Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I will bet my bottom dollar that Disney World is a gun free zone. Had Dad been armed he could have shot the alligator.
I will bet my bottom dollar that Disney World is a gun free zone. Had Dad been armed he could have shot the alligator.
Odds are he would have missed or shot his kid. Being responsible and not letting your kid near water that 'no swimming' signs are posted would have been an easy measure of protection.
On that, I'm not seeing a lot of calls for the parents to be arrested for that croc incident, as opposed to the gorilla incident.
What would explain that? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm....
color me puzzled.
That nightclub, you know the one Mateen attacked? It was packed with 300 healthy men/women. And nobody took him down. Nobody. Fifty people died instead. He was outnumbered three-hundred to one. Please, don't bother preaching to me about how much safer the world would be with gun control. Even though that club was a vaunted gun-free zone, people still died. It didn't stop a crazed Muslim "jihadi" from mowing people down with an "AR-15" or whatever weapon he used. This gun free zone lulled these poor people into a false sense of security. They soon found out how nonexistent that security was. That alone proves just how ineffectual gun free zones really are.
What if in fact they had been armed? What would have been better, a sign which gives the illusion of security, or a firearm at your side which gives certain security?
What do you think gun-free zones have accomplished? This isn't Star Trek, you can't just raise a forcefield and block crazed gunmen/terrorists from bringing their weapons into the building. It doesn't work that way. I'm sorry to say gun control liberals are too thickheaded to see that. All a gun free zone is, is three words on a sign. Words are meaningless. Signs are meaningless. Words were not going to stop that terrorist from killing people.
This is truly heartbreaking. Gun control liberals think gun-free zones will stop atrocities from happening. Gun control liberals thing gun control laws will stop atrocities from happening. Right. This is like trying to stop a bomb blast with a piece of paper. In essence, that's all gun control laws are, just words written on a piece of paper, just like a gun-free zone sign.
Do you feel that a person that is on a no-fly list should be able to purchase a gun?
Yes....this guy was not on a no fly list was he.....
According to you nuts, since he was a citizen there is no need to vet muslims from Syria to make sure radical jihadis are not getting in...
So...since this guy wasn't on the no-fly list then there is no reason the no-fly list should be a no buy list....right?
Yes....this guy was not on a no fly list was he.....
According to you nuts, since he was a citizen there is no need to vet muslims from Syria to make sure radical jihadis are not getting in...
So...since this guy wasn't on the no-fly list then there is no reason the no-fly list should be a no buy list....right?
My question is: Do you feel that a person that is on a no-fly list should be able to purchase a gun?
Do you really think allowing concealed weapons into a nightclub full of drunks is a good idea?
I've worked as a nightclub bouncer, and I'd probably be dead if some of the people I've had to bounce had a gun on them.
From statement of survivors of the shooting is is obvious, obvious, that if those survivors had had concealed guns they could have stopped the slaughter.......numerous times......and yet you guys want that slaughter to continue........gun free zones are getting people murdered.......and you guys keep pushing it...of course, you need these shootings to push gun control...more bodies, the more power you have over dimwitted Americans who let you take their Rights....
From statement of survivors of the shooting is is obvious, obvious, that if those survivors had had concealed guns they could have stopped the slaughter.......numerous times......and yet you guys want that slaughter to continue........gun free zones are getting people murdered.......and you guys keep pushing it...of course, you need these shootings to push gun control...more bodies, the more power you have over dimwitted Americans who let you take their Rights....
Drunk people firing guns? That would have worked out well.
If the shooter knew there were armed people there, he would have gone elsewhere, thus no need to shoot at all.
That nightclub, you know the one Mateen attacked? It was packed with 300 healthy men/women. And nobody took him down. Nobody. Fifty people died instead. He was outnumbered three-hundred to one. Please, don't bother preaching to me about how much safer the world would be with gun control. Even though that club was a vaunted gun-free zone, people still died. It didn't stop a crazed Muslim "jihadi" from mowing people down with an "AR-15" or whatever weapon he used. This gun free zone lulled these poor people into a false sense of security. They soon found out how nonexistent that security was. That alone proves just how ineffectual gun free zones really are.
What if in fact they had been armed? What would have been better, a sign which gives the illusion of security, or a firearm at your side which gives certain security?
What do you think gun-free zones have accomplished? This isn't Star Trek, you can't just raise a forcefield and block crazed gunmen/terrorists from bringing their weapons into the building. It doesn't work that way. I'm sorry to say gun control liberals are too thickheaded to see that. All a gun free zone is, is three words on a sign. Words are meaningless. Signs are meaningless. Words were not going to stop that terrorist from killing people.
This is truly heartbreaking. Gun control liberals think gun-free zones will stop atrocities from happening. Gun control liberals thing gun control laws will stop atrocities from happening. Right. This is like trying to stop a bomb blast with a piece of paper. In essence, that's all gun control laws are, just words written on a piece of paper, just like a gun-free zone sign.
Do you feel that a person that is on a no-fly list should be able to purchase a gun?
Yes....this guy was not on a no fly list was he.....
According to you nuts, since he was a citizen there is no need to vet muslims from Syria to make sure radical jihadis are not getting in...
So...since this guy wasn't on the no-fly list then there is no reason the no-fly list should be a no buy list....right?
Yes....this guy was not on a no fly list was he.....
According to you nuts, since he was a citizen there is no need to vet muslims from Syria to make sure radical jihadis are not getting in...
So...since this guy wasn't on the no-fly list then there is no reason the no-fly list should be a no buy list....right?
My question is: Do you feel that a person that is on a no-fly list should be able to purchase a gun?
That nightclub, you know the one Mateen attacked? It was packed with 300 healthy men/women. And nobody took him down. Nobody. Fifty people died instead. He was outnumbered three-hundred to one. Please, don't bother preaching to me about how much safer the world would be with gun control. Even though that club was a vaunted gun-free zone, people still died. It didn't stop a crazed Muslim "jihadi" from mowing people down with an "AR-15" or whatever weapon he used. This gun free zone lulled these poor people into a false sense of security. They soon found out how nonexistent that security was. That alone proves just how ineffectual gun free zones really are.
What if in fact they had been armed? What would have been better, a sign which gives the illusion of security, or a firearm at your side which gives certain security?
What do you think gun-free zones have accomplished? This isn't Star Trek, you can't just raise a forcefield and block crazed gunmen/terrorists from bringing their weapons into the building. It doesn't work that way. I'm sorry to say gun control liberals are too thickheaded to see that. All a gun free zone is, is three words on a sign. Words are meaningless. Signs are meaningless. Words were not going to stop that terrorist from killing people.
This is truly heartbreaking. Gun control liberals think gun-free zones will stop atrocities from happening. Gun control liberals thing gun control laws will stop atrocities from happening. Right. This is like trying to stop a bomb blast with a piece of paper. In essence, that's all gun control laws are, just words written on a piece of paper, just like a gun-free zone sign.
Do you feel that a person that is on a no-fly list should be able to purchase a gun?
Yes....this guy was not on a no fly list was he.....
According to you nuts, since he was a citizen there is no need to vet muslims from Syria to make sure radical jihadis are not getting in...
So...since this guy wasn't on the no-fly list then there is no reason the no-fly list should be a no buy list....right?
Yes....this guy was not on a no fly list was he.....
According to you nuts, since he was a citizen there is no need to vet muslims from Syria to make sure radical jihadis are not getting in...
So...since this guy wasn't on the no-fly list then there is no reason the no-fly list should be a no buy list....right?
My question is: Do you feel that a person that is on a no-fly list should be able to purchase a gun?
[
My question is: Do you feel that a person that is on a no-fly list should be able to purchase a gun?
Yet, it is words that get 'terrorists' to commit acts of 'terror'.
Yet, it is words that get 'terrorists' to commit acts of 'terror'.
It's mostly religious based belief which spurs hate.
Hate-based belief systems, surely. Belief is not synonymous with religion. The Nazi belief in race was not scientific, but did have a lot of hate. Left and right extremes are fueled by hate over simple ideological details. Certainly, many religious differences as well are woven into the fabric of hate. Hate and objectification of 'others' into 'targets' to be eliminated make future catastrophes virtually inevitable.
Only words can counter this. There will never be enough bullets for the job.
Do you really think allowing concealed weapons into a nightclub full of drunks is a good idea?
I've worked as a nightclub bouncer, and I'd probably be dead if some of the people I've had to bounce had a gun on them.
From statement of survivors of the shooting is is obvious, obvious, that if those survivors had had concealed guns they could have stopped the slaughter.......numerous times......and yet you guys want that slaughter to continue........gun free zones are getting people murdered.......and you guys keep pushing it...of course, you need these shootings to push gun control...more bodies, the more power you have over dimwitted Americans who let you take their Rights....
From statement of survivors of the shooting is is obvious, obvious, that if those survivors had had concealed guns they could have stopped the slaughter.......numerous times......and yet you guys want that slaughter to continue........gun free zones are getting people murdered.......and you guys keep pushing it...of course, you need these shootings to push gun control...more bodies, the more power you have over dimwitted Americans who let you take their Rights....
Drunk people firing guns? That would have worked out well.
If the shooter knew there were armed people there, he would have gone elsewhere, thus no need to shoot at all.
There WAS an armed police officer!
Who apparently beat feet out of there !?
That nightclub, you know the one Mateen attacked? It was packed with 300 healthy men/women. And nobody took him down. Nobody. Fifty people died instead. He was outnumbered three-hundred to one. Please, don't bother preaching to me about how much safer the world would be with gun control. Even though that club was a vaunted gun-free zone, people still died. It didn't stop a crazed Muslim "jihadi" from mowing people down with an "AR-15" or whatever weapon he used. This gun free zone lulled these poor people into a false sense of security. They soon found out how nonexistent that security was. That alone proves just how ineffectual gun free zones really are.
What if in fact they had been armed? What would have been better, a sign which gives the illusion of security, or a firearm at your side which gives certain security?
What do you think gun-free zones have accomplished? This isn't Star Trek, you can't just raise a forcefield and block crazed gunmen/terrorists from bringing their weapons into the building. It doesn't work that way. I'm sorry to say gun control liberals are too thickheaded to see that. All a gun free zone is, is three words on a sign. Words are meaningless. Signs are meaningless. Words were not going to stop that terrorist from killing people.
This is truly heartbreaking. Gun control liberals think gun-free zones will stop these atrocities from happening. Gun control liberals think gun control laws will stop these atrocities from happening. Right. This is like trying to stop a bomb blast with a piece of paper. In essence, that's all gun control laws and gun free zone signs are, just words written on a piece of paper.
Typically, bars are a no no when it comes to guns. I think most states (mine does) have laws banning guns from any place alcohol is served and I think that's a good thing. What would have prevented this Haji from shooting the place up would have been the FBI doing its job and getting this dude off the streets. Basically, had the administration been doing its job and not been worried about looking PC this shooting would never have happened.
That makes the bar a prime target. My alcohol intake has never caused my gun to come out of its holster, let alone kill someone.
That makes the bar a prime target. My alcohol intake has never caused my gun to come out of its holster, let alone kill someone.
You drink when your armed? That's scary.
I'm always armed, sometimes I drink. And I'm sure you spend your whole life scared.
That nightclub, you know the one Mateen attacked? It was packed with 300 healthy men/women. And nobody took him down. Nobody. Fifty people died instead. He was outnumbered three-hundred to one. Please, don't bother preaching to me about how much safer the world would be with gun control. Even though that club was a vaunted gun-free zone, people still died. It didn't stop a crazed Muslim "jihadi" from mowing people down with an "AR-15" or whatever weapon he used. This gun free zone lulled these poor people into a false sense of security. They soon found out how nonexistent that security was. That alone proves just how ineffectual gun free zones really are.
What if in fact they had been armed? What would have been better, a sign which gives the illusion of security, or a firearm at your side which gives certain security?
What do you think gun-free zones have accomplished? This isn't Star Trek, you can't just raise a forcefield and block crazed gunmen/terrorists from bringing their weapons into the building. It doesn't work that way. I'm sorry to say gun control liberals are too thickheaded to see that. All a gun free zone is, is three words on a sign. Words are meaningless. Signs are meaningless. Words were not going to stop that terrorist from killing people.
This is truly heartbreaking. Gun control liberals think gun-free zones will stop atrocities from happening. Gun control liberals thing gun control laws will stop atrocities from happening. Right. This is like trying to stop a bomb blast with a piece of paper. In essence, that's all gun control laws are, just words written on a piece of paper, just like a gun-free zone sign.
Do you feel that a person that is on a no-fly list should be able to purchase a gun?
Yes....this guy was not on a no fly list was he.....
According to you nuts, since he was a citizen there is no need to vet muslims from Syria to make sure radical jihadis are not getting in...
So...since this guy wasn't on the no-fly list then there is no reason the no-fly list should be a no buy list....right?
Yes....this guy was not on a no fly list was he.....
According to you nuts, since he was a citizen there is no need to vet muslims from Syria to make sure radical jihadis are not getting in...
So...since this guy wasn't on the no-fly list then there is no reason the no-fly list should be a no buy list....right?
My question is: Do you feel that a person that is on a no-fly list should be able to purchase a gun?
The no fly list as it stands now is unconstitutional. Not only should people on the list be able to fly, they should be able to buy a gun. It's called due process.
Do you really think allowing concealed weapons into a nightclub full of drunks is a good idea?
I've worked as a nightclub bouncer, and I'd probably be dead if some of the people I've had to bounce had a gun on them.
From statement of survivors of the shooting is is obvious, obvious, that if those survivors had had concealed guns they could have stopped the slaughter.......numerous times......and yet you guys want that slaughter to continue........gun free zones are getting people murdered.......and you guys keep pushing it...of course, you need these shootings to push gun control...more bodies, the more power you have over dimwitted Americans who let you take their Rights....
From statement of survivors of the shooting is is obvious, obvious, that if those survivors had had concealed guns they could have stopped the slaughter.......numerous times......and yet you guys want that slaughter to continue........gun free zones are getting people murdered.......and you guys keep pushing it...of course, you need these shootings to push gun control...more bodies, the more power you have over dimwitted Americans who let you take their Rights....
Drunk people firing guns? That would have worked out well.
If the shooter knew there were armed people there, he would have gone elsewhere, thus no need to shoot at all.
There WAS an armed police officer!
Who apparently beat feet out of there !?
That's why I don't go to night clubsDo you really think allowing concealed weapons into a nightclub full of drunks is a good idea?
I've worked as a nightclub bouncer, and I'd probably be dead if some of the people I've had to bounce had a gun on them.
Yes. Do you think that in a crowd of 300+ people, there will be 300+ guns?
This post is a good example of the fantasy land that the true gun nuts live in.
I own guns - many of them. I like guns, I think they're a lot of fun. But I'm not completely deluded into think that guns are some magical solution to everything.
What if the owners of the club didn't want people to bring guns in? Should they have been forced to allow it?
People drink and take drugs at night clubs. Every night while working, I had to physically bounce many angry, violent, drunken clowns. Many of them threatened my life - and had some of them had a gun on them, I have no doubt that I would have been killed. I was stabbed twice.
That's why I don't go to night clubs
I thought it was because you're old and in bed by 9:30.
That nightclub, you know the one Mateen attacked? It was packed with 300 healthy men/women. And nobody took him down. Nobody. Fifty people died instead. He was outnumbered three-hundred to one. Please, don't bother preaching to me about how much safer the world would be with gun control. Even though that club was a vaunted gun-free zone, people still died. It didn't stop a crazed Muslim "jihadi" from mowing people down with an "AR-15" or whatever weapon he used. This gun free zone lulled these poor people into a false sense of security. They soon found out how nonexistent that security was. That alone proves just how ineffectual gun free zones really are.
What if in fact they had been armed? What would have been better, a sign which gives the illusion of security, or a firearm at your side which gives certain security?
What do you think gun-free zones have accomplished? This isn't Star Trek, you can't just raise a forcefield and block crazed gunmen/terrorists from bringing their weapons into the building. It doesn't work that way. I'm sorry to say gun control liberals are too thickheaded to see that. All a gun free zone is, is three words on a sign. Words are meaningless. Signs are meaningless. Words were not going to stop that terrorist from killing people.
This is truly heartbreaking. Gun control liberals think gun-free zones will stop these atrocities from happening. Gun control liberals think gun control laws will stop these atrocities from happening. Right. This is like trying to stop a bomb blast with a piece of paper. In essence, that's all gun control laws and gun free zone signs are, just words written on a piece of paper.
[
My question is: Do you feel that a person that is on a no-fly list should be able to purchase a gun?
The real answer is do you trust the government thugs making up the list?
For instance, Obama's Homeland Security issued a position paper stating that veterans, citizens opposing abortion, citizens opposing illegal aliens etc were potential terrorists. How can you trust anybody with your Constitutional rights that is that much batshit Libtard crazy?
I simply don't trust the government to determine if I am entitled to my Constitutional Rights or not because the shitheads like Obama have their own filthy ass Left agenda.
I will bet my bottom dollar that Disney World is a gun free zone. Had Dad been armed he could have shot the alligator.
I will bet my bottom dollar that Disney World is a gun free zone. Had Dad been armed he could have shot the alligator.
Odds are he would have missed or shot his kid. Being responsible and not letting your kid near water that 'no swimming' signs are posted would have been an easy measure of protection.
On that, I'm not seeing a lot of calls for the parents to be arrested for that croc incident, as opposed to the gorilla incident.
What would explain that? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm....
color me puzzled.
On that, I'm not seeing a lot of calls for the parents to be arrested for that croc incident, as opposed to the gorilla incident.
What would explain that? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm....
color me puzzled.
Don't know.
That nightclub, you know the one Mateen attacked? It was packed with 300 healthy men/women. And nobody took him down. Nobody. Fifty people died instead. He was outnumbered three-hundred to one. Please, don't bother preaching to me about how much safer the world would be with gun control. Even though that club was a vaunted gun-free zone, people still died. It didn't stop a crazed Muslim "jihadi" from mowing people down with an "AR-15" or whatever weapon he used. This gun free zone lulled these poor people into a false sense of security. They soon found out how nonexistent that security was. That alone proves just how ineffectual gun free zones really are.
What if in fact they had been armed? What would have been better, a sign which gives the illusion of security, or a firearm at your side which gives certain security?
What do you think gun-free zones have accomplished? This isn't Star Trek, you can't just raise a forcefield and block crazed gunmen/terrorists from bringing their weapons into the building. It doesn't work that way. I'm sorry to say gun control liberals are too thickheaded to see that. All a gun free zone is, is three words on a sign. Words are meaningless. Signs are meaningless. Words were not going to stop that terrorist from killing people.
This is truly heartbreaking. Gun control liberals think gun-free zones will stop atrocities from happening. Gun control liberals thing gun control laws will stop atrocities from happening. Right. This is like trying to stop a bomb blast with a piece of paper. In essence, that's all gun control laws are, just words written on a piece of paper, just like a gun-free zone sign.
Do you feel that a person that is on a no-fly list should be able to purchase a gun?
The 5th Amendment say no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process. Meaning a judge should be the only person who can place a person on such a list because it denies them the liberty to travel as they chose. Now you want to deny them the right of self protection also, without due process? That would be down right unAmerican.
The 5th Amendment say no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process. Meaning a judge should be the only person who can place a person on such a list because it denies them the liberty to travel as they chose. Now you want to deny them the right of self protection also, without due process? That would be down right unAmerican.
So we can have a Judge sign-off. Done.
OBTW? Would a tab of ecstasy be property?
That nightclub, you know the one Mateen attacked? It was packed with 300 healthy men/women. And nobody took him down. Nobody. Fifty people died instead. He was outnumbered three-hundred to one. Please, don't bother preaching to me about how much safer the world would be with gun control. Even though that club was a vaunted gun-free zone, people still died. It didn't stop a crazed Muslim "jihadi" from mowing people down with an "AR-15" or whatever weapon he used. This gun free zone lulled these poor people into a false sense of security. They soon found out how nonexistent that security was. That alone proves just how ineffectual gun free zones really are.
What if in fact they had been armed? What would have been better, a sign which gives the illusion of security, or a firearm at your side which gives certain security?
What do you think gun-free zones have accomplished? This isn't Star Trek, you can't just raise a forcefield and block crazed gunmen/terrorists from bringing their weapons into the building. It doesn't work that way. I'm sorry to say gun control liberals are too thickheaded to see that. All a gun free zone is, is three words on a sign. Words are meaningless. Signs are meaningless. Words were not going to stop that terrorist from killing people.
This is truly heartbreaking. Gun control liberals think gun-free zones will stop atrocities from happening. Gun control liberals thing gun control laws will stop atrocities from happening. Right. This is like trying to stop a bomb blast with a piece of paper. In essence, that's all gun control laws are, just words written on a piece of paper, just like a gun-free zone sign.
Do you feel that a person that is on a no-fly list should be able to purchase a gun?
The 5th Amendment say no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process. Meaning a judge should be the only person who can place a person on such a list because it denies them the liberty to travel as they chose. Now you want to deny them the right of self protection also, without due process? That would be down right unAmerican.
The 5th Amendment say no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process. Meaning a judge should be the only person who can place a person on such a list because it denies them the liberty to travel as they chose. Now you want to deny them the right of self protection also, without due process? That would be down right unAmerican.
So we can have a Judge sign-off. Done.
OBTW? Would a tab of ecstasy be property?
So now you want to deny the individual their 6th Amendment rights to confront witnesses against them?
And sure, you can claim a tab of ecstasy as your property, I would advise against it.
[Q
The real answer is yes, or no.
Do I trust 'the government thug,' or an NRA puppet?
I hope that protecting the constitutional rights of bad guys doesn't get you killed.
If the FBI says that some guy needs to be on a watch list, that's good enough for me. That's what they get paid to do. Where the FBI screwed up is that once somebody is on the list, they shouldn't be removed. Perhaps a not-as restrictive list. But they shouldn't EVER be able to buy guns.
The danger that you and people like you pose to the rest of us, is that you wrap yourselves in the constitution and only see black and white, when there are shades of grey, namely the Orlando shooter.
That nightclub, you know the one Mateen attacked? It was packed with 300 healthy men/women. And nobody took him down. Nobody. Fifty people died instead. He was outnumbered three-hundred to one. Please, don't bother preaching to me about how much safer the world would be with gun control. Even though that club was a vaunted gun-free zone, people still died. It didn't stop a crazed Muslim "jihadi" from mowing people down with an "AR-15" or whatever weapon he used. This gun free zone lulled these poor people into a false sense of security. They soon found out how nonexistent that security was. That alone proves just how ineffectual gun free zones really are.
What if in fact they had been armed? What would have been better, a sign which gives the illusion of security, or a firearm at your side which gives certain security?
What do you think gun-free zones have accomplished? This isn't Star Trek, you can't just raise a forcefield and block crazed gunmen/terrorists from bringing their weapons into the building. It doesn't work that way. I'm sorry to say gun control liberals are too thickheaded to see that. All a gun free zone is, is three words on a sign. Words are meaningless. Signs are meaningless. Words were not going to stop that terrorist from killing people.
This is truly heartbreaking. Gun control liberals think gun-free zones will stop atrocities from happening. Gun control liberals thing gun control laws will stop atrocities from happening. Right. This is like trying to stop a bomb blast with a piece of paper. In essence, that's all gun control laws are, just words written on a piece of paper, just like a gun-free zone sign.
Do you feel that a person that is on a no-fly list should be able to purchase a gun?
The 5th Amendment say no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process. Meaning a judge should be the only person who can place a person on such a list because it denies them the liberty to travel as they chose. Now you want to deny them the right of self protection also, without due process? That would be down right unAmerican.
The 5th Amendment say no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process. Meaning a judge should be the only person who can place a person on such a list because it denies them the liberty to travel as they chose. Now you want to deny them the right of self protection also, without due process? That would be down right unAmerican.
So we can have a Judge sign-off. Done.
OBTW? Would a tab of ecstasy be property?
So now you want to deny the individual their 6th Amendment rights to confront witnesses against them?
And sure, you can claim a tab of ecstasy as your property, I would advise against it.
So now you want to deny the individual their 6th Amendment rights to confront witnesses against them?
If the FBI says that someone is a suspected terrorist, that's good enough for me.
And sure, you can claim a tab of ecstasy as your property, I would advise against it.
WOW!!! You missed the point.
That nightclub, you know the one Mateen attacked? It was packed with 300 healthy men/women. And nobody took him down. Nobody. Fifty people died instead. He was outnumbered three-hundred to one. Please, don't bother preaching to me about how much safer the world would be with gun control. Even though that club was a vaunted gun-free zone, people still died. It didn't stop a crazed Muslim "jihadi" from mowing people down with an "AR-15" or whatever weapon he used. This gun free zone lulled these poor people into a false sense of security. They soon found out how nonexistent that security was. That alone proves just how ineffectual gun free zones really are.
What if in fact they had been armed? What would have been better, a sign which gives the illusion of security, or a firearm at your side which gives certain security?
What do you think gun-free zones have accomplished? This isn't Star Trek, you can't just raise a forcefield and block crazed gunmen/terrorists from bringing their weapons into the building. It doesn't work that way. I'm sorry to say gun control liberals are too thickheaded to see that. All a gun free zone is, is three words on a sign. Words are meaningless. Signs are meaningless. Words were not going to stop that terrorist from killing people.
This is truly heartbreaking. Gun control liberals think gun-free zones will stop these atrocities from happening. Gun control liberals think gun control laws will stop these atrocities from happening. Right. This is like trying to stop a bomb blast with a piece of paper. In essence, that's all gun control laws and gun free zone signs are, just words written on a piece of paper.
