Of course a response must be adequate for what is at stake and being wrongly accused is always a possibility but at the very least you would be unharmed and alive. In America we have B&E's (Breaking and Entering, Home Invasion has become a synonymous term) that end with a righteous shooting (SHOULD ALWAYS be a case of last resort) and no prosecution/persecution of the home defender. The American justice system seems to be reawakening to the concept that the citizen has a right to repel assaults/batteries/threats to their persons. Is it your understanding that people who support the American Second Amendment are just "itchin" for some criminal to threaten them or another innocent person with harm...I am comfortable in saying that that is the last thing a responsible citizen wants. I suspect that a firearm put in use isn't always discharged but the bad actor must know that if forced to the defender will defend to the level of the threat.
Good Post, I've bolded the parts very important to me. I have no desire to shoot anyone and like the rest of the responsible gun owners I go out of my way to AVOID putting myself or family into an unsafe area or situation.
It always has to be proportional to the threat. If I am at home and someone breaks in, its basically one of two things. Im awake, and I have time to run to the bedroom. Or Im asleep, and the bedroom door is already locked. A double barreled shotgun is proportional to someone breaking down my bedroom door. A stick is not. Its all too easy to imagine the delight of some guy, let alone more than one, just picking up a chair to ward off my pathetic "weapon", and getting all the more aroused for having a little fight in order to get hold of me.
Actually it is not - let us say the guy breaking down your door was a fireman because the bloody building was on fire!!
Ok, let's look at the post above... How many times did you repeat the same innane comments? I count at least 4 uses of "from a liberal source no less", as if that point were being debated. You previously indicated that it was "harrassment" and "law enforcement" to be asked whether you own a gun... That's what I indicated was fallacy. Schools have every right to know which students have easy access to firearms given that their function is to provide a safe environment for kids to learn. As for the new story you posted about a school telling a parent not to come on school grounds because they don't want guns around students while those kids are under the school's care, how does this legitimize your comments about Democrats picking and choosing worthiness? Non sequitur much?
Perhaps, in your haste to respond to every post I provide in every thread, you missed what I was responding to: But, since you've chosen to interrupt, please explain your understanding of why it was deemed illegal to establish a database, and why "marketing" is a valid exception.
How about responding to marketing members verses a federal gun database of every gun owner, which is illegal btw.
of people Thanks and Amen STG, The Good Book let's the reader know that there will be an accounting for blood spilled. I look to avoid these situations as a matter of conscience, because I choose not to initiate/cause harm as I believe 99% of folks do. I too am aware when I am in a venue (unavoidable due to business demands or other purposes) where some may see me as a target be it because of my age, the color of my skin or for what might be believed to be in my possession.
Well since the articles I posted are correct, I'm hoping that's what will happen to the mom who has been banned from her kid's school.
Unlike 'you', I haven't 'failed' at anything. Also 'unlike you', I posted links to back up every point I made. And as for repeating the same comments over and over, I did so that even you would 'understand' my points (as you seem to keep on ignoring the links from liberal sources proving you wrong).. Speaking of proof. Here are the links again proving every thing I said, and every pathetic word you said ...wrong. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/24/missouri-parents-required_n_2545510.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/...ons-permit-tanya-mount-georgia_n_4227665.html http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023980640 http://www.wfxg.com/story/23920975/mom-banned-from-school-sues FYI if you didn't keep repeating the same 'accusations' all the time (without even 'one' link to back it up), I wouldn't have to repeat the same comments (with links from actual news sources) all the time proving you wrong. So much for 'your' fallacies.
So, once again, you seem to be saying that maintaining a database of gun owners is illegal - unless it can be claimed that it's for "marketing" purposes. Please show me ANY source for this odd assertion - particularly the marketing loophole.
one is by the federal government one is by a private entity....Kinda reminds me of ohhh lets say google and the NSA...does that help comprehension? OH heck I'm in a mood to end this asinine discussion. Google, NRA, Yahoo, Guns and ammo....all keep records and advertise based on the people who voluntarily participate in their network....a very incomplete list of users in the world or the US. The government attempts at a complete and total database of involuntary users elicits the type of response the NSA just ran into. Maybe in your world government intrusion is a good thing...Me I don't trust them. Now I'm pretty sure the NRA doesn't share Voluntarily a list of NRA members who may or may not be gun owners but I'm pretty sure once we start letting the government collect such data it's purpose wil be to keep a COMPLETE list, else it would be very ineffective. Please examine the pretense of your discussion...it sorely needs revised.
I have no idea why you've put the highlighted words above in apostrophes... Perhaps the below link can provide you some basic instruction on how to punctuate so that readers aren't distracted from whatever point you're frantically (unsuccessfully) attempting to make. http://webdesignledger.com/tips/common-typography-mistakes-apostrophes-versus-quotation-marks I don't dispute those links. I dispute how you are interpreting them. For example: - You are saying that schools are acting as "law enforcement" simply by ascertaining which kids have easy access to firearms. I agree some schools are asking parents whether they have firearms in the home, as per the link. I disagree that this is a "law enforcement" function. I believe schools (who have a duty to protect their staff as well as provide a safe environment for kids to learn in) have a right to know of potential risks represented by students who have access to firearms. - You also posted links about one parent being banned from hanging out on school grounds after "several PTO members pointed out instances where Mount would disrupt classes and where Mount said she wouldn't let anybody bother her daughter" (quote from your link). Do you really believe it's in the best interests of the school or the kids for one student to have an overprotective armed bodyguard? The link you provided clearly illustrates that the principle (who has first-hand knowledge of the parent, students and school) doesn't agree with you as she said "It is my duty and responsibility as the principal of this school to ensure the safety and security of all of our faculty, staff and students,". Your claim was that this somehow relates to all democrats picking and choosing who gets to exercise their 2A rights. In short, your links don't support your assertions. That's funny considering that your links actually support my position. Name one. Be specific.
Yup, a group of people who were democratically elected by the populace in order to provide for the best interests of our society shouldn't be trusted any more than a group of people whose sole motivation is to turn a profit at our expense.... That makes sense. Please illustrate that the NRA's database of gun owners is obtained with their consent, which is contrary to the source I provided: http://www.buzzfeed.com/stevefriess/how-the-nra-built-a-massive-secret-database-of-gun-owners
Rolling your eyes doesn't make your point anymore sensible...it just makes you blind to the truth and the reason I see no sense in discussing topics with you. There are actually three branches to the government....and what a democratically elected body does isn't a reflection of constitutional..hence the judicial branch which you and your kind love to dance around, God help you if you don't see the difference between private and governmental entities. You need some real education eh? and is still not a governmental data base for gun control purposes eh. You would argue with a donkey if it suited your beliefs wouldn't you. Sheesh you argue for arguments sake without ever understanding the concepts being discussed.
Feel free to stop saying stupid things then. What are you even talking about? My comment was that you are willing to place faith in private entities that are completely profit-driven, but express paranoid delusions in relation to public entities that exist to provide for the best interests of our society. How is that me not seeing a difference between the two? Congnitive dissonance much? So your unsubstanciated subjective belief seems to be that any governmental database must relate to "gun control purposes"...? I assume that registry of vehicles solely exists so that goons in black helicoptors can swoop in and take your car away? >>>Flamebait Removed<<< Your ad hominem attacks do nothing to lend credibility to your position. They just make it appear that you're getting defensive due to a lack of valid points.
First of all, you just LIED and said none of the links support my points, when in fact they do. The first link proves that the MO schools are trying to police and harass parents by reporting to 'them' whether or not they own guns. And face penalties from the schools, if they fail to 'comply'. The school's job is supposed to be 'educating' students, not 'policing' parents as though they are criminals. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/24/missouri-parents-required_n_2545510.html The second and third links from the Huffington post, and from the Democratic underground .. proves that a school wrongly banned a honorably discharged vet, and mother from her daughter's school for daring to 'own' ... a concealed weapon permit. And disproves your "lies/fallacies" yet again. Because in banning her from the school because she has a concealed weapon permit (and dared to post it on facebook) they are penalizing her for daring to exercise not only her 'first amendment rights', but her 'second amendment rights' as well. btw telling a honorably discharged vet who is trying to be a good volunteer to her special needs daughter ...that she needs to go home and do 'grown up' things ...is a added insult showing that liberals have not one whit of respect for Veterans, or mothers! http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/...ons-permit-tanya-mount-georgia_n_4227665.html http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023980640 BTW the mom is suing the school, and administrators. Given their outrageous treatment of her in trying to intimidate her into 'shame' because she 'dared' to serve honorably in the military, give birth to a special needs child, and volunteer to help her in the schools; I hope she bankrupts the entire district. http://www.wfxg.com/story/23920975/mom-banned-from-school-sues In short 'nothing' supports your 'lies' and your 'fallacies'. You falsely accused my posts of being fallacies yet you couldn't even dispute the links ...... http://www.politicalforum.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1063510216 Here is the comment where I provided the 1st link proving that in the State of MO, the schools were requiring the parents to say whether or not they owned firearms, and assessing a penalty if the parents declined to comply. You do know what it means when the schools are playing COP, and saying they are assessing a penalty? http://www.politicalforum.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1063511770 And here is another one of your 'fallacies' or better yet 'LIES' http://www.politicalforum.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1063514205 The answer for your pathetic attempt at a personal attack was in the comment and the links ... But no matter ...because I always reposted the links 'proving you wrong' .......and posted more links ... supporting every word out of my mouth (unlike your lies that you never could support via posting actual facts from a actual news site). http://www.politicalforum.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1063515089 And here are more of your pathetic personal attacks, but since you couldn't attack the Links proving you WRONG you chose to attack the fact that I repeated myself (because you are repeating the same lies over, and over and over without any regard to the facts which I provided from 'Liberal sources' no less proving you WRONG). http://www.politicalforum.com/reputation.php?do=addreputation&p=1063523099 And once again, I had to repeat myself ...as well as providing the links which again 'came from liberal sources' and 'proved you to be the one with the fallacies and lies'. http://www.politicalforum.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1063525722 And here are you attacking me yet again, and instead making yourself look even more foolish than you do right now in your current comment where you left out all the links proving you to be a 'liar'. http://www.politicalforum.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1063529819 So sorry.. but so 'far' ...every word out of your mouth is a 'fallacy/lie'; and I just posted your comments, as well as my responses 'proving' it. BTW you don't like my use of " ' ' " marks? Tough, according to the Webster's Dictionary .. it's perfectly acceptable.. Thank you for proving how pathetically desperate you are, to continue to attack my grammar ...because you are incapable of discussing things in a civil manner, let alone providing a link that isn't from a 'entertainment' site ... 'Buzzfeed'? Really? HAHAHAHA!
As flattered as I am that you've chosen to write a thesis (as nonsensicle as it may be), I have no intention of dedicating as much time or effort to you - largely because I'm not a fan of Gish Gallop such as you've provided. Issue 1: schools asking whether parents own firearms - I don't dispute that the schools are doing this. - I dispute your interpretation that this is a law enforcement function. - Would you say that it's "law enforcement" any time a fine is levied by any organization against individuals who don't comply with the organization's rules? Issue 2: mom banned from school - I am a vet and a parent, so your random accusations of me supporting discrimination against vet parents is simply moronic. - Please illustrate which of the links you provided indicate she was "trying to be a good volunteer" rather than as a bodyguard for her daughter and a general nuisance to the school. Unless you can do that, your links simply don't support your assertions, no matter how many times you post them. Issue 3: grammer and general nonsense - I'd like to see a link from Webster's Dictionary that it's acceptable to use an apostrophe around random words in a sentance for no apparent purpose. - As a conservative, you choose to post links that you repeatedly point out are "from a liberal source" (which means you generally don't care for the source), yet you choose to attack a link I provided on the basis of the source rather than the information it provided... How is this not hypocrisy? - Did you really just make a post accusing me of lying in almost every sentance and then claim I'm incapable of discussing things in a civil manner? Hello pot, meet kettle.
Is "nonsensicle" kind of like an icicle? We love seeing a would- be "grammer" (sic) nazi at work! Both being black is the point of the saying.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/nonsensical Yup, I made a couple of spelling typos. Who hasn't? I'm a little surprised that you read my post closely enough to notice them, and still have nothing relevant to say. Goodie, you're familiar with the saying... So you know it's actually about hypocrisy.
