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.
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?
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?
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 think 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 and gun free zone signs are, just words written on a piece of paper, just like a gun-free zone sign.
As I said in another thread, we need to train people on how to take down a shooter. If folks started throwing cell phones, ice, shoes or what ever they could get their hands on to disrupt and distract him while they bum rushed the dude and took him down, they could have saved a bunch of lives? But it requires training to overcome the natural instinct to run or hide.
You're not wrong, but that's not an easy instinct to overcome, even for trained soldiers.
It's pretty hardwired.
That's why I said in the other thread, the training should be started in middle school and continued throughout the remainder of the education system to include colleges. There's no need for coordination during an event because everyone has the same training. I'd bet if the folks in Orlando had doen this no more than 10 would have been injured.
If the Pulse Nightclub’s primary purpose was the selling of alcoholic beverages, which is likely the case, then a Florida resident licensed to carry a concealed firearm is not lawfully allowed to do so in such a venue.
This is the irony of ironies. A club that whose primary purpose is to sell alcohol, but not to take any or all pertinent measures to protect their customers should an event like this occur.
An event like this is an incredibly rare random event. It's not something that the club is responsible for planning for.
If the Pulse Nightclub’s primary purpose was the selling of alcoholic beverages, which is likely the case, then a Florida resident licensed to carry a concealed firearm is not lawfully allowed to do so in such a venue.
This is the irony of ironies. A club that whose primary purpose is to sell alcohol, but not to take any or all pertinent measures to protect their customers should an event like this occur.
An event like this is an incredibly rare random event. It's not something that the club is responsible for planning for.
I'm getting that if something is "rare" it doesn't need to be accounted for. Call me a neat freak, but I'd want to be just as prepared for the rare happenings as I would be for the common.
Actually not.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?
I do.
The "no-fly" list is arbitrary and lacks any sort of due process.
A friend of mine who I grew up with was put on the "no-fly" list because he shared (a very common) Arabic name with someone else. It took him more than 5 years and thousands of dollars in legal fees to get it cleared up.
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?
Actually not.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?
I do.
The "no-fly" list is arbitrary and lacks any sort of due process.
A friend of mine who I grew up with was put on the "no-fly" list because he shared (a very common) Arabic name with someone else. It took him more than 5 years and thousands of dollars in legal fees to get it cleared up.
The ‘no fly’ list can be included in the NICS database with an updated corresponding question on the 4473.
The law authorizing the NICS has a provision allowing those denied the right to appeal the denial or delay.
If the FBI cannot justify the denial in three business days, the gun dealer is allowed to complete the sale, but is not required to do so.
And if the FBI is able to justify the denial, the purchaser is allowed to appeal that determination as well.
You are more likely to be killed by a bolt of lightning while walking down the street than be killed by an active shooter in a nightclub. Does that mean you should carry a grounded lightning rod everywhere you go?
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 think 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 and gun free zone signs are, just words written on a piece of paper, just like a gun-free zone sign.
As I said in another thread, we need to train people on how to take down a shooter. If folks started throwing cell phones, ice, shoes or what ever they could get their hands on to disrupt and distract him while they bum rushed the dude and took him down, they could have saved a bunch of lives? But it requires training to overcome the natural instinct to run or hide.
You're not wrong, but that's not an easy instinct to overcome, even for trained soldiers.
It's pretty hardwired.
That's why I said in the other thread, the training should be started in middle school and continued throughout the remainder of the education system to include colleges. There's no need for coordination during an event because everyone has the same training. I'd bet if the folks in Orlando had doen this no more than 10 would have been injured.
I remember discussing this issue with you in another thread. Even a few untrained gun owners in that crowded club could have turned it into a bigger tragedy. Not to fault the police who did whatever they could, but some of the casualties could have been from their shots, and they are highly trained. It was just an unavoidable and sad situation all around. Playing politics with it is even sadder.
You are more likely to be killed by a bolt of lightning while walking down the street than be killed by an active shooter in a nightclub. Does that mean you should carry a grounded lightning rod everywhere you go?
It would be advisable not to be outside during a thunderstorm in the first place. But wait... we've had this type of discussion before; about being struck by lightning. It was a in a thread dealing with Syrian refugees.
Even if there is a 1 in 20 million chance of being hit by lightning, it doesn't stop people from enacting safety measures to prevent such an occurrence. Why do you think they tell people to vacate a golf course? Or stay away from trees?
On the other hand, I'm not going to worry about it. I don't go to nightclubs very often, but the specter of a possible active shooter situation is not going to keep me away.
On the other hand, I'm not going to worry about it. I don't go to nightclubs very often, but the specter of a possible active shooter situation is not going to keep me away.
All I'm saying in this situation is to be prepared for anything, not run away in fear.
Actually not.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?
I do.
The "no-fly" list is arbitrary and lacks any sort of due process.
A friend of mine who I grew up with was put on the "no-fly" list because he shared (a very common) Arabic name with someone else. It took him more than 5 years and thousands of dollars in legal fees to get it cleared up.
The ‘no fly’ list can be included in the NICS database with an updated corresponding question on the 4473.
The law authorizing the NICS has a provision allowing those denied the right to appeal the denial or delay.
If the FBI cannot justify the denial in three business days, the gun dealer is allowed to complete the sale, but is not required to do so.
And if the FBI is able to justify the denial, the purchaser is allowed to appeal that determination as well.
I agree with those laws. A bar that size should have armed bouncers. I was in the Atlanta Hard Rock Cafe recently and I noticed a couple bouncers with hand cuffs and concealed weapons.Think about this. People who don't drink don't normally go to bars. People with CC license are not allowed to carry where alcohol is dispensed in most states. North Carolina just recently changed the law and you can carry in a bar, however you aren't allowed to drink. In either case you can lose your CC license if you break the rule.
Yes, that's what we're discussing. Do you agree or disagree with those laws?
Actually, running away in fear is usually the safest option in a situation like that.
One thing that really bothers me is the total lack of preparedness by the club. This is after Paris. Establishments better start getting their shit wired tight. It's the world we live in now.
That isn't the answer. The answer is to actually deal with Islamic terrorism.
How about letting the bouncers have guns?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.
Actually, running away in fear is usually the safest option in a situation like that.
Maybe for the customers. What about those tasked with the duty of keeping them safe?
