You mean training and arming a few select teachers...like the trained 30 year vet cop who stayed outside and did nothing?
So do you have any inclination on why the cop may have stayed outside the building ?
I’ll reserve judgement til all the facts come out.
A few years ago protocol was to sit and take up a point of action til backup arrives . Only when you have a full team in place would you make entry. That was drilled and taught religiously. Only as of recent have active shooter plans been modified , This guy was a 54yr old school resource officer. I am guessing he’s had very little to no training regarding new policies ....Again a possibility ,,,,,,not for sure. Anyone ever been at an event like this live and heard a police radio? It’s prety much utter chaos , not to mention you are in an area with multi-jurisdictional coverage which most likely does not share a radio frequency. Details are coming out of what a political ****show the Sheriff’s Office was. As is the case most of the time with County Sheriffs being an elected political position . Has anyone heard the report or response of why this guy actually did stay outside? There were also a few other officers who appeared ton”stay put” which again leaves the likely possibility it’s a training issue . If he was in fact a coward , I’ll be the first to condem him , but there is also a very logical explanation that he was doing exactly what he was trained to do . I’ll reserve final judgment til all the facts are out
Peterson initially ran toward the 1200 building where the shooting took place, and then he "heard gunshots but believed that those gunshots were originating from outside of any of the buildings on the school campus," according to DiRuzzo.
The Broward County Sheriff's Office, or BSO, "trains its officers that in the event of outdoor gunfire one is to seek cover and assess the situation in order to communicate what one observes to other law enforcement," DiRuzzo said.
Peterson acted consistent with his training and "took up a tactical position between the 700-800 buildings corridor/corner," Peterson said. He was the first officer to advise dispatch that he heard shots fired, and he initiated a "Code Red" to lock down the campus, according to the statement.
"Radio transmissions indicated that there was a gunshot victim in the area of the football field," which served to confirm Mr. Peterson's belief "that the shooter, or shooters, were outside," according to DiRuzzo's statement.
OK, so if you think that the police officer who did not help, was ineffective because lack of training, what makes you think that a bunch of teacher will be better trained than the POLICE.
F you dude. You're a racist cop. You're ten times worse than anything I could ever be.
Besides, I teach math. Politics or any other BS that seems to dominate your life has no place in my classroom.
Calm down Jeremy . You're setting a bad example for your students. All we see is an easily offended individual who attacks others intelligence and resorts to name calling. Oh and calls others out for doing the same. Hypocritical?
OK, so if you think that the police officer who did not help, was ineffective because lack of training, what makes you think that a bunch of teacher will be better trained than the POLICE.
I'm not blaming that cop until the dust settles and they can clearly make a case against him. The bottom line is that the cop was ineffective in this incident and maybe not due to his error. IIRC the cops were plenty ineffective in the Pulse shooting. Seems like the cops just waited outside for the shooter to run out of bullets. Once the cops feel like they are personally in danger I don't think they are going to be doing so much protecting as covering their a$$. Which is how an innocent bystander in an Orlando bar got killed while the cops apprehended a guy with an unloaded gun.
You have to have cops to maintain the rule of law. But once you are in the vicinity of a shootout all that poorly aimed lead doesn't discriminate about who it hits. About the only defense against a mass shooting is the ability to predict the future.
OK, so if you think that the police officer who did not help, was ineffective because lack of training, what makes you think that a bunch of teacher will be better trained than the POLICE.
The policeman wasn't personally involved he had a choice. If you were a trained teacher with a gun you make a decision. Do I want to die or do I defend myself. Without a gun you are a victim 100% everytime. With a gun you have a chance to protect yourself and the children. Also you will be a deterrent against the current and future attacks. This is whether you're successful or not in your own defense. The perpetrator and future perpetrators will have experienced resistance which will affect their futures. A Gun Free zone is a green light for mass shooters. A concealed carry zone is a resistance they will most likely avoid.
So we should "training and arming a select few" of the teachers before giving them guns? How about mental screenings? But you don't want us to "training and arming a select few" of the general population before letting them get guns.... I'm confused. Why would you screen the teachers but not screen the general population?
I have said before. I am all for tighter gun control. Mental screening, hard background checks. Yes teachers should be vetted hard. There are a lot of x military, and law enforcement people in school systems already that would probably be happy to take the responsibility.
Some people may freeze up in the heat of the moment like the security guy did in Florida. They may not either. That's a stupid argument. I would also assume that policies would be in place that only allow the use of guns in an active shooter situation. There are already schools that have armed teachers. Colorado being one place.
I'm a teacher. You can ask me if I think it's a good idea and I'll explain to you why it is not.
If a mass shooter was in your school would you feel safer knowing it was a Gun Free Zone and the Police were 20 minutes away? Careful, this is an IQ test. I personally would feel much safer with a concealed weapon. I can draw,point,aim and shoot as fast as you can dial 911. My response will be traveling at 1200 to 1500 feet per second. Depending on which weapon i'm carrying. The 911 operator won't even have your location before the mass shooter knows my response team is here and they're serious.
If a mass shooter was in your school would you feel safer knowing it was a Gun Free Zone and the Police were 20 minutes away?
Sure, if I could be sure Robert "John Wayne" T is going to be able to accurately and effectively track down and engage the shooter... problem is I don't trust most of these cowboys who are going to save the day. So far most shootings that could have been stopped by a good guy with a gun either aren't or still end with body bag count that makes it sure seem that good guy wasn't doing ****.
I would prefer to know that the average gun out in the world is in the hands of someone who has proven they're capable and competent enough handle it.
If a mass shooter was in your school would you feel safer knowing it was a Gun Free Zone and the Police were 20 minutes away? Careful, this is an IQ test. I personally would feel much safer with a concealed weapon. I can draw,point,aim and shoot as fast as you can dial 911. My response will be traveling at 1200 to 1500 feet per second. Depending on which weapon i'm carrying. The 911 operator won't even have your location before the mass shooter knows my response team is here and they're serious.
No one is questioning that having a gun when an armed shooter is in the building is a good thing. The problem is that the VAST MAJORITY of the time there is no armed shooter in the building. There are however a bunch of human beings that might be having a very bad day that now have easy access to guns. There are kids who, if my experience in high school says anything, are very good at getting into locked places and playing with/taking stuff they know they are not supposed to.
If the odds of stopping a bad guy at school with a gun vs accidentally killing someone in school with a gun reflects the odds of stopping a bad guy at home vs accidentally killing someone at home with a gun. Then there will be many more kids dying NOT less. The statistics are very clear having a gun does NOT make you safer it makes you FEEL safer, like a teddy bear.
Careful, this is an IQ test. I personally would feel much safer with a concealed weapon. I can draw,point,aim and shoot as fast as you can dial 911. My response will be traveling at 1200 to 1500 feet per second.
Yeah, but where would the bullet be going? Whizzing through a crowded classroom in the general direction of an assumed shooter. What could go wrong? Do you know when police fire there weapons 70-50% of the bullets don't hit the intended target depending on the distance? Where do the other bullets go? How would the teacher live with themselves when friendly firing their pupils? http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/09/we...w/09baker.html
Calm down Jeremy . You're setting a bad example for your students. All we see is an easily offended individual who attacks others intelligence and resorts to name calling. Oh and calls others out for doing the same. Hypocritical?
So how come you didn't scold swatguy? "Hypocritical?"
No they don't. I stated there are plenty of people that would be more than willing to do so. It absolutely doesn't say EVERY X military teacher would. I am sure thats how you read it though.
Sure, if I could be sure Robert "John Wayne" T is going to be able to accurately and effectively track down and engage the shooter... problem is I don't trust most of these cowboys who are going to save the day. So far most shootings that could have been stopped by a good guy with a gun either aren't or still end with body bag count that makes it sure seem that good guy wasn't doing ****.
I would prefer to know that the average gun out in the world is in the hands of someone who has proven they're capable and competent enough handle it.
That's Mr. Robert "John Wayne" T. Lol If you had trained ex military or police that were also teachers they would be more comfortable and familiar with weapons and how to use them. What I would propose is having 10 to 15% of your teachers that were willing , trained to defend the school and the students from a mass shooter. The teachers would have regular training drills on a tactical range to keep their skills sharp. They all would conceal carry so no students would know who these individuals were that had the guns. Signs would be posted at all entrances that this school is protected by armed trained guards that will use whatever force is necessary to prevent harm to their students. Cameras would monitor the outside of the school and doors would have locks so no one could enter during school hours. They would have to ring a bell to get permission to enter. Bullit proof glass would be on all outside doors.This would show potential mass shooters that the school wasn't a soft target. Much like having a home security system prevents most would be robbers from trying to break in. Mass shooters would look for easy targets.
Yeah, but where would the bullet be going? Whizzing through a crowded classroom in the general direction of an assumed shooter. What could go wrong? Do you know when police fire there weapons 70-50% of the bullets don't hit the intended target depending on the distance? Where do the other bullets go? How would the teacher live with themselves when friendly firing their pupils? http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/09/we...w/09baker.html
These Dirty Harry wet dreams are farcical
The first thing you learn in gun safety is know what's behind your target. You don't just shoot a gun at thin air. You have to be tactical in your confrontation with a mass shooter. The best way to be tactical is to have a plan in place with each participant knowing what their job is. When you have 5 to 10 security officers/teachers to address a mass shooter they will neutralize him quickly.
The first thing you learn in gun safety is know what's behind your target. You don't just shoot a gun at thin air. You have to be tactical in your confrontation with a mass shooter. The best way to be tactical is to have a plan in place with each participant knowing what their job is. When you have 5 to 10 security officers/teachers to address a mass shooter they will neutralize him quickly.
Ok, I will put my stick in the sand, if this happens and teachers get armed, I predict that students will be shot and killed by teacher within a year of implementation.
Ok, I will put my stick in the sand, if this happens and teachers get armed, I predict that students will be shot and killed by teacher within a year of implementation.
Or a student steals a gun from a teacher and uses it to shoot his ex-girlfriends new boyfriend in algebra class.
Im glad that Mr. Robert Duke Wayne has this all carefully planned out. So the teachers will conceal carry and the student wont know who is and who isnt? Do you remember high school? You are severely under estimating the students and over estimating the skills of these newly trained teachers. Veterans of police forces around the country make errors on a daily basis. What do the teacher unions think about arming their people. Im not 100% sure but my guess is this isnt in the current contract.
Or a student steals a gun from a teacher and uses it to shoot his ex-girlfriends new boyfriend in algebra class.
Im glad that Mr. Robert Duke Wayne has this all carefully planned out. So the teachers will conceal carry and the student wont know who is and who isnt? Do you remember high school? You are severely under estimating the students and over estimating the skills of these newly trained teachers. Veterans of police forces around the country make errors on a daily basis. What do the teacher unions think about arming their people. Im not 100% sure but my guess is this isnt in the current contract.
Not to mention, I am forced to carry (and pay for) a $2 million liability policy. How much is my premium going to increase if I decide to join the armed teacher's brigade?
Not to mention, I am forced to carry (and pay for) a $2 million liability policy. How much is my premium going to increase if I decide to join the armed teacher's brigade?
Or a student steals a gun from a teacher and uses it to shoot his ex-girlfriends new boyfriend in algebra class.
Im glad that Mr. Robert Duke Wayne has this all carefully planned out. So the teachers will conceal carry and the student wont know who is and who isnt? Do you remember high school? You are severely under estimating the students and over estimating the skills of these newly trained teachers. Veterans of police forces around the country make errors on a daily basis. What do the teacher unions think about arming their people. Im not 100% sure but my guess is this isnt in the current contract.
There are currently 18 states that allow teachers to conceal carry in school. Most need School Board approval , some just need the superintendent to approve.
But you aren't tasked with the safety of 25 teenagers each class.
That's if I display my weapon or use it. They will pay all my attorneys fees 24/7 no limits and no deductible . The also have a bail bond /expert witness option I believe is 35.00 more a year. They have a multi- state option for those who travel.
.... The teachers would have regular training drills on a tactical range to keep their skills sharp. They all would conceal carry so no students would know who these individuals were that had the guns. Signs would be posted at all entrances that this school is protected by armed trained guards that will use whatever force is necessary to prevent harm to their students. Cameras would monitor the outside of the school and doors would have locks so no one could enter during school hours. They would have to ring a bell to get permission to enter. Bullit proof glass would be on all outside doors.....
Sounds nice, that school! Glad my kids are not going to school in a country where many think they need as many guns as possible to keep themselves save.
That's if I display my weapon or use it. They will pay all my attorneys fees 24/7 no limits and no deductible . The also have a bail bond /expert witness option I believe is 35.00 more a year. They have a multi- state option for those who travel.
This is really interesting and I'm going to confess that I really had no idea that such a stand-alone liability policy existed.
Is this for ANY display or use of your firearm, or are there exclusions? Covers negligence, I'm assuming. What about willful misconduct/gross negligence (i.e. you "pull a gun" on someone and something bad ends up happening)? I'm assuming that there's probably an exclusion for use of the gun in the commission of a crime (which may include assault/battery)? Does it cover use of the firearm in course and scope of your employment?
Actually if you have a link to the policy document I'd be real interested in just reading that.
Back to the liability question tho, I think teachers would probably be shielded by sovereign immunity, but the scope of that shield is going to be a question of state law (i.e. likely to vary from state to state). And then there are the closer cases, like what happens when teach uses the gun while on an after school field trip with a school club? In course and scope of employment or not?
www.texaslawshield.com is the website. They do exclude illegal weapons. Also they don't cover you if you're caring a gun in a gun free zone by law. They spell out each gun free zone by state. I'm sure they wouldn't cover you if you were robbing a bank. That doesn't enter your average law abiding citizen who owns a guns mind.
Cops in Arizona just shot a an innocent guy apparently because they were too busy s**ting their pants to act responsibly. More proof that cops are protecting themselves first before the public. Going take some big insurance policies when armed guards start blowing away kids because they operate on the same policy as cops who shoot first ask questions later.
Cops in Arizona just shot a an innocent guy apparently because they were too busy s**ting their pants to act responsibly. More proof that cops are protecting themselves first before the public. Going take some big insurance policies when armed guards start blowing away kids because they operate on the same policy as cops who shoot first ask questions later.
Just wondering which innocent man they shot and which officers were ****ting their pants ?
The ones from this incident in which they had a shootout with the bad guy https://www.google.com/amp/amp.abc15...e_hatcher.html
So first you make up a false story about some ARIZONA cops shooting an inocent person and elude to them being scared ****less, which is complete lie. You’re called on it ( now realize the actual guy they shot was a murder with a knife ) and instead swallowing your pride you point to a 4yr old story in ORLANDO , NOT ARIZONA in which cops again confront an armed individual they have to shoot , and in a tragic circumstance one of the bullets from their gun , from outside the establishment, travels through the window and strikes an innocent lady. I suppose you just expect to the police in this situation to take the bad guys bullets in their chest instead of shooting the guy with a gun who threatened the patrons inside and won’t cooperate or listen.
Please John , tell us all how you would’ve handled that
Cops in Arizona just shot a an innocent guy apparently because they were too busy s**ting their pants to act responsibly. More proof that cops are protecting themselves first before the public. Going take some big insurance policies when armed guards start blowing away kids because they operate on the same policy as cops who shoot first ask questions later.
Good thing I got the Platinum Preferred Membership where my rates are guaranteed to stay the same for the rest of my life.
This cop was really s**ting his pants so hard he was screaming at the guy making him freak with his threats and asking him to do crazy sh*t.
That case is over a year old. Dude give it up. Your grasping at straws here . Just admit your full of **** ..
Keep googling you missed a bunch more shootings in between that where cops didn’t **** their pans. ...........just another example of a guy being observed by numerous people, including the arriving police, waving a rifle out the window of his hotel room showing off for his girlfriend. The guy was asked if he was intoxicated , replies no. The guy then reached for his waistband numerous times after being told not to do so and was shot after being told he would be if he reached again . No one is a winner in this scenario . It’s clear there are training deficiencies involved here regarding some elements of commands , but this went to court and jury found the actions of the police “reasonable “ under the circumstances.
Still waiting for a reply on how to handle the scenario you posted above , and I’ll ask that same question here regarding the next scenario you posted , what would you do to a guy who was observed armed with a rifle who doesn’t follow any of of your commands and keeps reaching for the place handguns are kept the most in a tight hallway with no cover ?
The police have a terrible job, I don't understand how anybody not in the role can criticize to be honest. Lets look at why the Police encounter the situations they do rather than how they react to them IMO.
You first post about a "Recent" Arizona police shooting........... I post the links to the two most recent shootings disputing your claims. You go on to then post a link to a 4 yr old story in Orlando claiming it to represent your argument after a quick google search Completely wrong town, completely wrong state. Police actually shoot an armed offender . You make the claim you posted a wrong link....Ill give yo that bs excuse, but then you go on to actually describe the Orlando link in your response furthering the fact you wanted that story to be your next response, Again another piss poor attempt to cover your baseless claims. You now then realize you screwed up again after finding out the actual facts, do some more google searching and come up with a case from Arizona over a year old......far from recent, In another attempt to back up your claims.
In your latest story you reference an individual that was shot by police while holding a gun and not responding to police commands. Nothing even remotely close to your first claims. Turns out he was actually a person who disarmed an armed kidnapper and was holding the weapon used by the kidnapper as proof police are scared ****less and want to assassinate everyone. Very tragic scenario. Facts of the case at hand this time...Police called to the scene of an armed kidnapper/hostage taker with a gun inside a church. Police respond with a description of the offender, on approach into the the church they hear a gunshot, hear people screaming and encounter a man holding a firearm. Possibly matching the description, unknown for sure with details released to public at this time. Guy holding the gun was just involved in a struggle for his life , now hopped up on adrenaline. I am sure you being an expert in lethal force encounters know exactly what adrenaline will do to your motor functions and ability to respond to simple commands. From the story its sounds like he didn't follow those commands. Keep in mind this is all in a scene of chaos and pandemonium. You are now the police officer staring down a guy, holding a firearm, in a scene of people zip tied and screaming, that has a 50/50 chance of wanting to kill you or one of them in a blink of an eye. Give him simple commands, he chooses not to follow them. Take a look at the last video I posted, Don't blink tho, because you'll miss the fact a guy jumped out of car pulled a gun and fired off 10rounds in less than 3 seconds .So now you maybe have a second to decide whether this guy is going to kill you or someone else first. You give him a a small opportunity , he choses to not listen so that window is closing faster ....It's clear from your posts you don't believe the police should fire til they take a few in the chest. I am sure your expertise is aware how much time it takes for someone to raise a weapon and pull the trigger and fire off the entire magazine should they be hell bent on killing you.
I am still awaiting your answers...........again run and bury you head in the sand when the tough questions are asked .....So again I ask you ......how would YOU have handled all these situations you presented ? You clearly disagree with the way these were handled . Give us a detailed breakdown of each scenario you linked, on what you would do.
"In your latest story you reference an individual that was shot by police while holding a gun and not responding to police commands."
Nothing of the kind. He was putting the gun down but the pants s**ting cop with the trigger finger shot him anyway.
Me... I just shoot anything that moved so I didn't have to put myself in danger. So instead of getting grunt work with a gun I opted for an education and a job where I make far more money without having to deal with the crap the cop in Florida had to deal with everyone judging him for not rushing into a school.
The whole reason that cops are shooting first and asking questions later is because of all the guns in society that are making the US a statistical laughing stock wrt gun deaths. Which brings us full circle to how much of a problem guns are.
So to the trump and gun guys, does anybody change their view on Trump after his statements that he favors being able to confiscate someone's guns immediately without due process and then go through courts after? Isn't that a 2nd amendment deal breaker?
So to the trump and gun guys, does anybody change their view on Trump after his statements that he favors being able to confiscate someone's guns immediately without due process and then go through courts after? Isn't that a 2nd amendment deal breaker?
Fat chance ....
Most of these people would let Trump **** in their mouth as long as a liberal had to smell their breath.
I'm not indicating he could get it past, just an opinion on the fact he would think it's a good idea. The fact he thinks you can suspend due process for any reason really displays how incompetent and unsuitable for the job he is.
So to the trump and gun guys, does anybody change their view on Trump after his statements that he favors being able to confiscate someone's guns immediately without due process and then go through courts after? Isn't that a 2nd amendment deal breaker?
He’s dead wrong.
Why is it that everyone has to be 100% lockstep in with everything the President does? Some folks have the ability to form and defend their own opinion, it doesn’t have to be fed to them by a politician.
For the record, I’ve dealt with politicians all the way up to the state government level. There are some scary stupid people, from both parties, making important decisions that affect lots of people.
I believe term limits of 20 total years in state or federal government, in any combination of years, should be the max. Then go back to the real world and deal with the results of your governance
I think Trump has done some good things, and Yes I voted for him. I knew going in that he was arrogant, unpredictable, and brash. I just couldn't vote for Hillary.
I absolutely disagree with his stance on guns, and have to say that I don't even agree 100% with my wife. Why is it all or nothing? IMO Hillary would have banned all guns 3 weeks ago and declared Martial Law with the Military going door to door to confiscate them.
So...you begin with "why does it have to be all or nothing?" Then in the next breath..."Hillary would ban all guns and declare marshall law....
I think i agree with your wife.
Quote:
I'm not indicating he could get it past, just an opinion on the fact he would think it's a good idea. The fact he thinks you can suspend due process for any reason really displays how incompetent and unsuitable for the job he is.
Two times you said "trump thinks" , I think that is an exageration.
So...you begin with "why does it have to be all or nothing?" Then in the next breath..."Hillary would ban all guns and declare marshall law.....
I was implying that I can agree with some of the things Trump has done, and disagree with other things he has done. It does not have to be all or nothing. 100% supporter or Anti-Trump.
I do think Hillary would have done that, and it has nothing to do with my "All or Nothing" concept.
Ok, I understood you incorrectly. I actually agree somewhat.... to improve the country we need to move toward the middle. The first way to do that is to understand that on most issues both sides are not on the ends of the spectrum. Im not in favor of taking guns away but I do believe we need to make changes that may not sit well with the NRA. I still have an NRA sticker on an old tool box from when i was 12. We need a nat'l database. Close gunshow loopholes. I have an old Ruger 10-22, i dont think we need assault weapons. Age limits. We need more parents involved with their kids so we can id mental health issues, keep an eye on their social media and any other way to find the emotionally, mentally challenged. If you are on just about any "watch list" you cant buy a gun. Prosecute illegal gun sales. Im not in favor of protecting felony illegal aliens but I dont mind workers and taxpaying illegals, like DACA. The Oakland mayor F'ed up. I like the freedom of religion but not relegion in government. We need to come together towards the middle...not divide. I think this president is dividing us through actions and right down to his speech patterns...ie Mexico isnt sending you their best, they are murderers and drug dealers...he's an all or nothing guy (along with a few more "issues"). I dont think we as a country are all or nothing.
You can't blame guns for the Florida school mass murder but you can blame liberal programs like Obama's promise program. Disciplinary is done in house by
school administrators rather then calling the police. The shooter committed many felonies and was never charged and often not turned over to police to investigate. He was in 6 different schools in 3 years. There were written complaints that he threatened to kill somebody and pictures of him with his arsenal of guns. http://sunshinestatenews.com/story/d...us-misbehavior
You can't blame guns for the Florida school mass murder but you can blame liberal programs like Obama's promise program. Disciplinary is done in house by
school administrators rather then calling the police. The shooter committed many felonies and was never charged and often not turned over to police to investigate. He was in 6 different schools in 3 years. There were written complaints that he threatened to kill somebody and pictures of him with his arsenal of guns. http://sunshinestatenews.com/story/d...us-misbehavior
Pretty sure they called the cops on him several times. and regardless you can still blame guns because without easy access to them this would not have happened. Try to do a mass murder with a bow and arrow or a samori sword. Its just not the tool for the job. Guns are.
Pretty sure they called the cops on him several times. and regardless you can still blame guns because without easy access to them this would not have happened. Try to do a mass murder with a bow and arrow or a samori sword. Its just not the tool for the job. Guns are.
because people who premeditate and murder 17 people are concerned with gun laws.
Pretty sure they called the cops on him several times. and regardless you can still blame guns because without easy access to them this would not have happened. Try to do a mass murder with a bow and arrow or a samori sword. Its just not the tool for the job. Guns are.
Wrong..Read the article don't and continue to be a part of the problem. There is big difference between being told of felonies and being told and not doing anything about it. Your answer will always be that you have to take away guns from law abiding citizens. He would not have been able to have firearms with a felony on his record. You will not hear this on your CNN or MSNBC though so you are probably caught with your head in hole here.
Wrong..Read the article don't and continue to be a part of the problem. There is big difference between being told of felonies and being told and not doing anything about it. Your answer will always be that you have to take away guns from law abiding citizens. He would not have been able to have firearms with a felony on his record. You will not hear this on your CNN or MSNBC though so you are probably caught with your head in hole here.
Who the eff is proposing to "take the guns from law abiding citizens"? You are "part of the problem" and you are pushing a phony narrative.
'cause no one died and the bomb was probably BS anyways.
>>Police did not describe the homemade bomb in detail but said it "had the potential to cause significant injury or death."<<
You could use those same words to describe a ceramic spongebob mug.
Making an effective Bomb is HARD TO DO. shooting a gun is so easy toddlers do it in this country all time.
If the focus of gun safety is mental health, let’s start w/ this question:
1. Do you want to posses this weapon because you seriously believe that one day you and your drinking buddies will single-handedly go up against the US Army, Navy, Air Force & Marines to, “fight tyranny?”
If the focus of gun safety is mental health, let’s start w/ this question:
1. Do you want to posses this weapon because you seriously believe that one day you and your drinking buddies will single-handedly go up against the US Army, Navy, Air Force & Marines to, “fight tyranny?”
But doesn't the United States have something called the Constitution that mentions something about a right to bear arms?
A couple of things:
1. I believe you are referring to what is called the 2nd AMENDMENT. it's called an "Amendment" because it is a change to a document that is changeable. That is what amendment means.
2. You can't just read the bits you like of the 2nd. It is in regards to the militia. Otherwise, can I buy a NUKE? how about a rail cannon? My wakeboard could use a torpedo launcher? Not legal yet all are defined as "Arms".
The difference between a pistol and a rail cannon is as wide as a pistol and a musket. The line between legal and illegal arms is arbitrary based on the expectations of our culture. So lets shift the expectations of the culture towards keeping people from getting killed all the time and away from treating guns like they are somehow tied to personal liberty.
Gun control is no more taking away your freedom than speed limits are.
1. I believe you are referring to what is called the 2nd AMENDMENT. it's called an "Amendment" because it is a change to a document that is changeable. That is what amendment means.
2. You can't just read the bits you like of the 2nd. It is in regards to the militia. Otherwise, can I buy a NUKE? how about a rail cannon? My wakeboard could use a torpedo launcher? Not legal yet all are defined as "Arms".
The difference between a pistol and a rail cannon is as wide as a pistol and a musket. The line between legal and illegal arms is arbitrary based on the expectations of our culture. So lets shift the expectations of the culture towards keeping people from getting killed all the time and away from treating guns like they are somehow tied to personal liberty.
Gun control is no more taking away your freedom than speed limits are.
Linear Mode
