5 5
kallend

More sacrifices to the 2nd Amendment

Recommended Posts

18 hours ago, BIGUN said:

Makes no sense. It's called utilizing best practices. You don't have to ship all of the issues that Israel has over here to use those things that work.  

 

35 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

I am to where I think we should lock down schools, surround them with high cinder block fences topped with razor wire, put armed guards and metal detectors at every entrance, and strip search every kid on arrival. Let’s make obvious what a damn farce the gun laws and culture are in America. Same at every grocery store, concert, and ball game, and especially so at car tracks. Maybe inconveniencing everyone with disrupted personal freedoms and huge tax bills at the sacrifice or more freedom and valuable services will get the point across. 

Joe, I thought that you were just getting slow on the uptake lately. In Israel they obviously don't have the "strip searches". I think you're just being a little facetious on that sentence. But otherwise your post would be right on target to what BIGUN has been saying all along.

Many Israeli grocery stores have private contractors at the front door with a AR-15. To check and scrutinize customers. Bars and schools same thing. Anywhere where people gather and can be attacked there are armed private contractors. Who search anyone suspicious. Ready to kill transgressors.

Israel Restaurants Put Security At the Top of the Dinner Menu

"Israeli law currently requires a guard in schools of 100 or more students. These guards are generally employed by private security companies, while the Israel Police (the country's civilian police force) have overall responsibility for guidance, oversight, and control for the entire security system of educational institutions, from kindergartens through universities. The law permits certain individuals to carry firearms in schools....the Israeli Ministry of Education has provided funding to (1) construct shelters and fences, (2) add reinforced protection to school buses, (3) hire and train security guards, and (4) provide professional psychological care to treat students' emotional reactions to terrorist attacks. Armed security guards sometimes accompany students on field trips,"

Its time to end the ignorance of the obvious. Gay or straight bars need contracted heavily armed guards. Same with schools, churches, workplaces, political offices, etc.

Anything to protect the sanctity of the 2nd amendment. God bless America and the right to hold dear the gun. Because without a gun freedom won't exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

 

Joe, I thought that you were just getting slow on the uptake lately. In Israel they obviously don't have the "strip searches". I think you're just being a little facetious on that sentence. But otherwise your post would be right on target to what BIGUN has been saying all along.

Many Israeli grocery stores have private contractors at the front door with a AR-15. To check and scrutinize customers. Bars and schools same thing. Anywhere where people gather and can be attacked there are armed private contractors. Who search anyone suspicious. Ready to kill transgressors.

Israel Restaurants Put Security At the Top of the Dinner Menu

"Israeli law currently requires a guard in schools of 100 or more students. These guards are generally employed by private security companies, while the Israel Police (the country's civilian police force) have overall responsibility for guidance, oversight, and control for the entire security system of educational institutions, from kindergartens through universities. The law permits certain individuals to carry firearms in schools....the Israeli Ministry of Education has provided funding to (1) construct shelters and fences, (2) add reinforced protection to school buses, (3) hire and train security guards, and (4) provide professional psychological care to treat students' emotional reactions to terrorist attacks. Armed security guards sometimes accompany students on field trips,"

Its time to end the ignorance of the obvious. Gay or straight bars need contracted heavily armed guards. Same with schools, churches, workplaces, political offices, etc.

Anything to protect the sanctity of the 2nd amendment. God bless America and the right to hold dear the gun. Because without a gun freedom won't exist.

Okay, we don’t strip search the kids. But the rest let’s do: match ridiculous with more ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
On 4/26/2023 at 2:35 AM, BIGUN said:

Much indeed. They haven't had a school shooting since '72 or '74?

It's an incredibly US-centric mindset to view this as particularly unusual. It may not be comprehensive but this is Wikipedia's list of European school shootings. A few in Germany and Finland unfortunately, but one in the UK in the '90s. One Islamic terror attack in France this century. One University attack in Denmark in the '90s. Spain? Italy? Austria? Switzerland? Nope. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:School_shootings_in_Europe

And interestingly Wikipedia does list one attack that it (questionably) classes as a school shooting in Israel this century, and it was carried out at a military academy. Yes, you heard that right, a military academy full of armed soldiers. 

The other problem with the armed guard 'solution' is you're mostly just going to push the attacks elsewhere. I don't think that most school shooters particularly hate kids or teachers, they just want to make an impact. So if schools are harder they'll go to churches, and synagoges, and banks, and nightclubs, and Walmarts, and music festivals, and etc. etc. And ok great, a bunch of adults getting killed is maybe better than a bunch of children getting killed, but it's hardly the ideal to be aiming for.

Edited by jakee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/22/2023 at 5:53 AM, wolfriverjoe said:

I'd love to know what that 'autopsy report' REALLY said.

I know quite a bit about guns. I know how they function and operate.

I'm not aware of any mechanical "joints", and I don't know of any part called the 'trigger control'.

It's possible the sear was worn to the point that the hammer would drop without the trigger being pressed, but there's supposed to be a 'half cock' that prevents the gun from firing if that happens. Most modern guns (or modern replicas of older guns) also have an 'interrupter bar' that prevents the hammer from hitting the firing pin (or the firing pin reaching the primer on the cartridge) if the trigger isn't all the way back.

But, as noted previously, there should NEVER have been a live cartridge in the gun. Period.

Most instructors don't allow ANY live ammunition in the same room when using real firearms in a training situation.

I remember the summer of 1974 at Canadian Forces Base Valcartier. Some hwo a live grenade got mixed in with a box of dummies that were being used during a lecture at the cadet camp down the hill. A cadet pulled the pin on the live grenade and it killed a few cadets. I knew a few of the cadets who were in the room at the time.

Bottom line, live ammo should never be allowed in a classroom.

Live ammo should only be allowed on a designated range.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

I am to where I think we should lock down schools, surround them with high cinder block fences topped with razor wire, put armed guards and metal detectors at every entrance, and strip search every kid on arrival. Let’s make obvious what a damn farce the gun laws and culture are in America. Same at every grocery store, concert, and ball game, and especially so at car tracks. Maybe inconveniencing everyone with disrupted personal freedoms and huge tax bills at the sacrifice or more freedom and valuable services will get the point across. 

I got a better idea.

Replace the TSA with the 'T&P'.

Set up small chapels for all the religions, plus a non-denominational one for the agnostics, plus a simple lounge for the atheists to relax.

Obviously, since 'thoughts and prayers' are such an appropriate response to kids getting murdered, it should be an appropriate way of keeping terrorists out of the skies.

Right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, riggerrob said:

Bottom line, live ammo should never be allowed in a classroom.

That's a rule only needed for beta males who can't handle real-man weapons.  All REAL conservatives train with live ammunition so they can respond to (for example) a drag queen appearing in their midst, intent on corrupting their children.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

I got a better idea.

Replace the TSA with the 'T&P'.

Set up small chapels for all the religions, plus a non-denominational one for the agnostics, plus a simple lounge for the atheists to relax.

Obviously, since 'thoughts and prayers' are such an appropriate response to kids getting murdered, it should be an appropriate way of keeping terrorists out of the skies.

Right?

Facebook post

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

That’s a National level decision, as school funding should be but is not.

I admittedly don't know much about federal school funding. Just know that our property taxes are significantly more than other areas and our local school system is quite "affluent." Enough so, that we have full-time campus police, etc. etc. But, of course, these luxuries come to those that can afford it. 

My question would be - when it comes to protecting school children; why does that not fall under the welfare clause of the constitution. How is it that we could develop an entire TSA in about 8 minutes due to 3,000 people being killed at the twin towers and all the other peripheral things in the name of public security, but we can't protect children in schools.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

How is it that we could develop an entire TSA in about 8 minutes due to 3,000 people being killed at the twin towers and all the other peripheral things in the name of public security, but we can't protect children in schools.

I'm guessing thats a rhetorical question

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BIGUN said:

Not at all. 

In which case, you CAN protect people in schools, just about every country in the civilised world has managed it, there are just far too many people with money invested in not wanting to do so, mainly on the right hand side of the isle, but the left is not blameless either.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BIGUN said:

Not at all. 

The reason you can not protect children from random events like school shootings is that they are so random. Even if you do put armed guards in the schools you just shift the target either to softer ones or to taking out the guardians first. You know what the root of the problem is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

The reason you can not protect children from random events like school shootings is that they are so random. Even if you do put armed guards in the schools you just shift the target either to softer ones or to taking out the guardians first. You know what the root of the problem is.

He does, and he’s also working to address that. This is an interim, and a big selling point of reducing the number of guns would be tying school protection costs to reduction in gun numbers.

Any more, I’m kind of happy there’s TSA to keep guns out of air carrier cabins

Wendy P. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, wmw999 said:

He does, and he’s also working to address that.

He is not. Last I heard is that he still considers the Bill of Rights and therefore the 2nd Amendment to be essential parts of the nation. I agree that he is proposing controls that would be helpful if they could be implemented. But they can not. The root problem is the 2nd Amendment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

His proposals are more likely to be implemented than repealing the second amendment. Period.

Wendy P. 

Well, I suppose you have some reason to think that. But the SCOTUS does not agree with you or him. They seem to be taking the Charlton Heston position. Namely "from my cold dead hands". So I have come to the conclusion that both are equally unlikely. The ERA couldn't get passed either. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
On 4/26/2023 at 1:47 PM, BIGUN said:

Makes no sense. It's called utilizing best practices. You don't have to ship all of the issues that Israel has over here to use those things that work.  

Agree. I agree with most all of your ideas on guns and gun control This latest idea i think you've missed the target on.

On 4/26/2023 at 2:00 PM, Stumpy said:

Yeah and israels best practice includes low rates of private gun ownership and strict controls on what they are used for, as well as social democratic policies to pay for all the guards, walls etc. You don't have to ship their issues, but you do have to ship the rest of the solution.

IMO you can cherry pick the best ideas from Israel. But terrorism, for them is far more an issue than just guns. Armed guards in schools and other frequent targets isn't one solution for America that will work. AFAIK.

On 4/26/2023 at 3:59 PM, JoeWeber said:

As long as we’re fantasizing, who in rural red state America, where we have a problem with gays, genders, books, liberals and Bud Light but not guns, is going to vote more taxes on themselves to pay for a problem that can be addressed with free hopes and prayers?

This is where the rubber meets the road for guns in America. For every person willing to start a compromise like BIGUN. There are two who can't like Brent and wolfriverjoe. Brent who espouses NRA and GOP views. Joe who usually has the practical answers why single responses won't address the whole issue.

Canadian liberals, our current government. has just announced the Canadian left's idea on gun control. They are spending $1 billion to buy up "assault rifles" from gun stores. They will pay up to $6500 per gun. i.e. Sig 550. In order to start the assault weapons ban program.

Instead of selling the guns to willing US buyers. With appropriate ATF permits of course. Instead of giving them to Ukraine. Equally good idea. They will be destroyed. Meanwhile Canadians are waiting up to two years on surgery waiting lists.

Earlier this month "Canada spending $59M on assault rifles, machine guns for Ukraine, Canada is spending $59 million to procure for Ukraine 21,000 assault rifles and machine guns, along with ammunition, from weapons maker Colt Canada," These would be Colt M-4 rifles.

Edited by Phil1111

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Phil1111 said:

For every person willing to start a compromise like BIGUN. There are two who can't like Brent and wolfriverjoe... Joe who usually has the practical answers why single responses won't address the whole issue.

I'd be willing to consider measures that would ACTUALLY MAKE A DIFFERENCE.

Unfortunately, I haven't seen a single proposal that isn't anything more than 'security theater'. 
It's the old 'Do something, do ANYTHING to make us feel safe!!!' 
Even if it doesn't make any difference.

Someone mentioned airlines & the TSA a few posts up (not my sarcastic one).

Remember October 2001?

No toenail clippers, no lapel pins that were miniature guns, no nothing that even looked like it could be a threat. Even if it was totally harmless. Even Bic lighters.
Totally fucking stupid, totally useless, total 'theater'.

Remember also, how many people managed to sneak stuff like box cutters and knives on board? 

Remember the shoe bomber? 
So now everyone has to take off their shoes.

Remember the plot in London to blow up the airliners over the North Pole with binary liquid explosives?
And in the aftermath, liquids were sharply restricted.

I'm somewhat surprised that nobody has attempted to smuggle an explosive device shoved up their butt. 
I don't want to see what the aftermath of that would look like.

I haven't flown commercial airlines in over 20 years. Mostly because I have no reason to, but partly because of the stupidity.

And, back to gun control, as I noted earlier - It's a dangerous issue for politicians to take up.

If the Ds manage to pass restrictive gun laws (which is very unlikely to happen), they'd be in serious danger of getting voted out of office. 
Which would put the Rs back in control.

The Rs taking both houses in 96 (and putting Gingrich in as Speaker) was horrible for the country. I supported it at the time because I was largely a single issue voter. I didn't see the danger the Rs posed to our country and our society. 

Not going to make that mistake again.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

I'd be willing to consider measures that would ACTUALLY MAKE A DIFFERENCE.

Unfortunately, I haven't seen a single proposal that isn't anything more than 'security theater'. 
It's the old 'Do something, do ANYTHING to make us feel safe!!!' 
Even if it doesn't make any difference.

Someone mentioned airlines & the TSA a few posts up (not my sarcastic one).

Remember October 2001?

No toenail clippers, no lapel pins that were miniature guns, no nothing that even looked like it could be a threat. Even if it was totally harmless. Even Bic lighters.
Totally fucking stupid, totally useless, total 'theater'.

Remember also, how many people managed to sneak stuff like box cutters and knives on board? 

Remember the shoe bomber? 
So now everyone has to take off their shoes.

Remember the plot in London to blow up the airliners over the North Pole with binary liquid explosives?
And in the aftermath, liquids were sharply restricted.

I'm somewhat surprised that nobody has attempted to smuggle an explosive device shoved up their butt. 
I don't want to see what the aftermath of that would look like.

I haven't flown commercial airlines in over 20 years. Mostly because I have no reason to, but partly because of the stupidity.

And, back to gun control, as I noted earlier - It's a dangerous issue for politicians to take up.

If the Ds manage to pass restrictive gun laws (which is very unlikely to happen), they'd be in serious danger of getting voted out of office. 
Which would put the Rs back in control.

The Rs taking both houses in 96 (and putting Gingrich in as Speaker) was horrible for the country. I supported it at the time because I was largely a single issue voter. I didn't see the danger the Rs posed to our country and our society. 

Not going to make that mistake again.

You have plenty of reason to fly commercially: that’s how you get to the countries you are fond of discussing here, including making up names for their leaders as if you were familiar. Sorry to tell you but that is stereotypical American even if you do hold a valid passport which I doubt. You aren’t too old, you work and get time off, you need to get out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

5 5