If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Mother Jones)   Remember the school shooting in 2010 at Hastings Middle School in Minnesota that left six students dead? Me either. But if you do, the National Rifle Association would REALLY like you to corroborate the story they apparently pulled out of their ass   (motherjones.com) divider line 390
    More: Asinine, Hastings Middle School, NRA, Minnesota, school shootings, Columbine High School, Dennis Van Roekel  
•       •       •

16432 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Apr 2013 at 1:11 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



390 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-04 10:05:04 PM
The Nutty Raving Assholes lied?? Color me shocked.
 
2013-04-04 10:05:22 PM

Greylight: No one except as a desperate point would claim that Canadian freedom/constitution came about because of Queen Elizabeth's aversion to the cost of "upkeep" for Canada or the loss of an American colony by violence some 200 years previously. Talk about ethnocentric.


i904.photobucket.com

Oh Canada!
 
2013-04-04 10:10:34 PM

BigNumber12: Greylight: No one except as a desperate point would claim that Canadian freedom/constitution came about because of Queen Elizabeth's aversion to the cost of "upkeep" for Canada or the loss of an American colony by violence some 200 years previously. Talk about ethnocentric.



Oh Canada!


That's one convert. Pick up you touque and poutine card at the L.C. eh.
 
2013-04-04 10:33:03 PM

Giltric: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: greenboy: Giltric: greenboy: Giltric: Generic Republican: You also want no obligation to store these weapons in a manner that makes them resistant to theft. In essence, you want zero responsibility for owning a weapon

A safe will be enough at first...then after the first incident it will have to be a safe that is at least one inch thick, then it will have to be a safe that is 2 inches thick....then the safe will have to be made of solid unobtanium with an alarm that notifies the police that it is being broken into, then we will end up back at registries because the goal line keeps being moved further and further  by the people whos ultimate goal is nothing but the total disarmament of people.

Why don't we start with a gun safe that has a combination that your mentally disturbed son doesn't have access to?


Are you referring to Lanza?  Are there any citations for that? I have not heard one way or another if Lanza pried open or drilled into a safe, if he had a combo to the safe, or if there was a safe at all.....

No citations, but we can deduct a few things from what we know as facts.  His mom was shot while in her bed (assumedly sleeping), so 1)we can deduct that she was not currently cleaning 2 pistols and the AR15 (is that the right weapon?)
2) We might be able to assume that drilling into the safe would be loud enough to wake her if not done in the middle of the night.
3) if it wasn't drilled and the weapons were not left out in the open, then he either had access to a key, or knew the combination.  Either of these should be a no-no to a responsible gun owner that had a mentally unstable child.

Option 2 is the only one that removes the negligence on the mother's part.

No sign of forced entry.

The actual warrants and inventory just says "brown safe", does not say anything about entry forced or otherwise.


"Investigators found a gun safe open and with no indication that it had been broken into. "

I think if the safe had been broken into we would have heard by now.
 
2013-04-04 11:20:02 PM

Greylight: Giltric: Greylight: Giltric: Greylight: Canadian here, my freedom was aquired by pen you ethnocentric son of a gun. The only time it needed to be defended by a gun was against Americans during the war of 1812

You stole land at gunpoint from an aboriginal people just like every other colonist.

It's fascinating to see the mental gymnastics some people will go through to defend the idea that arms are the only way to achieve independence.

If someone is bullying you and I, and I go and bloody their nose and break their jaw and they no longer have the will to bully you or me......was your freedom aquired through violence or non violence?

You are right there are some pretty awesome gymnastics going on here Nadia.

Did the jews aquire their freedom from the concentration camps through violence or non violence?

You don't have to be the one perpetrating the violence if you benefit from it

One name to disprove this idiotic idea that arms are the only tool to achieve independence:

Mahatma Gandhi


5 parts British Empire crumbling...one part fasting.

Must have been the fasting.

It's a very romanticized story.
 
2013-04-04 11:21:46 PM

Giltric: Greylight: Canadian here, my freedom was aquired by pen you ethnocentric son of a gun. The only time it needed to be defended by a gun was against Americans during the war of 1812

You stole land at gunpoint from an aboriginal people just like every other colonist.


American wars vs 1st nations: 69
Canadian wars vs 1st Nations: 0
US wars vs Canada due to Britain supplying 1st Nations with arms: 1

Canada's history of interaction with 1st nations is deplorable, but not particularly due to arms.

Canadians have gun laws that are less restrictive then some jurisdictions in the US. Per capita Canadians own more arms then most of the world and close to the same as the US for rifles. Canada's violent crime rate is minuscule compared to the U.S. on a per capita basis.

Glorifying arms to the point one believes that they are the only means to freedom/security/safety is a primary contributing cause of gun violence in the US.

Laws are part of the solution, realizing that the cultural glorification of a simple tool leads to the greater use of that tool instead of other options is another, and not even on the table for discussion because maybe, just maybe, it will challenge Americans view of their own history.
 
2013-04-04 11:34:34 PM
Liberals want to abolish the 2nd amendment, news at 11:00.
 
2013-04-04 11:34:53 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Giltric: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: greenboy: Giltric: greenboy: Giltric: Generic Republican: You also want no obligation to store these weapons in a manner that makes them resistant to theft. In essence, you want zero responsibility for owning a weapon

A safe will be enough at first...then after the first incident it will have to be a safe that is at least one inch thick, then it will have to be a safe that is 2 inches thick....then the safe will have to be made of solid unobtanium with an alarm that notifies the police that it is being broken into, then we will end up back at registries because the goal line keeps being moved further and further  by the people whos ultimate goal is nothing but the total disarmament of people.

Why don't we start with a gun safe that has a combination that your mentally disturbed son doesn't have access to?


Are you referring to Lanza?  Are there any citations for that? I have not heard one way or another if Lanza pried open or drilled into a safe, if he had a combo to the safe, or if there was a safe at all.....

No citations, but we can deduct a few things from what we know as facts.  His mom was shot while in her bed (assumedly sleeping), so 1)we can deduct that she was not currently cleaning 2 pistols and the AR15 (is that the right weapon?)
2) We might be able to assume that drilling into the safe would be loud enough to wake her if not done in the middle of the night.
3) if it wasn't drilled and the weapons were not left out in the open, then he either had access to a key, or knew the combination.  Either of these should be a no-no to a responsible gun owner that had a mentally unstable child.

Option 2 is the only one that removes the negligence on the mother's part.

No sign of forced entry.

The actual warrants and inventory just says "brown safe", does not say anything about entry forced or otherwise.

"Investigators found a gun safe open and with no indication that it had been broken into. "

I think if the safe had been brok ...



From your link...

They also found a bank check to Lanza from his mother for "the purchase of a C183 (firearm)," one of the warrants states. Although investigators identified the "C183" as a firearm, it is unclear if any such weapon with that designation is made.

there doesn't seem to be.....but there is a camera called a c183

http://www.amazon.com/Kodak-EasyShare-Digital-Camera-Optical/dp/B004 O0 9H6U/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1365132381&sr=8-1&keywords=KODAK+EASYSHARE +C183+Digital+Camera

I think the police are bullshiatting the public due to political pressure....about the purchase of a c183 firearm and about the safe. Probably about other things too.
 
2013-04-04 11:42:47 PM

Giltric: I think the police are bullshiatting the public


That's what I'm favoriting you with.
To save time.
 
2013-04-04 11:43:59 PM

Greylight: Canadians have gun laws that are less restrictive then some jurisdictions in the US. Per capita Canadians own more arms then most of the world and close to the same as the US for rifles. Canada's violent crime rate is minuscule compared to the U.S. on a per capita basis.

Glorifying arms to the point one believes that they are the only means to freedom/security/safety is a primary contributing cause of gun violence in the US.

Laws are part of the solution, realizing that the cultural glorification of a simple tool leads to the greater use of that tool instead of other options is another, and not even on the table for discussion because maybe, just maybe, it will challenge Americans view of their own history.



Why does the US have such a high murder rate though?

The answer is in your second/middle paragraph blurb thing. My firearm keeps me safe against those in the community who glorify it as a means of taking their fair share from others. You might even be able to hear songs about firearms on the radio and about people using them to shoot other people or cops. They even use them against rival singers.

Even the president has weighed in on "getting in peoples faces" people who didn't earn or build what they have, and "taking your fair share"  It certainly is cultural., but my culture glorifies life ...not pulling a gat except in self defense.
 
2013-04-04 11:46:33 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Giltric: I think the police are bullshiatting the public

That's what I'm favoriting you with.
To save time.


Neither one of us can prove it one way or another.....just think of it as Bushs trumped up WMD intelligence...except on a smaller scale.

Are you saying the police don't obfuscate information?

Have you turned into a bootlicker? Member of the Captain Pike fan club now?
 
2013-04-05 12:07:23 AM

Giltric: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Giltric: I think the police are bullshiatting the public

That's what I'm favoriting you with.
To save time.

Neither one of us can prove it one way or another.....just think of it as Bushs trumped up WMD intelligence...except on a smaller scale.

Are you saying the police don't obfuscate information?

Have you turned into a bootlicker? Member of the Captain Pike fan club now?


Beep.
 
2013-04-05 12:17:26 AM

Giltric: Greylight: Canadians have gun laws that are less restrictive then some jurisdictions in the US. Per capita Canadians own more arms then most of the world and close to the same as the US for rifles. Canada's violent crime rate is minuscule compared to the U.S. on a per capita basis.

Glorifying arms to the point one believes that they are the only means to freedom/security/safety is a primary contributing cause of gun violence in the US.

Laws are part of the solution, realizing that the cultural glorification of a simple tool leads to the greater use of that tool instead of other options is another, and not even on the table for discussion because maybe, just maybe, it will challenge Americans view of their own history.


Why does the US have such a high murder rate though?

The answer is in your second/middle paragraph blurb thing. My firearm keeps me safe against those in the community who glorify it as a means of taking their fair share from others. You might even be able to hear songs about firearms on the radio and about people using them to shoot other people or cops. They even use them against rival singers.

Even the president has weighed in on "getting in peoples faces" people who didn't earn or build what they have, and "taking your fair share"  It certainly is cultural., but my culture glorifies life ...not pulling a gat except in self defense.


I'm a gun owner and I have a great fondness for my American kin and neighbours. I have more in common with folks in The Dakotas then I do with folks in many parts of Canada. I also understand that we are all individuals / cultures of one.

A good friend will tell you what may be hard to hear. Glorification of arms has been a mainstream cultural issue for so long in the US. It is changing and it isn't fair to label all Americans as glorifying arms, though as generalizations go, it is a way to point out why the differences between our nations.
 
2013-04-05 12:25:04 AM

Amos Quito: What they are now proposing will do nothing to address the issues that seem to concern you. What they are doing is merely the prep work for broader confiscation. Background checks and registry tells them WHO LEGALLY has guns and WHERE - which serves ONE purpose. Can you guess what it is?


To track the sales and ownership of what very likely is the most dangerous item in our current society. And yeah, those are very much issues I'm concerned with. Because right now there is NO such system in place.

Also, paranoia is not fact, dude. You have no proof "broader confiscations" are going to take place. Anywhere or any time.

Nutcases are ever-present, and "mental health" evaluations can easily be used as diabolical political tools.

See above. It's a 8 letter word that starts with "p." Learn to actually debate without resorting to speculation.

I judge the purported motives of those who would pretend to address any given "problem" by the solutions that they would hope enforce on us, and in the current gun debate, I find the motives of the "gun regulators" are disingenuous - deceptive, even.

See above.

Not that everyone who BELIEVES the appeal to EMOTION dished out by the gun-grabbers is disingenuous (people are SUCKERS for emotional appeal)

Disingenuous argument is disingenuous. So far, you're flopping here. Hard.

Your entire SHTICK is built on emotion. I wouldn't be talking.

Assault weapons, for example, do NOT pose a major threat to public safety.

Yeah every few years or so we just have to breathe through another Sandy Hook type tragedy where a bunch of kids get killed by...wait for it...assault weapons.

No big deal, right?

They DO, however, pose a major obstacle to to would-be tyrants.

The"tyrants" here are the gun lobbies who keep pumping out a stream of $$$ and propaganda to make it appear that the 2nd Amendment is an absolute right not subject to regulation.

The government has done a stellar job in trying to define the spirit of the law as collective. Save the SCOTUS, natch. I agree with the ACLU wholeheartedly here. Collective rights justifies regulation, insisting that the right is an individual one is allowing for a constant series of Sandy Hook type incidents.
 
2013-04-05 01:23:22 AM

whidbey: Amos Quito: What they are now proposing will do nothing to address the issues that seem to concern you. What they are doing is merely the prep work for broader confiscation. Background checks and registry tells them WHO LEGALLY has guns and WHERE - which serves ONE purpose. Can you guess what it is?

To track the sales and ownership of what very likely is the most dangerous item in our current society.



Aside from old age, disease and accidents, I'd venture that GOVERNMENTS are the "most dangerous item in our current societ[ies]."

Are you a Bush-Cheney-Wolfowitz-Pearle-Kristol fan, whidbey? Are these the saviors of society?

Because that is what power is. Once you relinquish it, you don't get it back - not without a BLOODY fight.


whidbey: And yeah, those are very much issues I'm concerned with. Because right now there is NO such system in place.



Nor should there be. Because you're handing them the power of THE PEOPLE to resist in their own best interests. Do you believe that governments ALWAYS act in the best interests of the governed? Or even maybe SOMETIMES?


whidbey: Also, paranoia is not fact, dude. You have no proof "broader confiscations" are going to take place. Anywhere or any time.



Nor do I have PROOF that spring will follow winter, or that the sun will rise in the morning. But I can certainly point to the history and the nature.

What makes you think that today is any different? Has human nature changed?


whidbey: Yeah every few years or so we just have to breathe through another Sandy Hook type tragedy where a bunch of kids get killed by...wait for it...assault weapons.

No big deal, right?



I'll see your Sandy Hook, and raise you a Holodomor.

Click it. Read it. See what WONDERS governments will happily do.


whidbey: I agree with the ACLU wholeheartedly here. Collective rights justifies regulation, insisting that the right is an individual one is allowing for a constant series of Sandy Hook type incidents.



To paraphrase YOU from above: "...paranoia is not fact, dude. You have no proof "future Sandy Hooks" are going to take place. Anywhere or any time."


Well, DO YOU?

Because if "Sandy Hooks" are inevitable, so are events like Holodomor.

Which do YOU prefer, Partisan Trooper?
 
2013-04-05 01:35:05 AM

Amos Quito: You have no proof "future Sandy Hooks" are going to take place. Anywhere or any time."


Yeah, they just keep happening, though, right? No big deal. The next one won't be so bad.

whidbey: And yeah, those are very much issues I'm concerned with. Because right now there is NO such system in place.


Nor should there be. Because you're handing them the power of THE PEOPLE to resist in their own best interests. Do you believe that governments ALWAYS act in the best interests of the governed? Or even maybe SOMETIMES?


Maybe, sometimes. Yeah those are real tangible words that justify the kind of Wild West anarchy you're touting.

Click it. Read it. See what WONDERS governments will happily do.


Because a duly elected government= Joseph Stalin. Lulz.

Yep. Liberals are fascists to you, I"m guessing. Do you sleep with a copy of that next to your bed?
 
2013-04-05 02:02:53 AM

whidbey: Amos Quito: You have no proof "future Sandy Hooks" are going to take place. Anywhere or any time."

Yeah, they just keep happening, though, right? No big deal. The next one won't be so bad.



Yeah, sorta like abuses of government power "just keep happening" - you know, like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Jung... How many millions in the last century???

But  "No big deal. The next one won't be so bad", right, whidbey?

sonyanheaneyblog.files.wordpress.com

How many CHILDREN, BTW??? How many? More than Sandy Hook, or fewer???


whidbey: Because a duly elected government= Joseph Stalin. Lulz.

Yep. Liberals are fascists to you, I"m guessing. Do you sleep with a copy of that next to your bed?



Oh HEAVENS NO!!!

GOD FORBID!!!

"Liberals" are God's anointed!

Anyone who tells you otherwise is the spawn of Satan.


/The dirty
//The Filthy
//Spawn of SATAN


you gullible twat
 
2013-04-05 03:25:45 AM

Amos Quito: Yeah, sorta like abuses of government power "just keep happening" - you know, like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Jung... How many millions in the last century???


Roight, gov.  Keep selling them guns to criminals and lunatics.  Don't even dream of prosecuting straw purchasers.  Blame B. Hussein Osama when the guns end up in the hands of Mexican drug gangs.

you gullible twat

Pot, meet kettle.  When tyranny comes to America, it will not be to black helicopters and UN troops rounding up decent Gawd-fearing folks to be reeducated as gay communist Muslim atheists.  It will be to flags and fireworks and Sousa marches and clean-cut guys promising to protect decent Gawd-fearing folks from the Feelthy Queers, Union Thugs, Scary Mooselimbs, Smelly Hippies and Greasy Spics.

And you citizen militia types will be waving the flags and shouting "hail victory" when the Leader tells you to.
 
2013-04-05 03:43:57 AM

Amos Quito: arrogant possibly drunken babbling


lolwut

Not that everyone who BELIEVES the appeal to EMOTION dished out by the gun-grabbers is disingenuous (people are SUCKERS for emotional appeal)

Like your entire posting style isn't based on an appeal to emotion.

/Sleep it off, dude.
 
2013-04-05 08:27:18 AM
Remember, only liberals are allowed to use "What If?" scenarios to show how much worse things could have been if not for their heroic bureaucracy. Same for slippery slope arguments, moving the goalposts, "fake but accurate" evidence, etc.

/liberal motto: "It's okay for US to do it, but not for YOU, because WE HAVE GOOD INTENTIONS!"
 
2013-04-05 10:57:33 AM

Tatterdemalian: Remember, only liberals are allowed to use "What If?" scenarios to show how much worse things could have been if not for their heroic bureaucracy. Same for slippery slope arguments, moving the goalposts, "fake but accurate" evidence, etc.

/liberal motto: "It's okay for US to do it, but not for YOU, because WE HAVE GOOD INTENTIONS!"


Throw off the shackles of your oppressors brother! Take your AR-15, grab your buddies, and overthrow this socialist regime and replace it with the utopia Ayn Rand envisioned.  Good luck, but who needs luck right?  Because the second amendment was all about insurrectionist theory, so I'm sure you have all the military might necessary to overthrow the government.  That's what you're fighting for right?
 
2013-04-05 11:19:10 AM

blindio: Tatterdemalian: Remember, only liberals are allowed to use "What If?" scenarios to show how much worse things could have been if not for their heroic bureaucracy. Same for slippery slope arguments, moving the goalposts, "fake but accurate" evidence, etc.

/liberal motto: "It's okay for US to do it, but not for YOU, because WE HAVE GOOD INTENTIONS!"

Throw off the shackles of your oppressors brother! Take your AR-15, grab your buddies, and overthrow this socialist regime and replace it with the utopia Ayn Rand envisioned.  Good luck, but who needs luck right?  Because the second amendment was all about insurrectionist theory, so I'm sure you have all the military might necessary to overthrow the government.  That's what you're fighting for right?


Nope!

/but keep talking
//I love it when you tell me how heroic I think I am
 
2013-04-05 11:40:10 AM
 
2013-04-05 12:08:54 PM

Greylight: Giltric: Greylight: Giltric: Greylight: Canadian here, my freedom was aquired by pen you ethnocentric son of a gun. The only time it needed to be defended by a gun was against Americans during the war of 1812

You stole land at gunpoint from an aboriginal people just like every other colonist.

It's fascinating to see the mental gymnastics some people will go through to defend the idea that arms are the only way to achieve independence.

If someone is bullying you and I, and I go and bloody their nose and break their jaw and they no longer have the will to bully you or me......was your freedom aquired through violence or non violence?

You are right there are some pretty awesome gymnastics going on here Nadia.

Did the jews aquire their freedom from the concentration camps through violence or non violence?

You don't have to be the one perpetrating the violence if you benefit from it

One name to disprove this idiotic idea that arms are the only tool to achieve independence:

Mahatma Gandhi


As I alluded to earlier, Gandhi succeeded because he made it too costly for the British to keep it as a colony.  And contrary to what some Republicans would like to believe, the American colonies weren't that important to the British--the most valuable British colonies were India and the Caribbean.  Had the American colonies produced as much economic value as the Caribbean colonies (i.e. something equal to or greater than the Caribbean sugar plantations), the British might have worked much harder to keep the American colonies from breaking away.

The concentration camp analogy doesn't work because the Nazis weren't trying to boost the German economy by exterminating Jews.  Likewise for the schoolyard bully.  But since Giltric is a known dittohead, I'm sure that he doesn't care.
 
2013-04-05 12:15:43 PM

Lee Jackson Beauregard: Amos Quito: Yeah, sorta like abuses of government power "just keep happening" - you know, like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Jung... How many millions in the last century???

Roight, gov.  Keep selling them guns to criminals and lunatics.  Don't even dream of prosecuting straw purchasers.  Blame B. Hussein Osama when the guns end up in the hands of Mexican drug gangs.

you gullible twat

Pot, meet kettle.  When tyranny comes to America, it will not be to black helicopters and UN troops rounding up decent Gawd-fearing folks to be reeducated as gay communist Muslim atheists.  It will be to flags and fireworks and Sousa marches and clean-cut guys promising to protect decent Gawd-fearing folks from the Feelthy Queers, Union Thugs, Scary Mooselimbs, Smelly Hippies and Greasy Spics.

And you citizen militia types will be waving the flags and shouting "hail victory" when the Leader tells you to.


Sounds like the left should arm itself too.

Obama promised that kind of thing can't happen because he's constrained by the system the founders put in.  Too bad that system wasn't in place during the Bush administration.
 
2013-04-05 02:04:45 PM

pedrop357: Mrtraveler01: Giltric: Freedom is a little messy...and the alternative is no freedom.

That sums it up there.

School shootings are the price we pay for "freedom".

They're the price we pay for letting gun control nuts enable mass murder by denying people the ability to carry a firearm to defend themselves in certain areas.


Not a "gun control nut", but every adult in the school with a gun + schoolchildren doesn't really seem like a smart idea.
 
2013-04-05 02:09:48 PM

Thunderpipes: Liberals want to abolish the 2nd amendment, news at 11:00.


Retards are destroying humanity's collective intelligence, news at 12:00.
 
2013-04-05 02:10:03 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: pedrop357: Mrtraveler01: Giltric: Freedom is a little messy...and the alternative is no freedom.

That sums it up there.

School shootings are the price we pay for "freedom".

They're the price we pay for letting gun control nuts enable mass murder by denying people the ability to carry a firearm to defend themselves in certain areas.

Not a "gun control nut", but every adult in the school with a gun + schoolchildren doesn't really seem like a smart idea.


Who said every adult had to have a gun?
 
2013-04-05 02:15:45 PM

Amos Quito: whidbey: Amos Quito: You have no proof "future Sandy Hooks" are going to take place. Anywhere or any time."

Yeah, they just keep happening, though, right? No big deal. The next one won't be so bad.


Yeah, sorta like abuses of government power "just keep happening" - you know, like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Jung... How many millions in the last century???

But  "No big deal. The next one won't be so bad", right, whidbey?

[sonyanheaneyblog.files.wordpress.com image 218x320]

How many CHILDREN, BTW??? How many? More than Sandy Hook, or fewer???


whidbey: Because a duly elected government= Joseph Stalin. Lulz.

Yep. Liberals are fascists to you, I"m guessing. Do you sleep with a copy of that next to your bed?


Oh HEAVENS NO!!!

GOD FORBID!!!

"Liberals" are God's anointed!

Anyone who tells you otherwise is the spawn of Satan.


/The dirty
//The Filthy
//Spawn of SATAN


you gullible twat


We get it, dude, you're paranoid because you think every single governing body ever has done nothing but slaughter the citizens of the place they govern and exist solely to tyrannize and destroy.

Come back after you learn to think rationally, then maybe we can have an actual discussion instead of listening to your conspiracy theorist nuttery.
 
2013-04-05 02:18:30 PM

pedrop357: Keizer_Ghidorah: pedrop357: Mrtraveler01: Giltric: Freedom is a little messy...and the alternative is no freedom.

That sums it up there.

School shootings are the price we pay for "freedom".

They're the price we pay for letting gun control nuts enable mass murder by denying people the ability to carry a firearm to defend themselves in certain areas.

Not a "gun control nut", but every adult in the school with a gun + schoolchildren doesn't really seem like a smart idea.

Who said every adult had to have a gun?


The people saying every teacher and faculty member should be armed as well as every school should have a police force guarding it.

The best way to deal with the gun issue is to address the deeper and fundamental problems to reduce overall violence, not to turn schools into pseudo-prison fortresses.
 
2013-04-05 02:21:01 PM

anfrind: But since Giltric is a known dittohead


Do you know who *else* kept lists of certain "known" types of people?


/not serious
 
2013-04-05 02:26:02 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: The people saying every teacher and faculty member should be armed as well as every school should have a police force guarding it.

The best way to deal with the gun issue is to address the deeper and fundamental problems to reduce overall violence, not to turn schools into pseudo-prison fortresses.


Very rarely will you ever see a gun person say that everyone should be armed.  They usually want those who choose to be armed to have that option.

They would also like cops (I don't think one or two cops constitutes a police force) patrolling schools. I'm actually not in favor of an increased police presence in schools anymore than I'm in favor of an increased police presence anywhere else.

I think allowing those who already carry everywhere else to carry in schools if they desire is a perfectly reasonable alternative.
 
2013-04-05 02:53:09 PM

pedrop357: Keizer_Ghidorah: The people saying every teacher and faculty member should be armed as well as every school should have a police force guarding it.

The best way to deal with the gun issue is to address the deeper and fundamental problems to reduce overall violence, not to turn schools into pseudo-prison fortresses.

Very rarely will you ever see a gun person say that everyone should be armed.  They usually want those who choose to be armed to have that option.

They would also like cops (I don't think one or two cops constitutes a police force) patrolling schools. I'm actually not in favor of an increased police presence in schools anymore than I'm in favor of an increased police presence anywhere else.

I think allowing those who already carry everywhere else to carry in schools if they desire is a perfectly reasonable alternative.


Maybe I'm just silly because I see guns around kids as a bad idea, and I prefer tackling the roots of the problems to putting a band-aid on a broken leg.
 
2013-04-05 03:57:43 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: pedrop357: Mrtraveler01: Giltric: Freedom is a little messy...and the alternative is no freedom.

That sums it up there.

School shootings are the price we pay for "freedom".

They're the price we pay for letting gun control nuts enable mass murder by denying people the ability to carry a firearm to defend themselves in certain areas.

Not a "gun control nut", but every adult in the school with a gun + schoolchildren doesn't really seem like a smart idea.



Israel supposedly has done this sine the 60s or 70s without the type of incident the detractors claim will happen...like a teacher getting mad at a student and shooting them, or a student tyring  to access the teachers firearm.

Many schools have had full time armed security, almost half of all schols in the US. SOme cities even have their own hundred plus person police departments, places like Detroit, Baltimore, NYC, Philadelphia....and I have not heard of any shootings where an armed security guard has shot someone beciase they were mad.

Utah(?) has allowed teachers to conceal carry since 06 or 08...and I haven't heard any situations that would warrant any hand wringing.

What I believe is that the gun control crowd is very violent. It is their violent fantasies that they project onto others, like Republicans, pro gun whoevers, armed teachers, cops etc... They think a teacher would shoot a student over a case of the Mondays because they themselves would shoot a student due to a case of the Mondays.


They are afraid of what they themselves would do with a firearm so therefore nobody should have a firearm.
 
2013-04-05 05:02:15 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: pedrop357: Keizer_Ghidorah: The people saying every teacher and faculty member should be armed as well as every school should have a police force guarding it.

The best way to deal with the gun issue is to address the deeper and fundamental problems to reduce overall violence, not to turn schools into pseudo-prison fortresses.

Very rarely will you ever see a gun person say that everyone should be armed.  They usually want those who choose to be armed to have that option.

They would also like cops (I don't think one or two cops constitutes a police force) patrolling schools. I'm actually not in favor of an increased police presence in schools anymore than I'm in favor of an increased police presence anywhere else.

I think allowing those who already carry everywhere else to carry in schools if they desire is a perfectly reasonable alternative.

Maybe I'm just silly because I see guns around kids as a bad idea, and I prefer tackling the roots of the problems to putting a band-aid on a broken leg.


So when someone hurts a kid, don't send armed police?

If someone breaks into the house, Mom and Dad are supposed to use,what, harsh language to stop the threat?
 
2013-04-05 05:09:03 PM

Giltric: What I believe is that the gun control crowd is very violent. It is their violent fantasies that they project onto others, like Republicans, pro gun whoevers, armed teachers, cops etc... They think a teacher would shoot a student over a case of the Mondays because they themselves would shoot a student due to a case of the Mondays.


They also despise allowing people to make the individual choice to carry guns, so they frame the issue the only way they know how, with across-the-board mandates.  Either ALL adults have to be armed or none.

So suggesting that concealed carry permit holders be allowed to carry is (to them) tantamount to requiring everyone to carry.  Combine that with their violent tendencies and exceptional projection abilities and you now have them spinning a scenario of  a school where everyone is uncontrollably violent and armed.

The projection thing goes along with my view that liberals/lefties have serious problems with boundaries.  When the ends/intentions justify the means and the only thing needed to justify something is one's own feelings, the concept of boundaries, especially as desired/applied by others, never even crosses their mind.
 
2013-04-05 06:32:51 PM

Giltric: Keizer_Ghidorah: pedrop357: Mrtraveler01: Giltric: Freedom is a little messy...and the alternative is no freedom.

That sums it up there.

School shootings are the price we pay for "freedom".

They're the price we pay for letting gun control nuts enable mass murder by denying people the ability to carry a firearm to defend themselves in certain areas.

Not a "gun control nut", but every adult in the school with a gun + schoolchildren doesn't really seem like a smart idea.


Israel supposedly has done this sine the 60s or 70s without the type of incident the detractors claim will happen...like a teacher getting mad at a student and shooting them, or a student tyring  to access the teachers firearm.

Many schools have had full time armed security, almost half of all schols in the US. SOme cities even have their own hundred plus person police departments, places like Detroit, Baltimore, NYC, Philadelphia....and I have not heard of any shootings where an armed security guard has shot someone beciase they were mad.

Utah(?) has allowed teachers to conceal carry since 06 or 08...and I haven't heard any situations that would warrant any hand wringing.

What I believe is that the gun control crowd is very violent. It is their violent fantasies that they project onto others, like Republicans, pro gun whoevers, armed teachers, cops etc... They think a teacher would shoot a student over a case of the Mondays because they themselves would shoot a student due to a case of the Mondays.

They are afraid of what they themselves would do with a firearm so therefore nobody should have a firearm.


And this is why we can't have rational discussions about anything. People like you are what keep the discussions firmly rooted on the extremists on both sides screaming at each other.
 
2013-04-05 06:35:22 PM

pedrop357: Keizer_Ghidorah: pedrop357: Keizer_Ghidorah: The people saying every teacher and faculty member should be armed as well as every school should have a police force guarding it.

The best way to deal with the gun issue is to address the deeper and fundamental problems to reduce overall violence, not to turn schools into pseudo-prison fortresses.

Very rarely will you ever see a gun person say that everyone should be armed.  They usually want those who choose to be armed to have that option.

They would also like cops (I don't think one or two cops constitutes a police force) patrolling schools. I'm actually not in favor of an increased police presence in schools anymore than I'm in favor of an increased police presence anywhere else.

I think allowing those who already carry everywhere else to carry in schools if they desire is a perfectly reasonable alternative.

Maybe I'm just silly because I see guns around kids as a bad idea, and I prefer tackling the roots of the problems to putting a band-aid on a broken leg.

So when someone hurts a kid, don't send armed police?

If someone breaks into the house, Mom and Dad are supposed to use,what, harsh language to stop the threat?


I'm talking about teachers and faculty with guns in schools, and you start assuming I don't want police to respond to crimes and want to take away guns in homes.

This is another reason why we can't discuss anything intelligently.
 
2013-04-05 06:36:39 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: 'm talking about teachers and faculty with guns in schools, and you start assuming I don't want police to respond to crimes and want to take away guns in homes.

This is another reason why we can't discuss anything intelligently.


This is what you said a few hours ago:

Maybe I'm just silly because I see guns around kids as a bad idea, and I prefer tackling the roots of the problems to putting a band-aid on a broken leg.
 
2013-04-05 08:12:56 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: And this is why we can't have rational discussions about anything. People like you are what keep the discussions firmly rooted on the extremists on both sides screaming at each other.


Sure we can. Just leave your ego at the door.
 
Displayed 40 of 390 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report