« First « Previous Comments 260 - 299 of 1,445 Next » Last » Search these comments
I'm trying to imigine a school shooting with lots of teachers who aren't very good shots spraying around bullets in rooms full o kids. Probably shooting at other teachers because they saw someone with a gun and just blasted away.
Israel implemented the armed teacher solution back in the 70s. How many mass shootings has Israel had at its schools in the past 2 decades?
anon_23b8e saysI'm trying to imigine a school shooting with lots of teachers who aren't very good shots spraying around bullets in rooms full o kids. Probably shooting at other teachers because they saw someone with a gun and just blasted away.
Does it get any more delusional than that, gun haters have zero knowledge, education and logic on training, but instead, make ridiculous statements like this. CNN is definitely doing a great job keeping their viewers ignorant.
Teacher's don't have to be "great shots", they just need to be a deterrent. If they can fire in the direction of the shooter, even if they don't score hits, they have the effect of pinning down the shooter who more than likely isn't going to run face first into return fire.
But teachers are going to do better?
bob2356 saysBut teachers are going to do better?
Is it better to have a gun in a gunfight or no gun in a gunfight?
CBOEtrader saysbob2356 saysBut teachers are going to do better?
Is it better to have a gun in a gunfight or no gun in a gunfight?
Depends on if you are a bystander who catches a bullet doesn't it?
Why isn't anyone explaining how the swat team will tell the shooter from the teachers in the middle of total chaos? Just a small tiny little detail that is being skipped over by all the rambo wanna be's including our 5 time drafter dodger president who is now going to take on a shooter with an ar-15 bare handed. In real life they would be hiding behind something crying with their pants full of crap and piss Talk is cheap.
CBOEtrader saysbob2356 saysBut teachers are going to do better?
Is it better to have a gun in a gunfight or no gun in a gunfight?
Depends on if you are a bystander who catches a bullet doesn't it?
Why isn't anyone explaining how the swat team will tell the shooter from the teachers in the middle of total chaos?
Why isn't anyone explaining how the swat team will tell the shooter from the teachers in the middle of total chaos?
Arms are guns. Learn historical context.
the 2nd Amendment does not guarantee citizens the right to own whatever weapons they choose.
Interesting. I do not know, but in 1820, a time when the writers and original interpreters of the Constitution were still around, was a common person allowed to own a cannon? They were allowed to be Privateers, owning fully equipped warships.
www.youtube.com/embed/BUIebrUgJTI
Oh man, that is so wrong somehow, but I loved it. Especially how they jiggle a bit after each shot.
However, I think some new restrictions are OK but others will argue.
I think if you are too young to rent a car, you are too young to own a gun over 22 calibre.
That is, I think gun ownership from 18-25 should be severely restricted by calibre.
That maniac in Las Vegas is an exception a
I think if you are too young to rent a car, you are too young to own a gun over 22 calibre.
That is, I think gun ownership from 18-25 should be severely restricted by calibre.
« First « Previous Comments 260 - 299 of 1,445 Next » Last » Search these comments
"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."
Couple things to note in there:
1. The specific mention of a militia being the reason for the need to bear arms.
2. The 2nd Amendment never mentions the word gun at all.
So, what exactly is the definition of "arms"?
In 1755 Dr. Johnson’s Dictionary of the English Language was first published. It defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.”
Weapons of offence would seem to include pretty much anything and everything, from knives to nuclear weapons. The US has already seen fit to ban some weapons of offence so the 2nd Amendment clearly has not been interpreted strictly as meaning that the US cannot ban all "arms". Therefore, the 2nd Amendment does not guarantee citizens the right to own whatever weapons they choose.
So it then becomes a question of which weapons should be banned, which should be strictly regulated, and which should be lightly regulated or not at all. Like anything else, we should weigh an individual's right with society's right. When looked at in that manner, it becomes very difficult to justify why fully automatic or semi automatic rifles should be allowed. What purpose do they serve an individual? And why would that purpose outweigh the extreme damage those weapons have cased society??
Patrick thinks the Chamber of Commerce is the worst organization, and he may be correct, but the NRA is not far behind.