This post has been removed.

This post has been removed.

You hired off duty cops or most local PD's will likely provide security since they are charged with protecting the community and the school is part of the commuinity!

The POINT IS:

If these cowards who go after the weak and unarmed (school, cafeteria on an army base where guns are not allowed) they will most likely not go to a school if, they kjknow there is armed opposition!

We protect our money, businesses, car in parking lots with armed guards but, we get push back for using them to protect out kids??

That just shows that some people are more concerns with politics and gun laws than the safety of kids or others!!

Also, Columbine had an armed guard.

 

His name was Neil Gardner

In response to Newtster's comment:

Why would I fixate on the handgun?

The Supreme Court made clear that bans, or even restrictions that make it too hard to use a handgun for self defense, are unconstitutional in 2008. The case name was Heller.

But you knew that, right smart@ss?

 

 

 

Honestly you have no business engaging anyone beyond the fifth grade.

In response to tvoter's comment:

 

More goalpost shifting from the unintentional court jester. No, the point is not "mass shootings in schools."

 

It's: MASS SHOOTINGS IN GENERAL.

 

Try again, Einstein:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of course, I don't think it's occured to the "anything but my guns!" crowd that if we do follow tvoter's idea and convert all 99,000 K-12 schools to the equivalent of a low security prison camp, at large expense....

 

 

 

 

.....and if this actually works.....

 

 

 

 

 

 

...no no, you're supposed to wait for it. I'm building suspense.....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

......then,THE SHOOTERS WILL JUST

 

GO SOMEWHERE ELSE !

 

 

 

 

 

Like a mall or movie theatre, for example. Or a subway. Or really, anywhere you haven't put guards.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now, please repeat after me.........

 

 

 

DUH!

In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

True and he likely reduced the death toll by engaging the shooters, much like the argument that assault weapons ban would reduce the death toll!

This post has been removed.

It's hilarious watching Newtster and Tvoter pat themselves on the back while running away.

 

This post has been removed.

In response to tvoter's comment:

Well, no, not really. But I can understand why a person who is so brave they never admit when they're wrong would say that.....

 

 

 

But go on. Call me a "pusssy" again. That'll prove you right, big boy.

In response to Newtster's comment:

As I already said: Why would I fixate on the handgun?

The Supreme Court made clear that bans, or even restrictions that make it too hard to use a handgun for self defense, are unconstitutional in 2008. The case name was Heller.

 

But you knew that, right smart@ss?

 

 

I guess not, seeing as I had to post it twice.

I guess we should listen to conservative geniuses like newtard instead....     who apparently can overrule the Supreme Court.

 

 

This post has been removed.

This post has been removed.

Someone explain to me how Barney Fife is going to prevent a massacre?  Barney is in the section of the school for 6th graders when the shooter is on the other side of the building shooting up the first grade.  How does the armed guard prevent that?  And at the Columbine school, there were 2 kids loaded for bear.  How is the guy who is older than dust, who hasn't had any tactical training in 40 years going to prevent them for killing people?

And how does the armed school guard prevent the crazed lunatic with an AR-15 from shooting up the the cinema?  And when Gifford was shot, weren't there armed guards in the area?

Armed guards in the schools?  That's crazy.  The NRA is leading the led the way to a nation where we have armed guards around 5 year olds.  Nice nation.

In response to 12-Angry-Men's comment:

Those making such an argument are immoral @ssholes and they know it. That's why they spend so much time accusing liberals of being immoral: A fl@tulence screen.

 

 

 

 

(Yes, even scientific terms like fl@tulence are apparently now deemed profanity).

In response to Newtster's comment:

Newster has convinced me.  Ban handguns as well.

Newster seems to miss the point that crazies can't be stopped.  He seems to have missed the point that a hand gun with 6 rounds will do less damge than an assault rifle with 30 or even 100 rounds.  He seems to have missed that the Ban on Assault Rifles is the compromise between banning all fire arms and banning none. Logic is always lost of Newster. 

Hey Nutster - you're in a hallway.  On one end is a guy with a 9MM with a 6 round clip on the other end is a guy with an AR-15 with a 100 round clip.  Which way do you go?

In response to DirtyWaterLover's comment:

We can't without a constitutional amendment. That ain't happening.

In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

Well Nutster has a problem with the concept of comprising or of gray areas.  He doesn't understand that a Ban on Assault Rifles makes people feel safer without taking away people's right to compensate for certain inadequacies with the purchase a gun.

I feel sorry for people who have to own Assault Rifles in order to feel free.

What a CREEP !

As a society, we've already drawn lines on the right bear arms.  You can own a hand-gun or a shot-gun, but not an RPG, or a chemical or biological weapon.  So the only question now is do we consider a weapon that fires several rounds per second to be over that line, and I think the majority of society would say yes.

I still think addressing this through ammunition is a better way to go.  Every ammunition order should be subject to the same background checks as the initial gun permit.  But non-lethal ammunition like rubber bullets and shock rounds should be readily accessible.  These are actually better for self-defense - a shock round can neutralize a threat regardless of point of impact.  If a lethal round goes through an attacker's tissue without hitting bone, it may not even effect his / her shot.

If you're a marksman or a collector, the lethality of the ammo shouldn't matter.  If you're a hunter or rancher, you probably have a rifle or a shotgun - statistically, those pose less of a threat than knives, and a fraction of the danger of handguns.  If they did fall into the wrong hands, they are difficult to conceal.

What, really is the argument that an average citizen should have easy and unlimited access to lethal ammunition?  And is it an argument strong enough to create billions of dollars worth of new government spending on armed guards - not just for public schools (this latest incident) but for all public gathering places?

 

This post has been removed.

It seems that even some conservative lawmakers were left speechless by the NRA statement today.