- Joined
- Jan 10, 2009
- Messages
- 42,744
- Reaction score
- 22,569
- Location
- Bonners Ferry ID USA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Home boy just got himself on the watch list. Bet on it.
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.
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
Μολὼν λαβέ;1062233318 said:It just goes to show that freedom loving Constitutionalists are in the minority.
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?
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
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.
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.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.
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
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.