree that Gun-Free Zones as they currently exist don’t quite work. Although Virginia Tech was a proud “Gun-Free Zone”, firearms still somehow found their way onto the campus. Obviously the so-called “gunman” wasn’t aware that he had entered such a zone, or else he would have thought twice about gunning down 33 innocents before shooting himself in the face. Bigger, bolder “Gun-Free Zone” signs would be harder to ignore, but renaming the entire school “Gun-Free Zone Tech” would send a clear message to any suicidal maniacs that bringing guns to school will NOT be tolerated, and that slaughtering scores of your classmates could result in expulsion and possibly even the forfeiture of all your credits. To discourage individuals from cleverly standing just outside the Gun-Free Zone and firing into the campus, the zone’s boundaries should also be expanded to encompass all 50 states, and as rigorously enforced as gun control laws currently on the books.

The concept of Gun-Free Zones is a noble one, and with a little revamping it can be far more effective. 33 out of the 34 people that died in Virginia Tech’s Gun Free Zone were actually following the rules. There’s no reason to believe that expanding the program nationally won’t provide the same results.

http://blamebush.typepad.com/

 

[red states rule]

I know what you have said here and that is sufficient information for me to draw a conclusion from. Now why don't you find a retarded ass in public office who is as psychotic as you are and vote for him or her.

Lefties Scorn Bush As 'Mourner-In-Chief,' But to ABC, Clinton Was 'Chaplain-in-Chief'
Posted by Tim Graham on April 18, 2007 - 12:12.
Over at the Huffington Post's Eat the Press blog, Jason Linkins objected Tuesday night to MSNBC's description of President Bush as "mourner-in-chief," demanding they stop because "It's emo and it's weird." Linkins admitted MSNBC was not the first to use this terminology. But perhaps liberals forget that the network news people employed it with Bill Clinton, too. In fact, on the July 25, 1996 World News Tonight, after a TWA plane crash, ABC's Jim Wooten tenderly hailed the Sensitive President, Bill Clinton, the nation's "chaplain in chief," an even stranger choice of words, given Clinton's historic reputation for indulgence:

Mr. Clinton is clearly more and more comfortable now in the role these times have forced on our Presidents --- first mourner and chaplain-in-chief. But his moments with the families must have struck him as especially poignant today, for when he left them in the hotel and entered his car, he buried his head on Mrs. Clinton's shoulder."

That would mean that Jim Wooten is "emo and weird." But never forget that Bill Clinton is the "man who's made America safe again for tears." Here's part of what Linkins wrote for Eat the Press:

Hey, MSNBC! How you doing? We have a question: What is the deal with this "Mourner-in-Chief" stuff? We've heard you've been calling the President this all day long (David Gregory, Howard Fineman, Brian Williams). Why are you doing this? It's emo and it's weird. You really have to stop doing that.

Look — we have strong, strenuous doubts that President Bush would want to be tagged with this title. And why would he? Seems to us that you really cannot pick a chief mourner among so many people who've lost loved ones, and anyway, by all accounts, the President has been pretty deferent to the needs of Virginia Tech's community. He's not exactly looking for attention, and for what it's worth, we sort of question you designating anyone "Mourner-in-Chief." It's not very sensitive.

Linkins is correct that a president can never mourn a loss of someone else's daughter the way the parents do, who are clearly the most affected mourners. But in our TV age, we do expect presidents to well, preside over moments of national tragedy. With the media pounding Bush daily to insure his approval rating stays low, it's a little sad to see the liberals nitpicking on this use of words on a day when Bush's press notices might be just slightly more positive than usual.

http://newsbusters.org/node/12129

 

[Shogun]

Edward... dude... lay off the name calling, man.. Your raving has certainly convinced me that YOU should not have a gun on campus for sure. Calm down, man.








Relax.








Take a deep mind settling breath...








and then RUN like hell because Uncle Ted's got his bow and has you in his sights and has a marinade in mind that will make you taste just right! RUN! RUN RUN!

....just ask Fred Bear.....

 

[hjmick]

NUGENT For President!

 

[Vintij]

See Vintij this is the kinda stuff your gonna get until you form the capacity to think rationally

Well i assumed you were all chrisitians, but why did I not realize that you gun crazed maniac's are not. I should have known. Well at least your not brainwashed by the bible.