Resolution seeks guns in schools - Coeur d'Alene Press: Local News

Resolution seeks guns in schools

Print
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Thursday, December 20, 2012 12:00 am

SANDPOINT - When it comes to school safety, local Republicans are endorsing the idea that a gun in the right hands can save lives.

Bonner County Republican Central Committee voting members unanimously passed a resolution Tuesday night that urges Bonner County school board members to train and arm employees of each school in the manner they see fit. The resolution comes as a response to the tragic Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Connecticut that left 28 dead, including 20 young children.

Danielle Ahrens, the resolution's primary author, said she believes that if an individual at Sandy Hook had been armed, the death toll would have been greatly reduced. As a mother with children in the school system, she decided to craft a resolution that would address her concerns.

"The fact is that bad people are going to be armed, and I want someone at schools who is equally or better-armed to protect our kids," she said.

Aware of the discussions sparked across the country about differing approaches to gun control and school safety, Ahrens cited different occasions where guns helped stop mass shootings. The shooter at Clackamas Mall this month may have chosen to end his assault and his life when confronted by an individual with a concealed gun. Incidents in Pearl, Miss., and the Appalachian School of Law in Grundy, Va., may have also been mitigated by individuals with guns.

Ahrens said the Bonner County Republican Central Committee proposes that select employees undergo all necessary training courses and licensing procedures to become proficient in the use of such weaponry.

The resolution finds its legal backing from Idaho statute 18-3302 (D) (4) (f), which states under the prohibition of firearms from school property that "a person or an employee of the school or school district who is authorized to carry a firearm with the permission of the board of trustees" is exempt from the law.

Beyond the call to local school districts, the resolution also encourages Idaho Superintendent Tom Luna to "proactively inform and educate every educational institution in Idaho as to its constitutional authority" to use firearms as a security resource.

Indeed, members of the Bonner County Republican Central Committee intend to make their case on a statewide level at an Idaho Republican convention over the first weekend of January. According to Ahrens, Bonner County Republicans may be the first to make such a proposal, but it's already spreading to other areas of the state.

"I now know that there are several school districts around Boise looking at this," she said.

According to Corey Coon, Sandpoint interim police chief, the prospect of arming district employees isn't completely unprecedented. He read about school districts in Texas who allow teachers the option of carrying a weapon provided they undergo extensive training and psychological evaluation.

When it comes to local implementation of firearms on school grounds, Sandpoint High School has had a resource officer on for several years. However, Coon said there was a big difference between having an officer on site and arming school staff. Beyond the differing requirements in training and testing, there's also the issue of liability. If the district made an arrangement with local law enforcement or a security company, the contracted entity would be liable if something went wrong. However, if something were to go wrong involving a school employee's firearm, the district could face serious consequences.

"I think the major thing is that we look at what we can do right now and take care of those things," Coon said.

Those measures are already under way. While school officials wouldn't comment directly on the possibility of guns in the classroom until they had time to investigate the issue, they did say that school security is a top priority.

Lake Pend Oreille School District Superintendent Shawn Woodward said that school staff are taking a close look at security measures in response to Sandy Hook.

"It's really important that we be thoughtful and rational when it comes to moving forward on this," Woodward said, adding that any major changes would be accompanied by an extensive public involvement process.

Currently under evaluation are the schools' lockdown procedures, which are being tweaked to maximize effectiveness. Woodward said that during a recent tour of one school, he was pleased to see all classroom doors locked with no access or visibility inside within 30 seconds of the alarm.

Furthermore, the school board will be examining a variety of new approaches to school security at an upcoming meeting scheduled for Jan. 8.

"We'll have more to say about this after a district-wide evaluation," board chair Steve Youngdahl said, later adding, "We value input from all of our stakeholders and community members."

More about

More about

  • Discuss

Welcome to the discussion.

97 comments:

  • Mahiun posted at 1:07 pm on Thu, Dec 27, 2012.

    Mahiun Posts: 5593

    Oh, Joey, Joey, Joey..... I suspect you may have been the reason your teachers all drank.....

    And no, wrong, Amercia DID have a "standing Army" when this was written; it was organzied, and fought under this guy; George Washington.
    You don't really have any idea what "standing army" means, do you, Joe? HINT: it doesn't mean "infantry".

    A "standing" army is a permanent, full-time, professional army that is not disbanded during times of peace. And not only did George Washington not have such an army during the Revolutionary War, it would have been impossible for him, or anyone else, to have had a "national" army, as we were not yet a nation.

    George Washington commanded the Continental Army, which was brought together as a "well-regulated militia" (where might you have encountered that phrase before, Joey?) specifically to fight the revolution (NOT capitalized) against the British, and was disbanded after the war.

    In 1792, the Legion of the United States was formed to fight Native Americans, and renewed once, then disbanded in 1796. Congress again raised an army to fight the War of 1812, and again in 1846-1848 to fight the Spanish-American War.

    BUT---

    The Constitution specifically and expressly forbids the creation of a standing army, by specifying that funding for an army cannot exceed a 2-year allotment. That same section, Section 8 (which, incidentally, predates the 2nd Amendment), goes on to create a standing navy, however, so the failure to create a standing army was not simply an oversight; it was deliberate.

    Why would they do this? Because the founders realized that the creation of a permanent, standing army would lead to a perpetual state of war, and a society that was dangerously obsessed with firearms, fighting, war and conquering, imperialism, and finding something for that standing army to do, to justify its continued existence. They understood that the creation of a standing army means the creation of a society that is dominated by that army. Now, we have a standing army --- and with it, a society that was dangerously obsessed with firearms, fighting, war and conquering, imperialism, and finding something for that standing army to do, to justify its continued existence. We have society that is dominated by its army and those who profit by doing business with it.

    MAYBE George, and ALL of the founding Fathers FORGOT to remove the second amendment AFTER we got a "standing Army"?
    Joey, that makes even less sense than you usually do --- which I didn't think was possible! It's flat-out impossible, since America did not mount a standing army until around the turn of the 20th century.

    And how is having a standing army justified, when it is in direct contradiction to the expressed intent of the constitution? Mostly, by simply ignoring the constitution. The rest of it is handled by semantic sleight of hand --- we simply don't budget for, or fund the army for more than two years at a time. So far, 20th- and 21st-century courts have been filled with enough war hawks to be able to carry off this legalistic contortionist act, but it is pretty clearly contrary to the original intent of the constitution's authors, who wanted us to raise an army only when one was needed, as determined by Congress and not the army itself.

    So if you want to go back to "original intent", in order to justify unlimited ownership of firearms, then you're also going to have to disband the Pentagon, with the exception of the Nary. That's the only way you're really going to be able to use "original intent of the constitution's authors" as justification --- in for a penny, in for a pound....

    Likewise, the entire idea of an individual right to keep and bear arms is a very new idea, in American history. Throughout most of our history, the question was never even brought up or challenged. In fact, no appellate court -- including the SCOTUS --- had ever held an "individual right interpretation of the 2nd Amendment until the 2003 Supreme Court case of District of Columbia vs. Heller. The idea of an individual right to firearms, independent of the need for a well-regulated militia, is less than ten years old! And it is only the result of an extreme rightward-tilted Supreme Court, and still was decided in the slimmest possible majority: a 5-4 decision. In other words, this is not by any means a case of "everybody knows and agrees that there's an individual right to guns"; this was decided by one person, within the past decade!

    And as part of that case, even the dramatically conservative Antonin Scalia wrote that, "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited, The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." Did you get that, Joe? ANTONIN SCALIA wrote that!

    Keep in mind, too, that because D.C. v. Heller was decided by a 1-person majority, by the Supreme Court, it could also be reversed, in exactly the same way. It is not a given, or an absolute....

    Before that 2003 case, the SCOTUS had not even heard a 2nd Amendment case in nearly 70 years --- not since U.S. vs. Miller, in 1939. And in that case, the court found “In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a [sawed-off shotgun] at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly, it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.” In other words, if it's not going to help you be a member of a militia that needs to be raised to form a temporary army, you do not have an automatic right to a firearm.

    So clearly, the court has gone both ways on this question. It is not, by any means, as cut-and-dried as the Firearms Fetishists would have us believe.

    Your move, Joey....

     
  • The Golden Mean posted at 10:35 pm on Wed, Dec 26, 2012.

    The Golden Mean Posts: 4213

    Yes pretending Joe. Speculating how I would have done the Revolutionary War to prove a point is goofy.

    Think you confuse freedom with anarchy. You are not free to ignore the law. If you ignore the law you will be locked up.

     
  • JoeIdaho posted at 5:25 pm on Wed, Dec 26, 2012.

    JoeIdaho Posts: 2841

    "pretending"?
    I suppose that's what the 3 percenters were doing, too, pretending.

    Here's what happens, GM.

    You start off good, with few rules, and a lot of freedom. Then, over time, the "rulers" or the ones "in charge", start making rules "for the best for all of us".
    You should real Animal Farm sometime. Describes dimmos to a "T". "Some are more equal than others".

     
  • The Golden Mean posted at 1:55 pm on Wed, Dec 26, 2012.

    The Golden Mean Posts: 4213

    "You'd have been great in the Revolutionary War, GM. You'd have sided with the British, saying the same things you say today"

    Probably best if you don't base your position on pretending.

    Make no mistake about it Joe, what you perceive as freedom, are just a set of rules which you can live with.

     
  • JoeIdaho posted at 11:59 am on Wed, Dec 26, 2012.

    JoeIdaho Posts: 2841

    Got it, GM.
    Since YOU say that if Americans decided to defend themselves form an oppressive government; which is a RIGHT, they could "never win", it equates to them being FORCED to give up their rights to the fight.

    You'd have been great in the Revolutionary War, GM. You'd have sided with the British, saying the same things you say today:

    "we could NEVER beat the British; their Armies are SO huge; their Navies dwarf ours, just forget it, and if you DO decide to go against the British; I'll be the FIRST one to spy on you & turn you over to who I think will be the "winners!"

    And if I were you, I wouldn't assume that our Military Men & Women would fight against the Constitution they have SWORN to uphold. They're pretty smart....

     
  • The Golden Mean posted at 10:11 am on Wed, Dec 26, 2012.

    The Golden Mean Posts: 4213

    "It said that SPECIFICALLY to ENSURE that Americans, individually, were able to stand up to ANY military, foreign OR domestic, in order to preserve our freedom"

    Even with the guns that are often used in civilian slaughters, you will never win a fight with the American Military.

    And as a far as freedoms go, you are free to follow the rules. That's about it.

     
  • JoeIdaho posted at 6:32 pm on Tue, Dec 25, 2012.

    JoeIdaho Posts: 2841

    I see, Mahiun. According to you, the Second Amendment says: "the right to bear arms NOW, but not in the future".
    That's lost in space if I ever saw it.

    And no, wrong, Amercia DID have a "standing Army" when this was written; it was organzied, and fought under this guy; George Washington. OK, I'll give you; MAYBE George, and ALL of the founding Fathers FORGOT to remove the second amendment AFTER we got a "standing Army"?

    READ the Constitution, Mahiun, "enemies foreign AND domestic". The simple goal was to give citizens the ABILITY to stand up to tryranny, an overbearing government, of ANY kind.

    You; again, are wrong.

     
  • Mahiun posted at 2:59 pm on Mon, Dec 24, 2012.

    Mahiun Posts: 5593

    ...the Second Amendment does NOT indictae that ANY weapons can be made illegal, uin fact the primary resonance of the Second Amendment is all about protecting FREEDOM.

    Then answer the question, Joe. Just........answer the &*($%^#@ question. The same one you've either ignored or danced around for at least a week, now:

    Why do you not own nuclear weapons?

    Do you think you should be able to? Do you think I should be able to? Who should? Who shouldn't? Why do you draw the line there? (Ummmm.....you do eventually draw a line, right??!) Why there, and not somewhere else?

    You ideal that it was all about making sure people had "hunting guns" is & was wrong.
    Except.......that was never "my" idea. Never said that it was. But it seems to be the idea of some folks around here: that "they" are going to swoop in with a swarm of black helicopters, to confiscate every hunting rifle --- and presumably, a whole lot of lawn flamingoes, in the bargain. I was just trying to address that concern; I never said it was my concern.

    When the framers of the Second Amendment put it together, it was actually meant to ENSURE that Americans, individually, were able to stand up to ANY military,
    Joe, no individual, then or now, is going to be able to stand up to the united might of a military force. That dog don't hunt....

    And that's what has given rise, over the years, to the question of whether the phrase "the people" in the 2nd Amendment refers to a collective right or an individual right. It's not all that clear-cut as you'd like to think, and it is only within the past couple of decades that the SCOTUS has, for now, ruled in favour of an individual right. This has not always been the case, and may not always continue to be the case. It's not even close to being as cut-and-dried as you'd have everyone believe, and --- as with every portion of the constitution, deliberately written to be general, "high-level", and adapatable, there is room for interpretation.

    Plus, again, that other central question: no other constitutionally guaranteed right is considered absolute and not subject to limitation. Why is the 2nd Amendment different from any other amendment? Why is owning a gun the single most important thing in an American's life?

     
  • JoeIdaho posted at 1:39 pm on Mon, Dec 24, 2012.

    JoeIdaho Posts: 2841

    WOULDN'T DOUBT IT.

     
  • JoeIdaho posted at 1:24 pm on Mon, Dec 24, 2012.

    JoeIdaho Posts: 2841

    GM, the Second Amendment does NOT indictae that ANY weapons can be made illegal, uin fact the primary resonance of the Second Amendment is all about protecting FREEDOM.

    According to you, the freedom to purchase a firearm comes ONLY after you have jumped through 10 hoops, and THEN wait 90 days; and THEN pay an extra $200.00. Man, now that's SOME freedom....like a COMMUNIST freedom, Comrade.

    What's interesting to note is that most all of the machine gun/silencers/short shotgun & riflr crime came as a SIMPLE RESULT of prohibition, when the mob fought the FBI. Other than that, WHEN THEY WERE ILLEGAL, they weren't used in crimes anyways, so your "law" had very little to no effect, the same as today.

    Time to get rid of the moronic idea of trying to change the Constitution over knee jerk reactions of liberals.

     
  • JoeIdaho posted at 11:55 am on Mon, Dec 24, 2012.

    JoeIdaho Posts: 2841

    Mahiun, your premsie is IGNORANT of tha FACT that I never shot anybody. BUT it doesn't stop you from denigrating me because you can't "prove statistically" that I won't.

    You said:
    "But somehow, you want us to believe that guns are different, that there should be absolutely no restrictions of any kind, at any time, for any reason. That you should be permitted to buy any kind you want, any time you want, any place you want, in any quantity you want"

    The Second Amendment STATES CLEARLY:
    "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
    It said that SPECIFICALLY to ENSURE that Americans, individually, were able to stand up to ANY military, foreign OR domestic, in order to preserve our freedom. That means that they need to be able to have weapons that DO have a military capacity, in order to defend themselves from Tyranny, and enemies of our Constitution, foreign or domestic. You ideal that it was all about making sure people had "hunting guns" is & was wrong.

    As to your psychoanalysis of my person, good luck with all that. You're just another lib trying desperatly to control ANOTHER facet of our lives.


     
  • Mahiun posted at 11:54 am on Mon, Dec 24, 2012.

    Mahiun Posts: 5593

    Joey, be very sure you want to advance that "historical context" argument. You're correct: the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to ensure that citizens of the time could stand their ground against invading armies.

    But the reason for that was the newborn America had no standing army or police force! Citizens were "it", they were the army. And the police. And the "militia". And an army needs munitions.

    However....

    We have a standing army, now. The most powerful and well-armed army on the planet. So that original intent and purpose of the 2nd Amendment no longer applies. Now, if you're going to follow your usual pattern of reduction ad absurdum arguments, the only logical extreme conclusion is that the 2nd Amendment's original intent and purpose no longer apply, so therefore neither does the amendment itself.

    But that's not what anybody is proposing, Joe. The 2nd Amendment's original intent and purpose of creating an "impromptu army" have long since been obviated by having a standing army; we no longer have a need to have citizens armed as well or better than our military and law-enforcment personnel. We have military and law-enforcement personnel dedicated to that task.

    Sorry, it's one of the weaker arguments you could have chosen, because the same history you want to use is exactly what undermines your argument in a modern-day context.

     
  • The Golden Mean posted at 11:52 am on Mon, Dec 24, 2012.

    The Golden Mean Posts: 4213

    Re: "Yeah, that's me, MR Danger"

    I think "Mr Dramatic" is a more appropriate nickname.

     
  • The Golden Mean posted at 11:50 am on Mon, Dec 24, 2012.

    The Golden Mean Posts: 4213

    Joe, step away from the Caps Lock... Don't make me draft a law to regulate capital letter use.

     
  • The Golden Mean posted at 11:45 am on Mon, Dec 24, 2012.

    The Golden Mean Posts: 4213

    Joe, Second Amendment does not say that certain weapons cannot be regulated.

    Time to add Assault Riffles to the list which includes machine guns, silencers (suppressors) and sawed-off shotguns. The requirements to purchase are as follows...

    1. Be a US Citizen at least 21 years old
    2. Be of sane mind
    3. Not an abuser of drugs or alcohol
    4. Have never been convicted of a felony
    5. Pay a $200.00 Federal Transfer Tax on each weapon purchased. (This is a one-time tax, not a yearly tax)
    6. Fill out BATF Form 4 and submit to ATF. This involves getting a Signature of the "Chief Law Enforcement Officer" in your area signifying that he has no knowledge that you will use your weapon for anything other that lawful purposes
    7. Have your fingerprints/photographs taken and submitted to BATF with the above application.

    After approximately 90 days, during which time the FBI runs your prints to verify your identity, etc., the transfer will come back approved. Only after the transfer is approved can you take possession of your item.

    It is interesting to note that since 1934 when machine guns, silencers, short shotguns/rifles began to be regulated, there has only been one case of a legally owned weapon being used in a crime... And the user was a police officer.

     
  • Mahiun posted at 11:17 am on Mon, Dec 24, 2012.

    Mahiun Posts: 5593

    Joey, you continue to miss the point.... (I know, I know: "But that's a tradition!")

    You might be a spectacular shot, and the very image of responsible gun ownership. You might be a horrible shot, and the very image of careless firearms ownership. You might be something in-between. But the point is not what you are, it's how we know that and how we can verify that.

    And there are 300-some-odd million people in this country who do not know you, and have no reason to simply "take your word for it". To be blunt, your word is simply not good enough; not when lives are literally at stake.

    Nor is it about proving anything to me. I know that, for a variety of reasons, you'd like to make me the bogey man and the bad guy, here. But it's no more all about what I want than it's all about what you want. It's about meeting in the middle, with reasonable compromise. But it's not about proving anything to me.

    Think about it, Joe; the examples are all around you:

    [*] If you want to operate a car, you need to demonstrate and prove that you know what you're doing --- because if you don't, you put lives in danger, including your own. You don't have to prove your driving competence to me, but you do have to prove it.

    [*] If you want to fly an airplane, you need to demonstrate and prove that you know what you're doing --- because if you don't, you put lives in danger, including your own. You don't have to prove your piloting competence to me, but you do have to prove it.

    [*] If you want to practice medicine, you need to demonstrate and prove that you know what you're doing --- because if you don't, you put lives in danger. You don't have to prove your doctoring competence to me, but you do have to prove it.

    [*] Even if you want to practice law, you need to demonstrate and prove that you know what you're doing --- because if you don't, you can ruin lives and even put them in danger. You don't have to prove your lawyering competence to me, but you do have to prove it.

    [*] If you want a new job, you need to demonstrate and prove that you are not a criminal, not security risk, not a thief, and can pass a background check --- because if you can't, you can ruin company profits and cash flow. You don't have to prove your background check to me, but you will have to prove it to a prospective employer.

    But somehow, you want us to believe that guns are different, that there should be absolutely no restrictions of any kind, at any time, for any reason. That you should be permitted to buy any kind you want, any time you want, any place you want, in any quantity you want. Even in the face of yet another shooting, this time of firemen in Webster, NY who were trying to put out a blaze and who may have been ambushed. How many will finally be too many, Joe?

    You are not being asked to give up "freedoms" or "rights". You are being asked to sacrifice a little personal convenience, for the sake of all of us. You are being asked to realize that it's not all about you. You are being asked to grow up and quit being such a spoiled adolescent that you whine about how "unfair" it is that you're asked to undergo a background check when you buy a gun, no matter where you buy that gun. You are being asked to understand that no one is telling you cannot own guns, or hunt, or target shoot, or sport shoot, or skeet shoot, but that weapons specifically designed for high-volume killing in combat situations are not necessary for any of those sports and may need to be subject to common-sense limitations --- just as we limit access to potentially dangerous drugs, by requiring a prescription, written by someone certified as qualified to testify that you do indeed have a legitimate need for this.

    But you are NOT being asked to surrender a right. As has been mentioned before, there is no constitutional right that is absolutely, with no restrictions or limitations whatsoever. You have a right to free speech, but it is not unlimited; it is subject to common-sense restrictions (you can't yell, "Fire!" in a crowded theatre) intended to protect society at large, and protect the right of free speech from being abused to the point that it becomes meaningless and creates chaos. Why is the 2nd Amendment somehow "different"'; why is it the only one that should not carry any restrictions of any ind whatsoever?

    Now, a final comment about "sexual jokes". I wasn't making a joke, I was making a point. A point about irony and hypocrisy. You rail at great length about other people wanting to "control lives", yet you cannot see that that is exactly what you are proposing and what you advocate. You go on at great length about other people commenting on subjects that, according to you, they do not understand, yet you feel no compunction at all about having very strongly held opinions on gender roles and homosexuality, even though you clearly do not understand the subject and have no firsthand knowledge (and are unwilling to consult anyone who does). You have no problem with the idea of "controlling lives", Joe, as long as it's not YOUR life. You have no problem with someone talking about subjects he doesn't understand, as long as YOU are that "someone". And it does have the effect of making you sound like someone who has a whole lot of things in himself that he doesn't want to face or admit to, so he tries to "deflect suspicion" by being the first to criticize these things in others, and make the pre-emptive strike. It's called "projection", Joe, and you might want to look it up and do some research on it..... You're welcome.

     
  • JoeIdaho posted at 10:48 am on Mon, Dec 24, 2012.

    JoeIdaho Posts: 2841

    WHO CARES what you think, "dc". HOPE IT BOTHERS YOU.

    Mahiun & GM, I have been going at this from the wrong perspective, and now I'll right this ship.

    When the framers of the Second Amendment put it together, it was actually meant to ENSURE that Americans, individually, were able to stand up to ANY military, in order to preserve freedom. That means that they need to be able to have weapons that DO have a military capacity, in order to defend themselves from Tyranny, and enemies of our Constitution, foreign or domestic. You ideal that it was all about making sure people had "hunting guns" is & was wrong.

     
  • DCIDAHO posted at 8:52 am on Mon, Dec 24, 2012.

    DCIDAHO Posts: 2908

    Your constant use of CAPS makes you SOUND like a silly little CHILD, stamping his FOOT and whining. Thought REINFORCED by the content of your posts

     
  • JoeIdaho posted at 9:44 pm on Sun, Dec 23, 2012.

    JoeIdaho Posts: 2841

    Mahiun, now that you've disected everything about what makes a person "able" or "not able" to show a kid how to take care of a gun, maybe we can move on to something more useable?
    (A) I don't CARE if YOU think that someone is "qualified" or not. That's ALL YOU with the idea that you're somehow important enough to be able to judge what people can do; or can't. Everythign doesn't REQUIRE a "training class", but as a lib, I know how that's difficult to comprehend.
    (B) You, as an admitted gay person, just can't stop making sexual jokes, can you? Goes right to the point I made earlier about gays being more promiscuous, and I'm correct.
    (C) We "banned" automatic weapns DECADES ago. It didn't stop people from shooting each other. Now, this being the FACT; and as we obviously KNOW that banning "assault rifles" won't fix the problem, what's next? A ban on ALL firearms, that's what is next, and you know who KNOWS this? ALL of the people who are buying up most every gun on every store. They KNOW better than to trust your premises, Mahiun. DUH.
    (D) Tell me WHY law abiding citizens have to lose their rights when they have done NOTHING WRONG. You can't, your logic IS faulty, "you MIGHT hit someone with your car, so you can't drive, cars are too dangerous for people to have". That's your thought process.
    (E) Getting "married" as a gay couple in Spokane just means that you should STAY THERE for your "honeymoon". I think your lifestyle is disgusting, and always will.

     
  • JoeIdaho posted at 9:34 pm on Sun, Dec 23, 2012.

    JoeIdaho Posts: 2841

    I'm really happy that your family gave you such training & was so safe around guns.
    I grew up & went to a "Hunter Safety" class when I was young, in the ealry 70's. That's the extent of my "safety training", and I haven't shot anyone yet, never had a gun go off when it wasn't supposed to. Started hunting on my own when I was 10 or 11, with a 410. I gues I'm just "lucky", huh?
    I ALSO haven't fallen off a cliff, or been hit by a truck. Of course, I never got training about that, so again, just pure dumb luck. Havn't drowned either, but I do boat, and swim, and tube, but nope, againm, no training. Just "lucky".
    Sailed sailboats across the Great Lakes, 25-30 footers, been through storms in 25 foot waves, never got "trained". Obviously ALL of my insurance rates need to SKYROCKET, as I'm SUCH a huge risk....of course I've never filed a claim, but WHY would that matter when I'm OBVIOUSLY so unsafe?
    Yeah, that's me, MR Danger.
    And I'm the first guy the neighbors call when they're in the ditch, or when they need a hand with an excavator to lift somethign out of their truck. (OOPS......no "excavator training" either.....) Guess I'll have to start telling everybody that I didn't go to tow truck school, so after a dozen years of helping them, NO MORE because I'm SIMPLY unqualified.
    And when I do....I'll tell them the TRUTH, that LIBERALS caused all of this mess.

     
  • JoeIdaho posted at 9:26 pm on Sun, Dec 23, 2012.

    JoeIdaho Posts: 2841

    GM, have YOU ever been threatened by somebody who "doesn't know how to store or safely use a gun"?
    Probably not.

    That being the case; how many homes have kids pick up a gun & have an accident happen? VERY few. Oh sure, you can come up with some, over the millions of Americans, but overall, it's a VERY tiny percentile of people that have accidents. The truth is that as a whole, Americans are VERY saftey conscious about their guns, and for you, it's NEVER good enough.

    Your reaction, GM, is based on Sandy Hook. You are BENT on GUN CONTROL when the actual problem is another issue, altogether. It's the same as tearing an arm off & putting a bandaid on, and THEN saying "it won't happen again cuz I'm more careful".

    What's REALLY wreckless is how people like you use ANY reason you can to further enforce taking away more people's rights. You call them the "gun culture" when in fact they're just ordinary Americans. They're different from you, though, so in showing your "tolerance", you have to identify them as some strange group. TYPICAL Lib stance.

    And then you threaten, GM, with the "it's not me you're going to have to worry about", which does NOTHING MORE than reinforce why people are out buying guns like mad in December. UNlike you, though, I make no threats, excepting to say that those people, well, I very seriously doubt if they're going to just hand in their guns because "non-gunculture" people like you have decided to remove the Second Amendment from our Constitution.

    And then finally, your peenultimate threat, lawyers. That's the ENTIRE problem with your "group", GM. You have driven people out of small aircraft through lawsuits, you've WRECKED the health industry through wrongful frivolous lawsuits, and now you go after gun manufacturers & stores, because you HAVE NOTHING ELSE. Cessna, Beechcraft, and Piper are all bankrupt. Know why?
    Because people JUST LIKE YOU sued them every time an airplane crashed, regardless of if they did anything wrong or not. Young Kennedy flew an airplane at night into clouds, lost control, crashed, and the family sued Cessna. You & yours are NO different,gun manufacturers AND THEIR EMPLOYEES will be just another AMERICAN manufacturer wiped out as a result of your fully wrong ideals.

    Your kind is precisely what ails America; you consistently destroy what was left of a once Great & Proud Nation, through the pure, unadulterated destruction of industty after industry, through "safety" and "environmental" issues, and when you don't get your way, it all goes to threats of attorneys.

    I can't stand your socialist way of thinking, GM, and for me; the sooner things turn upside down, the better. We need an end to the insane literal destruction of this country that people like you & Mahiun are after; the sooner it happens, and common sense returns, the better off America will be.

     
  • The Golden Mean posted at 5:47 pm on Sun, Dec 23, 2012.

    The Golden Mean Posts: 4213

    " ... doesn't Dad teaching you to shoot qualify"

    It my family yes, but I grew up in a law enforcement family (Uncle was silver medalist in the Police Olympics - Pistol PPC NRA Rules). Gun safety was serious business around our house. There were even strict rules regarding were a gun could be pointed when unloaded and unassembled during cleaning. Proper gun storage was also "enforced"

    There were rules regarding shooting posture, how you held a weapon and how you carried a weapon.

    Whenever my fiends came along to hunt or target shoot, they usually spent the whole trip getting an earful about safety and protocol. Even though they were taught at home like I was, my family considered them dangerous to have around.

    As an adult I'm no longer interested in guns, but on the rare occasions that I do go target shooting, I'm reminded of the reasons why there are so many accidental shootings. First and foremost is the lack of quality use and safety training. I'm also concerned that some people "change" when they have a weapon in their hands.

     
  • Mahiun posted at 4:57 pm on Sun, Dec 23, 2012.

    Mahiun Posts: 5593

    ...doesn't Dad teaching you to shoot qualify?
    It could..... It might..... But we don't know, and we can't just ale Dad's word for it. Or yours. The same way that we don't take your word for it, or Dad's word for it, that he taught you to drive and you're great at it. Dad might be a great driver, but a lousy teacher. Or he might be a lousy driver but a great teacher --- passing on every single bad habit of his and making them all YOURS, too! And he might be either a great marksman but a lousy teacher, or a lousy marksman but a great teacher --- but once again, you're going to end up just as lousy a shooter as Dad. But if Dad's a great marksman, and so are you, then let's see you show what you've learned!

    If you want to drive a car, you need to prove that you're qualified to do it: you take the same test as everybody else in your state, to demonstrate that you meet the established standards. No reason you shouldn't have to do the same to demonstrate that Dad really did teach you how to operate both a car and a gun safely and properly.

    This is why we have standards: so we can know, and we don't have to take your word, or Dad's word, that you're good enough to be running around in pubic with very dangerous things in your possession, but necessarily under your control. What part of that did you not comprehend?

    It's not the size of the gun that's really in question. (You really are hung up on size, aren't you? That and the whole image of having things "shoved down your throat". If I didn't know better, I'd think that........ Well, never mind......) It's the ability to do a whole lot of damage to a whole lot of people, very quickly. That's why there is -- and should be -- so much debate as to what constitutes an "assault" weapon and where to draw the line. That's why it isn't just a matter of the gun, but the ammo, too; it's all tied together in that idea of "maximum damage, minimum time".

    But under your way of thinking, Joe, there ISN'T anywhere to draw the line --- it'a "anything --- and everything -- goes". Should you be allowed nukes, Joe? Why or why not? Should you be allowed guided missiles? Why or why not? Where does on the draw line, Joe? Why draw any line, anywhere??!

    WHAT gives YOU the right to control other people?
    You might want to look in the mirror and ask that question, before you go outside and have to interact with the people coming here for their honeymoons after getting married in Spokane.... And then maybe meditate on the meaning of the words "irony" and "hypocrite"....

     
  • JoeIdaho posted at 4:18 pm on Sun, Dec 23, 2012.

    JoeIdaho Posts: 2841

    mahiun, you shouldn't be teaching anyone anything.

    Actually, yes, GM's idea is that "Gun training (safety and use) is also the responsible thing to do". I AGREE with the premise, but doesn Dad teaching you to shoot qualify? I BET it doesn't. See; GM SAID AS MUCH when he said:
    "Pretty sure untrained people are not allowed to fly airplanes. Not sure why you are okay with civilians owning and operating combat weapons without training. The military and law enforcement would not allow such a thing but you think it's a citizen's right to to so"?

    What part of this do you have problems comprehending, Mr "Teacher"?

    On the size of gun, I guess YOU decide what WE need or get, right? And based on WHAT? If I want to shoot an Elk from forever away, I want a large caliber round; is that OK with you? Or; if I want to defend my home, you'll CERTAINLY restrict what I can or can't use, advertising what I have to any criminal in existence, since I obey the law.
    WHAT gives YOU the right to control other people?
    Oh yeah, libs KNOW better than the rest of us about EVERYTHING, even guns & bullets, which they TRULY know nada about.

    You said that:
    "No. crime won't go completely away, and it won't ao away instantly. But it will be reduced, dramatically and quickly"
    I see.
    Accroding to YOU: all criminals will instantly turn in their guns, and the people who bought about a billion guns since Newtown, they're also going to turn them in, and panacea will reign supreme.
    Do you KNOW how ignorant that is of reality?
    The ONLY thing that will happen is law abiding people will become more victim than ever before, because criminals will KNOW what is waiting for them. DUH.

    "And it will continue to drop over time, and these guns age out of use and are not replaced or repaired. How do we know this? Because we've seen it happen in other countries, over and over and over and over and over"
    Sure, because Europe & The Netherlands etc are all JUST LIKE America; and we'll be JUST LIKE them. Hmmm.....I WONDER how the IRA got their guns..& bombs? Most people here think JUST LIKE the French, yeah, sure; we all can't WAIT to get rid o them guns....another FALLACY.

    "So if you're going to make the argument that it wouldn't or won't happen that way in America, then you need to be prepared to explain why not"
    OK, here's "why not".
    America is NOT Europe; our society has been well armed for centuries, and even though we have been, aside from inner cities, we have EXTERMELY LOW crime rates. Yes, that goes for shooting people with guns, too. You falsely combine inner city rates of crime with the rest of America, and you come up with this all encompassing "see what a violent cutlure we are" scenario; but you NEVER seperate out where the VAST majority of the crime COMES FROM.
    And why is that?
    Because it would be racist; bigoted, for you to say the truth, that Black on Black crime with guns makes up the vast majority OF ALL gun crimes.

    "Are we that much more wacko than every other country on Earth, that removing assault weapons would not reduce these massacres? If so, why"?
    America, as a Nation, is MUCH larger than all of the other countries, population wise, excepting Russia & China. That means we have more CRAZY PEOPLE, too.

    "If not, then why wouldn't this work as it has in other countries"?
    Once again, we are not Belgium.

    "Joey, we already get it that you're terrified that someone is going to take away your guns, even though that is NOT what's being proposed"
    Ummm...no.
    You will take away ALL guns given 1 HALF of a chance, and the people who are buying guns en masse right now KNOW THIS. What do you think; that I'm alone, I'm the only one who KNOWS that you commies are all about ripping rights away from American citizens?
    Come on, now.

    "We already get it that you think gun control of any kind is a terrible horrible, no good, very bad idea"
    Yep, a gun NEVER pulled the trigger on anybody. NOT ONCE.

    "But what you never offer is an explanation of WHY any of the ideas put forth would be so awful and/or ineffective"
    What a crock, Mahiun.
    I have explained, ad nauseum, why gun control is NOT the answer, and why the issues are plainly, simply, a large, overnearing issue of a lack of morals and ethics in today's society. YOU decide to pay no attention to my arguments, instead, (like the good lib you are) to SIDESTEP the REAL issue of societal woes.
    Sing it together with me now....
    "Guns are the problem; people are all just fine"
    THAT is the song YOU sing. YOu NEVER address the legitimate issues of why kids today are so lost; but you'll SURE talk about gay marriage....

    "All you've offered is a lot of indignation, name-calling, and speculation --- that same "Fact-Free Diet" I talked about"
    Oh, a lib talking about taking away guns from law abiding citizens, usurping the Constitution, and I'm "indignant"? How dare I, after I get called white trash, bigot, racist, etc?

    Here's the facts, Mahiun.
    There are crazy people out there; more every day blowbama leads our country into the abyss. They're hopeless, and it's getting, and going, to get worse.
    Because there's NEVER any effort to reconcile any of the "systems" we have in place; more & more & more of the crazies slip into & through society. While libs like you, and new agencies like the UK's "Guardian" hope to further your agenda politically, more people die. See, when this happened, the "Guardian" put out a story blaming the mother of the attacker, saying that she was a "gun crazed survivalist" when reality was that she like MANY others in America, was a Prepper.
    The ideal that her son was patently insane, well, that really didn't enter the picture, and more than your blaming the gun does.

    IF you want to fix this, you'd need to do what your kind WILL NOT DO.
    You'd need to address the "programs" that you've stood behind & promted for decades, get rid of the waste, and make them EFFECTIVE. Instead, your concentration is as always on MORE programs, blowbamacare; and an ever larger, more controlling government. The endgame is simple; corruption, graft, much like in Rome, is sinking this ship, quickly, and while it does, much like the Romans, you'll tell us all that we "just need to control the guns".

    It's the politically expedient way, as your kind has literally zero interest in acrtually FIXING the issue/s.

     
  • The Golden Mean posted at 3:50 pm on Sun, Dec 23, 2012.

    The Golden Mean Posts: 4213

    "See; you & your gang could CARE LESS about the people who broke no laws, you have no CONCERN for their rights"

    What about my right not to get killed by somebody who doesn't know how to safely use or store a gun? What about doing what needs to be done to keep homes safe for children?

    In America, there are approx 105,000 gun injuries per year, 56% of those injuries occur in a home and are reported to be accidental injuries and 34% of the time, those victims are 17 years old or younger. Joe, your claim that my concern is "knee jerk" is silly based on those numbers.

    It's somewhat bizarre that the gun culture has not stepped up and self-regulated... actually it seems rather irresponsible and reckless.


    "Everything you say is about control, GM, control of other people's activities"

    Not really Joe, knowing what I know about our system, it's not me you're going to have to worry about if the gun culture doesn't make moves to self-manage...

    As we move forward, look for numerous class action laws suits claiming that gun manufacturers and dealers are negligent for selling weapons to untrained civilians. Soon insurance companies will not insure those in the weapons trades if they do not have a system in place which assures that customers know how to safely use and store their weapons. Wouldn't be surprised if homeowners insurance wasn't adjusted according to quality of gun storage and training too. (our capitalist system doing its thing)

    I'm a boat owner, my insurance was adjusted after I completed "X" number of hours of "Captain On Board" training. This was not required by the way, but I felt that it was my responsibility to know how to be safe.

    Why don't more gun owners feel the same way?

     
  • Mahiun posted at 3:27 pm on Sun, Dec 23, 2012.

    Mahiun Posts: 5593

    Joey, if nothing else, you do serve as a superlative example to my students of the class, text-book reductio ad absurdum argument and logical fallacy. You take arguments to such extremes that they become absurd and ridiculous --- and then, because these extremes are absurd and ridiculous, you want us to believe that the entire premise is, too. You're amazingly good at it, but.......it's still a logical fallacy. It's still not a valid or rational argument, exactly because it does take everything absurd extremes.

    UNLESS someone has military or police type training, they should not be allowed to use a gun.
    No. That's not the proposal on the table. If you need to use a hunting rifle, use a hunting rifle --- but there is no reason you need an AK-47 or and M-4 to bring down a deer or rabbit. If you enjoy target shooting, then use a target-shooting piste --- but you don't need more firepower than most developing countries, in order to improve your target-shooting aim.

    So the proposal on the table is that, unless you actually are military or LEO, and are planning to need this weapon as military or LEO personnel, you really don't need firearms designed specifically for military or LEO personnel to use in combat situations. These things are specifically DESIGNED to kill as many people as possible, as quickly and efficiently as possible.

    For the same reason, there's really no reason why you need ammunition clips and magazines designed for killing as many as possible, as quickly as possible. Again, these are specifically DESIGNED for efficient mass killing. There's no possible way to believably justify these as "hunting" or "sports" guns. They're designed for combat, and that how they end up being used.

    "if you just take away THESE guns; ALL the crime will go away INSTANTLY!"
    No. It won't go completely away, and it won't ao away instantly. But it will be reduced, dramatically and quickly. And it will continue to drop over time, and these guns age out of use and are not replaced or repaired. How do we know this? Because we've seen it happen in other countries, over and over and over and over and over.

    So if you're going to make the argument that it wouldn't or won't happen that way in America, then you need to be prepared to explain why not. Are we that much more wacko than every other country on Earth, that removing assault weapons would not reduce these massacres? If so, why? If not, then why wouldn't this work as it has in other countries?

    Joey, we already get it that you're terrified that someone is going to take away your guns, even though that is NOT what's being proposed. We already get it that you think gun control of any kind is a terrible horrible, no good, very bad idea. But what you never offer is an explanation of WHY any of the ideas put forth would be so awful and/or ineffective. All you've offered is a lot of indignation, name-calling, and speculation --- that same "Fact-Free Diet" I talked about.

    Show. Me. The. DATA.

     
  • JoeIdaho posted at 2:22 pm on Sun, Dec 23, 2012.

    JoeIdaho Posts: 2841

    Got it; so UNLESS someone has military or police type training, they should not be allowed to use a gun.
    And now, according to you; we need to have a "LICENSE" to use a gun...(surprise surprise). So, if you wanna use a 22, you need a license, and make sure the 22 isn't an "assault rifle made to kill humans".

    Everything you say is about control, GM, control of other people's activities, control of their healthcare, of what they say, and think.
    Me, I think there's goign to be a really ugly fight over taking away people's guns, and the PROOF of it is in every gun store in America, right now. See; you & your gang could CARE LESS about the people who broke no laws, you have no CONCERN for thier rights; for you; it's all a big ol' kneejerk, all about "if you just take away THESE guns; ALL the crime will go away INSTANTLY!"

    And there's no inflation.
    And the economy's getting better.
    Ya rigghhhttt......

     
  • The Golden Mean posted at 12:03 pm on Sun, Dec 23, 2012.

    The Golden Mean Posts: 4213

    Anybody know why there are so many mail order bride adds in Soldier of Fortune magazine? Why don't Ninjas, Militia Members and Preppers like American women?

     
  • The Golden Mean posted at 11:56 am on Sun, Dec 23, 2012.

    The Golden Mean Posts: 4213

    "... why do people have to be "trained" in order to have or use a gun?"

    Well Joe, because guns are dangerous and because thousands die in gun accidents every year. In fact, by 2015 deaths from firearms are set to outstrip car fatalities for the first time according to data from the Centers for Disease Control. Makes sense that if you have to be trained, licensed and insured to drive, the same should apply to firearms.

    Gun training (safety and use) is also the responsible thing to do. Not sure why the gun culture believes that a perceived "right" cancels out responsibility. Pretty sure a training requirement will also weed out many not fit to own guns without preventing access for those who are.

    Besides, with the world coming to an end soon, surprised that tactical gun training isn't a mandatory part of every preppers pre-lock-down regimen.

     
  • Mahiun posted at 8:41 am on Sun, Dec 23, 2012.

    Mahiun Posts: 5593

    Those who not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

    Columbine had an armed guard. And an armed police officer. It did not prevent 15 deaths and 24 wounded -- until Sandy Hook, the worst school massacre in the country's history.

    So, if you're going to try to claim that "armed guards would make all the difference", then you have to admit that you have abandoned all pretense of rational thought and simply have a gun fetish that no logical, rational, fact-based argument is going to cure.

    More than ever, I am becoming convinced that men raise guns when they can't get anything else up...

     
  • DCIDAHO posted at 8:19 am on Sun, Dec 23, 2012.

    DCIDAHO Posts: 2908

    it's obvious from this thread that any fool can buy and use a gun. We haven't been, and never will be able to rid society of fools. So....keeping weapons of war like the AR15 out of the fool's hands is a logical alternative. I have guns, lots of them, a CCW and am an NRA member. I still cannot see any reason for owning an AR15. Useless weapon for anything other than warfare. A Mossberg 12 is a far better defense weapon. Ask any CCW instructor. The desire to own war weapons is just macho bravado amongst testosterone challenged, possibly inbred, nut jobs.

     
  • JoeIdaho posted at 9:46 pm on Sat, Dec 22, 2012.

    JoeIdaho Posts: 2841

    GM, why do people have to be "trained" in order to have or use a gun? IN the old days, their Fathers taught them to a degree. Now, PERFECTLY law abiding citizens are going to lose their rights to firearms becasue people like you; who REFUSE to lay the blame where it belongs; knee jerk yourself into TAKING other people's rights away.

    Whay don't you tell me; at what point do you call society "safe" and STOP removing rights from people in order to "ensure their safety"?
    You don't, you started with the idea that automatic weapons were the problem, now it's semi-auto, and for you; it's 22's. You & your crowd won't quit until you have what you are after; NO GUNS for anyone, and then America, as a whole will NEVER be able to defend itself.

    What's really intellectually dishonest, GM, is when a person KNOWS what the causal factor is in a crime, and then blaming the tools used to accomplish it. It's the same as saying the bombs that a terrorist uses are the issue when simple, factual reality is that the terrorist will use ANYTHING to acocmplish his goal.

     
  • The Golden Mean posted at 2:37 pm on Sat, Dec 22, 2012.

    The Golden Mean Posts: 4213

    "The gun DID NOT SHOOT ANYONE... An ill person did"

    And Meth doesn't destroy lives, people do it. Legalize meth, right Joe?

     
  • The Golden Mean posted at 1:20 pm on Sat, Dec 22, 2012.

    The Golden Mean Posts: 4213

    Sounds like you are arguing for the "right" to be irresponsible with your guns.

     
  • The Golden Mean posted at 1:18 pm on Sat, Dec 22, 2012.

    The Golden Mean Posts: 4213

    "I am a pilot. PLanes crash, and mostly because of pilot error. We don't DENY others the chance to fly because other idiots exist."

    Pretty sure untrained people are not allowed to fly airplanes. Not sure why you are okay with civilians owning and operating combat weapons without training. The military and law enforcement would not allow such a thing but you think it's a citizen's right to to so?

    "The gun DID NOT SHOOT ANYONE... An ill person did"

    Come Joe, stuff like that is so intellectually irresponsible to say. Of coarse one does not equal two, therefore one cannot be two... that unless it is part of a sum! When analyzing the sum, in this case two, isolating one in a sequence and arguing that since one is not equal to the sum, one is not responsible for the sum is silly child logic.

    In this argument, the sum is two and two equals slaughtered children. Need to find a way to eliminate the components in the sequence which when added up equal two.

    I'm concerned that people who cannot comprehend the difference between the sum and it's components are also permitted to own combat style weapons capable of firing 100 rounds in less than a minute.

     
  • JoeIdaho posted at 12:30 pm on Sat, Dec 22, 2012.

    JoeIdaho Posts: 2841

    GM said:
    "Need to acknowledge the fact that the AR-15 has been used in numerous recent massacres"
    OK, so any weapon that has been used wrongly needs to be illegal to own, right?

    "I'm interested in re-thinking access to certain combat style weapons"
    And by "combat style weapons" you mean anything all the way down to 22's, right?

    "Concerned that 40% of gun sales take place in an unregulated secondary market where even those who are on the TSC's "no fly" list can legally purchase weapons capable of shooting 100 rounds in a minute"
    GM, wake up a little.
    There's a "secondary market" in absolutely everythign sold on the planet. The people who did these massacres didn't do them "because there was a secondary market". So, is your plan to make it to where individuals don't have the RIGHT to sell their own guns?

    "Joe, your passion for gun "rights" has opened up a door where the mentally unstable, convicted criminals and known terrorists can legally purchase weapons"
    Have no idea where you got that from, Sandy Hook idiot STOLE his guns. He was DENIED the purchase of them; the rules worked as planned.

    "Not sure why you allow this, seems irresponsible after Sandy Hook for you to support such a thing"
    I am a pilot. PLanes crash, and mostly because of pilot error. We don't DENY others the chance to fly because other idiots exist. The gun DID NOT SHOOT ANYONE.
    An ill person did.

    You blame the tool instead of the user.

    "All guns should be secured, unloaded in a vault designed for such storage"
    I see.
    So; if I want to leave a loaded gun in my home for protection, that's illegal, right? I need to have a "vault designed for gun storage" in order to accomodate you; Comrade?

    "Trigger locks and cable locks shall be installed where applicable"
    Versus just leaving the gun unloaded, as most people do. And they NEVER go off on thier own either....

    "Whenever possible, ammo shall be stored in a separate vault designed for such storage"
    So; we need to REGULATE the STORAGE of ammo? (Because none of us have a clue how to store it otherwise...)

    "Install security systems equal to or better than those used to protect other valuables"
    And a "security system", too? Hmmm.....

    "I like to call this system... "Responsible Gun Ownership"
    I call this "insane paranoia of the immediate left wing non-gun owners"

    "Know a guy who locks up his tools, but not his guns. This is weird since his guns cost a lot more than his tools"
    He might NEED his guns quicker than his tools, to protect them....

    "Same guy also had an elaborate alarm system installed on his truck"
    Makes sense to me...


     
  • The Golden Mean posted at 12:14 pm on Sat, Dec 22, 2012.

    The Golden Mean Posts: 4213

    "So; how do you stop people from stealing guns"

    Thank you for asking. All guns should be secured, unloaded in a vault designed for such storage. Trigger locks and cable locks shall be installed where applicable. Whenever possible, ammo shall be stored in a separate vault designed for such storage. Install security systems equal to or better than those used to protect other valuables.

    I like to call this system... "Responsible Gun Ownership"

    Know a guy who locks up his tools, but not his guns. This is weird since his guns cost a lot more than his tools. Same guy also had an elaborate alarm system installed on his truck.

     
  • The Golden Mean posted at 11:57 am on Sat, Dec 22, 2012.

    The Golden Mean Posts: 4213

    "... your entire diatribe is & has been about getting rid of a "certain KIND of gun", absolutely; how can you REFUTE that?"

    Need to acknowledge the fact that the AR-15 has been used in numerous recent massacres. I'm interested in re-thinking access to certain combat style weapons. Concerned that 40% of gun sales take place in an unregulated secondary market where even those who are on the TSC's "no fly" list can legally purchase weapons capable of shooting 100 rounds in a minute.

    Joe, your passion for gun "rights" has opened up a door where the mentally unstable, convicted criminals and known terrorists can legally purchase weapons. Not sure why you allow this, seems irresponsible after Sandy Hook for you to support such a thing.

     
  • Humanist posted at 10:55 am on Sat, Dec 22, 2012.

    Humanist Posts: 3208

    Quote JoeIdaho: "are AGAINST keeping your kids safe"

    We have the same goal as you, to keep our kids safe. We just have different, more sensible, solutions. I am for trained, armed professionals in our schools temporarily while we solve the sociological problems that contribute to this American phenomenon. Putting MORE guns in the hands of MORE people is completely counter-intuitive. But you cannot even compromise on a solution. We are not for banning guns, we are for more regulations. You would still have your 2nd Amendment rights but not in the Wild West, unrestricted way that you want, Joey. And this is happening now. You know it, I know it. You now need to accept it.

    And the original message from our Fore Fathers was to protect ourselves from the tyranny of our government. Now we're having to protect ourselves from ourselves. I'm sure our Fore Fathers are rolling over in their graves at this point as your side throws their temper tantrums about wanting to keep their assault weapons and wants to make guns as common as cell phones in public. Talk about ludicrous.

     
  • JoeIdaho posted at 8:57 am on Sat, Dec 22, 2012.

    JoeIdaho Posts: 2841

    GM, yor entire diatribe is & has been about getting rid of a "certain KIND of gun", absolutely; how can you REFUTE that? You went to "any weapon that is a "military style human killing machine assault rifle", and you went all the way to a lowly 22 to make your point.
    So are you saying that the AR-15 needs to be made illegal, and that'll cure all of the murdering?

    On the mentally ill issue, you'll never find anyone to disagree with you; I DO support the premise that anyone w/ brain issues don't get guns. Simple.

    Now; how do YOU figure out who they are?

    See, the problem is mental illness, sure, but the REAL underlying issue is what myself & others have been saying all along; we have a SOCIETAL issue now. Here's why:
    Throughout our history, we've had guns, lots of them, bigger calibers, automatics, and people have been able to go to the hardware store & buy dynamite, if they wished. When they did this, they didn't kill anyone as a result, and there WERE mentally ill people out there.
    Now; things have changed.
    Reverence for HUMAN LIFE is gone now for at least a percentage of the population. We have, as a society, through TV, movies, video games, become VERY desensitized to murder, killing, all of it. The result is a kid like the one in Sandy Hook who came up with a plan, and implemented it.
    Keep in mind, he STOLE those guns; his mother did NOTHING wrong with them, they were NOT illegal.
    So; how do you stop people from stealing guns, GM?

     
  • The Golden Mean posted at 1:59 am on Sat, Dec 22, 2012.

    The Golden Mean Posts: 4213

    "... if they JUST get rid of a certain KIND of guns, all the crime & murders will INSTANTLY go away"

    You made that up Joe, nobody said that. Let's stick with the facts instead. Fact: The AR-15 is being used by evil people to do evil things. Most recently; The Sandy Hook Massacre

    Need to re-think the system. Need to find a way to prevent mentally ill people from purchasing weapons. Not sure why you do not support the need to prevent mentally ill people from accessing combat style weapons like the AR-15.

    Do you believe that the mentally ill or unstable have a right to bear arms?

     
  • Humanist posted at 7:45 pm on Fri, Dec 21, 2012.

    Humanist Posts: 3208

    I was just wondering what your multiple proclamations of belief in God had to do with guns.......

     
  • JoeIdaho posted at 7:41 pm on Fri, Dec 21, 2012.

    JoeIdaho Posts: 2841

    Isn't it funny.....
    that the same people who INSIST on controlling your healthcare are AGAINST keeping your kids safe?

    AMAZING that after millenia; they STILL don't comprehend the BASIC premise that a dedicated criminal will FIND a way to kill people. REGARDLESS of the laws that would somehow stop him, he'll find a WAY to cause trouble, mayhem, and murder.

    According to your local democrabs, if they JUST get rid of a certain KIND of guns, all the crime & murders will INSTANTLY go away, becasue hey; criminals OBEY the law, right?

    Liberals, all for taking away your rights; insistent on the ideal that they; thier healthcare, their laws, will protect you & keep you healthy. Few things have ever been so stupid.

    Then, they call you "paranoid" after 20 schoolchildren are murdered. If you're concerned about them taking your guns, you must be "militia members", and the phrase "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", well this is all meaningless to GM & cronies, becasue he KNOWS better than those Founders did about what this means; and to him, the Constitution is just a meaningless piece of paper; and those of us who wish to MAINTAIN this in it's original meaning & form are supposedly ignorant of it's intent, and usefulness.

    Listen closely to GM's ramblings, people. It's how people are talked into slavery; how freedom is swept away by tyranny; how America, is lost.

     
  • The Golden Mean posted at 6:02 pm on Fri, Dec 21, 2012.

    The Golden Mean Posts: 4213

    More guns.... Paid for by who, taxpayers ? Regulated and managed... by the government?

    More guns paid for by citizens to arm government employees (teachers) is the solution brought forth by many of those who also believe that they "need" military style combat weapons to protect themselves from the government... Yep, you heard that right.

    When America falls apart, how do we know that our newly armed Public School Combat Unit isn't going to side with the government? They are after all, government employees and union members.

    Think about this militia members and paranoid citizens, is there a chance that you might be feeding the same monster that fear, so much, that you have prepared to survive underground for a year to avoid?

    Backfire may not be the right word, but it is the first word that comes to mind.

     
  • yourneighbor posted at 4:37 pm on Fri, Dec 21, 2012.

    yourneighbor Posts: 224

    So here livinlarge says he will try his best to protect a perfect stranger and the Humanpig wants to diss on him. Imagine that......

     
  • JoeIdaho posted at 4:14 pm on Fri, Dec 21, 2012.

    JoeIdaho Posts: 2841

    I'm all for blowbamacare as long as it's paid for by the numbskulls who voted for it through reelecting the biggest failure we've ever had as president.

     
  • JoeIdaho posted at 4:12 pm on Fri, Dec 21, 2012.

    JoeIdaho Posts: 2841

    "humanist" says:
    "While your intentions are good, I hope that I'm not in between you and an evil gun wielder in the event that this occurs"
    HAAAHHAAHSHAAHHAAAA!!!!
    So; you EXPECT people to believe that you'd be better off shot by a person wielding a gun than to have someone shoot back in an attempt to protect you? That's LAUGHABLE....but it shows just how far from ANY reality liberals really are.

    "And, your belief in God has nothing to do with this. I'm a little confused why you would think it does"
    No, WRONG, "humanist". Livinlarge's beliefs are HIS beliefs, NOT YOURS, so your atheist type judgement on how someone involves God in their thought processes have NADA to do with how YOU think. Your being "confused" is just a normal thing. Kinda the same as your "I'd rather be shot than have someone protect me unless they're a cop" statement.
    Now, THAT's brilliant.
    Tell us more, please.
    Does this mean that if you fall off a boat, that only the Coast Guard can rescue you; (since the rest of us have no training?) Or; if you have a heart attack, the only person who can give you CPR has to be a Regitered Nurse, or a First Responder; again, because they have training?

    God the thought processes here are literally lacking....WHAT happened that you liberal ninnies are SO AFRAID of the average person that you INSIST on removing their RIGHTS?

     
  • truthful1 posted at 3:56 pm on Fri, Dec 21, 2012.

    truthful1 Posts: 554

    I'm all for this - so long as it's paid for by taxes laid onto to gun owners.

     
  • cujo posted at 3:33 pm on Fri, Dec 21, 2012.

    cujo Posts: 6

    maybe ATF would step up

     
  • cujo posted at 3:32 pm on Fri, Dec 21, 2012.

    cujo Posts: 6

    Excellent letter livinlarge. Many, many more of us feel exactly the same way and you expressed our thoughts to a tee! I'm 62 now and been a gun owner since I was 15. I've never pointed a gun at anyone or even had close calls. I carry concealed now and do agree with you that my gun will only be used to protect myself AND others.
    People like us just aren't as newsworthy as some young nut raised on extremely voilent video games and gangster music who steals a gun..

     
  • livinlarge posted at 1:14 pm on Fri, Dec 21, 2012.

    livinlarge Posts: 29

    Humanist I am not trying to start argument with you.If we don't see eye to eye( I believe in God and you do not) please just leave it at that. Have a Great day..

     
  • Humanist posted at 1:00 pm on Fri, Dec 21, 2012.

    Humanist Posts: 3208

    Quote: " I WILL shoot back!!!! I will take it upon myself to protect us and try to save innocent lives. "

    While your intentions are good, I hope that I'm not in between you and an evil gun wielder in the event that this occurs.

    And, your belief in God has nothing to do with this. I'm a little confused why you would think it does.

     
  • livinlarge posted at 12:28 pm on Fri, Dec 21, 2012.

    livinlarge Posts: 29

    This is for YOU and by you I mean anyone who reads this or ever finds themselves near me at any given time. I am 50 years old, been married for 27 years, we have 3 amazing children and 4 wonderful grandkids, I believe in God, I carry a gun and feel others should too. I do not carry a gun just for me I do it for YOU too. YOU the people I know and the people I don't know and have never met. Please know if you ever find yourself near me in unthinkable circumstances I will take it upon myself to protect YOU. I will NOT run I will NOT hide. I WILL shoot back!!!! I will take it upon myself to protect us and try to save innocent lives. I know I am not the only one that feels this way. There are still plenty of good people out there. So please know people like me don't just carry a gun to protect ourselves and our families but we do it for YOU too. Guns will never go away and hopefully neither will good people. So hate on us gun toting God loving people all you want. I hope one of us is near YOU if you ever need it. My gun will never be used for evil!!!! Only to stop evil!!!! Peace be with YOU whoever YOU are!!!!

     
  • Humanist posted at 10:51 am on Fri, Dec 21, 2012.

    Humanist Posts: 3208

    Quote JoeIdaho: "ONLY police officers, and of COURSE trained "security guards" can EVER be of any real assistance in a hostage taking/shootout situation. "

    Well, so far, based on the ACTUAL data that exists around ACTUAL massacres, that has STATISTICALLY been the case. But I also realize that real facts rarely matter to you.

     
  • The Golden Mean posted at 10:44 am on Fri, Dec 21, 2012.

    The Golden Mean Posts: 4213

    Guns don't stop shootings, highly trained professionals with guns stop shootings.

     
  • The Golden Mean posted at 10:40 am on Fri, Dec 21, 2012.

    The Golden Mean Posts: 4213

    Wonder if Conservatives would be willing to pay more taxes to arm and train teachers and maintain weapons? Plan would also increase the size of government by creating the need for a new department to manage weapons... US Department of Guns & Education

     
  • JoeIdaho posted at 10:37 am on Fri, Dec 21, 2012.

    JoeIdaho Posts: 2841

    Yeah, you're right, humanist, guns act & shoot differently depending on who is holding them....regular people, when they hold a gun, it's worthless & dangeorus, ONLY police officers, and of COURSE trained "security guards" can EVER be of any real assistance in a hostage taking/shootout situation.

    HOW STUPID.
    IF ANYONE in this situation did the same thing as the sergeant did, the result would have been the SAME.

    Bad guy deterrred by gun, YES he was.

     
  • Humanist posted at 10:19 am on Fri, Dec 21, 2012.

    Humanist Posts: 3208

    @JoeIdaho: The only thing that incident shows is that trained and armed security personnel in shooting prone locations can work. The person who stopped the shooter was an off-duty sergeant WORKING at the theater as security.

    Let's keep the guns that protect us in the hands of the trained professionals - not in the hands of every JoeIdaho.

     
  • JoeIdaho posted at 8:10 am on Fri, Dec 21, 2012.

    JoeIdaho Posts: 2841

    As you can see below, ONE gun CAN protect MANY from ONE gun.

    GM's argument:
    "Need to remember that the murderer, when confronted by the nice lady who teaches finger painting, will likely take a child hostage, demand that the teacher drops her weapon, shoot teacher and continue massacre"
    Or, teacher might take a shot anywhere near shooter as soon as she can; DETERRING SHOOTER from shooting anyone. You've been watching TOO many movies, GM. The crazies that go after people like this aren't after "hostages".

    "Also expect many kids to die in the crossfire"
    This is happening, in GM's mind, when there's a big gunfight at the OK corral inside of a school. IF you notice, EVERY time one of these satanic people know that some resistance is coming, that forst responders have arrived, they IMMEDIATELY put a bullet in their own head.
    There would be NO "crossfire" if a nitwit bent on trouble went into a school & faced another gun.
    IF the nitwit KNEW beforehand that guns were IN the school, he'd never GO there in the first place.

    "Instead, need to re-think laws regarding access to combat style weapons designed for high volume human killing"
    Translation:
    "we need to remove people's rights to bear arms, consistent with our liberal views that te constitution was wrong, and was never meant for people to be able to protect themselves form an overzealous government".

     
  • JoeIdaho posted at 8:03 am on Fri, Dec 21, 2012.

    JoeIdaho Posts: 2841

    Breaking: TX Theatre Shooting Stopped At Mall by Concealed Weapon Holder

    Update: WOAI now reports it was an off-duty sergeant who fired a total of four shots, wounding the shooter. An Initial report by 1200 WOAI news said that an off-duty sheriff’s deputy shot the suspect one time.

    The Bexar County Sheriff’s Office says the off-duty sergeant, who was working security, heard the gunshots and came running. She saw the gunman coming out of the men’s restroom. The Sheriff’s Office says the gunman did not shoot at her, but his gun was drawn so she opened fire.

    That off-duty sergeant, identified as Lisa Castellano, fired four times, wounding the gunman. Only one other person was wounded, a 49-year-old man inside the theater, who was hit by one of the gunman’s shots. Both are expected to recover.

    Investigators say about 30 rounds were fired. It’s unclear why the break-up with his girlfriend caused the man to go after his co-workers. Investigators haven’t ruled out a love-triangle involving someone else at the restaurant.

    With one shot, an off-duty sergeant took down a gunman who attempted to opened fire at a crowded movie theater lobby during a late night showing of “The Hobbit” in San Antonio, 1200 WOAI news reports.

    Texas, Sunday:
    Police say a gunman, identified as Jesus Manuel Garcia, chased patrons from the nearby China Garden Restaurant into the lobby of the Santikos Mayan 14 movie theater at around 9 p.m. on Sunday. Garcia, an employee of the restaurant, reportedly walked in the establishment looking for a woman.

    When the woman, also reportedly a restaurant employee, wasn’t there, Garcia pulled out a gun and attempted to open fire in the restaurant but his weapon jammed.

    “It started at the restaurant and then went into the parking lot and then into the movie theater,” Deputy Lou Antu told 1200 WOAI news.

    The commotion sent horrified restaurant patrons into the movie theater lobby, but the gunman followed. He again attempted to open fire, and this time his gun didn’t jam. Garcia reportedly shot one man in the chest before Antu says an off-duty sheriff’s sergeant working security the theater shot him once, dropping him to the floor.

    Bexar County sheriff’s Sgt. Lisa Castellano reportedly chased the gunman toward the back of the theater. The 13-year department veteran cornered him after he ran into a men’s restroom and shot him before taking his gun.

    “The officer involved, she took the appropriate action to try to keep everyone safe in the movie theater,” Antu added.

    Due to the off-duty sergeant’s bravery, the gunman was not able to make it into the theater where he could have potentially taken many lives.

     
  • JoeIdaho posted at 9:46 pm on Thu, Dec 20, 2012.

    JoeIdaho Posts: 2841

    You oughta see a dimcrab convention; now THAT's lunacy for ya....men think they're women, and people CHEER for them! Anyone attacks Christianity, and they think that's GREAT!
    Fun for all, and Algore to tell us how the environment works, the man who invented the internet all by his lonesome; he TOLD Bill Gates how to do it...and then donated his time to America.
    Whatta great guy....

     
  • JoeIdaho posted at 9:42 pm on Thu, Dec 20, 2012.

    JoeIdaho Posts: 2841

    1. There will be a ban on military type weapons....again, and it will have NO effect, as people will start shooting each other with most anything, then the dimos will ban everything.

    2. There will be a ban on armor piercing ammunition.....ammunition that penetrates bullet proof vests, and it will have ZERO effect on anything.

    3. There will be a closing of the gun show loophole....it doesn't make sense to require back ground checks from licensed gun dealers....and none from gun show sellers, and it will have XERO effect on anything, because criminals never WENT to gun shows.

    4. Banana Clips will be banned, and an underground network of criminals will still have them for use when needed. Law abiding citizens won't have them, and will be at a marked disadvantage against armed criminals.

    5. Some kind of data base will be expanded at the state and federal levels regarding "mental health"issues....and mental health access will be ...expanded....it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to cut medicaid to the states because many "mental health cases" come through....medicaid. The net result is that government bureaucracy grows exponentially; the healthcare system (obamacare) implodes under the "weight" of all the new programs, and 194,000 new "health care psychologists" are hired to judge each citizens ability to function, under government guidelines.

    6. The NRA will not go along with any of this stuff, as they KNOW their membership will crumble if they do.

    7. Militia groups and secession groups will adhere to any laws, but before the laws are passed, they will literally purchase anything off of the shelves, stockpiling for the times when democrats have had thier way, knowing that at some point, the same people that worked hard to remove these guns from the streets will beg to have one of them for their own personal protection.

    8. Gun manufacturers will continue to have extreme record breaking sales years; consistently having trouble keeping up with demand; as America as a whole will not give up their guns. The more dimmos whine about guns, the more of them get sold & into the street, literally backfiring on the dimmos plan to rid our Nation of violence by just "getting rid of the guns".

     
  • The Golden Mean posted at 9:38 pm on Thu, Dec 20, 2012.

    The Golden Mean Posts: 4213

    Teacher & Gun Fighter... Two different callings.

    Need to remember that the murderer, when confronted by the nice lady who teaches finger painting, will likely take a child hostage, demand that the teacher drops her weapon, shoot teacher and continue massacre.

    Bad idea.

    Also expect many kids to die in the crossfire. Instead, need to re-think laws regarding access to combat style weapons designed for high volume human killing.

     
  • JoeIdaho posted at 9:31 pm on Thu, Dec 20, 2012.

    JoeIdaho Posts: 2841

    How many times did you have to wipe the spit off of your mouth when you whined out that warped out rant, skum? Come on; bring me some more names; I wanna HEAR you let me know what you think, Son.

    "Fast & Furious" was a program that was led BY Eric Holder, an attorney general who many think got away with murder, indirectly. Blowbama's policies on everythign he's touched have been disatrous, at a minimum, and he'll preside over the crash of America, sadly avoidable, but it is happening, nonetheless, as a direct result of HIS policies. The dead in Libya are a typical dimocrab event, much like VietNam, STARTED by Demotards, ended by a REpublican. Just like slavery; started & FOUGHT FOR by "southern demorats" and slaves released into FREEDOM by who else; Republicans.
    Start whinin; sweety.

     
  • Truthful posted at 8:32 pm on Thu, Dec 20, 2012.

    Truthful Posts: 135

    Let's look at some history "Have you ever heard of the “Dick Act of 1902?” More properly known as the “Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654″. Oddly enough it is not available online from government sources, only a “catalog page” found at The Library of Congress . The Dick Act’s most quoted synopsis is: The Dick Act of 1902 also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, of June 28, 1902 invalidates all so-called gun-control laws. It also divides the militia into three distinct and separate entities. The three classes H.R. 11654 provides for are the organized militia, henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia, the unorganized militia and the regular army. The militia encompasses every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45. All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy. The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The President of the United States has zero authority without violating the Constitution to call the National Guard to serve outside of their State borders. I find it hilarious that the bill introduced to fund the National Guard’s annual exercise also provides for the unorganized militia (you and me) to own whatever we wish in the way of weaponry “for the militia”. Just another conveniently ignored facet of living in a “Republic” that the modern day politicians try to make us believe is a democracy. We the people hold the power. Exercise your power, vote to keep your guns and your freedom. Vote Republican. The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788 once published the following: “Who are the militia? If not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” –Tenche Coxe, Penn Gazette I couldn’t agree more. What about you?"

     
  • voxpop posted at 6:52 pm on Thu, Dec 20, 2012.

    voxpop Posts: 738

    Good Lord almighty. There needs to be an age minimum for posters, even in this comic book. I've never seen such uneducated lunacy.

     
  • justathought posted at 4:45 pm on Thu, Dec 20, 2012.

    justathought Posts: 1

    how do you know that the so called right hands don't turn wrong? You just never know when someone will turn ugly.

     
  • Flash Gordon posted at 3:06 pm on Thu, Dec 20, 2012.

    Flash Gordon Posts: 1647

    Here's what's going to happen....eventually:

    1. There will be a ban on military type weapons....again.
    2. There will be a ban on armor piercing ammunition.....ammunition that penetrates bullet proof vests
    3. There will be a closing of the gun show loophole....it doesn't make sense to require back ground checks from licensed gun dealers....and none from gun show sellers
    4. Banana Clips will be banned
    5. Some kind of data base will be expanded at the state and federal levels regarding "mental health"issues....and mental health access will be ...expanded....it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to cut medicaid to the states because many "mental health cases" come through....medicaid.
    6. The NRA will go along with some of this stuff because it's in their best interest to do so. If they resist, politicians that are NRA members will crucify them even at the cost of ...reelection. That's happening as I type
    7 Militia groups and secession groups will come unglued because they rely on military type weapons to stockpile and eventually "fight" their government....which they believe is...inevitable
    8. Gun manufacturers will keep quiet and not resist, at least publicly because investment companies are divesting "them" in their portfolios...the public wants "blood" and wants them out of their 401ks

     
  • IdahoMan posted at 2:56 pm on Thu, Dec 20, 2012.

    IdahoMan Posts: 104

    Repeal the Gun Free School Zones Act and give teachers a discount at the local range.

    There. That's good common-sense little thing we can do.

    Not everybody carries a gun on their body, but many keep one in their vehicle along with the first-aid kid, extinguisher, ax, etc..

     
  • E Kim Skumsky posted at 2:32 pm on Thu, Dec 20, 2012.

    E Kim Skumsky Posts: 445

    DetroitJoe, you were whining, whining like a baby (they call me Much worse, all the time, whaaaaaaahhhh!!!) says the person who calls anyone who isn't insan... err disagrees with him, libtards, commies, anti-americans, anti-christians, (and that was just this this thread). The only holes you punch are in facts... like this one in this thread "give spectacular weaponry to not only Libyans (who hate us) butu also Mexican gangs, who use these weapons to murder Americans. " You do know Fast and Furious was a begun under the Bush Adminstration, was basically caused by one ATF agent aided by the incompetence/dereliction of the next 4 levels of supervision in the ATF.(It may have helped if Congress would have confirmed a head of the ATF in the last 6 years). There is no evidence that President Bush, President Obama, Attorney General Holder, or any of the last the of President Bushes Attorney Generals knew of it before the story broke. You this "fact" to define what a liberal is. You do know fact means something that is true?

     
  • yourneighbor posted at 1:14 pm on Thu, Dec 20, 2012.

    yourneighbor Posts: 224

    Joe your so right. We just have to remember he who laughs Last, Laughs the best....

     
  • yourneighbor posted at 1:09 pm on Thu, Dec 20, 2012.

    yourneighbor Posts: 224

    Did'nt challange anyone to a fight. Just have never met anyone that wants to call me a Idiot after they see me. Common sence keeps them from doing that. As a matter of fact I have never been in a fight outside of the ring. Size does matter you little twitt

     
  • Humanist posted at 1:02 pm on Thu, Dec 20, 2012.

    Humanist Posts: 3208

    And now we know why yourneighbor carries a "makes me feel like more of a man" concealed weapon. So he can put himself at an advantage if someone actually did call him out on his idiocy in person.

     
  • Humanist posted at 12:56 pm on Thu, Dec 20, 2012.

    Humanist Posts: 3208

    Quote Tulkas: "But I agree with one thing, do not put them in teachers hands. They should just hire security personnel who are better trained."

    I think you'll find that most "libtards" totally agree with you on this since we are very reasonable, rational and logical people. We need a multi-pronged approach to this including greater gun regulations, better security in shooting prone places, an overhaul of our mental health care system and an assessment on what is acceptable violence in video games and the media.

     
  • Humanist posted at 12:53 pm on Thu, Dec 20, 2012.

    Humanist Posts: 3208

    Quote JoeIdaho: "And yes, I have had shots fired at me in anger, and no, I DO NOT like it, experience trumps conjecture. "

    You're right. Experience trumps conjecture. I've also had shots fired at me and I did not like it. But me having a gun would not have helped the situation one bit.

     
  • JoeIdaho posted at 12:49 pm on Thu, Dec 20, 2012.

    JoeIdaho Posts: 2841

    Flashy says:
    "And Joe there are plenty of people out there , particularly those that are homicidal/suicidal who find armed resistance....appealing. You must not be up to date on the Jihadist movement and their....tactics"
    Again, you are CONFUSED.
    Which one of the murderers that shot multiple people went looking for someone with a gun to fight with?
    NONE.
    When do jihadis TRY to get into a firefight?
    NONE.

    TRUST ME, when someone shoots AT you, you are deterred. No doubt, whatsoever.

    skummy, your comprehension level's not too up there today, huh? I wasn't whining at all, I find it a "WIN" when your kind resorts to calling me names; it cracks me up. The BEST thing in my day is knowing a lib/commie is REALLY upset at some truth that I told.....or some falsehood that I bashed holes in.


    Again, guns most CERTAINLY deter people from doing bad things.

     
  • E Kim Skumsky posted at 12:28 pm on Thu, Dec 20, 2012.

    E Kim Skumsky Posts: 445

    Hahahaha!! DetroitJoe is whining about other people callin HIM names!!! Priceless!!!!

    Hey Youngneighbor!!! Just you and me! Just youu and me!! Get your jacket off!!! Challenging someone to a fight from the Press message board Ahahahahahha!

     
  • JoeIdaho posted at 12:10 pm on Thu, Dec 20, 2012.

    JoeIdaho Posts: 2841

    Don't let him sweat you, Neighbor. They call me MUCH worse, all the time. Think of it this way; the MORE bad names they call you; the more anxiety you MUST be causing them with strict intellect; absolute intelligence, and it CONFUSES their thoguth processes.
    It's HARD to make an argument you don't believe, Neighbor. Just watch them try.

     
  • lone wolf posted at 12:09 pm on Thu, Dec 20, 2012.

    lone wolf Posts: 246

    I opine the data does not support this resolution.
    P.S. The disrespect for the Teachers, even those who died as Heroes in Conn., demonstrates the severity of our dysfunctional society.

    "In the wake of the slaughters this summer at a Colorado movie theater and a Sikh temple in Wisconsin, we set out to track mass shootings in the United States over the last 30 years. We identified and analyzed 62 of them, and one striking pattern in the data is this: In not a single case was the killing stopped by a civilian using a gun. Moreover, we found that the rate of mass shootings has increased in recent years—at a time when America has been flooded with millions of additional firearms and a barrage of new laws has made it easier than ever to carry them in public. And in other recent rampages in which armed civilians attempted to intervene, they not only failed to stop the shooter but also were gravely wounded or killed."

    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/mass-shootings-investigation

     
  • Flash Gordon posted at 12:06 pm on Thu, Dec 20, 2012.

    Flash Gordon Posts: 1647

    So, the solution to guns is....more guns? An armed security team at every public school in America? The Social Security Administration and all Federal Courts do that already. So do all state courts. That seems reasonable in light of what's "trending".


    Arming school officials is a brain dead solution no matter what side of the political isle one stands.....

    And Joe there are plenty of people out there , particularly those that are homicidal/suicidal who find armed resistance....appealing. You must not be up to date on the Jihadist movement and their....tactics. There have been plenty of shootouts with authorities in this country where an armed opposition did not deter anyone from doing what they did.......

     
  • JoeIdaho posted at 12:06 pm on Thu, Dec 20, 2012.

    JoeIdaho Posts: 2841

    Look, neighbor, a NEW ONE popped up!
    I can give you the definition of a liberal, 'tw":
    Someone who EASILY gives away the RIGHTS of other people while at the same time standing behind the communist mantra of "redistributing wealth". Generally, Libs are people who NEVER join the military, or would FIGHT for this country; they despise our Military, and think all that sevre are "warmongers". they're ANTI-Christian, and anti-American, and NEVER see the brilliance of any of our scientists or captitalists, instead focusing on any malfeasance instead of the incredible wealth that these fantastic men & women created.
    That's a START, I can go on....
    They ALSO get Ambassadors murdered in our embassies, and then blame it on a youtube video, and give spectacular weaponry to not only Libyans (who hate us) butu also Mexican gangs, who use these weapons to murder Americans.

     
  • yourneighbor posted at 12:04 pm on Thu, Dec 20, 2012.

    yourneighbor Posts: 224

    TW you want to meet in person? Would love you to call me a idiot to my face....

     
  • tw posted at 11:37 am on Thu, Dec 20, 2012.

    tw Posts: 4

    yourneigborhoodidiot please give us the definition of a liberal

     
  • DeNiles posted at 11:20 am on Thu, Dec 20, 2012.

    DeNiles Posts: 2450

    Eh...... I don't think teachers need to carry guns. They do need tasers and the schools need better defensive planning and training. But y'know some kid will bring a BB gun to school, or a squirt gun or whatever and get killed. Mace, tasers - something nonlethal ought to be sufficient, especially with sophisticated levels of surveillance. Maybe one person at the school should be armed. Gawd, imagine the hazard pay the teachers unions would demand.

     
  • JoeIdaho posted at 11:04 am on Thu, Dec 20, 2012.

    JoeIdaho Posts: 2841

    Like you say, "truth" (ain't THAT an oximoron?) everybody in North Idaho's drunk, and we shoots each other all the time.....
    NOT REALLY.
    I guess there's not much "truth" in the idea that we're all drunks, and for SURE there's NO truth in the ideal that with ALL the guns in North Idaho that there's a ton of gun CRIME, huh?

    Liberals are just WRONG.

     
  • yourneighbor posted at 10:57 am on Thu, Dec 20, 2012.

    yourneighbor Posts: 224

    Well we already heard from one of the 3 libtards where are the other 2 ?

     
  • truthful1 posted at 10:53 am on Thu, Dec 20, 2012.

    truthful1 Posts: 554

    Oh, this should end well, given the area's level of alcoholism.

     
  • crust123 posted at 10:34 am on Thu, Dec 20, 2012.

    crust123 Posts: 217

    agree with you capn. making this a polictical party issue is just plain ignorant. those innocent kids and surely the nutcase shooters dont care about political affiliation....plenty of fools on both sides, little common sense on either, when it comes to our leadership in DC

     
  • JoeIdaho posted at 10:28 am on Thu, Dec 20, 2012.

    JoeIdaho Posts: 2841

    Agree with the Captain.
    This is nothing more than LOGIC, it makes sense, and AGAIN, I guarantee you that ANYONE with plans to shoot people won't go near someone who WILL shoot back.

    Good job, Bonner County Schools. Kootenai should follow your lead.

    And yes, I have had shots fired at me in anger, and no, I DO NOT like it, experience trumps conjecture.

     
  • capnbutch posted at 9:37 am on Thu, Dec 20, 2012.

    capnbutch Posts: 729

    Seems worthy of discussion but I am not sure that the suggestion should be done in the name of Republicans only. We are already too divided a nation.

    I know a couple of Democrats who wondered about the same option and a couple of Republicans who are not enthused. Now the general public thinks it is a Republican thing and something that Democrats would rudely disdain.

    The idea that anyone would deliberately and pointlessly be rude is an idea that hurts us all.

    There are good people on all sides of this issue. Please don't let a name keep you from thinking a thing through logically to your own satisfaction. It is far too easy to be herded. Maybe it is a strong idea and maybe it is weak.

    I'd rather see us spend the effort on finding and helping troubled individuals... but that's just my idea. Keep the discussion going. Someone else might offer something better.

     
  • Tulkas posted at 9:17 am on Thu, Dec 20, 2012.

    Tulkas Posts: 25

    Oh please Libtards. More guns will make it safer.

    But I agree with one thing, do not put them in teachers hands. They should just hire security personnel who are better trained.

    Back in the Chicago High Schools when I was there in the 80's, they had what they called "Paraprofessionals" who were security guards. They were needed with all the gang activity that went on in my HS. They should do the same across the country since it is sadly needed now since the moral decay on set by Liberalism brought the tragedy in CT on.

    Instead of going after the NRA, we should go after Planned Parenthood since they are the ones that think that murdering newborns is just fine. The shooting in that school is just a logical conclusion of Planned Parenthoods slaughter of innocents.

     
  • Flash Gordon posted at 8:36 am on Thu, Dec 20, 2012.

    Flash Gordon Posts: 1647

    This isn't just a knee jerk reaction this is a brain dead option from a political party that apparently is full of simpletons in Bonner County.....

     
  • Humanist posted at 8:16 am on Thu, Dec 20, 2012.

    Humanist Posts: 3208

    Horrible idea. If we want guns in schools, at least make sure that they're in the hands of trained law enforcement and security professionals.

     
  • crust123 posted at 8:12 am on Thu, Dec 20, 2012.

    crust123 Posts: 217

    so then what if the next act is committed by a teacher with a gun, since there could be so many of them armed...." i thought the student was threatening me..." having a hard time getting my head around arming teachers being a good idea. that said, not sure there is a good answer.

     
  • IdahoJoey posted at 8:02 am on Thu, Dec 20, 2012.

    IdahoJoey Posts: 344

    And let's hire some of our unemployed military Veterans to carry them.

     
  • blazer posted at 7:58 am on Thu, Dec 20, 2012.

    blazer Posts: 17

    And while you're at it, the district should be renamed the "O.K. Corral School District".

     
  • mister d posted at 7:28 am on Thu, Dec 20, 2012.

    mister d Posts: 1531

    I guess it's an option :(

     
default avatar
Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
|
Not you?||
Logout|My Dashboard

Stocks