The NRA Is Ready For The Gun Control Fight...Are You?

.....

If you mean President Obama's request for government appropriations for more police officers that is a constructive idea and one that is needed not only in the schools but over the nation. Police officers would be used as security officiers in our schools, which design-wise have been built with a lack of safety for students.

 

But I would think that not every able-bodied man in each colony had a cannon handy.

 

dunno about where you live but here the police in the schools are there to protect the teachers from the students



A 52-year-old teacher at Liberty Hill Academy suffered a dislocated jawbone, broken facial bones and a broken finger last week when she was pummeled by a 14-year-old student after he was told to leave her classroom.

Liberty Hill Academy is a specialized school for public school students with severe social, emotional or behavioral disabilities.

A Charleston County School District spokesman confirmed the assault had taken place and said the student was immediately arrested.

Video from around the world

According to a North Charleston police incident report, a police officer assigned to the school was called to the office for a report of a teacher having been assaulted.

Read more here: http://www.thestate.com/2011/09/01/1955644/student-beats-teacher-after-being.html#storylink=cpy

 

LMAO! How quickly your tune changes. If Obama changed his position on this tomorrow, so would you.

 

The Timothy McVeigh example is the perfect straw man set up. No one is suggesting that banning semiautomatics would stop a home grown terrorist like Timothy McVeigh. You could also say that banning semi automatics would not stop a foreign terrorist with a suitcase radiological explosive. It just shows how ridiculous the thinking is with the pro gun crowd.

And maybe we should start looking at semi automatic pistols as well. This kind of weapon is easier to carry around and conceal.

 

.....

Sooo, your drug raid turned out to be a few pot plants in the back of a house? Weren't you afraid that going over the fence would encourage the homeowner to shoot you? And when you didn't lock your guns in the safe, where did you leave them?

 

I haven't finished....

My idea of reasonable restrictions on the lawful ownership, use, possession of firearms is that they apply to all firearms. That would be the issues on background checks, registration licensing of people to own/use firearms and proving competence before being permitted to get hold of one (legally) and not at a gun show either.

As far as restricting the type of weapons that should be available, I'd completely ban full autos.

On semi-autos frankly I'm a bit in two minds. I've used them and they're extremely efficient. I'm by no means an expert with firearms, but I am competent to handle them. Others may be able to switch mags on a semi-auto or, for example, a bolt-action rifle very quickly, but I know I'd need to practice to reach a high level of efficiency in reloading a limited magazine but I have no doubt that it could be done by those who are more practised than me.

So I think that side of it needs some careful and objective investigation to see what's best in public health terms. One of the reasons I'm a bit in two minds about semi-autos is that I used to own a pump action shotgun. I have used semi-auto shotguns but never owned one, I preferred the pump. But even these were caught up in the first (long weapon) buyback in Australia after the 1996 Port Arthur massacre. I always thought banning the pump shotguns was a bit over the top - semi-autos too. They were caught up in the general dragnet against semi-auto rifles here.

I suppose we could all go through the records and see which is the most frequent, mass shootings from handguns or from long weapons but frankly I don't know if it would serve any purpose. On the other hand if anyone can put up a convincing case for keeping semi-auto rifles legal I'd be interested to read it because, as I mentioned, I'm undecided on my position on that.

 

I guess it's OK with you then if some one has the means and the resources he/she could own a small nuclear missle. I guess that would be the ultimate assault weapon of our day.

 

I think they're well ready.

 

Long as she has a good aim, she'd be very effective! I had a Lhasa Apso, good barker, not much of a biter either but heck she was courageous and tenacious.

- - - Updated - - -

I meant the author of the piece, not the poster - sorry for the confusion.

 

Yep, it was just a sideline for us, we were very happy when we got livestock thieves, that was our job!

It was in daytime, we'd knocked on the front door, no answer, so over the fence we went (well later on anyway). It's all about risk management. No registered firearms recorded at the house, likelihood of being bailed up by an outraged owner with a firearm very low, so risk management dictated no firearms needed.

The handguns were always in the safe unless we thought they might be needed. In several years in that job I never needed a firearm. Nearly got mauled by sheep once though

 

......

Your statement was:"President Obama's planned Executive Orders is to increase the number of armed people in schools."

My answer was that "President Obama's request for government appropriations for more police officers" was not for schools specifically but would be a very good idea...rather than the private armed security people that was suggested by the NRA.

Of course you know that the states have defunded alot of the police personnel and it has increased crime in those areas, so appropriations for more police personnel remains valid, while your thesis that Obama wants "more armed people in schools" fails because of your apparent disregard of actual quotes.

- - - Updated - - -

......

Your statement was:"President Obama's planned Executive Orders is to increase the number of armed people in schools."

My answer was that "President Obama's request for government appropriations for more police officers" was not for schools specifically but would be a very good idea...rather than the private armed security people that was suggested by the NRA.

Of course you know that the states have defunded alot of the police personnel and it has increased crime in those areas, so appropriations for more police personnel remains valid, while your thesis that Obama wants "more armed people in schools" fails because of your apparent disregard of actual quotes.

 

Why don't you look these things up for yourself?

Here it is in Obama's own words:
Transcript of President Obama's gun control speech
"We will help schools hire more resource officers if they want them"

 

I say ban all assault weapons and handguns outright. allow people to keep bolt action rifles, shotguns and musketry.

 

Well that would be an option. However what are you going to do about the tens of millions of handguns already in the system.

Are you going to try and confiscate them?

If not then your plan won't really have an impact for decades. Guns last quite awhile and handguns especially are extremely plentiful.

 

over time the handguns will be mostly collected; still some will always remain in circulation; however if manufacturers stop making them, over time you'll see a sharp reduction in ownership; plus changing the laws to make it a felony to posses them will likewise help eradicate their numbers.

 

How do you propose going about implementing your ban? A Constitutional Amendment, or...?

 

You can't grandfather them in and then make it a felony to have one.

No politician is going to say that everyone must turn in the handguns they have already purchased, or confiscate them, or support a buyback program for 100 million weapons. These were purchased legally, many are family heirlooms and on and on.

Simply stopping production of them will only make those 100 million more valuable and better maintained because their price will skyrocket. Then you will have the black market bringing in tons just as they do with drugs.

 

An amendment is not necessary since the citizens will have the right to still bear arms since bolt action rifles, shot guns and musketry are considered weapons and offense and defense. The government would just be narrowing the types of weapons you can own, much like the ownership of nuclear weapons are prohibited.

 

The SCOTUS disagrees with you. It would take an Amendment to ban handguns.

 

Can you provide me with a link to that particular decision?

 

Heller vs. DC

 

The NRA is about as responsible for a gun death as Honda is for a car accident or Burger King for you being fat. Liberal whackadoodles=) WHat do they have in common? The gun needs a person to pull the trigger, the car needs a person to drive it incorrectly, and the food needs you to stuff it into your mouth in such quantities that you're body can't handle it. Does a gun kill anyone sitting on a table, does a car hurt anyone sitting in a garage or a bag of chips make someone fat sitting in a pantry? NOPE!!!!

 

More bloviating horsecrap. It's nuts doing the killing not the guns. A gun will sit and rust forever until you pick it up and shoot it.

Big news for you. The Articles of Confederation did not mention the rights in the second amendment to the Constitution.
Get your head out of it and realize you are beaten, huffpo boy. You don't even know what it says in the documents you cite for backup, like some idiot AGW dupe.

 

Do you ever get tired of generating bullcrap to call bullcrap?

Deep doo-doo? In what imaginary world? The NRA had a membership boost of 100,000 in one week. That's more members than Chrissy Matthews has weekly viewers.

I see you still want to put children in free fire zones of death, unprotected from homicidal maniacs fresh from a PeTA meeting where they killed puppies the kids wouldn't adopt.