Beto O'Rourke interrupts Texas Gov. Abbott's press conference: "You're offering us nothing"

If there were some Rambo standing in front of the next shooter, great.

But, that's a movie script, not real life.

In real life, the armed guard at the Buffalo shooting was one of the first to go down.

What you are ignoring is that an influx of guns in the classroom is a PROBLEM.

 

Why do you have to be Rambo to take out a kid with gun? And just because one officer went down doesn't mean they all will else let's get rid of all police because sometime they get killed. Where is there an influx of guns IN classrooms?

 

Of course there but you don't have to be a trained MARSHALL to be trained on how to use a firearm in a defensive situation. Gee we even have teachers who served in the military.

 

That makes no sense......at all. A warped view, at best, of the role of politicians to this national crisis.

 

I don't know, but they can't.

Ask those analyzing the slaughter in Buffalo.

Read:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...s-keep-happening-despite-good-guys-with-guns/

There have been serious proposals from Republicans to arm teachers and other school personnel.

 

Except that alcohol prohibition actually achieve it's goal.......that's history holmes.
Before you blow a nut. Why was prohibition started in the first place and what was the result.

 

Okay, but law enforcement and military are held by most to a MUCH higher standard than a regular citizen.

More is expected from them.

We already have a ton of people demanding those police officers that waited over an hour before going in to face severe reprocussions for their choice.

I would imagine it would be much stricter for teachers or volunteers.

 

Now you're comparing Prohibition of alcohol with the Prohibition of guns. So you think we find the slaughter of our offspring to be fun?

 

we learned that banning things has never worked. And will never work, because it’s ridiculous.

 

Do you need to google what prohibition means? Banning things has never worked. Knock that **** off, you wouldn’t even pick up a weapon to save yourself. You said so.

 

You seem to not understand that when the scene command says not to do something, you cannot go and do it. This is not the movies, there’s no John Wayne or John Wick or John McClaine.

 

A WV mom, CCW, just put down a guy firing into a group of graduation celebrants with an AR15, with her purse carry. The shooter was the only casualty.

If you don't like 2A, read Article V and work to change it.

​

 

In another thread, some are defending the police that didn't storm into the room because they might not ever have needed to use their guns in the past and were, likely, not accustomed to that type of situation. How, then, can we expect completely unfamiliar teachers to do what the police couldn't in this situation?

 

Some teachers served in the military before they were teachers. You shouldn't judge someone's capabilities or capacities by their occupation title.

All we are saying is let the teachers who are gun owners already and want to be armed, be armed.

How many kids would have been saved had that first teacher been armed and successfully stopped the attack?

 

You must also have difficulty with the constitution. Not sure why. It's easy enough to read.

 

One case does not validate a general policy.

And, it doesn't support the idea that things would be better if everyone tried to do that.

 

Our right to keep and carry arms IS our policy. This shooter was stopped through the lawful use of a firearm. The lawful use of firearms to stop threats is absolutely validated. Why do you think that the President is surrounded by armed Secret Service?

How many upper crust Americans do you think are protected by armed security detail in this nation, and why would that be if the lawful use of firearms isn't validated means of stopping unlawful violence?

If the lawful use of firearms isn't a validated means of stopping unlawful force, why do our police have firearms?

​

Why are the two guys who are normally in this truck armed if the lawful use of firearms isn't a fully validated means of stopping an unlawful attack?

 

Rambo is not required, just the rapid application of lawful force against unlawful force, like the brave woman in West Virginia did yesterday.

​

This, now deceased male, unlawfully began firing into a crowd of innocents at a park yesterday. Unknown to him, within that crowd was a prepared woman with a CCW in her purse who immediately engaged his unlawful use of force with the lawful use of force, stopping the threat before any innocent blood or lives were lost.

Do you have a problem with the lawful use of appropriate force being used against an unlawful attack?

 

No I don't because the Constitution makes sense.

 

This isn't about protecting Brinks trucks or police actions.

And, I suspect you didn't read the reports of 4th graders being slaughtered in Texas while police waited.

 

I've noticed that your ability to follow a discussion wanes as the day waxes. We can take this up tomorrow earlier in the day. All three of your points are either incongruent or in error. 3 errors in only two sentences is quite a feat.

Adiós hasta mañana.

 

Beto is such human garbage. Wonder he even gets and press even from the leftists
He needs to climb back under his rock

 

I don't think there should be guns around for anyone to pick up for any reason. What I might do with a weapon is irrelevant, though I don't believe in using any but the several that I was born with.

 

Absolutely not. My problem is with the unlawful attack, That man should not have had any access to a gun, lawful or otherwise.

 

That's your choice. In America we recognise an inherent right to use lethal self-defense against an unlawful deadly threat.

NY demands their permission to keep and carry a firearm. During Supreme Court arguments Kavanaugh noted some problems: "Justice Brett Kavanaugh seemed particularly troubled by how much discretion that standard places in the hands of local licensing officials. "That's the real concern, isn't it?" Kavanaugh said to New York Solicitor General Barbara Underwood. "With any constitutional right, if it's the discretion of an individual [licensing] officer, that seems inconsistent with an objective constitutional right." And why, Kavanaugh also asked, "isn't it good enough to say I live in a violent area and I want to defend myself?""