No. of Recommendations: 91
I know you proposed your solution to the gun problem the other day: armed guards at every school.

Did you know that there was an armed guard at Columbine on the day of the (now) second worst school massacre in US history? Did you know that the trained officer was ineffective in doing anything? Did you know that after taking several shots he called for backup - which arrived quickly because another officer was writing a speeding ticket just blocks from the school. Did you know that the backup arrived only a minute later, and that STILL did nothing to stop the carnage?

Did you know that while you were giving your speech, a crazy man with a gun shot up a church in Pennsylvania and killed three people? Do you think we need to have armed guards at all the churches in America too?

Did you know that there are armed guards already stationed at airports throughout the world and people with guns still show up there to kill people? And that there was a multiple shooting at an airport in Ohio just a couple weeks ago? Another in Mexico City a few months ago? Another in Los Angeles a few years ago? And horrific mass shootings at airports from Frankfurt to Lod to India and Zagrev over the years, all with "armed guards" patrolling?

Did you know that most of the country holds the NRA in contempt, and that your so called solutions have been tried, are being tried, and continue to fail? Will you ever consider another alternative?

Apparently not, and America will continue to be the poorer for it. And the deaths of future children will be on your head. How do you live with that?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
I know you proposed your solution to the gun problem the other day: armed guards at every school.

Did you know that there was an armed guard at Columbine on the day of the (now) second worst school massacre in US history? Did you know that the trained officer was ineffective in doing anything? Did you know that after taking several shots he called for backup - which arrived quickly because another officer was writing a speeding ticket just blocks from the school. Did you know that the backup arrived only a minute later, and that STILL did nothing to stop the carnage?

Did you know that while you were giving your speech, a crazy man with a gun shot up a church in Pennsylvania and killed three people? Do you think we need to have armed guards at all the churches in America too?

Did you know that there are armed guards already stationed at airports throughout the world and people with guns still show up there to kill people? And that there was a multiple shooting at an airport in Ohio just a couple weeks ago? Another in Mexico City a few months ago? Another in Los Angeles a few years ago? And horrific mass shootings at airports from Frankfurt to Lod to India and Zagrev over the years, all with "armed guards" patrolling?

Did you know that most of the country holds the NRA in contempt, and that your so called solutions have been tried, are being tried, and continue to fail? Will you ever consider another alternative?

Apparently not, and America will continue to be the poorer for it. And the deaths of future children will be on your head. How do you live with that?

_____________________

Hi Mr NRA,

Do you know,that drunk drivers kill more than guns do ?

Do you know that the folks who want to blame you for every atrocity on the globe and claim that defense does not work because it is imperfect, want more folks driving under the influence ?

Yes we could supposedly cure drunk driving by removing alcohol from society, but that is not what these clowns want -- though it is what they preach in YOUR case. They want to legalize marijuana,and have innocent children everywhere under the threat of more impaired drivers or being killed in accidents by impaired parents

Do we have distorted facts? Harmed children? Stupid reasoning that if you look at it and are only slightly impaired makes sense? Yeah, I got it covered, a perfect copy of a liberal post.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
it seems that we would be better off outlawing people.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 63
Do you know,that drunk drivers kill more than guns do ?


Actually, they don't. There were more than 30,000 shooting deaths. DWI deaths were under 11,000.

http://www.centurycouncil.org/drunk-driving/drunk-driving-fa...
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-19/american-gun-deaths...

Which raises an obvious observation [to all, but people like you]: The vast majority of firearms-related deaths were NOT due to mass shootings.

Yes, DWI is extremely serious, and laws do not prevent all drunks from driving, or reckless drivers from speeding. But sanction exist for those who do. How many shooters of the 30,000 + were prosecuted, or even had their right to own firearms revoked.

And, how many were members of a 'well-regulated militia'? I've yet to hear a single so-called 2nd Amendment advocate even begin to address the meaning and import of that opening phrase.

Schvitz
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"
And, how many were members of a 'well-regulated militia'? I've yet to hear a single so-called 2nd Amendment advocate even begin to address the meaning and import of that opening phrase.

Schvitz "



why not? DOn't you know your US history.

During the revolutionary war, most of the people fighting the British regular army were citizen volunteers who brought their own guns. The gov't didn't issue them. It was like you and your neighbors getting together to defend your wife, kid and family......

And, of course, the Supreme Court ruled that phrase meant that the citizen has the right to own privately firearms......and that recently. You did know that, right?

You forgot the second half of that phrase, which is most important..said the Supreme Court.

Then again, libs always hand pick partial facts and take them out of context ....to cheat at 'winning' their argument in their minds.



t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Here's my proposal-

Repeal the 2nd amendment.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Nah......Shoot everyone.


Jimbo
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
And, of course, the Supreme Court ruled that phrase meant that the citizen has the right to own privately firearms......and that recently. You did know that, right?

=============================

But that does not mean that private citizens will have the right to own assault weapons if Congress passes new laws outlawing them.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Then again, libs always hand pick partial facts and take them out of context ....to cheat at 'winning' their argument in their minds.

In Supreme Court case District of Columbia vs Heller, the majority opinion held that

"the adjective 'well-regulated' implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training."

So tell me which state requires either "discipline" or "training" to own a firearm.

Speck
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"
In Supreme Court case District of Columbia vs Heller, the majority opinion held that

"the adjective 'well-regulated' implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training."

So tell me which state requires either "discipline" or "training" to own a firearm.

Speck
"

Doing some cherry picking I see.


http://www.lawnix.com/cases/dc-heller.html


"Issue
•What rights are protected by the Second Amendment?

Holding and Rule (Scalia)
•The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

Text of the Second Amendment

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.

Constitutional Construction

The prefatory clause “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” merely announces a purpose. It does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.
"
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 10
Constitutional Construction

The prefatory clause “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” merely announces a purpose. It does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms."



....."
For more than a hundred years, the answer was clear, even if the words of the amendment itself were not. The text of the amendment is divided into two clauses and is, as a whole, ungrammatical: “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.” The courts had found that the first part, the “militia clause,” trumped the second part, the “bear arms” clause. In other words, according to the Supreme Court, and the lower courts as well, the amendment conferred on state militias a right to bear arms—but did not give individuals a right to own or carry a weapon.


Enter the modern National Rifle Association. Before the nineteen-seventies, the N.R.A. had been devoted mostly to non-political issues, like gun safety. But a coup d’état at the group’s annual convention in 1977 brought a group of committed political conservatives to power—as part of the leading edge of the new, more rightward-leaning Republican Party. (Jill Lepore recounted this history in a recent piece for The New Yorker.) The new group pushed for a novel interpretation of the Second Amendment, one that gave individuals, not just militias, the right to bear arms. It was an uphill struggle. At first, their views were widely scorned. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, who was no liberal, mocked the individual-rights theory of the amendment as “a fraud.”


But the N.R.A. kept pushing—and there’s a lesson here. Conservatives often embrace “originalism,” the idea that the meaning of the Constitution was fixed when it was ratified, in 1787. They mock the so-called liberal idea of a “living” constitution, whose meaning changes with the values of the country at large. But there is no better example of the living Constitution than the conservative re-casting of the Second Amendment in the last few decades of the twentieth century.

Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/12/jeffre...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"But the N.R.A. kept pushing—and there’s a lesson here. Conservatives often embrace “originalism,” the idea that the meaning of the Constitution was fixed when it was ratified, in 1787. They mock the so-called liberal idea of a “living” constitution, whose meaning changes with the values of the country at large. But there is no better example of the living Constitution than the conservative re-casting of the Second Amendment in the last few decades of the twentieth century.
"

This is a bogus argument. The constitution is interpreted from an "originalism" simply because the founding fathers understood the human condition. Until the human condition is transformed, the constitution is as relevant today as the first day it was written.

A "living document" suggests that human condition is changing over time. It has NOT.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
The NRA wants the government to implement a national "shield" to protect our schools by putting armed guards there. OK. How about we pay for it by putting a huge tax on gun owners? If NRA members are so fiercely independent why should they want the government to pay to protect our kids from the misuse of the guns they want to own. Why should non gun owners pay for this when they do not want or own a gun but are subjected to the danger of other people having them and not being responsible for them? Any decent law abiding gun owner should gladly pay for the safety of the public with regard to guns they insist they need to own.

Here is a gun law that may actually work.
1. Every gun owner pays for an annual psyc exam to see if they are qualified to own a gun
2. If anyone in your house has any mental problem, you can't own a gun.
3. You must have a government approved safe to lock up your gun when not in use.
4. If someone uses your gun in a crime, you are then a codefendant in the crime, unless you can prove it was obtained by breaking into your safe when you were not there

Let gun owners and advocates pay for their gun ownership with their own MONEY and RESPONSIBLITY.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Goofy -

Your way has been tried. Schools have no defense.

As far as Columbine was concerned, here is a bit more of the story:

"On April 20, 1999, Neil Gardner, an armed sheriff's deputy who had been policing the school for almost two years, was eating lunch when Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold arrived at Columbine with their deadly arsenal and deadlier intentions.

Gardner said he got a call from a custodian that he was needed in the school's back parking lot. A few minutes later, he encountered Harris, and the two exchanged gunfire. The exchange with Harris lasted for an extended period of time, during which Harris' gun jammed.

The deputy and the backup he immediately called for exchanged fire with the shooters a second time and helped begin the evacuation of students, all before SWAT teams arrived, and before Harris and Klebold eventually killed themselves in the library.

Harris and Klebold also carried improvised explosive devices, some that detonated, others that didn't. One thing is certain — the armed resistance of Gardner and his backup bought time and saved lives."

Read More At IBD: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/122412-638251-armed...

It may be a matter of speculation as to how this guard's actions directly saved lives or how many he saved, but while he was engaging Harris, and getting the evacuation of the building started, Harris was NOT murdering other students or teachers. I would hope we could agree on at least that much. Therefore, to say "that STILL did nothing to stop the carnage?" is factually deficient, and does not take any of these factors into account.

I remember watching the Columbine school as this happened. I saw the kids and the teachers coming out before the SWAT teams arrived. If these kids had all still been in the school (that is, if the deputy who was there and who helped get the evacuation started had not done so) the number of students and teachers that could have been murdered by those two could have been staggering. One group in the school that day in the cafeteria, had over 480 students in one location.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
One thing is certain — the armed resistance of Gardner and his backup bought time and saved lives."

?????

After observing SWAT outside, the 2 boys went into the library and spent a lot of time tormenting and shooting kids before - FINALLY - shooting themselves.

SWAT didn't do squat.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Polls: NRA has higher favorable rating than Obama
http://washingtonexaminer.com/polls-nra-has-higher-favorable...

_________________________________________

Hey huffnpuff,

Did you know that most of the country holds the NRA in contempt, and that your so called solutions have been tried, are being tried, and continue to fail? Will you ever consider another alternative?

Apparently not, and America will continue to be the poorer for it. And the deaths of future children will be on your head. How do you live with that?


http://washingtonexaminer.com/polls-nra-has-higher-favorable...

DO you know that the country holds Obama in higher contempt than the NRA?

Apparently not, and America will continue to be the poorer for it. And the lousy lives of future children will be on your head. How do you live with that?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
One thing is certain — the armed resistance of Gardner and his backup bought time and saved lives."

?????

After observing SWAT outside, the 2 boys went into the library and spent a lot of time tormenting and shooting kids before - FINALLY - shooting themselves.

SWAT didn't do squat.

=========================================================

Sano - I said nothing about the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of SWAT at Columbine.

I said GARDNER (the deputy on the school ground who was out of place yet armed and who actually engaged Harris at about 60 yards with his pistol) and the backup who he radioed and who came from a traffic stop, bought time and saved lives.

An earlier poster said that Gardner was "ineffective" because he did not take Harris out from 60 yards away with a pistol. I don't know a lot of people who could take a person who was shooting at you out at 60 yards with a pistol. However, the mere fact that he delayed Harris gave precious time to get some of the students and teachers out of the school. Time is a tremendous factor in saving lives.

And yes, the two murderers went into a library and did torture and did murder kids. If an armed teacher or administrator had been there, could things have been different? Very likely so but we can never know. But, had there been an armed presence in the school, administrator or teacher for example, the shots they would have had to take would have necessarily been substantially shorter.

I must make the assumption that you do not shoot pistol and you're essentially unfamiliar with them. When shooting a firearm with a short sighting radius, the margin of error between a hit and a miss is greatly increased, making accurate fire much more difficult to attain. I can accurately shoot 75 yards with a pistol with a 7.5" barrel and a 10.5" sight radius as long as someone is not shooting at me. However, when someone is shooting at me, my accuracy drops markedly. Accurate fire depends on target acquisition, target / sight alignment, trigger squeeze and follow-through. Without those essentials, accuracy drops off, so the effective range shortens markedly. My accurate combat range has shown to be no greater than 20-22 yards over the years, but on a range, even with a pistol having a sighting radius of 4.5" (a backup pistol) I can accurately place shots at 35-40 yards. With a 6" radius, I can accurately place shots at 50-55 yards. Under combat conditions the 4.5" goes down to 'gunfight range' of 7-18 yards and the 6" goes as much as 22. I doubt that I would have done better than Gardner did at 60 yards. With a rifle it becomes a different matter entirely.

You're exactly right. SWAT didn't do squat.

That is why, if Americans are really and honestly desirous of keeping their kids safe at school, serious consideration must be given to either placing more armed guards in school at a cost to the schools / patrons of the salary of the guards, or alternatively, training and equipping teachers or administrators who have the aptitude to act, and giving them the permission and commission to be the line of defense in our schools.

Texas schoolteachers are all in the news now, as are those in Utah. These teachers are showing the rest of the nation what how courageous people respond to threats. One administrator said “We don’t have money for a security guard, but this is a better solution,” Superintendent David --------- said. “A shooter could take out a guard or officer with a visible, holstered weapon, but our teachers have master’s degrees, are older and have had extensive training. And their guns are hidden. We can protect our children.”

I have mentioned before that my wife can outdraw and out shoot me. I've seen people faster with a gun than her, but damned few more accurate and none more determined. I hope our school board here will take the same point of view as many in Texas, Utah, Oklahoma, Missouri, Minnesota, South Dakota and Oregon are taking - that following the Israeli model for protection of children is more important than being politically correct.

Because, SWAT doesn't do squat. And In 2005, The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that police do not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm. (Linda Greenhouse,"Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone" The New York Times June 28, 2005.)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Spikie - that guy engaged with a pistol from 60 *yards* and someone is complaining about accuracy? Sheesh. I'm not the most experienced or best shooter the world ever saw, but come on.

I can hit kinda accurately with my very low recoil 22LR Ruger target pistol (which has a red dot on it) out to 50 feet (in a group of about 4"). Out to 180 feet? Forget about it. And with a larger caliber pistol with somebody shooting back at me? Doubly forget about it.

Most pistol shooters (watch them at the range) can't hit squat with larger caliber weapons beyond 20 feet!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
D1 -

Yeah - I was shocked too. No one had ever complained that Gardner was 'ineffective' that I'd seen before - he delayed Harris and Klebold - that was effective, given the situation.

I hunt with a handgun (also a Ruger) and so I've practiced a whole lot at longer ranges. On a deer-sized animal, I'm good to 75 yards with a pistol. Double that with a rifle shooting the same caliber cartridge. Accuracy on deer is being able to hit within an 8" circle every time at the max range you'll shoot, the way I see it. Do that and one can take deer-size game humanely every time. But, you have to practice and I've done that for over 50 years.

A close friend of mine has been the IPSC Champion and one of the original Southwest Pistol League IPSC "Combat Masters", plus has been a world renown Pistolsmith for the past 40+ years. He will take one of his .45 pistols and at 25 yards, will place a magazine full (8 shots) in a 1" to 1.25" group every day of the week, from almost any imaginable position. But he lives and breathes pistols and accuracy, and his pistols are some of the finest pieces of workmanship ever built by man. Wilson Combat exceeds anything I'll ever do, and in combat situations, their records are impeccable. The gunsmiths there are law enforcement men and women, as well as target shooters, and they will tell you the same as you've said - when you're under fire... a lot of things change. But, that said... those guys are good - very very good.

Even so, if teachers or administrators had the opportunity to carry legally, they would have surprise on their side and they would have proximity. These murderers who come into schools and prey on them and their kids aren't good with a firearm. They commonly do their murder from only a few feet away. My wife, given that situation, would tear their a$$ up and she's a 60 year old schoolteacher. She's also very quick with her hands, very accurate with her firearm, and she's very angry about people threatening harm to kids. It's her life's work - why would she not want to protect it for generations to come?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"And the deaths of future children will be on your head. How do you live with that? "

--------------------------------------------------


Talk about hypocrites!

The deaths of future children? HA!

The total of deaths of children by firearms of any sort for the entire existence of this NATION is NOTHING compared to the number of deaths of children at the hands of LIBERAL sponsored laws in only the last forty years, since Roe vs. Wade.

Your abortion laws kill more children in a day than firearms kill in a year.

Hypocrites!

HOW DARE YOU! How do YOU live with what YOU have done?!!!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
I have mentioned before that my wife can outdraw and out shoot me. I've seen people faster with a gun than her, but damned few more accurate and none more determined.

I'm sure you and your wife are awesome.

All the cops and soldiers that fill our graveyards were awesome.

I must make the assumption that you do not shoot pistol and you're essentially unfamiliar with them.

That a poor assumption. All I care to say on a board is that 1) I'm qualified and 2) I enjoy hunting too.

That said, the more guns we pump into our society - withouteffective regulaiton - the more opportunities there will be for you to be awesome too.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 55
The total of deaths of children by firearms of any sort for the entire existence of this NATION is NOTHING compared to the number of deaths of children at the hands of LIBERAL sponsored laws in only the last forty years, since Roe vs. Wade.

Your abortion laws kill more children in a day than firearms kill in a year.


Abortion kills no children. The fact that you call them "children" does not make them children.

They are "cells", smaller than the pathways on a computer chip. After a time they are zygotes, and if they stay around long enough (most do not thanks to entirely natural processes) they may become fetuses, which are also rejected in astonishingly large numbers by natural processes. They are not "children".

Eventually, if they survive and are "born", they become "children" at which point - by historical reference anyway, including the Founding Fathers and even the Roman Catholic Church until the past few decades, they have the protection of law for independent, living organisms.

But they are not "children" u til that time, at which point you and your NRA friends can make targets of them.

Words have meaning. And there is a specific definition of "children", which you might want to learn, just for future reference.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 28
"Your abortion laws kill more children in a day than firearms kill in a year."

Were you that waiter who brought me a chicken sandwich even though I ordered an egg salad sandwich?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Speaking of crime, try to wrap your brain around this:

"legalized abortion in the 1970s explains a substantial part of the crime decline in the 1990s" http://www.freakonomics.com/2005/05/15/abortion-and-crime-wh...

Women with choices produce far fewer unwanted children to be neglected and turned into criminals.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Boo-hoo. Misplaced liberal compassion AGAIN!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"Your abortion laws kill more children in a day than firearms kill in a year."
.............................
Were you that waiter who brought me a chicken sandwich even though I ordered an egg salad sandwich?


Or possibly the landscaper who promised 3 young oak trees and delivered 3 sprouted acorns.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Abortions do not kill "children."

Ken
Print the post Back To Top