NRA Once Again Defends 2nd Amendment

[Vylo]

Do you not recognize that if a "right" can be removed or granted by a government that it is NOT a "right"? .

then there are no rights.

 

[Billnew]

The public will ALWAYS be out gunned by the military. It's simply a matter of common sense. Having a public that loves guns also gives licence for the powers to have more and better guns as they have the ability to argue (100% truthfully or not) that they are dealing with more dangerous weapons coming at them.

So in the meantime, I guess things like children's lives will have to be sacrificed for TRUE gun freedom.

All the gun laws in the world won't protect children from a man with a gun intending harm to kids.
Only someone with a gun can stop someone with a gun, that or they run out of bullets, running out of bullets usually means alot of dead people.

If you want to protect children, let trained staff members have access to firearms.
Locks and barracades will slow down shooters, armed citizens or police can stop them.

 

[HannahT]

All the gun laws in the world won't protect children from a man with a gun intending harm to kids.
Only someone with a gun can stop someone with a gun, that or they run out of bullets, running out of bullets usually means alot of dead people.

If you want to protect children, let trained staff members have access to firearms.
Locks and barracades will slow down shooters, armed citizens or police can stop them.

Quite frankly, Billnew many people came up with all kinds of ideas - some doable, some not so much.

Sadly, people are to busy being melodramatic about this issue that the discussion can't be had.

There are plenty of good examples of that in this thread.

When people decide they can have a discussion without the melodramatic response to a statement they didn't like - for example - YOU Don't CARE about CHILDRENNNNNNNNN!!! - we can't have a rational discussion.

I'm not a gun owner, and never have been. Never shot one either. I came from a family - and am the only one in my family - that still doesn't. If people have never been around them? They listen to all the horror stories that people dream up - or have a circumstance example - and just apply it to everyone.

It's like anything else - you educate yourself on guns and you realize they aren't as scary (in the right hands) as people love to portray them as.

We live in a world today that is you don't agree with the popular response? You must 'hate' children. When people respond like that? You know right away your talking to a wall. They are too invested in their drama.

People have to be willing to work with what we have available today, and look to reasonable solutions. People aren't against background checks, and its common sense to have them. We don't deal with mental illness, and it costs to much to deal with it. So, politicians lay out the groundwork for their drama ... people bite it hook, line and sinker - and then they don't have to deal with it either. The heat is off them, and its all the gun owner's fault. Ya know...those evil doers that 'hate' children.

Its a wonder we ever get anything accomplished in the country at all.

 

[High Fidelity]

All the gun laws in the world won't protect children from a man with a gun intending harm to kids.
Only someone with a gun can stop someone with a gun, that or they run out of bullets, running out of bullets usually means alot of dead people.

If you want to protect children, let trained staff members have access to firearms.
Locks and barracades will slow down shooters, armed citizens or police can stop them.

Pretty sure the only other country that has armed teachers is Israel and they live in a warzone.

 

[Sistrin]

If you want to protect children, let trained staff members have access to firearms.

Locks and barracades will slow down shooters, armed citizens or police can stop them.

That is a lesson lost on the gun-control crowd. At Sandy Hook they had their automatic door locks, they had their controlled access, they had their sensitivity training, they had their precious gun-free zone, they had everything the liberal guns-are-evil mind would allow for in caring and protecting for their students and what did it all get them?

Sure armed police can stop a shooter, but the police are most often too far away to influence such an event until it is far too late. And why do you think someone who would shoot up a school chooses a school as his target to begin with?

 

[Aldebaran]

Pretty sure the only other country that has armed teachers is Israel and they live in a warzone.

Wherever people are being slaughtered, it is a warzone. The idea of having teachers armed is to preventing that war from taking more lives than would happen otherwise, such as what happened at Sandy Hook.

That is a lesson lost on the gun-control crowd. At Sandy Hook they had their automatic door locks, they had their controlled access, they had their sensitivity training, they had their precious gun-free zone, they had everything the liberal guns-are-evil mind would allow for in caring and protecting for their students and what did it all get them?

Sure armed police can stop a shooter, but the police are most often too far away to influence such an event until it is far too late. And why do you think someone who would shoot up a school chooses a school as his target to begin with?

You're spot on! One of the things that amuses me is the idea that "More guns aren't the answer". Really? So when a shooter is in the school, why does the school staff call the police? What do the police have that is needed to stop the shooter? That's right! They have guns, which makes it strange when people criticized Wayne LaPierre when he said:
"Only Way To Stop A Bad Guy With A Gun Is With A Good Guy With A Gun"

If that's not true, then why call the police? Are the teachers in a hurry to file a police report or something?

 

[Vylo]

Wherever people are being slaughtered, it is a warzone. The idea of having teachers armed is to preventing that war from taking more lives than would happen otherwise, such as what happened at Sandy Hook.



You're spot on! One of the things that amuses me is the idea that "More guns aren't the answer". Really? So when a shooter is in the school, why does the school staff call the police? What do the police have that is needed to stop the shooter? That's right! They have guns, which makes it strange when people criticized Wayne LaPierre when he said:
"Only Way To Stop A Bad Guy With A Gun Is With A Good Guy With A Gun"

If that's not true, then why call the police? Are the teachers in a hurry to file a police report or something?

The thing is you can reduce the number of guns so much that a shooting becomes extremely unlikely. Look at the gun violence in countries like the UK. There are barely any guns, hence no gun violence.

I'm no proponent of banning all guns, but I can see where the logic comes from. It's just that I think people jump to conclusions that we will live in a much safer society without guns. What evidence I have seen is that we really won't be much safer in our day to day lives either way, but there are some circumstances where we would be in greater danger without guns (facing an animal, more vulnerable to foreign invasion, etc.)

 

[Aldebaran]

The thing is you can reduce the number of guns so much that a shooting becomes extremely unlikely. Look at the gun violence in countries like the UK. There are barely any guns, hence no gun violence.

I'm no proponent of banning all guns, but I can see where the logic comes from. It's just that I think people jump to conclusions that we will live in a much safer society without guns. What evidence I have seen is that we really won't be much safer in our day to day lives either way, but there are some circumstances where we would be in greater danger without guns (facing an animal, more vulnerable to foreign invasion, etc.)

The thing is, there are some 250 million guns in the USA. It's far easier to simply arm people and allow them to protect themselves than to go door to door trying to confiscate all but maybe 5 million of them in order to have few enough guns to hopefully reduce the chance of somebody going psycho and killing people in a rampage. But doing something like this has a host of its own problems. The principle of freedom being one.

 

[South Bound]

Wherever people are being slaughtered, it is a warzone. The idea of having teachers armed is to preventing that war from taking more lives than would happen otherwise, such as what happened at Sandy Hook.



You're spot on! One of the things that amuses me is the idea that "More guns aren't the answer". Really? So when a shooter is in the school, why does the school staff call the police? What do the police have that is needed to stop the shooter? That's right! They have guns, which makes it strange when people criticized Wayne LaPierre when he said:
"Only Way To Stop A Bad Guy With A Gun Is With A Good Guy With A Gun"

If that's not true, then why call the police? Are the teachers in a hurry to file a police report or something?

In Alabama, one school district now wants children to throw canned vegetables at shooters. No, I'm not kidding.

 

[Aldebaran]

In Alabama, one school district now wants children to throw canned vegetables at shooters. No, I'm not kidding.

I don't doubt it. It seems that when a bad guy with a gun is trying to kill you, your response has to be something other than a gun (unless you're in a government position, of course). Throwing canned vegetables, hiding under a desk, running away (to where?), locking the door, etc. are all acceptable, but not actually having an equal chance of defending yourself as the bad guy has of killing you.

 

[Sistrin]

Throwing canned vegetables, hiding under a desk, running away (to where?), locking the door, etc. are all acceptable, but not actually having an equal chance of defending yourself as the bad guy has of killing you.

Colorado Democrat: Women Don’t Need Guns If They ‘Feel Like They’re Going To Be Raped’

Link: Colorado Democrat: Women Don't Need Guns If They 'Feel Like They're Going To Be Raped' *UPDATED | RedState

 

[mafwons]

Do you not recognize that if a "right" can be removed or granted by a government that it is NOT a "right"? Under those circumstances, it is a privilege, not a right. Our Constitution does not grant rights, which many people think it does. It recognizes their existence and states that they will not be infringed upon. So, no, Hitler did NOT give anyone their rights.

All "rights" in amerika are granted by government, although the word rights doesn't really fit the bill as they are not treated as such.

 

[Sistrin]

All "rights" in amerika are granted by government, although the word rights doesn't really fit the bill as they are not treated as such.

All rights in America are not granted by government. Our nation was founded on, among others, this principal:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

If government grants a right then government can take it away. That is why the words above were articulated in the manner they were, to limit the power of government in light of a higher power.

That higher power is not the President, as much as many would wish it were.

 

[Patchworks]

Thank God for the NRA!

We'd best pay attention to government agencies that are buying up AR-15 ammunition and other bullets so as to insure gun owners can't use their weapons to defend themselves as readily if they're not able to buy the bullets that help make them affective.

 

[Metal Minister]

So in the meantime, I guess things like children's lives will have to be sacrificed for TRUE gun freedom.

Wow appeal to emotion much? Appeal to fear much? I honestly lost track of the number of logical fallacies from this one statement alone...

 

[Metal Minister]

Why do people so easily ignore the huge numbers of lives which have been protected by legal gun owners? Why do they instead want to point to a handful of lawbreakers and use them to justify the removal of valid and proper use of such weaponry?

QFT

 

[Metal Minister]

If you want total access for anyone, why stop at guns? What about missiles? Nuclear weapons?

Absurd Extrapolation

 

[Metal Minister]

Missiles and nukes don't kill people...people kill people. At the very least could purchase a RPG-7.

Absurd Extrapolation

 

[Metal Minister]

Defensive gun use - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The most reliable data from the National Crime Victimization Survey shows fewer than 1600 reliable defensive gun uses per year."

First, Wikipedia? Second, 1600 defensive gun uses per year...that's a minimum of 1600 people saved every year. Third, most cases of defensive gun uses are rarely cataloged. Most involve someone producing a firearm as someone comes at them, the attacker runs, and it's never reported.

 

[Metal Minister]

The thing is you can reduce the number of guns so much that a shooting becomes extremely unlikely. Look at the gun violence in countries like the UK. There are barely any guns, hence no gun violence.

The problem is, the UK isn't bordered by one of the most corrupt governments in the world, where drug cartels are smuggling real automatic weapons across their border. You see no matter how many laws are passed, no matter how many guns are taken away, it only affects the law abiding citizen. Those who couldn't care less about that piece of paper telling them they can't buy a mac10, or an AK-47, aren't going to bother following that piece of paper and can find their way around it. Now all you have is a country of unarmed sheeple, ready for the slaughter....