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.
Hm. Is it racist to about a baby because he is black?
No, it's what they say about teenagers having sex, and they're correct in that the safest sex for teens is no sex. That's not gonna happen but it's true, just like the safest way for teens to handle guns is don't.Wow, that's exactly what religious radicals say about sex-ed. You are a certified moron, to be sure.The better idea, especially for kids, is Just Say No. Clear? No child needs to know how to handle a gun because no child should be touching a gun, ever. It is unnecessary.
Guns aren't for defense. If you want to teach self-defense by all means do. Guns are for killing things, period.Seriously, this is where liberalism turns nutty. I would ask my fellow liberals to look at the larger picture.
I concede that such training is possibly (if not likely) to have some bad consequences down the road. The kid who gets picked on in 3rd period by Jeff or Jill, will have access to a firearm in 6th period where Jeff or Jill may be in the same class. I further concede that with our cartoonish society and the volumes of mis-information on the web about the consequences of serious actions are characterized as everything from nominal to downright cool, it's probably not the gold of ideas to bring weapons into the schools with a seal of approval from the administration.
All that is conceded. What wins the day however are the facts that we live in a dangerous society so learning about the weapons that contribute to that danger is identical to girls learning about barrier contraception. Its really a matter of self defense. On the same theme as self defense, purchasing a gun and not knowing the first thing on how to use/maintain it maybe more dangerous in some cases for the owner than an intruder breaking into their residence. So why not? Thirdly, when your choices are other topics such as Clothing and Textiles, Pottery, or Football, there is some currency to learning real-world lessons; harsh though they may be.
I can think of a lot of things that I'd rather have taught in school but this isn't a loser of an idea out of the gate. Execution is, as always, the most important thing.
Guns aren't for defense. If you want to teach self-defense by all means do. Guns are for killing things, period.Seriously, this is where liberalism turns nutty. I would ask my fellow liberals to look at the larger picture.
I concede that such training is possibly (if not likely) to have some bad consequences down the road. The kid who gets picked on in 3rd period by Jeff or Jill, will have access to a firearm in 6th period where Jeff or Jill may be in the same class. I further concede that with our cartoonish society and the volumes of mis-information on the web about the consequences of serious actions are characterized as everything from nominal to downright cool, it's probably not the gold of ideas to bring weapons into the schools with a seal of approval from the administration.
All that is conceded. What wins the day however are the facts that we live in a dangerous society so learning about the weapons that contribute to that danger is identical to girls learning about barrier contraception. Its really a matter of self defense. On the same theme as self defense, purchasing a gun and not knowing the first thing on how to use/maintain it maybe more dangerous in some cases for the owner than an intruder breaking into their residence. So why not? Thirdly, when your choices are other topics such as Clothing and Textiles, Pottery, or Football, there is some currency to learning real-world lessons; harsh though they may be.
I can think of a lot of things that I'd rather have taught in school but this isn't a loser of an idea out of the gate. Execution is, as always, the most important thing.
Guns aren't for defense. If you want to teach self-defense by all means do. Guns are for killing things, period.Seriously, this is where liberalism turns nutty. I would ask my fellow liberals to look at the larger picture.
I concede that such training is possibly (if not likely) to have some bad consequences down the road. The kid who gets picked on in 3rd period by Jeff or Jill, will have access to a firearm in 6th period where Jeff or Jill may be in the same class. I further concede that with our cartoonish society and the volumes of mis-information on the web about the consequences of serious actions are characterized as everything from nominal to downright cool, it's probably not the gold of ideas to bring weapons into the schools with a seal of approval from the administration.
All that is conceded. What wins the day however are the facts that we live in a dangerous society so learning about the weapons that contribute to that danger is identical to girls learning about barrier contraception. Its really a matter of self defense. On the same theme as self defense, purchasing a gun and not knowing the first thing on how to use/maintain it maybe more dangerous in some cases for the owner than an intruder breaking into their residence. So why not? Thirdly, when your choices are other topics such as Clothing and Textiles, Pottery, or Football, there is some currency to learning real-world lessons; harsh though they may be.
I can think of a lot of things that I'd rather have taught in school but this isn't a loser of an idea out of the gate. Execution is, as always, the most important thing.
Once again, if you follow all the safety rules you will not injury or kill anyone by accident.
Even if you never handle a gun you can still be injured by someone else's carelessness, just as you can abstain from sex yet still contract an std.No, it's what they say about teenagers having sex, and they're correct in that the safest sex for teens is no sex. That's not gonna happen but it's true, just like the safest way for teens to handle guns is don't.Wow, that's exactly what religious radicals say about sex-ed. You are a certified moron, to be sure.The better idea, especially for kids, is Just Say No. Clear? No child needs to know how to handle a gun because no child should be touching a gun, ever. It is unnecessary.
Well if the cops can't handle a gun I'm not sure who can?
Once again, if you follow all the safety rules you will not injury or kill anyone by accident.
It's pretty damn hard to get an Sexually Transmitted Disease without the Sexually part. And yeah, you can be killed by someone else with a gun, quite easily in fact. It allows even toddlers to kill, but then again, that's all a gun is for.Even if you never handle a gun you can still be injured by someone else's carelessness, just as you can abstain from sex yet still contract an std.No, it's what they say about teenagers having sex, and they're correct in that the safest sex for teens is no sex. That's not gonna happen but it's true, just like the safest way for teens to handle guns is don't.Wow, that's exactly what religious radicals say about sex-ed. You are a certified moron, to be sure.The better idea, especially for kids, is Just Say No. Clear? No child needs to know how to handle a gun because no child should be touching a gun, ever. It is unnecessary.
Deadly force to protect your house from what, an attacking foreign army? A band of roaming terrorists? Exactly what is going to come after you that you would need to kill? The kid next door or the drug addict looking for cash and jewelry? Do tell John Wayne.Guns aren't for defense. If you want to teach self-defense by all means do. Guns are for killing things, period.Seriously, this is where liberalism turns nutty. I would ask my fellow liberals to look at the larger picture.
I concede that such training is possibly (if not likely) to have some bad consequences down the road. The kid who gets picked on in 3rd period by Jeff or Jill, will have access to a firearm in 6th period where Jeff or Jill may be in the same class. I further concede that with our cartoonish society and the volumes of mis-information on the web about the consequences of serious actions are characterized as everything from nominal to downright cool, it's probably not the gold of ideas to bring weapons into the schools with a seal of approval from the administration.
All that is conceded. What wins the day however are the facts that we live in a dangerous society so learning about the weapons that contribute to that danger is identical to girls learning about barrier contraception. Its really a matter of self defense. On the same theme as self defense, purchasing a gun and not knowing the first thing on how to use/maintain it maybe more dangerous in some cases for the owner than an intruder breaking into their residence. So why not? Thirdly, when your choices are other topics such as Clothing and Textiles, Pottery, or Football, there is some currency to learning real-world lessons; harsh though they may be.
I can think of a lot of things that I'd rather have taught in school but this isn't a loser of an idea out of the gate. Execution is, as always, the most important thing.
And I will use the deadly force of a firearm to defend my home and family. To say they aren't for defense is blatantly ignorant or simply lying.
Well if the cops can't handle a gun I'm not sure who can?
Once again, if you follow all the safety rules you will not injury or kill anyone by accident.
Deadly force to protect your house from what, an attacking foreign army? A band of roaming terrorists? Exactly what is going to come after you that you would need to kill? The kid next door or the drug addict looking for cash and jewelry? Do tell John Wayne.Guns aren't for defense. If you want to teach self-defense by all means do. Guns are for killing things, period.Seriously, this is where liberalism turns nutty. I would ask my fellow liberals to look at the larger picture.
I concede that such training is possibly (if not likely) to have some bad consequences down the road. The kid who gets picked on in 3rd period by Jeff or Jill, will have access to a firearm in 6th period where Jeff or Jill may be in the same class. I further concede that with our cartoonish society and the volumes of mis-information on the web about the consequences of serious actions are characterized as everything from nominal to downright cool, it's probably not the gold of ideas to bring weapons into the schools with a seal of approval from the administration.
All that is conceded. What wins the day however are the facts that we live in a dangerous society so learning about the weapons that contribute to that danger is identical to girls learning about barrier contraception. Its really a matter of self defense. On the same theme as self defense, purchasing a gun and not knowing the first thing on how to use/maintain it maybe more dangerous in some cases for the owner than an intruder breaking into their residence. So why not? Thirdly, when your choices are other topics such as Clothing and Textiles, Pottery, or Football, there is some currency to learning real-world lessons; harsh though they may be.
I can think of a lot of things that I'd rather have taught in school but this isn't a loser of an idea out of the gate. Execution is, as always, the most important thing.
And I will use the deadly force of a firearm to defend my home and family. To say they aren't for defense is blatantly ignorant or simply lying.
And I have already proven that you can. You seem to think that there is some magical way to handle a firearm so that it never points at a living thing, and there isn't.Well if the cops can't handle a gun I'm not sure who can?
Once again, if you follow all the safety rules you will not injury or kill anyone by accident.
The question is not whether a cop can handle a gun or not. The question is whether you can kill or injury someone by accident when you follow all the safety rules.
Deadly force to protect your house from what, an attacking foreign army? A band of roaming terrorists? Exactly what is going to come after you that you would need to kill? The kid next door or the drug addict looking for cash and jewelry? Do tell John Wayne.Guns aren't for defense. If you want to teach self-defense by all means do. Guns are for killing things, period.Seriously, this is where liberalism turns nutty. I would ask my fellow liberals to look at the larger picture.
I concede that such training is possibly (if not likely) to have some bad consequences down the road. The kid who gets picked on in 3rd period by Jeff or Jill, will have access to a firearm in 6th period where Jeff or Jill may be in the same class. I further concede that with our cartoonish society and the volumes of mis-information on the web about the consequences of serious actions are characterized as everything from nominal to downright cool, it's probably not the gold of ideas to bring weapons into the schools with a seal of approval from the administration.
All that is conceded. What wins the day however are the facts that we live in a dangerous society so learning about the weapons that contribute to that danger is identical to girls learning about barrier contraception. Its really a matter of self defense. On the same theme as self defense, purchasing a gun and not knowing the first thing on how to use/maintain it maybe more dangerous in some cases for the owner than an intruder breaking into their residence. So why not? Thirdly, when your choices are other topics such as Clothing and Textiles, Pottery, or Football, there is some currency to learning real-world lessons; harsh though they may be.
I can think of a lot of things that I'd rather have taught in school but this isn't a loser of an idea out of the gate. Execution is, as always, the most important thing.
And I will use the deadly force of a firearm to defend my home and family. To say they aren't for defense is blatantly ignorant or simply lying.
Why would a drug addict harm you? He's looking for cash and shit to sell now isn't he? Is your shit worth a human life?Deadly force to protect your house from what, an attacking foreign army? A band of roaming terrorists? Exactly what is going to come after you that you would need to kill? The kid next door or the drug addict looking for cash and jewelry? Do tell John Wayne.Guns aren't for defense. If you want to teach self-defense by all means do. Guns are for killing things, period.Seriously, this is where liberalism turns nutty. I would ask my fellow liberals to look at the larger picture.
I concede that such training is possibly (if not likely) to have some bad consequences down the road. The kid who gets picked on in 3rd period by Jeff or Jill, will have access to a firearm in 6th period where Jeff or Jill may be in the same class. I further concede that with our cartoonish society and the volumes of mis-information on the web about the consequences of serious actions are characterized as everything from nominal to downright cool, it's probably not the gold of ideas to bring weapons into the schools with a seal of approval from the administration.
All that is conceded. What wins the day however are the facts that we live in a dangerous society so learning about the weapons that contribute to that danger is identical to girls learning about barrier contraception. Its really a matter of self defense. On the same theme as self defense, purchasing a gun and not knowing the first thing on how to use/maintain it maybe more dangerous in some cases for the owner than an intruder breaking into their residence. So why not? Thirdly, when your choices are other topics such as Clothing and Textiles, Pottery, or Football, there is some currency to learning real-world lessons; harsh though they may be.
I can think of a lot of things that I'd rather have taught in school but this isn't a loser of an idea out of the gate. Execution is, as always, the most important thing.
And I will use the deadly force of a firearm to defend my home and family. To say they aren't for defense is blatantly ignorant or simply lying.
If the meth head comes into my house when I and my family are there, you betcha!! I will not risk the lives of my loved ones on the hope that he will not harm us.
Who are you going to need to kill? The locks on the doors are for defense. The gun is for killing something. Don't mix the two up.Deadly force to protect your house from what, an attacking foreign army? A band of roaming terrorists? Exactly what is going to come after you that you would need to kill? The kid next door or the drug addict looking for cash and jewelry? Do tell John Wayne.Guns aren't for defense. If you want to teach self-defense by all means do. Guns are for killing things, period.Seriously, this is where liberalism turns nutty. I would ask my fellow liberals to look at the larger picture.
I concede that such training is possibly (if not likely) to have some bad consequences down the road. The kid who gets picked on in 3rd period by Jeff or Jill, will have access to a firearm in 6th period where Jeff or Jill may be in the same class. I further concede that with our cartoonish society and the volumes of mis-information on the web about the consequences of serious actions are characterized as everything from nominal to downright cool, it's probably not the gold of ideas to bring weapons into the schools with a seal of approval from the administration.
All that is conceded. What wins the day however are the facts that we live in a dangerous society so learning about the weapons that contribute to that danger is identical to girls learning about barrier contraception. Its really a matter of self defense. On the same theme as self defense, purchasing a gun and not knowing the first thing on how to use/maintain it maybe more dangerous in some cases for the owner than an intruder breaking into their residence. So why not? Thirdly, when your choices are other topics such as Clothing and Textiles, Pottery, or Football, there is some currency to learning real-world lessons; harsh though they may be.
I can think of a lot of things that I'd rather have taught in school but this isn't a loser of an idea out of the gate. Execution is, as always, the most important thing.
And I will use the deadly force of a firearm to defend my home and family. To say they aren't for defense is blatantly ignorant or simply lying.
But this does not change anything about the fact that, contrary to your claim, a gun can be used for defense.
And I have already proven that you can. You seem to think that there is some magical way to handle a firearm so that it never points at a living thing, and there isn't.Well if the cops can't handle a gun I'm not sure who can?
Once again, if you follow all the safety rules you will not injury or kill anyone by accident.
The question is not whether a cop can handle a gun or not. The question is whether you can kill or injury someone by accident when you follow all the safety rules.
