NRA hasn’t changed its blustering self
I had to smile, and not happily, when I read this from Politico:
“The National Rifle Association stunned Washington observers Friday when the group’s CEO announced a plan to install armed guards at every school in the country — its response to the Connecticut shooting last week that left 20 children dead…
… Close observers had expected the NRA to strike a more cooperative tone at the unusual press conference, as pressure is mounting in Washington for reform.”
I don’t know who these “close observers” might be, but most people who have paid attention to the NRA over the years are not stunned or surprised in the least. “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,” NRA executive Wayne LaPierre told the press conference, in statements that could have been scripted five years ago.
LaPierre did make valid points in his statement about the need to improve school security and, oddly, about the dangerous Cult of Guns. But he made not the slightest nod toward even addressing the role played by the easy availability of high-powered weaponry. He and other NRA officials also refused to take questions afterward.
Personally, I take that as a good sign. It looked to me as though LaPierre and his friends are a bit worried this time and afraid to engage in the debate, fearful that at moments such as this, their bumper-sticker rhetoric won’t play well in front of a general audience.
Anything to change the subject, right Wayne?
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
562 comments Add your comment
Rick C
December 21st, 2012
1:55 pm
Let’s be real here. If the government turns itself against us, having an assault rifle and larger magazines isn’t going to make a damn bit of difference when they hit your house with a drone strike.
williebkind
December 21st, 2012
1:56 pm
“YOU have no RIGHT to ARMED INSURRECTION against our government under US CONSTITUTION. The 2d Amendment is NOT a right to revolution.”
Really, that liberal comprehension sure gets flawed again and again.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
December 21st, 2012
1:56 pm
Ugh, another gun thread.
I’d rather go holiday shopping.
Regnad Kcin
December 21st, 2012
1:56 pm
“Would someone please explain how banning guns will, or would have helped?”
Sure. First, though, show where someone on this blog proposed that. Thanks in advance.
Fly-On-The-Wall
December 21st, 2012
1:56 pm
As usual the cons will defend their death merchants to the end. This discussion is going nowhere. The cons love the death lobby.
Real Scootter
December 21st, 2012
1:56 pm
Fly-On-The-Wall
December 21st, 2012
1:52 pm
Thanks Fly! I will read it.
josef
December 21st, 2012
1:57 pm
Fly on the Wall…
Just so you’ll know, Real Scootter is, imeoiau, one of the more open-minded, intelligent and intelligent (as well as witty) folks on the blog. And his take on the period under discussion is not that uninformed.
Joe Hussein Mama
December 21st, 2012
1:57 pm
williebkind — “A SYMPATHY LAW does nothing but take away rights.”
So?
If a law is passed in accordance with Constitutional procedures, the why and wherefore of that law are beside the point.
JamVet
December 21st, 2012
1:58 pm
Rick C, what question willie can play stupid with the best of them.
Try to get him to back up his made up claptrap with the first factual, verifiable piece of data and he goes all faux perplexed…
williebkind
December 21st, 2012
1:58 pm
“Let’s be real here. If the government turns itself against us, having an assault rifle and larger magazines isn’t going to make a damn bit of difference when they hit your house with a drone strike.”
Then you wont be a barrier anymore and we can do geurilla warfare to take out the problem. Yes we will need modern weapons.
Pizzaman
December 21st, 2012
1:59 pm
I just read a lot of the comments. My comments:
Yes we have a right to bear arms. Single shot muskets to hunt for food and protect our homestead from wild animals. Neither relevent in 2012.
Right! Let’s make the whole Country an armed camp. Who’s going to pay for the guns, amo and training?
Gun’s don’t kill people, people do. BUT! If “people” only had single shot muskets and not bushmasters with a 90 round clip to “increase your shooting fun” those people intent on murder couldn’t kill near as many.
And remember this all you gun tottin’, fearless “good” folk out there: It’s a whole different story when the target is human and shooting back!
williebkind
December 21st, 2012
2:00 pm
“if a law is passed in accordance with Constitutional procedures, the why and wherefore of that law are beside the point.”
If you call having an emotional moment constitutional procedures, you have reading comprehension also.
Joe Hussein Mama
December 21st, 2012
2:00 pm
williebkind — “Really, that liberal comprehension sure gets flawed again and again.”
He’s not wrong. Armed rebellion isn’t a *right,* nor is is spoken of as such at any time by any of the Founders.
williebkind
December 21st, 2012
2:01 pm
“And remember this all you gun tottin’, fearless “good” folk out there: It’s a whole different story when the target is human and shooting back”
We know, you should experience it some. Join the military.
larry
December 21st, 2012
2:02 pm
If we have a right to assult weapons, do we have the right to own bazooka’s and anti-aircraft guns?
When does it stop?
Joe Hussein Mama
December 21st, 2012
2:03 pm
williebkind — “If you call having an emotional moment constitutional procedures”
Didn’t say that and didn’t think it. The remainder of your comment is irrelevant.
Here’s what I *actually* said. Work on *your* reading comprehension and look at it again.
If a law is passed in accordance with Constitutional procedures, the why and wherefore of that law are beside the point.
Your opinion of where a law came from and what it accomplishes are ABSOLUTELY IRRELEVANT if that law’s been properly brought up and passed. A law’s a law, whether you like it or not.
williebkind
December 21st, 2012
2:03 pm
He’s not wrong. Armed rebellion isn’t a *right,* nor is is spoken of as such at any time by any of the Founders.”
did you read the Declaration of Independence? If is “is” is…..its that reading comprehension again.
TaxPayer
December 21st, 2012
2:03 pm
How long did scout say he served in the military protecting us. I seem to recall him claiming thirty years. Hyperbolate much, Scout.
Regnad Kcin
December 21st, 2012
2:03 pm
““YOU have no RIGHT to ARMED INSURRECTION against our government under US CONSTITUTION. The 2d Amendment is NOT a right to revolution.”
Really, that liberal comprehension sure gets flawed again and again.”
Willieb – You should wiki “treason” and “sedition” – you might learn something.
TaxPayer
December 21st, 2012
2:04 pm
The GOP is the party of the irresponsible.
larry
December 21st, 2012
2:05 pm
TaxPayer
December 21st, 2012
2:03 pm
He said 36 earlier.
Christian Conservative
December 21st, 2012
2:05 pm
Fly-On-The-Wall:
yes Google is your friend. the thing is that many results come up that don’t reflect the values of the NRA. You know. Those far left fruits that wants to infringe us at every turn… So Google NRA and look at what they stand for…. Instead of someone else telling you what they stand for see for yourself….
http://home.nra.org/#/nraorg/custom/pressRelease_ORGTranscript_imagemap
williebkind
December 21st, 2012
2:06 pm
“if a law is passed in accordance with Constitutional procedures, the why and wherefore of that law are beside the point.”
If a law is pressured to be passed by people like Piers Morgan who has CNN to broadcast it world wide appealing to the emotional state of the people and not to rational thinking then only a liberal would call it constitutional procedures because it promotes their socialist ideals.
moonbat betty
December 21st, 2012
2:06 pm
Merry Christmas everyone!
What about the Red Ryder Carbine-Action Two-Hundred-Shot Range Model Air Rifle?
Will those be banned too?
Regnad Kcin
December 21st, 2012
2:06 pm
“If you call having an emotional moment constitutional procedures, you have reading comprehension also”
Willieb – where in the constitution does it outlaw “emotional moments”? You know that very little of what you say makes any sense, right?
larry
December 21st, 2012
2:07 pm
So i can just walk right up to a gun show, look for a guy selling bazooka’s , and buy one and i am protected by the second admendment.
Just WoW!
josef
December 21st, 2012
2:07 pm
JHM
“Armed rebellion isn’t a *right,* nor is is spoken of as such at any time by any of the Founders.”
From the Declaration of Independence:
“That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances,”
indigo
December 21st, 2012
2:07 pm
Scout
Are there really armed guards at inner city schools?
That’s the first time I’ve ever heard of it.
Joe Hussein Mama
December 21st, 2012
2:08 pm
I have a proposal for the NRA supporters.
EVERY time there is a public shooting in the US — without exception — we total up the number of casualties, to include bystanders, perpetrators, first responders and of course all victims. The NRA then makes good on all insurance claims resulting therefrom (e.g. the NRA reimburses all life, health, property and casualty claims arising therefrom).
You should be aware that that’s a pale imitation of how I first heard that proposal; the original version of that (at least as I saw it) called for the outright *execution* of one NRA member for every victim of a public shooting. However, I can’t go for something even remotely like that.
So, NRA members — have you got the courage of your convictions? Are you willing to hold the rest of us harmless so that you can have your unrestrained gun rights?
stands for decibels
December 21st, 2012
2:09 pm
Will those be banned too?
Not if you can demonstrate that you won’t shoot your eye out.
Joe Hussein Mama
December 21st, 2012
2:10 pm
williebkind — “did you read the Declaration of Independence?”
I’m quite familiar with the Declaration, and that’s not in there.
“If is “is” is…..its that reading comprehension again.”
Nope. It’s you making stuff up again.
detritusUSA
December 21st, 2012
2:10 pm
“The cult of guns.” No I don’t believe the NRA helped to create it. The creators are War Inc. and all the investors (401k?) that make money off of it; movies and video games that earn lots of money for their creators and investors. Gun violence will never end until we as a country say we’ve had enough war and stop the killing so that kids and mentally challenged people won’t become Warrior Wannabe’s.
An innocent victim, adult or child, is just that whether in the U.S. by gunfire, or in the middle east by drone attack. War Inc is the problem not the NRA.
stands for decibels
December 21st, 2012
2:10 pm
the original version of that (at least as I saw it) called for the outright *execution* of one NRA member for every victim of a public shooting.
see, Mr. President, *that’s* how you negotiate with these guys.
Joe Hussein Mama
December 21st, 2012
2:11 pm
williebkind — “If a law is pressured to be passed”
SNIP.
Listen carefully, willie.
Too bad. That doesn’t matter and it’s beside the point.
We get that you don’t like it. Too bad for you.
josef
December 21st, 2012
2:11 pm
indigo
“Are there really armed guards at inner city schools?
That’s the first time I’ve ever heard of it.”
There are. It’s fairly common practice.
Doggone/GA
December 21st, 2012
2:11 pm
“Any suggestions how guns can be kept out of the hands of irresponsible people?”
Or how to keep gun owners from becoming irresponsible?
Both are unanswerable at this date
Nick Danger
December 21st, 2012
2:11 pm
Yeah, because a single officer with a pistol beats a maniac with a machine gun every time .
larry
December 21st, 2012
2:13 pm
The same ones calling for armed guards in schools will next call for them not to be government employees but hired guns by private security firms.
This just smells all the way around.
Joe Hussein Mama
December 21st, 2012
2:13 pm
josef — “From the Declaration of Independence”
I’m well aware of the specifics of the Declaration on that point, having taught Constitutional Law at the college level, josef.
That said, the Founders speak of it a “duty,” not as a “right.”
Oscar
December 21st, 2012
2:13 pm
Any suggestions how guns can be kept out of the hands of irresponsible people?”
______
Start with a ban on assault rifles and semi’s with large clips, and then require background checks at gun shows.
Christian Conservative
December 21st, 2012
2:13 pm
JamVet:
All I hear from the far left side is that we need to ban assault rifles and tax bullets. That’s not gonna stop a tragedy but in the feeble little mind of a lib they think it will simply because it puts more of a burden on law abiding citizens(Conservatives).
Real Scootter
December 21st, 2012
2:14 pm
Hey Fly,(if you are still around)
I read the link you provided and it didn’t prove or disprove what we were talking about.I guess we will have to agree to disagree.
Regnad Kcin
December 21st, 2012
2:15 pm
FWIW – “Nick Danger ” is NOT me.
williebkind
December 21st, 2012
2:15 pm
“The GOP is the party of the irresponsible.”
It this a repeat of what you have heard other liberals say? Is it the incantations ya’ll do?
stands for decibels
December 21st, 2012
2:15 pm
JHM, here are more sensible proposals to mull over.
—
1. The basics – stuff that the majority of the country agrees on: Background checks for all gun sales. A ban on all assault weapons and magazines over 10 rounds. This is pretty much the stuff that President Obama called for yesterday. If you disagree with this part, you are such an extremist that we have nothing further to talk about, but, please, guntards, read on so that you have more stuff to angrily masturbate over while tickling your prostates with your pistols.
2. Beyond basics – stuff that is still easy to do but makes guntards beat their heads and scream – Every gun registered. Licenses to use guns, renewable by test every 2 years. A ban on some kinds of bullets, like hollow points. A ban on online sales of weapons. Microstamping firearms. Bullet identification systems. Massive funding of gun buybacks. Limit firearm purchases to 1 a month. Cap the number of firearms one can own unless registered as a dealer. License all dealers. Required use of safety locks and storage in homes with children.
3. Getting radical – Things that aren’t especially radical, but in our hysterical nation, seem that way – A federal law against concealed carry of firearms. A ban on large purchases of ammunition. No private sales of firearms. No firearms in homes with people who would not pass a firearms purchase background check. A confiscation of all assault weapons that were previously banned. If those have to be from some people’s cold, head hands, well, that’s their choice to make.
—
works for me. how’s by you?
williebkind
December 21st, 2012
2:16 pm
Any suggestions how guns can be kept out of the hands of irresponsible people?”
Deny liberals access to guns.
Regnad Kcin
December 21st, 2012
2:16 pm
“FWIW – “Nick Danger ” is NOT me”
Sock puppets? NO! (No word yet on multiple personalities).
Christian Conservative
December 21st, 2012
2:17 pm
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Will libs please Google infinged….. This is the reason a tax of ban cannot and will not work.
tm
December 21st, 2012
2:17 pm
Trying to blame the NRA and gun owners for the shooting is like trying to blaime the Muslims for 9/11. Did we resetrict the rights of Muslims becasue of 9/11?
East Cobb RINO, Inc (LLC)
December 21st, 2012
2:17 pm
From the time a shooting starts (and there will be more) until the police arrive ………. what do you do?
If I am Captain Kirk, I re-program the simulator the night before the test.
josef
December 21st, 2012
2:18 pm
SFD
Much of what you post is logical and within the framework of the existing system. You lose me when you go to the “guntard” name-calling. It alienates those who might otherwise agree with you. Just my take on it.
Regnad Kcin
December 21st, 2012
2:18 pm
“Will libs please Google infinged….. This is the reason a tax of ban cannot and will not work.”
You don’t even READ this blog, do you?
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
December 21st, 2012
2:21 pm
indigo:
Yes ………. armed “resource officers” in Atlanta innner-city schools ……….. and elsewhere all over the country.
stands for decibels
December 21st, 2012
2:21 pm
You lose me when you go to the “guntard” name-calling.
Dude. That’s Lee Papa’s term, not mine.
(I considered editing out his bit about the pistol tickling, but hey, it’s 5 o’clock somewhere.)
just sayin'
December 21st, 2012
2:21 pm
And you haven’t changed your blustering self, either…have you, Bookman?
Oh that’s right, you get paid to write this stuff.
Real Scootter
December 21st, 2012
2:22 pm
FWIW – “Nick Danger ” is NOT me.
No worries Regnad! Even I knew that.
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
December 21st, 2012
2:22 pm
larry:
“This guy had full body armor from head to toe with an AR-15 that could fire 100 bullets in 1 minute. I doubt anyone with a handgun could have taken him out.”
1) At some point he has to reload ……….. there’s a chance there.
2) Just the sight of a gun “might” cause him to commit suicide, stop shooting kids, etc. It’s worth a try. DOING NOTHING ……….. is not an option.
stands for decibels
December 21st, 2012
2:23 pm
…and honestly, josef, I’ve banished the term “tard” from personal use, I do think it’s time to put that one down, and frankly wish that the Rude Pundit would as well. But then, he wouldn’t be rude, so…
Joe Hussein Mama
December 21st, 2012
2:23 pm
SfD — “works for me. how’s by you?”
Almost completely agree.
I do have one little niggling issue, though . . . having to do with this one:
“A ban on large purchases of ammunition.”
It would depend on what qualified as a ‘large purchase of ammunition,’ but I’d like to see some sort of permitting process where licensed hunters/guides/similar would be permitted additional ammo purchases with the understanding that *transferring* ammo (e.g. resale or swap) would be a felony violation. There are parts of the country where subsistence hunting is important to some folks’ livelihoods, and I wouldn’t want to make them criminals just because they were trying to fill their freezers with elk or deer meat.
Let’s say that if you’ve got a valid seasonal hunting license or a business license as a guide/hunter/trapper (maybe you take well-heeled bidnessmen on big-game hunting trips), you’re permitted to purchase more ammo than Andy Suburbia would be allowed to. Fair?
td
December 21st, 2012
2:23 pm
Brosephus™
December 21st, 2012
1:02 pm
I would love to see the first school district to go with this. The liability insurance will bankrupt them. I guess the Mayan calendar marked the end of one era of jackassery and the beginning of another.
You do realize that almost, if not, all High schools in Georgia already have armed security on campus everyday now? God it must be nice to be an uninformed voter.
williebkind
December 21st, 2012
2:23 pm
“JHM, here are more sensible proposals to mull over.”
LMAO, I think denying liberals access to guns is the best idea, after all it was liberals who did the shooting.
Towncrier
December 21st, 2012
2:23 pm
First off, a disclaimer: I am not a member or monetary supporter of the NRA nor do I currently own a gun.
That said, I would like to respond to a few things in your column, Jay.
“I don’t know who these “close observers” might be, but most people who have paid attention to the NRA over the years are not stunned or surprised in the least. “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,” NRA executive Wayne LaPierre told the press conference, in statements that could have been scripted five years ago.”
I am not sure what your point is here – you don’t make it clear. But I trust you are not suggesting that training and arming one or two school personnel is a bad idea. Otherwise, I would not understand why you might call the police if someone was on your lawn firing shots from a gun. Bill Bennett (who I hope most liberals would not brand a raving lunatic though quite conservative) suggested this very idea this past week on Meet the Press and in a follow-up column.
“LaPierre did make valid points in his statement about the need to improve school security and, oddly, about the dangerous Cult of Guns.”
Care to elaborate to indicate where you might be in agreement?
“But he made not the slightest nod toward even addressing the role played by the easy availability of high-powered weaponry. He and other NRA officials also refused to take questions afterward.”
Are you aware that the first mass killing by an individual with a gun was in 1947 and it involved only a pistol and killed 9 people? You simply do not have to have a semi-automatic assault rifle to kill a lot of people. So I think you’d have to conclude that the problem is not mainly the type of weapon (though I really see no compelling need for a right to bear assault weapons since I think we have now gone past the point where one may realistically defend himself against an oppressive government with even these) but our culture and parenting. In case I missed it, would you please point me to a column in which you decry the removal of former restraints on free speech that would prevent graphic violence and sexuality from becoming almost the very air we breath here in America? I am just amazed that so many people are ready to implement restrictions on the second but not first amendment. Does anyone really believe that what is taught to youth in the form of music, TV shows, movies, games, the media at large and the Internet has NO bearing on their conduct?
josef
December 21st, 2012
2:24 pm
williebekind
“Deny liberals access to guns.”
I don’t think I’d try that with some of them on the blog…!
Joe Hussein Mama
December 21st, 2012
2:25 pm
C. Conservative — “Will libs please Google infinged….. This is the reason a tax of ban cannot and will not work.”
You need to read the First Amendment — especially the part where it says “Congress shall make no law . . . ”
Then I’ll show you about FIVE THOUSAND PAGES OF LAWS that treat specifically with what the Constitution just said ‘no’ to.
weetamoe
December 21st, 2012
2:25 pm
He did not change the subject he addressed it directly. Why should the life of the president of the US be more precious than that of anyone else in the country? Is Obama ready to dismiss the Secret Service? Spare me the obvious that he (as Bush was) might be subject to threats. Those kids in Connecticut were no obvious targets for any reason at all and yet…One of the most vocal gun control advocates is Diane Feinstein, and she has a concealed carry permit and uses it. Harry Reid claims he *always carries a gun.* No, dear leaders, some animals are not more important than others and some lives are not more precious than others. You know, of course, or should, that the NRA is not a gun lobby. That would be the NSSA. The NRA is (as it was from its beginning) a civil rights organization.
Regnad Kcin
December 21st, 2012
2:25 pm
“1) At some point he has to reload ……….. there’s a chance there”
Smaller clip – more re-loads. Just sayin’.
JamVet
December 21st, 2012
2:25 pm
cc, are you related to the law abiding conservative citizen, James Adkisson?
Your writings are similar to his…
williebkind
December 21st, 2012
2:25 pm
“God it must be nice to be an uninformed voter”
Just ask those living on east and west coast and up north.
stands for decibels
December 21st, 2012
2:26 pm
By the way, on item #3 @ 2.15–it’d have to be a buyback, of course, not outright confiscation, if I were to consider signing on to it.
Christian Conservative
December 21st, 2012
2:26 pm
Regnad Kcin:
Sure I do… And it certainly shines the light on how out of touch the far left is on this issue….
Adam
December 21st, 2012
2:27 pm
http://gawker.com/5970497/while-the-nra-was-on-tv-talking-about-the-need-for-more-guns-some-guy-was-walking-up-and-down-a-road-in-pennsylvania-shooting-people
“He went on to call for an armed police officer to be stationed in “every single school” across America to prevent further mass shootings, as critics tried to point out that armed law enforcement officials might not be the panacea the NRA thinks it is.
But before they could finish their sentence, the counterargument made itself as news broke of a mass shooting event in Pennsylvania with multiple casualties, including state troopers.”
Real Scootter
December 21st, 2012
2:27 pm
Much of what you post is logical and within the framework of the existing system. You lose me when you go to the “guntard” name-calling. It alienates those who might otherwise agree with you. Just my take on i
You are correct Josef!!! I was reading his post with interest til I hit the guntard part and quit reading.
josef
December 21st, 2012
2:27 pm
SFD
My bad…I didn’t go to the link and read it as if it were coming from you directly…I stand chastised…
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
December 21st, 2012
2:27 pm
Regarding the real reason for the 2nd Amendment:
From “Heller v. D.C. Government”
Page 24
b. SECURITY OF A FREE STATE
“The phrase “security of a free state” meant “security of a free polity” not security of each of the several states.”
“There are many reasons why the militia was thought to be “necessary for the security of a free state” ……….. Third, when the
able bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny.”
Page 25
3. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PREFATORY CLAUSE AND OPERATIVE CLAUSE
“That history showed that the way tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the able bodied men was not by
banning the militia but simply taking away the people’s arms, enabling a select militia or standing army to suppress
political opponents.”
Page 26
“It was understood across the political spectrum that the right helped to secure the ideal of a citizen militia, which might
be necessary to oppose an oppressive military force if the constitutional order broke down.”
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf
td
December 21st, 2012
2:28 pm
Joe Hussein Mama
December 21st, 2012
2:08 pm
I have a proposal for the NRA supporters.
EVERY time there is a public shooting in the US — without exception — we total up the number of casualties, to include bystanders, perpetrators, first responders and of course all victims. The NRA then makes good on all insurance claims resulting therefrom (e.g. the NRA reimburses all life, health, property and casualty claims arising therefrom).
What part of “Shall not be infringed” do you not understand?
Regnad Kcin
December 21st, 2012
2:28 pm
“Just ask those living on east and west coast and up north”
Everybody’s wrong but poor ol, willie.
Christian Conservative
December 21st, 2012
2:29 pm
JamVet:
And your’s from one Adolf Hitler… A disarmed people is a people that can easily be taken over…
Regnad Kcin
December 21st, 2012
2:30 pm
“EVERY time there is a public shooting in the US — without exception — we total up the number of casualties, to include bystanders, perpetrators, first responders and of course all victims. The NRA then makes good on all insurance claims resulting therefrom (e.g. the NRA reimburses all life, health, property and casualty claims arising therefrom).
What part of “Shall not be infringed” do you not understand?”
td – this in NO WAY infringes on anybody’s right to own or use a gun. If you believe otherwise, please explain.
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
December 21st, 2012
2:30 pm
Regnad Kcin :
“Smaller clip – more re-loads. Just sayin’.”
I hear you and that’s a possibility but think it through:
Larger clips ……….. more chance of a malfunction.
Smaller clips ………. just bring more backup weapons.
JohnnyReb
December 21st, 2012
2:30 pm
I guess we should be glad Lanza did not use an automobile at a school crossing to carry out his crazed plan.
Under Moonbat thinking, we would have all been shopping for a bicycle!
Towncrier
December 21st, 2012
2:30 pm
“What part of “Shall not be infringed” do you not understand?”
To paraphrase former president Clinton, it depends on what the meaning of “shall not” and “infringed” is.
williebkind
December 21st, 2012
2:31 pm
Are any of you here related to Piers Morgan?
Adam
December 21st, 2012
2:31 pm
Christian Conservative: Then please explain why Australia, New Zealand, Japan, etc have not been taken over by dictators.
Christian Conservative
December 21st, 2012
2:31 pm
If only we didn’t have that pesky little thing called the Constitution libs could get everything they want….
larry
December 21st, 2012
2:31 pm
Many of the nation’s schools already do have armed school resource officers on campus.
School safety expert Ken Trump says it may prove difficult on a large scale to ensure that any armed security officer placed in a school is qualified and trained not just to operate a weapon but to work with children.
How many children will get caught up in the line of fire?
godless heathen - Law Abiding Citizen
December 21st, 2012
2:31 pm
works for me. how’s by you?
That’s a good start there, stands. If living in a police state is your goal.
Real Scootter
December 21st, 2012
2:31 pm
Joe Hussein Mama
December 21st, 2012
2:23 pm
Nice to hear a voice of reason during a riot! Whew! There is common ground somewhere I hope.
Regnad Kcin
December 21st, 2012
2:32 pm
“And your’s from one Adolf Hitler… A disarmed people is a people that can easily be taken over…”
Godwin’s law…
Towncrier
December 21st, 2012
2:32 pm
“Regarding the real reason for the 2nd Amendment:”
Great post, Scout
Joe Hussein Mama
December 21st, 2012
2:32 pm
td — “What part of “Shall not be infringed” do you not understand?”
I understand it just fine. *You* don’t understand it at all.
It simply doesn’t apply any more than the First Amendment dictum of “Congress shall make no law” applies.
williebkind
December 21st, 2012
2:32 pm
“Everybody’s wrong but poor ol, willie.
”
You really need to work on your reading comprehension. Its vital to communication.
Doggone/GA
December 21st, 2012
2:32 pm
“What part of “Shall not be infringed” do you not understand?”
there’s a difference between a “peoples” right and the rights of each person.
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
December 21st, 2012
2:32 pm
O.K. Folks ………… one more time and then I have to go for the afternoon:
1) Should armed guards currently assigned to inner-city schools be withdrawn ?
2) If not, should armed guards be provided to suburban schools ?
3) What should be done to stop the carnage between the time a shooting starts and the police arrive to put up the crime scene tape ?
Christian Conservative
December 21st, 2012
2:33 pm
Adam:
Give them time.. They are also not very populated countries and still have an inkling of moral values. We have urban jungles that are crime riddled all over this country. If not for that guns probably wouldn’t be necessary….
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
December 21st, 2012
2:33 pm
Towncrier:
Thank you but just quoting what SCOTUS said/ruled.
Take the time to read the entire ruling ……… fascinating stuff !
Real Scootter
December 21st, 2012
2:34 pm
My bad…I didn’t go to the link and read it as if it were coming from you directly…I stand chastised…
Oh crap,I didn’t either josef!
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
December 21st, 2012
2:34 pm
Doggone:
Please read my 2:27 (or not).
Joe Hussein Mama
December 21st, 2012
2:35 pm
R. Scootter — “Nice to hear a voice of reason during a riot! Whew! There is common ground somewhere I hope.”
It just seems to me that some few individuals do have legitimate reasons to buy and use more ammo, especially in common hunting calibers and configurations. I don’t see why people in that boat couldn’t have some sort of exception made for them.
Recon 0311 2533
December 21st, 2012
2:35 pm
Wayne LaPierre is correct. The most important priority is protecting our children not furthering the political agendas of mealy mouthed politicians. The most effective way to protect our children from deranged killers is armed security personnel in each school. They don’t need to be uniformed they can be plain clothed and outwardly appear as staff employees. That plus state of the art access control and monitoring can protect our children and be far more effective than passing unenforceable legislation. Of course the left is far more concerned with anti-gun rhetoric than they are with protecting our children.
stands for decibels
December 21st, 2012
2:35 pm
I stand chastised…
no problem. oh, and josef, you (and others) might find the email from a 2nd grade NYC teacher, shared by Rude Pundit in today’s post, to hit fairly close to home. a taste:
I could get involved in the gun control debate or the mental health conversation or any choice of the myriad topics available based on my personal connection to the tragedy– but day by day they become more and more tangential and less a central part of the conversation I’m really interested in having. How do I help my kids understand that they can all be the helpers? Not just to clean up after the horrific messes made by others, but to elevate us all to be better.
As for my girls, they understood. They still feel safe…because they have no idea that I’m considering flinging them from a third story window in the event of an emergency.