lawrocket 3 #26 December 21, 2012 QuoteCan you cite one one serious elected official that wants to confiscate every privately owned firearm in the country? No public position in support has been stated. There has been a call to get rid of "guns" in general. I don't know how getting rid of guns means not getting rid of guns. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #27 December 21, 2012 Now I’ll give you my own criticisms after reading the text of the statement: I thought the NRA statement was childish, whiney and wholly ineffective. The NRA had an idea – put armed police in schools. But they waited until the end to get to it. Before they got to the point they decided to attack: (1) those who said anything in the last week; (2) the insane; (3) the criminals; (4) the media; (5) the video game industry; (6) film and television studios; (7) other undefined society members and their moral failings; (8) Presidential budget priorities; (9) foreign aid; (10) the health care system; (11) etc… Nice, going, dumbasses. You just gave in excess of ten reasons to debate shit unrelated to your proposal. You’ve painted the NRA as victims. You’ve painted the others as immoral. You’ve painted yourselves as the keepers of the “truth” that others will not see at best, and, at worst are out there to suppress and deny it. The NRA fucking blew it. To put it in a term that the NRA can understand, they didn’t go with a one-shot one-kill statement about the proposal but instead went full auto and sprayed the fucking spectrum of ideas. The NRA did not aim center mass but decided on including ancillary targets. Turn out the lights, the party is over. It’s no wonder the NRA is viewed as nothing more than a bunch of gun-toting nimrods. The NRA has lived up to its stereotype as the crazy uncle whose occasional good ideas are lost in a sea of weird shit. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #28 December 21, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteThe left? So no taxes to pay for guards, we can just use the money from food stamps. We can't afford food but we can afford bullets. Fucking awesome! Now this is an interesting twist Why do you hate school children so much? What a stupid childish comment, I HAVE school children. I have no problem with well trained professional PAID armed security. That costs money and that means TAXES> The problem with you looney tunes right wing nut jobs is you want every thing for free. You freeloaders want big military and war just so long as you don't have to actually PAY for it. Armed security guards? Sure, but no funding for it because that would be communism. Why do you hate America so much? I no longer have children in school. And I am already on record here stating I would pay more property taxes to support armed school guards So much for a loony tunes left wing anti gunner nut mind reading skills oh and btw If is comes to America or my children (even grown) I will go with my children You can give yours over to the gov if you want to Leave mine alone"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kawisixer01 0 #29 December 21, 2012 Quote Quote Quote Quote The man seems to have no idea of what scale he's talking about. Nor do the "disarm" folks. Assuming 300 million guns in the US. like you, I'll go lowball and assume $500 per gun to seize them. That's $150,000,000,000 to eliminate the guns. $150 billion dollars. Can you cite one one serious elected official that wants to confiscate every privately owned firearm in the country? In all honesty, I think your cost estimates for complete confiscation were a bit on the high side, I think with UN help we could do it much cheaper. Ah yes a foreign entity coming on US soil to revoke and stomp on a right guaranteed by the US constitution at what I'm sure would be gunpoint behind shields and riot gear. How ironic that you see nothing wrong with that. You would likely have to send foreign forces, because I don't know one single person serving in uniform that would consider such orders lawful, nor would they feel they are upholding the constitution they swore to uphold. I'm sure that wouldn't fire up the civilian people for a civil war. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,340 #30 December 21, 2012 QuoteQuoteCan you cite one one serious elected official that wants to confiscate every privately owned firearm in the country? No public position in support has been stated. There has been a call to get rid of "guns" in general. I don't know how getting rid of guns means not getting rid of guns. Well, in the early 90s Feinstein went on 60 Minutes and said that if she could get the votes, she would have banned "assault weapons" completely. As in "Mr and Mrs America, turn them all in." Admittedly, not all guns completely. But still very much confiscation. http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/openforum/article/2nd-Amendment-Mr-and-Mrs-America-turn-them-2813319.php"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ManagingPrime 0 #31 December 21, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThe man seems to have no idea of what scale he's talking about. Nor do the "disarm" folks. Assuming 300 million guns in the US. like you, I'll go lowball and assume $500 per gun to seize them. That's $150,000,000,000 to eliminate the guns. $150 billion dollars. Can you cite one one serious elected official that wants to confiscate every privately owned firearm in the country? In all honesty, I think your cost estimates for complete confiscation were a bit on the high side, I think with UN help we could do it much cheaper. That's a joke right? I tend to roll my eyes when I hear people talk of america being on the brink of a civil war, but I guarantee you that if there are any plans for confiscation there will be a great loss of human life and the costs would be more in the trillions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 18 #32 December 21, 2012 Tell me Was it (putting police in schools) a better idea when this guy proposed it? http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/12/21/Flashback-Clinton-Cops-in-Schools"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jclalor 12 #33 December 22, 2012 I was being just a bit sarcastic about the UN. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jclalor 12 #34 December 22, 2012 If is comes to America or my children (even grown) I will go with my children You can give yours over to the gov if you want to*** Leave mine alone Now their coming for your kids? You guys are too much. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #32 December 21, 2012 Tell me Was it (putting police in schools) a better idea when this guy proposed it? http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/12/21/Flashback-Clinton-Cops-in-Schools"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jclalor 12 #33 December 22, 2012 I was being just a bit sarcastic about the UN. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jclalor 12 #34 December 22, 2012 If is comes to America or my children (even grown) I will go with my children You can give yours over to the gov if you want to*** Leave mine alone Now their coming for your kids? You guys are too much. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 125 #35 December 22, 2012 the cost stated will be salaries alone. Not training, not body armor, not maintaining police practical training, not the liability of what happens when a gun accidentally goes off, or someone else gets a hold of that 'cops' gun or the cop is the first one shot, or whatever. There are hundreds of things wrong with it Gun people like to dream up fantasy scenarios of why they need a gun and why it is so important and 'just in case' and all that. I like to dream up scenarios where we DON'T actually need the guns, and they are just as valid. Putting more guns in schools is about the dumbest-ass idea ever proposed. Good the the NRA is not on the NYSE, I would not be betting on it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #36 December 22, 2012 QuoteNow I’ll give you my own criticisms after reading the text of the statement: I thought the NRA statement was childish, whiney and wholly ineffective. The NRA had an idea – put armed police in schools. But they waited until the end to get to it. Before they got to the point they decided to attack: (1) those who said anything in the last week; (2) the insane; (3) the criminals; (4) the media; (5) the video game industry; (6) film and television studios; (7) other undefined society members and their moral failings; (8) Presidential budget priorities; (9) foreign aid; (10) the health care system; (11) etc… Nice, going, dumbasses. You just gave in excess of ten reasons to debate shit unrelated to your proposal. You’ve painted the NRA as victims. You’ve painted the others as immoral. You’ve painted yourselves as the keepers of the “truth” that others will not see at best, and, at worst are out there to suppress and deny it. The NRA fucking blew it. To put it in a term that the NRA can understand, they didn’t go with a one-shot one-kill statement about the proposal but instead went full auto and sprayed the fucking spectrum of ideas. The NRA did not aim center mass but decided on including ancillary targets. Turn out the lights, the party is over. It’s no wonder the NRA is viewed as nothing more than a bunch of gun-toting nimrods. The NRA has lived up to its stereotype as the crazy uncle whose occasional good ideas are lost in a sea of weird shit. This pretty much sums up my view of what the NRA just did, and did not do. To plagiarize a phrase, the NRA never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JerryBaumchen 1,047 #37 December 22, 2012 Hi tk, QuoteI like to dream up scenarios where we DON'T actually need the guns, and they are just as valid. I'm with you. Take a look here: http://www.demandaplan.org/ JerryBaumchen Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matthewcline 0 #38 December 25, 2012 Interesting, they mention "illegal" guns over and over. MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
regulator 0 #39 December 26, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteHave you any criticism of the proposed efficacy of the announced plan? How did that armed guard at Columbine work out? The guard worked about as well as the assault rifle ban during that time did. Clebold and Harris used other weapons and got the same results. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,121 #40 December 27, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteHave you any criticism of the proposed efficacy of the announced plan? How did that armed guard at Columbine work out? The guard worked about as well as the assault rifle ban during that time did. Clebold and Harris used other weapons and got the same results. So the ban worked, since the banned guns were not used. The armed guard did not work, since the shooting still took place. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matthewcline 0 #41 December 27, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteHave you any criticism of the proposed efficacy of the announced plan? How did that armed guard at Columbine work out? The guard worked about as well as the assault rifle ban during that time did. Clebold and Harris used other weapons and got the same results. So the ban worked, since the banned guns were not used. The armed guard did not work, since the shooting still took place. The Guard was not in the area, but did return and end the shooting, wasn't that what was posted earlier? MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,121 #42 December 27, 2012 QuoteThe Guard was not in the area, but did return and end the shooting, wasn't that what was posted earlier? So the armed guard did not prevent the shooting. A gun ban prevented the banned guns from being used in the shooting. The answer is more armed guards? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
regulator 0 #43 December 27, 2012 How's the weather under that bridge? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
