Arm the teachers...seriously?

Thanks... I have real trouble when I get lazy and don’t proofread. I think that was easy enough to figure out. I just recently sent someone an invoice for a speech I made. Instead of writing “my rate was… It came out my rape was… I was mortified when I realized it after I had sent it . I thought I proofread it. The woman who got it found it funny, phew!

 

No it isn't, and there is no need to shout. Another poster, and myself, have said you absolutely can shout "fire" in a movie theater. If there is a fire, and you're the only one that notices it, should you remain silent? I would hope not. You might save some lives in that scenario. You can scream, shout, stomp your feet, and yell that yelling "fire" in a movie theater is illegal, but it's not. It's when it is falsely used that it can become a problem.

Here, go read some of these links i'm about to drop on you and educate yourself a bit.

It's time to stop using fire in a crowded theater quote - from the alt right hit piece, The Atlantic.

Here's an article from another alt right source, The Washington Post.

and here is the case that is attributed to the fire in a theater arugument

Oh wow...
Well now... there's a bunch of arguments I never made. Building a small army of straw men doesn't invalidate what I said above. Moving on...

Where am I doing this? Please show me. Also, could you define "military style weapon" please?

You could almost say that about any firearm, doesn't make it true though.

Again, I have to ask you this... If the anti gun people were consistent in wanting to prevent the most gun deaths, shouldn't they go after the guns that are most used in gun related crimes? Do you wish to ban those guns as well?

 

so should we ban all horses to stop people form serving them in restaurants? Like your stance on banning AR15s? Or allow people to own horses and make it illegal to serve them as food? Do you not see the flaw in your point?

 

Ah okay. That makes sense. Thank you.

 

its all good I do the same thing all the time lol

 

Isn't "style" a First Amendment expression? How is an AR15 different from a Ruger Mini-14? They shoot the same round at the same rate. Is it because an AR is usually black and has accessories all over it? Sometimes they look pretty gawdy, but is it really a reason to ban them?

 

You win.... maybe we need a few more attacks with these guns ..killing toddlers wasnt enough, killing high school kids wasn’t enough, Killing concert goers wasn’t enough, killing church goers wasn’t enough.
What do we need those guns for? How would your life be different? The dead peoples lives would be different

 

I know I win. I've been doing this for decades.

Stop with the straw men and hyperbole. Nobody is saying that, but you. Can you find a post where someone has actually said any of those things? I thought you were a teacher. You should be better than this.

Most law abiding people have various needs for those guns and don't use them to harm anyone. There are millions of guns... and there are millions of gun owners that are law abiding. Why do you seem to want to punish the many for the sins of the few? And it isn't about needs anyway. It's about a constitutional right.

I don't know how my life would be different as I own a shotgun and a handgun, and not an AR-15. I mentioned that in my intro thread. I may not own and AR-15, but I think others should have the right to own them.

The dead only know one thing... it is better to be alive. - Joker - Full Metal Jacket

But seriously... Let's say your side is successful in banning the AR-15. Then another mass shooting happens with a bolt action rifle, or one happens with hand guns (Virginia Tech style). Then what? Ban those too? What 2nd amendment supporters, like myself, are trying to do is to prevent a slippery slope from happening.

 

Incorrect. It is illegal to intentionally cause a panic and potentially lead to others becoming injured as a result.

Factually incorrect. Neither the AR-15, nor any other firearm, was ever designed nor intended to be utilized for the purpose of mass killings. The AR-15 was originally marketed as a sporting rifle back in 1962-1964 by the Colt Manufacturing Company, long before the united states military adopted the M16 rifle for use in Vietnam.

 

Why don’t I just describe the accessories that make the AR different from the legal almost everywhere Mini-14. The adjustable stock accommodates different sized shooters. The pistol and fore grips help control the gun when you are walking. The red dot sights help to see your target and still have peripheral vision. The heat shield protects the shooter from burns. The flash suppressor helps keep you from being temporarily blinded at night. They all have valid purposes, but you want to ban them because you don’t understand them and they look scary.

Texas has over a million feral hogs that get up to 500 lbs. One of them totaled my niece’s truck. Coyotes threaten my small dogs and livestock every night. I have seen bobcats and mountain lions near my house. My middle son saw a jaguar 10 miles from my house. (Yes, they are rare but native to Texas.) All this doesn’t even include the 2 legged predators.

 

You accuse me of creating a strawman when I stated facts. What did happen then after killing those little children? What happened after the church shootings? What happened after the concert shooting? Finally something is now because young people are taking action.,,That’s what I always taught my students… Take action
You are creating the strawman by Acting out the scenario of what would happen if they took away AR15. I would love to find out. Why do you suppose we are off the charts compared to other countries with mass shootings?

 

And what do they want? Ineffective laws that only punish the law abiding. In case you haven't heard, criminals don't pay attention to the law, thus; why they are criminals.

In the cases you state above, what stops law enforcement or the medical profession from putting these people that showed obvious signs of their actions beforehand into a facility? Easy, political correctness. The shooters passed the gun laws with flying colors but also the progressive political correctness that does not allow anyone to label the nutcases as nutcases.

 

translation: despite the FACT that the website linked provides references and links to bonafide stagte and federal law, modernpaladin prefers his own myopic versions of reality.

 

1. The logical conclusion of what you propose by allowing armed teachers....you didn't state numbers. See, YOU parrot these mantras without thinking through all the possibilities.

2. GMAFB! Your sister is NOT a trained cop or ex-military policed/soldier. There is NO prerequisite type of training for the mass shooter scenario to be an NRA member. Period. And again, "shooting back" is no guarantee that the perp is hit or that stray bullets hit more students.

3. Learn to read, as I am asking a question, NOT commenting on your drivel. You are proposing arming teachers...I suggest you google on teachers abusing student/going nuts cases.

4. Please state cases of armed security guards that have existed in some high school campuses going postal. I'll wait.

 

the reality is that things like 'militia' have actual, legal definitions, and your opinion of what you think they should mean is immaterial. in at least this case, my 'version of reality' is the one that actually matters.