....A Well-Regulated Militia.....

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Fri Dec 21, 2012 9:31 pm

Without reading all of Wills link, let me add I bought my ar-15 during the last assault weapons ban. Legally I might ad as the definition of a assault weapon was:

1) Could have no flash suppressor
2) Could have no bayonet lug
2) Could have no collapsible stock

Other than those items my AR-15 looks exactly like, well, a assault rifle.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sat Dec 22, 2012 10:02 am

woodchip wrote:Without reading all of Wills link, let me add I bought my ar-15 during the last assault weapons ban. Legally I might ad as the definition of a assault weapon was:

1) Could have no flash suppressor
2) Could have no bayonet lug
2) Could have no collapsible stock

Other than those items my AR-15 looks exactly like, well, a assault rifle.

I believe the deranged piece of crap shooters weapon was purchased in Connecticut, which already had/has an assault weapons ban in effect.
So his actions have spurred the liberals to call for the rest of the country to live under the same rules that did nothing to stop the event in the first place!
Brilliant! Dean Wormer is calling for double secret probation! Oh yea! They care about the children and the guys who want a policeman on duty to protect the children are evil! Oh yea!

CobGobbler · Post by **CobGobbler** » Sat Dec 22, 2012 2:45 pm

I say we mandate the arming of every citizen and that carrying a weapon be required every time one leaves their domicile. Further, if someone does not intervene during a crime being committed, that THEY be arrested and sent to jail for not doing anything about it.

I think it'd work actually.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Sat Dec 22, 2012 3:47 pm

"See something say shoot something"? That is a dumb idea.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sat Dec 22, 2012 3:59 pm

CobGobbler wrote:I say we mandate the arming of every citizen and that carrying a weapon be required every time one leaves their domicile. Further, if someone does not intervene during a crime being committed, that THEY be arrested and sent to jail for not doing anything about it.

I think it'd work actually.

And the mainstream media thinks hardware tweaks to some guns are a good idea and that a policeman in the school is a bad idea!
So maybe your idea is a good one too....

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Sat Dec 22, 2012 5:19 pm

Will Robinson wrote:I'm guessing you might be joking about some of that but two things should be made clear. A hollow point that produces no exit wound is going to be less of a mess than the round nose that punches twice as many holes.

If you are choosing ammo based on the fear of the enemy turning your weapon on you then please choose a stun gun!
In motorcycling they teach you to not focus your eyes on the debris that suddenly appears in your path that you want to swerve to avoid, but rather, look at the empty space beside the debris where you want your front tire to roll. The reason being that you will subconsciously veer into that which you focus on...

To loosely adapt that to facing an attacker, your preconceived bad-outcome of being disarmed can become a self fulfilling prophesy. You are training your brain to accept that outcome. So either be all in for the fight or use a weapon you can live with (pun intended) like a stun gun.

I've been looking into them and there have been some nice advances in non lethal weaponry. I'm holding out for the twin beam laser that delivers a high voltage charge spanning the two beams. I'm afraid I'm not going to live long enough to see it go commercial but damn that is a great concept. No wires back to the launcher, basically works like a Star Trek phaser set for stun!

I was partially joking. But I do worry about if someone got into my home while I was gone and then got a hold of my gun. If I returned while they were still in the house, I might become a victim of my own weapon. If that were to happen, I would rather get shot by a smooth point. A hollow point is not something I want to get hit with frankly. It may a a non-issue after all, but it's just one little niggling worry. But I don't worry about having the gun being taken from my hand if I draw first. In my opinion, if someone's broken into my house while I'm there and I've managed to point my gun at them, they'll get the shoot first, ask questions later reaction.

Will Robinson wrote:So who was the now dead mother of the piece of crap shooter trying to petition to give her the right to have him committed when he killed her? I believe the State....

I don't see the Fed being a better alternative if that is where this is going.
And some entity has to be able to get the truly dangerous off the streets.

Some reading on involuntary commitment. It's not a simple issue, and civil libertarians keep asking questions. Who has the right to commit a person that has NOT committed any crimes, but may potentially do so in the future? What are the legal rights of the mentally ill and do they even have any civil rights? And what happens when involuntary commitment laws are abused? And remember, these laws are not a "fix" for the real problem, our burgeoning mental health fiscal problem. And you're forgetting that the 2 killers at Columbine had no outward indications of mental illness before they committed their violent acts. They wouldn't have been stopped by these laws period.

http://cthealthcentral.com/

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 83822.html

http://www.power2u.org/debate.html

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sun Dec 23, 2012 12:32 am

CobGobbler wrote:I say we mandate the arming of every citizen and that carrying a weapon be required every time one leaves their domicile. Further, if someone does not intervene during a crime being committed, that THEY be arrested and sent to jail for not doing anything about it.

I think it'd work actually.

I know I'd feel a lot better knowing that good people around me are carrying.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Sun Dec 23, 2012 2:09 pm

Yeah, and we could return that Old West policy of "Check your guns at the door" whenever people entered a saloon. Actually, gun laws were sometimes stricter back in the Old West.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/23 ... e-20110123

Nightshade · Post by **Nightshade** » Sun Dec 23, 2012 5:10 pm

Woops. Looks like David Gregory of NBC violated the law while on television:

http://thepatriotperspective.wordpress. ... tional-tv/

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Mon Dec 24, 2012 1:57 pm

OOPS! Would've been funny to see the DC police charge into the studio and arrest him on live TV.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sat Dec 29, 2012 10:36 am

Regarding the often repeated but flawed suggestion that the higher number of guns in America makes us much more dangerous than other equally developed nations... here is an excerpt from an excellent study from the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy that looks into the reality of murder, suicide, gun prevalence, etc around the world.
I encourage everyone to read that whole study with an open mind, it is very enlightening.
The section I quoted here comes from pages 15-16

There is no social benefit in decreasing the availability of guns if the result is only to increase the use of other means of suicide and murder, resulting in more or less the same amount of death. Elementary as this point is, proponents of the more guns equal more death mantra seem oblivious to it.

One study asserts that Americans are more likely to be shot to death than people in the world’s other 35 wealthier nations.46 While this is literally true, it is irrelevant—except, perhaps to people terrified not of death per se but just death by gunshot. A fact that should be of greater concern—but which the study fails to mention—is that per capita murder overall is only half as frequent in the United States as in several other nations where gun murder is rarer, but murder by strangling, stabbing, or beating is much more frequent.47

Of course, it may be speculated that murder rates around the world would be higher if guns were more available. But there is simply no evidence to support this. Like any speculation, it is not subject to conclusive disproof; but the European data in Table 1 and the studies across 36 and 21 nations already discussed show no correlation of high gun ownership nations and greater murder per capita or lower gun ownership nations and less murder per capita.48

To reiterate, the determinants of murder and suicide are basic social, economic, and cultural factors, not the prevalence of some form of deadly mechanism. In this connection, recall that the American jurisdictions which have the highest violent crime rates are precisely those with the most stringent gun controls.49]

This correlation does not necessarily prove gun advocates’ assertion that gun controls actually encourage crime by depriving victims of the means of self‐defense. The explanation of this correlation may be political rather than criminological: jurisdictions afflicted with violent crime tend to severely restrict gun ownership. This, however, does not suppress the crime, for banning guns cannot alleviate the socio‐cultural and economic factors that are the real determinants of violence and crime rates. 50

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sat Dec 29, 2012 2:38 pm

Deaf ears my friend, for every study done that says violence is a cultural thing, we have morons like Lieberman who say things like and I quote “Killings caused by guns”.

The people making our laws aren’t even smart enough to sound smart.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Sat Dec 29, 2012 3:36 pm

They have an agenda which encourages this kind of terminology. Maybe they're in with the U.N. Maybe there are other reasons for wanting the U.S. essentially disarmed. For some of them it may just be a matter of being separated from reality, or otherwise living in a fantasy. I don't know. It's similar to other social debates taking place in this country--if you strip away all of the nonsense and leave only the facts, the truth is that people have ulterior motives pushing their acceptance and proliferation of well-disguised nonsense. That's why you can't necessarily win people like Slick over with studies like that. There are a dozen other social issues tying them to the same crowd, and in the end they hold to fantastic beliefs about humanity and the nature of life. We've got a world full of people, some of them smarter than others, and an impossibly small number of them know why they believe what they believe. In the end they may still be assholes for having understood it (like people who feel it is their place to rule others). I believe In the end it's all about will. Knowledge lights our paths, but will determines our destination.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sat Dec 29, 2012 4:06 pm

wow. You all just keep running with the same smokescreens. Nice study, lots of good points. But, whether people will chose other means to kill, such as knives, cars, rocks, bricks on those gnocci in the back of the freezer, the incontrovertable fact is that they aren't going to go out and kill scores of them at one time, quickly, with very, very little preparation time.

So, no, Thorne, I don't see a study that convinces me otherwise. Sorry.
Also, while we're catching up with one another, it would be nice if we had a more robust mental health system. A lot more robust system. Are you all, most of whom whined mightily about any costs involved in Obama's healthcare bill, nearly peed yourselves at the thought of all-encompassing national health insurance, etc, now on board with the massive costs that really should be spent on mental healthcare in the US? Really? Because that, more than any gun laws, either on the books or proposed, more than any entreaties to God, more than anything else, is what needs to be done to make our society both more safe and less frightened.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Sat Dec 29, 2012 4:14 pm

Oh yeah... "frightened". Heh. Let's not derail this into how the government is trying to ★■◆● over the glaring problem that is health-care as well, huh? The real problem facing us here is that our government is certainly no more competent to tackle mental health than they are in trying to tackle firearms because of school shootings.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sat Dec 29, 2012 4:55 pm

callmeslick wrote:wow. You all just keep running with the same smokescreens. Nice study, lots of good points. But, whether people will chose other means to kill, such as knives, cars, rocks, bricks on those gnocci in the back of the freezer, the incontrovertable fact is that they aren't going to go out and kill scores of them at one time, quickly, with very, very little preparation time. ... .

You seem to be implying that these deranged shooters didn't invest time into preparation but that is a complete falsehood. They didn't just wake up and become possessed by a satanic 30 round magazine, grab it and a rifle and run immediately to the nearest collection of human targets! They planned it for days! The shooter in Colorado picked the only theater that didn't allow concealed weapons! Not the closest one to his house, not the one with the most occupants...the one that was a gun free zone. The Connecticut killer chose the school because he and his mother had connections to it and he planned it out for days...destroyed the hard drive on his computer... in the week or two before he took his mothers guns he had tried to buy at least one gun and was turned down because he wouldn't comply with the paperwork requirements.

Secondly, the sad truth is the killer in Connecticut could have killed even more than he did if he had used a sharp sword! If not for the principle broadcasting the sounds of gunfire over the school PA system teachers in other rooms wouldn't have been aware of the danger and hidden their children and/or locked the doors. He could have taken all the time he wanted to slash their throats!

So your dismissal of the study and those "good points" it raises is illogical. Addressing mental health is fine but your party isn't drafting mental health reform in the wake of the killings done by deranged killers are they?
No, they are busy working on hardware tweaks that will, once again, provide no protection. Oh no! I have to reload evey 10 rounds instead of 30....lol! Like that is going to add up to even one life saved over the next decade!!
If instead of an unarmed principle rushing in to confront that killer there had been a policeman wearing standard issue body armor like the policewoman that works at my daughters school everyday the school is open, all day, there would have been dozens of children that were saved! But no, in your wisdom that would be a terrible thing for the children and community to see....an armed guard there to protect them. You are so wrong on that one that it is truly hard to take you serious.

The cold hard truth of the matter is, if that killer had used a machete in each hand, the kill ratio would have been very similar but since there is no National Machete Association donating to the republican party the democrats probably would be calling for a policeman in every school just like the National Rifle Association is now. And they would be talking about that mental health reform you now want to change the subject to instead of arguing over how many bullets pscho's and criminals can fire before they must reload!

what if they make us all go back to revolvers that only hold 6 bullets? that should slow us down right?

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sat Dec 29, 2012 5:07 pm

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Oh yeah... "frightened". Heh. Let's not derail this into how the government is trying to **** over the glaring problem that is health-care as well, huh? The real problem facing us here is that our government is certainly no more competent to tackle mental health than they are in trying to tackle firearms because of school shootings.

nonsense. Government handled it better, pre-Reagan, despite a host of abuses and problems within many states. Certainly, given the advances in knowledge, treatment and awareness, we can do far better now. As it stands, thanks to a wholesale gutting of the state systems, no federal system and reluctant insurers(understandable, due to the potential costs), more psychotic patients are being cared for within our CRIMINAL system than in our healthcare system. That ain't right.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sat Dec 29, 2012 5:15 pm

Will Robinson wrote:
callmeslick wrote:wow. You all just keep running with the same smokescreens. Nice study, lots of good points. But, whether people will chose other means to kill, such as knives, cars, rocks, bricks on those gnocci in the back of the freezer, the incontrovertable fact is that they aren't going to go out and kill scores of them at one time, quickly, with very, very little preparation time. ... .
You seem to be implying that these deranged shooters didn't invest time into preparation but that is a complete falsehood.

you read me wrong, Will. What I am saying is that high powered, high capacity weapons can be easily grabbed and put into use. By way of contrast to the 'bombing' examples given a few pages back. McVeigh, and associates required months to formulate a plan and acquire the materials, and, note, that I say 'associates'. Very few successful bombers do so in solo fashion. Very big differences from the recent rash of solo shooters.

Secondly, the sad truth is the killer in Connecticut could have killed even more than he did if he had used a sharp sword! If not for the principle broadcasting the sounds of gunfire over the school PA system teachers in other rooms wouldn't have been aware of the danger and hidden their children and/or locked the doors. He could have taken all the time he wanted to slash their throats!

this is simply ludicrous. Are you suggesting that he would have gotten to very many victims before being jumped in the first room he entered? Come on, Will, let's not insult the intelligence of your readers.

Addressing mental health is fine but your party isn't drafting mental health reform in the wake of the killings done by deranged killers are they?

yes, they are. In both the house and Senate, IIRC. Won't get far without substantial funding, and we know whose party blocks that, right?

If instead of an unarmed principle rushing in to confront that killer there had been a policeman wearing standard issue body armor like the policewoman that works at my daughters school everyday the school is open, all day, there would have been dozens of children that were saved! But no, in your wisdom that would be a terrible thing for the children and community to see....an armed guard there to protect them. You are so wrong on that one that it is truly hard to take you serious.

let me repeat....it's been a few days, and a few posts since I first stated it: I DON"T WANT MY GRANDCHILDREN GOING TO SCHOOL IN AN ARMED CAMP. NOT EVER!!! There is utterly no reason to perpetuate a society that would even find such an idea acceptable.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sat Dec 29, 2012 5:29 pm

to follow up on my comment above: Why would you find it in any way acceptable to have a nation in which armed personnel have to be in elementary schools nationwide? Serious question. I mean, we've(as has been stated) had guns around forever, other nations(eg Canada) have plenty of guns, yet why do any of you find it acceptable that the US is the only nation in which such a solution could be proposed and not be immediately ridiculed by the entire populace? My grandfather went to a school with maybe 6 teachers for all grades. Lots of guns around(hunting country, dontcha know), and I'll bet not one of those 6 good Southern ladies ever shot a weapon nor wanted to. I was out of town, watching TV with my daughter and grandkids when that loon from the NRA came up with the 'arm the teachers' proposal. I wanted to throw up, that was the level of embarrassment I felt in the country I love, and which 12 generations of my family have helped to build. Come on, folks, can't we all come up with something better than this? If not, then truly, it IS time to take a serious look at repeal of the 2nd Amendment.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sat Dec 29, 2012 5:43 pm

callmeslick wrote:
Will Robinson wrote:Secondly, the sad truth is the killer in Connecticut could have killed even more than he did if he had used a sharp sword! If not for the principle broadcasting the sounds of gunfire over the school PA system teachers in other rooms wouldn't have been aware of the danger and hidden their children and/or locked the doors. He could have taken all the time he wanted to slash their throats!
this is simply ludicrous. Are you suggesting that he would have gotten to very many victims before being jumped in the first room he entered? Come on, Will, let's not insult the intelligence of your readers.

Jumped by who? 6 year olds....a twenty something year old teacher....a 60 year old teacher? And you think he wouldn't have hacked them on sight just like he shot them?!? You think they didn't jump him because the guns were somehow more intimidating than a pair of machetes slicing kids open with blood spurting everywhere?!? You really think that would have been any less intimidating of a threat to the non-battle ready kindergarten school occupants?!?
You live in a complete fantasy land.

callmeslick wrote:
Will Robinson wrote: Addressing mental health is fine but your party isn't drafting mental health reform in the wake of the killings done by deranged killers are they?
yes, they are. In both the house and Senate, IIRC. Won't get far without substantial funding, and we know whose party blocks that, right?

You can stop that line of bull★■◆● anytime now because your party had the presidency and a super majority! They could have passed it if they wanted it. The gun ban legislation has been in Diane Feinstein's desk for years just waiting on the 'right tragedy'. They could have pulled the mental health issue out of a desk drawer, assuming it really matters to them so much and passed it with no way for the republicans to stop it. So stop with the talking points please. They didn't do it because of the ACLU who they rely on and who was just as hell bent as Reagan was to set the crazies loose in the '80's. Your problem is you don't just use party rhetoric for dishonest debate, you actually started believing this crap at some point!

callmeslick wrote:
Will Robinson wrote: If instead of an unarmed principle rushing in to confront that killer there had been a policeman wearing standard issue body armor like the policewoman that works at my daughters school everyday the school is open, all day, there would have been dozens of children that were saved! But no, in your wisdom that would be a terrible thing for the children and community to see....an armed guard there to protect them. You are so wrong on that one that it is truly hard to take you serious.
let me repeat....it's been a few days, and a few posts since I first stated it: I DON"T WANT MY GRANDCHILDREN GOING TO SCHOOL IN AN ARMED CAMP. NOT EVER!!! There is utterly no reason to perpetuate a society that would even find such an idea acceptable.

I'm just going to let that one hang out there for all to see. Nuff said there!

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sat Dec 29, 2012 5:48 pm

callmeslick wrote:to follow up on my comment above: Why would you find it in any way acceptable to have a nation in which armed personnel have to be in elementary schools nationwide? Serious question. I mean, we've(as has been stated) had guns around forever, other nations(eg Canada) have plenty of guns, yet why do any of you find it acceptable that the US is the only nation in which such a solution could be proposed and not be immediately ridiculed by the entire populace? My grandfather went to a school with maybe 6 teachers for all grades. Lots of guns around(hunting country, dontcha know), and I'll bet not one of those 6 good Southern ladies ever shot a weapon nor wanted to. I was out of town, watching TV with my daughter and grandkids when that loon from the NRA came up with the 'arm the teachers' proposal. I wanted to throw up, that was the level of embarrassment I felt in the country I love, and which 12 generations of my family have helped to build. Come on, folks, can't we all come up with something better than this? If not, then truly, it IS time to take a serious look at repeal of the 2nd Amendment.

When the only thing offered by the democrats was something so completely ridiculous as to demand we give killers some revised hardware choices....yea, even an armed teacher makes more sense to the head of the NRA!
But we both know I said ARMED POLICEMEN...didn't I?

No one in my community or my daughters school thinks anything but positive thoughts when they see that cop in her body armor, with her Glock and stun gun and mace canister and handcuffs on her belt, waving to them every morning as they walk in. And I think she got quite a few extra hugs last week....
What are the kids in your fantasy land thinking as they go back to school and see nothing but the same vulnerable crew? Are they psyched about old Mrs. Crabtree's chances against the next deranged killer? Has she been practicing her lunges and tackling drills during recess or something?

PS: if the guns haven't changed but the schools/culture has why do you let the debate be framed around the guns?!? Oh, yea. that's right, the National Machete Association contributes to your party's opponents so that trumps all common sense, all common good must take a back seat to the party's needs. Thanks a lot for your part in that endeavor.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Sat Dec 29, 2012 6:06 pm

callmeslick wrote:Come on, folks, can't we all come up with something better than this?

Apparently ****ing not, slick. And the best you can come up with is to shred our founding documents, so I guess we're just ****ed.

Myself I believe in solutions, I just don't seriously believe that our government does. Our government believes in going with the flow, advancement, public image, and getting re-elected.

The second amendment really should not be "repealed". The fact that you've been in political circles your whole life and don't get that is just another example of how bad our country has gotten.

Just FYI I cringe when I hear the NRA talk about mandating armed guards, at a federal level, for all schools. I don't trust the idea. Kind of reminiscent of the airport TSA. (Will's situation sounds fine) Also, for a problem that is so statistically small it would make a lot more sense to encouraged armed staff/teachers (just like pilots and security guards). Maybe those lady teachers would be horrified at the thought of having a gun (I don't think EVERYONE in a school should have to, only that a school should strive for a degree of coverage in that area), but shouldn't they be more horrified at the thought of being powerless as children are massacred? And the truth of the matter, slick, is that the choice is either prepare to deal with this problem in our schools, or disarm U.S. citizens (which has been demonstrated here to be a truly unconscionable idea--apparently you didn't believe it), or actually deal with the root of the problem. And unless you start talking about re-coupling the health-care industry to it's consumers (get insurance out of there), it's just more government bull★■◆●.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sat Dec 29, 2012 6:22 pm

This pretty much sums it all up. From Will's quote:

"is that per capita murder overall is only half as frequent in the United States as in several other nations where gun murder is rarer, but murder by strangling, stabbing, or beating is much more frequent.47"

I guess this kinda flew past troll slickster's head. As desperately as Slick would like to ignore this and try to somehow focus on gun murders, a murder is still a murder no matter the means. Kinda hard to argue around a Harvard study. Still you'll see the slight of hand at work here as Slick tries desperately to shore up his position with irrelevancy and words from the side of his mouth.

Glad to see you think the head of the NRA is a flaming idiot for suggesting armed guards be used at our schools. How many years before all your suggestions to cure the mass shooter syndrome has tangible results? Compare that to putting a guard in the school. I wonder how you would feel if you were able to block the stationing of a guard at your grand childrens school and a madman went there. Would you still feel you did the right thing by opposing the placement of the guard? As far as living in a armed camp, I suggest you look around you. Notice the armed police patrolling? Notice the armed military that protects this country?

Try taking off the emo pink shaded glasses and think about the results of what you are trying to hype. You won't though as you are more interested in trolling and getting a rise out of the conservatives on this board. Keep plugging away as I suspect a fair few are loosing the respect for you they may once had when you first showed up here.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sat Dec 29, 2012 7:19 pm

Will Robinson wrote:Jumped by who? 6 year olds....a twenty something year old teacher....a 60 year old teacher? And you think he wouldn't have hacked them on sight just like he shot them?!? You think they didn't jump him because the guns were somehow more intimidating than a pair of machetes slicing kids open with blood spurting everywhere?!? You really think that would have been any less intimidating of a threat to the non-battle ready kindergarten school occupants?!?
You live in a complete fantasy land.

I do, do I? That exact sort of scenario happened in China recently. Zero deaths. First off, in this case, how, exactly, would he have hacked his way into a locked door, without being greeted by several adults? And, should he have done so, are you suggesting that he would have made it as far as a classroom without getting hit with a chair or some other heavy object by one of them? Get real, and as I said, quit insulting thinking people's intelligence with your goofy claims.

I'm just going to let that one hang out there for all to see. Nuff said there!

feel free. I already emphasized and embellished my thoughts. The idea ought to be repellent.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sat Dec 29, 2012 7:32 pm

Will Robinson wrote:No one in my community or my daughters school thinks anything but positive thoughts when they see that cop in her body armor, with her Glock and stun gun and mace canister and handcuffs on her belt, waving to them every morning as they walk in. And I think she got quite a few extra hugs last week....

charming. Just the learning environment that will get us competetive with the rest of the world. Instill that fear of the 'outside' world early. I'd love to know if any prep school anywhere indulges in your type of 'safety'.

keep your rants coming, yours are the types of arguments that WILL get guns banned. As I said, if you all can't come up with a better solution than 'more guns' in schools, then the 2nd amendment WILL become a target. Oh, and Thorne, it isn't part of the original document. It's an AMENDMENT, and one of a group that the founders used to forge a political coalition, and, at the same time, demonstrate that the Constitution was a flexible document, able to be amended. If we could repeal prohibition for the public good, the Second is fair game, IMO, if we cannot, as a society, fix an admittedly complex issue that has become ever more of a problem. Now, don't read this as me rooting for a repeal of the right to bear arms, but I am starting to get frustrated that a little more creative solution seeking isn't occurring around both common-sense gun laws(as was pointed out, the Wild West had stricter firearms laws in place), effective enforcement of those laws and a radical overhaul and upgrade of our mental health system. It can be done, wouldn't be overnight
(nothing would be, even police in schools, just no money to do the massive hiring involved at present), but has to be done. Otherwise, we are quickly heading toward a nation in chaos and perpetual fear. Not a good, nor acceptable alternative.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Sat Dec 29, 2012 9:08 pm

callmeslick wrote:Otherwise, we are quickly heading toward a nation in chaos and perpetual fear. Not a good, nor acceptable alternative.

Give credit where credit is due, slick. A school shooting in even a couple of states is not enough to cause a nation to be in "chaos and perpetual fear". You have the national media and the current administration to thank for that. They're in the same ****ing bed, in this case.

*EDIT*
Point taken on "AMENDMENT". However if it's flexible enough to be changed due to this sham, that's a sorry state of affairs. Comparing it to the repealment of abolition is really weak. You might have something if it weren't for one major fact: guns in the hands of citizens save a lot of lives in the U.S. Incidentally my state has a provision in its own constitution.

callmeslick wrote:Now, don't read this as me rooting for a repeal of the right to bear arms ...

Oh of course not. That's just what you've been driving at since you started this topic. You don't get to pretend you're not on-board with that. That's just exactly what repealing the 2nd amendment entails.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sun Dec 30, 2012 7:34 am

Just my point, Thorne.....I am NOT advocating for the repeal of the 2nd. I am merely saying that if we aren't able, as a collective society, to come up with more in the way of a solution to address the problem of mass shootings than arming elementary schools, that repeal starts to look rational. Several pages back, I set out a list of laws I'd love to see passed, and have since elaborated on the fact that far more attention should be paid to mental health care. Actually, the latter issue is what I expected the NRA to advocate for in their press conference. I was shocked at how empty LaPierre came up with his disgusting 'arm the schools' proposal.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Sun Dec 30, 2012 9:17 am

Well I'm glad to hear that. I disagree with you that it starts to look rational. When you look at how many innocent lives firearms save in the U.S., taking firearms away from free, law-abiding citizens is so plainly not the solution to the problem of gun violence in gun-free zones. Arming schools actually looks rational long before that, however negatively you may look on it. And I agree with you that turning schools into "armed camps" is not a rational solution. I might go along with a local police officer presence, but that's still not a long-term solution, if we're going to view this as a systemic problem. BTW, we have a police presence in our neighborhood... why not in our schools? There is a security guard at my local library, and it doesn't feel like an armed camp. Personally I believe that the responsible thing to do is to start offering firearms training to teachers, principles, and management. I think the local sheriff ought to come in and work with them to get them up to speed, and then visit every once in a while. Again, the way I think it ought to be done is that the schools should have the choice to allow the local sheriff to institute a program (funded by the school, with man-hour funding by the state) for concealed carry, which would include firearms familiarization, practice, and ongoing situational and marksmanship training.

You know, maybe you've got this ideal picture of your country where schools are totally safe, stress-free learning centers. I can appreciate that, but apparently it's wrong. There have been how many--4 attacks? More? And the fact that schools are pistol-free zones has obviously been an enabling factor. Guess what? I have an ideal picture of a free nation that is guaranteed to stay that way because the citizens hold the same power as the government, having merely seeded authority. Not a nation where citizens are down here and government and law enforcement are superior, merely calling themselves servants (you know this happens).

Finally, as far as mental health, I'm kind of out of my league there. I would be shocked but pleased if this whole thing gave rise to anything good there--specifically anything that didn't just involve more federal control of the private sector or local government. From some of the material I've been exposed to, I believe that there are areas of food/nutrition in our country which may be impacting mental health a lot more than most of us realize. But see, I've already seen that the folks in power and the folks in media who are doing the propaganda are looking for the stupid easy, politically convenient, ideologically satisfying way out in this, so why should I trust anyone who uses this to further existing political health agendas? To me that's a sign that we're being sold a load of ★■◆●, while the real solution remains something that most people are not interested in.

callmeslick wrote:I was shocked at how empty LaPierre came up with his disgusting 'arm the schools' proposal.

Yeah... I wasn't shocked, I was disgusted. What a weak, yielding twerp. Anyone in their right mind who watched that interview should pull their NRA funding until the NRA decides why they support the 2nd amendment beyond being paid to do so.

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Sun Dec 30, 2012 12:42 pm

Will, your machete scenario is a little weak IMO. Escaping from a lunatic with a knife should be easier than escaping from a lunatic with a gun. Since the guy with the knife actually has to reach you in order to stab you (assuming he isn't some incredible expert at knife throwing anyway). But for the guy with a gun, as long as he can see you, he can probably shoot you too.

As for the gun control side of the debate, it won't work. People will still commit mass shootings no matter how much you tweak the laws about what specific hardware is available. Even a single shot gun is sufficient to commit a mass shooting with a little bit of planning, which is something all these mass shooters did plenty of. So ultimately, saying you can't sell this gun, but you can sell that gun makes the whole gun control concept completely stupid. And any comments about how big magazines should be should watch this video:

The only method to stop mass shootings with gun controls is to ban and scrap ALL the guns, there can't be a single one left, not even in police hands. It would be pretty hard for someone to commit a mass shooting if there were no guns in the country at all. But good luck trying to get that done in America.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sun Dec 30, 2012 1:16 pm

Krom wrote:Will, your machete scenario is a little weak IMO. Escaping from a lunatic with a knife should be easier than escaping from a lunatic with a gun. Since the guy with the knife actually has to reach you in order to stab you (assuming he isn't some incredible expert at knife throwing anyway). But for the guy with a gun, as long as he can see you, he can probably shoot you too. ..

Remember we are talking about a kindergarten level school and in the class rooms there is usually only one door, the door that the killer commands as he enters.
Ok it's a little creepy to even think it through but assuming guns magically disappear these killers have all been creepy and motivated and premeditation is their forte. After all, they are planning their departure from life so they put some effort into maximizing the carnage. So...

Take a machete in your strong hand primarily for defense and a three foot narrow fast blade in your other for kill strokes and herding the victims. Use the machete to stop anyone who comes toward you and walk around, keeping your self between the herd and the exit, piercing their hearts or slashing their necks. With your lethal wingspan of near ten feet I think you will find women and children cower in fear from you just like they do when you walk in with a rifle.

Tactically I'd rather be one of many facing the rifleman in close quarters than a man with a medium length blade in each hand because the rifle has a very narrow lethal trajectory...you swing that rifle 45 degrees or more away from me to threaten someone else and I'll easily close a 10 foot gap between us before you can swing it back to get me in your sights and I'll have put my blade in your throat almost every time.
A sword in each of your hands makes that same gamble much less appealing. But kindergartners and the average school teacher aren't going to rush any one 9 times out of 9.1.

In the two blade scenario I seriously doubt the Sandy Hook teachers and students would fare any better than they did and there would have been no initial alarming sounds of gunshots.

I'm not saying the blades are better than a rifle in general for massacre duty but in this particular case the net results would probably have been very similar.

The larger point I was making was, even when I tweak the weapons used much more drastically than any silly democrat weapons ban could you will still end up with a bunch of dead children that day!!

Thus I think the so called 'crazy idea' that an armed good guy in the school is a better choice for the nations immediate reaction than the scheduling of committees and Joe fricken Biden heading up a congressional effort to come up with a plan to follow so that they can then come up with a bill so they can then vote on it... repeatedly... sending it back and forth to and from committee for numerous rewrites to include exemptions so Senator X or Representative Y will be more likely to sign it...then recess....then wait for the next congressional cycle to take office since that will change the vote dynamic....

So months turn into a year or more and in the meantime all those schools are still wide open like fish in a frickin barrel!! If you have been paying attention you know that the copy cats are occuring more and more often. whether you are talking about school shooting or pushing in front of a train...the mentally deranged are being drawn to being in the cable news spotlight like moths to a flame. The more we publicly agonize over the carnage and discuss the killers life etc. without stopping a few of them the brighter that flame is to them I believe.

That armed guard is making a whole lot more sense in the interim.

What is more likely to happen first, a weapons ban passing into law that will actually deter deranged people from killing school children or another massacre?!?
And if it is another massacre first what will they be able to say they did in the wake of this current 'tipping point' incident? They can say they tried but republicans blocked them?!?! f@$ing bull★■◆●!

But when the media is on your side you don't have to worry about being effective or truthful. You just have to keep the status quo churning out votes for you. Solving the problem does nothing for them politically. Any attempt to solve it is apparently going to be put to the political test first before they will act on it.
Any decent person would say politics be damned, lets make the places safer quickly while we find a long term solution.

vision · Post by **vision** » Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:42 pm

What do you do after the first armed guard flips out and kills a bunch of kids? Guards to guard the guards? Great plan.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:57 pm

That's actually pretty idiotic, Vision. The obvious answer to rule out even your 1 in 1,000,000,000,000, is to use only career law enforcement officers with kids in school. Or in the event that you train teachers and principals, you could use a basic psych evaluation. This combined with the knowledge that there are other people carrying in the school would be more than enough to deter even the slightest chance of a horrific event.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sun Dec 30, 2012 5:08 pm

Well, we better start disarming all of the police, military and mall security just in case.

Nah nah…I fed the trool.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sun Dec 30, 2012 6:14 pm

vision wrote:What do you do after the first armed guard flips out and kills a bunch of kids? Guards to guard the guards? Great plan.

I understand Obama's confidence in his re-election so much better now....

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sun Dec 30, 2012 6:25 pm

Will Robinson wrote:
vision wrote:What do you do after the first armed guard flips out and kills a bunch of kids? Guards to guard the guards? Great plan.
I understand Obama's confidence in his re-election now....

because a majority of the people are fed up with batshit crazy?

vision · Post by **vision** » Sun Dec 30, 2012 7:13 pm

Sergeant Thorne wrote:The obvious answer to rule out even your 1 in 1,000,000,000,000, is to use only career law enforcement officers with kids in school.

So, career law enforcement officers never freak out and kill people? Who knew?! I'm also relieved to know there are that many career law enforcement officers to go around. We wouldn't want to have something like the incompetent TSA in our thousands and thousands of schools. I guess the government will pay all the officer's salaries too. Seems like a no-lose situation, right?

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sun Dec 30, 2012 7:22 pm

vision wrote:
Sergeant Thorne wrote:The obvious answer to rule out even your 1 in 1,000,000,000,000, is to use only career law enforcement officers with kids in school.
So, career law enforcement officers never freak out and kill people? Who knew?! I'm also relieved to know there are that many career law enforcement officers to go around. We wouldn't want to have something like the incompetent TSA in our thousands and thousands of schools. I guess the government will pay all the officer's salaries too. Seems like a no-lose situation, right?

not to mention quick to implement even partially, and dirt-cheap, because we know no one wants to raise taxes to pay for it.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Thu Jan 03, 2013 12:57 pm

Chicago, one of, if not the most, dangerous cities in the country for gun violence. Over 500 murders last year. They say their strict gun bans aren't strict enough and they say because guns can be bought in neighboring states the bans should be nationwide.

Aurora, the second largest city in Illinois, same state...same proximity to neighboring states with guns available, had 0 murders last year.

The difference is Aurora went after criminals and attacked criminal behavior.
The mayor of Chicago, no doubt trying to not offend a part of his constituents took a more nuanced approach and asked the gangbangers to keep the murders confined to each other.

Two different approaches, two very different end results.
Who do you want leading the way to reducing gun violence? Which philosophy is worthy of your support? Guns or behavior?

vision · Post by **vision** » Thu Jan 03, 2013 1:59 pm

Will Robinson wrote:Two different approaches, two very different end results.

The difference has nothing to do with policy and everything to do with Aurora not being Chicago. Have you spent time in either? That statistic you quote is no surprise to me, but again, it has nothing to do with policy. The atmosphere in those two cities is completely different.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Thu Jan 03, 2013 3:49 pm

vision wrote:
Will Robinson wrote:Two different approaches, two very different end results.
The difference has nothing to do with policy and everything to do with Aurora not being Chicago. Have you spent time in either? That statistic you quote is no surprise to me, but again, it has nothing to do with policy. The atmosphere in those two cities is completely different.

"Atmosphere"? In a literal sense of course not, they are right next to each other on the same planet, same elevation, similar geography and flora etc.
'Atmosphere' as a euphemism for degree of criminal culture and methods employed to diminish same? Sure.

But then that was my point wasn't it?!?
To say policy has no bearing on the culture is silly. So try again.