• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Sandy hook father owns congress

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
66,508
Reaction score
37,760
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian

Kal'Stang

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
42,744
Reaction score
22,569
Location
Bonners Ferry ID USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Yeah, the only time politicians actually "care" about Constitutional Rights and freedom is when their own pocketbooks are threatened such as in Oak Harbor...

 

CalGun

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 7, 2012
Messages
7,039
Reaction score
3,268
Location
Denio Junction
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Come on, they don't need a watch list anymore they just watch everyone :)

I notice this is on "C-T-N" but not CNN, shocking he's not invited on Peirs Morgan's show like
he did the sister and mom of the teacher at Sandy Hook who apparently died trying to shield
children - bless her.




Home boy just got himself on the watch list. Bet on it.
 

American

Constitutionalist
Bartender
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
88,863
Reaction score
27,930
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Home boy just got himself on the watch list. Bet on it.
All conservative types are on a list, just check out the NSA and IRS.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
250,734
Reaction score
75,494
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
All conservative types are on a list, just check out the NSA and IRS.
If everyone who owned a gun joined the NRA schumer and the rest of those cockroaches would be calling up Wayne LaPierre and asking his position and guidance on amy proposed bill
 

Μολὼν λαβέ

Si vis pacem, para bellum
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2011
Messages
6,914
Reaction score
3,671
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
That was a great statement of the theory of individual constitutional rights and freedom, but has stopped nothing. Look what his "freedom loving" state gov't of Connecticut has passed anyway. It will now be left up to the courts (also normally staffed by via the same elected morons that made these gun laws) to stop (reverse?) them.

Gun laws in Connecticut - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It just goes to show that freedom loving Constitutionalists are in the minority.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
66,508
Reaction score
37,760
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Μολὼν λαβέ;1062233318 said:
It just goes to show that freedom loving Constitutionalists are in the minority.
That is precisely the situation that the constitution was designed to protect us from. Of course, we could be like Egypt and simply allow the leader last selected by majority vote to simply declare the old rules null and void and make up new ones. ;)
 

a351

#NeverTrump
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2011
Messages
6,902
Reaction score
4,825
Location
Space Coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Good on him for speaking his mind. I will say it's amusing to see the same crowd that belittled and labeled the Sandy Hook parents who aided in the push for stricter gun laws as pawns and in some cases malicious welcome this mans input with open arms. Strange isn't it?
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
250,734
Reaction score
75,494
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Good on him for speaking his mind. I will say it's amusing to see the same crowd that belittled and labeled the Sandy Hook parents who aided in the push for stricter gun laws as pawns and in some cases malicious welcome this mans input with open arms. Strange isn't it?
not at all, this man is not trying to limit the rights of honest people or punish others in order to feel better about a crappy situation.

big difference
 

Kal'Stang

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
42,744
Reaction score
22,569
Location
Bonners Ferry ID USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Good on him for speaking his mind. I will say it's amusing to see the same crowd that belittled and labeled the Sandy Hook parents who aided in the push for stricter gun laws as pawns and in some cases malicious welcome this mans input with open arms. Strange isn't it?
not at all, this man is not trying to limit the rights of honest people or punish others in order to feel better about a crappy situation.

big difference
What TD said.
 

Rainman05

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 14, 2012
Messages
10,032
Reaction score
4,964
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
He raised a good point. Not in regards to gun control, but in regards school protection. However, there is an issue.

Lets look at another institution, the banks. Most banks have unarmed security. the reason why most banks have unarmed security is simple. Because if a criminal wants to rob a bank, and he knows the security guard has a gun, the first thing he'll do when he gets into the bank is kill the guard. If the guard would be unarmed, the chances of him being shot are very, very low if he obeys and does what the criminals tell him to do. Which is what you need to do if you are unarmed and in a dangerous situation. The criminal wants the money, quick in and out.

So... if you provide state-sponsored security at school, and you give them guns, then you are faced with another issue. How many security guards? One? Two? Three? more? The logical answer would be: depending on the area and the crime in that area. Logical yes, but does it prevent another sandy hook? sandy hook wasn't in a dangerous area. So you'd think that you will provide 1 armed security guard in low-risk areas and more in inner-city schools where violence and risk of shootings is logically greater. But if you give just 1 guard to a low-risk school... then the first thing a murderer will do when he starts going on a rampage, unless he is a psychopath who doesn't have an objective, is kill the armed security guard and then start doing more murders. So to counter that you'd normally say: well, then have 2 guards in low risk areas and more than 2 in higher risk areas. Fine, but you increase the cost then, don't you?

So yeah, it's a whole debate. And to know what stance one should take optimally requires a great deal work to go in the details. inflamatory, self-righteous arguments that briefly touch on the subject won't do. If you want to demand something of your government, make a half-assed demand, get a half-assed solution if any. Make a strong, detailed argument that they can't poke holes into, the odds of getting a good solution increase.
 

Kal'Stang

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
42,744
Reaction score
22,569
Location
Bonners Ferry ID USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
He raised a good point. Not in regards to gun control, but in regards school protection. However, there is an issue.

Lets look at another institution, the banks. Most banks have unarmed security. the reason why most banks have unarmed security is simple. Because if a criminal wants to rob a bank, and he knows the security guard has a gun, the first thing he'll do when he gets into the bank is kill the guard. If the guard would be unarmed, the chances of him being shot are very, very low if he obeys and does what the criminals tell him to do. Which is what you need to do if you are unarmed and in a dangerous situation. The criminal wants the money, quick in and out.
One of the reasons that I would advise banks to hire a security crew that watches camera screens much like casino's do. But I do get your point.

So... if you provide state-sponsored security at school, and you give them guns, then you are faced with another issue. How many security guards? One? Two? Three? more? The logical answer would be: depending on the area and the crime in that area. Logical yes, but does it prevent another sandy hook? sandy hook wasn't in a dangerous area. So you'd think that you will provide 1 armed security guard in low-risk areas and more in inner-city schools where violence and risk of shootings is logically greater. But if you give just 1 guard to a low-risk school... then the first thing a murderer will do when he starts going on a rampage, unless he is a psychopath who doesn't have an objective, is kill the armed security guard and then start doing more murders. So to counter that you'd normally say: well, then have 2 guards in low risk areas and more than 2 in higher risk areas. Fine, but you increase the cost then, don't you?
There are pro's and con's to practically everything in this entire world. Indeed I don't know of anything that doesn't have a both pro's and con's. But in the case of your arguement here...its actually a good arguement as to why the staff, including teachers, should be legally able to conceal carry. Can't initially target specific people when you don't know who those specific people are. ;) But that too has its pro's and con's. ;) We do not live in a perfect society.

So yeah, it's a whole debate. And to know what stance one should take optimally requires a great deal work to go in the details. inflamatory, self-righteous arguments that briefly touch on the subject won't do. If you want to demand something of your government, make a half-assed demand, get a half-assed solution if any. Make a strong, detailed argument that they can't poke holes into, the odds of getting a good solution increase.
I agree. But like I said, there are pro's and con's to everything. There will always be those that will always point to the con's as to the reason that private citizens should not be allowed to carry guns...be it in certain settings or just in general...and totally ignore the pro's in order to push their own (usually biased) agenda.
 

a351

#NeverTrump
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2011
Messages
6,902
Reaction score
4,825
Location
Space Coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
not at all, this man is not trying to limit the rights of honest people or punish others in order to feel better about a crappy situation.

big difference
The Parents in question were supporting enhanced background checks. There wasn't a removal of rights or "punishment" on the table. The fact of the matter is that those parents were labeled as political prostitutes, dupes and in some cases worse, all while being criticized for merely using their position to speak to political venues, while this gentleman is being greeted as a conscientious citizen largely due to the fact that you and others agree with his particular stance, and disagree with the former.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
250,734
Reaction score
75,494
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
The Parents in question were supporting enhanced background checks. There wasn't a removal of rights or "punishment" on the table. The fact of the matter is that those parents were labeled as political prostitutes, dupes and in some cases worse, all while being criticized for merely using their position to speak to political venues, while this gentleman is being greeted as a conscientious citizen largely due to the fact that you and others agree with his particular stance, and disagree with the former.

1) many of those parents wanted much more than that silly background check which would have done NOTHING to stop the massacre

2) many of those who lead the background check mania know that the only way to enforce that law is complete gun registration which of course is what they want
 

a351

#NeverTrump
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2011
Messages
6,902
Reaction score
4,825
Location
Space Coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
1) many of those parents wanted much more than that silly background check which would have done NOTHING to stop the massacre
So? The background checks are what was actually on the table, not the sinister, underhanded attempt at removing gun rights and laying punishment upon law abiding citizen as you asserted. You and many others labeled them as political prostitutes and maligned their very participation in the political arena, yet you welcome this individuals input because he supports your position. Cut and dry. Not really much to argue here :shrug:

2) many of those who lead the background check mania know that the only way to enforce that law is complete gun registration which of course is what they want
Pure Speculation. You're in no position to speculate as to the true motives of the Parents any more than I can label the man speaking in the OP as a paid NRA shill.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
250,734
Reaction score
75,494
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
So? The background checks are what was actually on the table, not the sinister, underhanded attempt at removing gun rights and laying punishment upon law abiding citizen as you asserted. You and many others labeled them as political prostitutes and maligned their very participation in the political arena, yet you welcome this individuals input because he supports your position. Cut and dry. Not really much to argue here :shrug:



Pure Speculation. You're in no position to speculate as to the true motives of the Parents any more than I can label the man speaking in the OP as a paid NRA shill.
, the anti gun movement is one of incrementalism. Every current "reasonable proposal" is nothing more than a step towards more and more restrictions. Every time those assholes have passed a law, the first thing they say is that it is a GOOD FIRST STEP.

The people I support are not trying to LIMIT the rights of others
 
Top Bottom