Here we go again is right!
The one thing that is clear is that the Brown Shirt Media will publicize it to the moon which guarantees the next psychopath will be even more motivated to become the NEXT famous school shooter.
Why the talk of gun grabbing?
Doesn’t London’s Islamist mayor say that this sort of thing happens in any big city?
Put retired police and military to work as school security guards who are armed.
From the artilce: “And while everyone agrees mentally ill people shouldn’t be allowed to buy guns, how do we determine that someone is mentally ill until he does something that really proves it?”
According to some, anyone who wants to own a gun is too mentally ill to own one.
The gun grabbers want any new gun control restrictions to go to a fed court challenge.
Actual threats to kill, shoot up a location or victims, or similar threats provable by verifiable evidence such as videos, writings, or recorded statements made by a person should be in background checks as an outright block.
Do what Israel teachers do, arm the teachers.
Do not be confused when someone - as happened to me - says there has been 30 ‘mass shooting’ just this year. This is Newspeak. If there are 4 or more shootings during the same general time and in the same general area, you have a ‘mass shooting’.
No longer is a ‘mass shooting’ defined as one crazy guy shooting a bunch of people, but as 4 or more people shooting 4 or more people in the same city and roughly the same time.
MSN Newspeak.
If the news media had not made the Columbine school killers into media sensations, perhaps there would not have been so many that followed, Mr. Goldberg.
Do not further limit the Second Amendment rights without limiting the media’s First Amendment rights. The Left’s argument that no assault weapons be allowed because they didn’t exist when the Bill of Rights was written could also be applied to the First Amendment. Only newspapers and pamphlets would be allowed freedom of the press, because radio, television and computers did not exist at the time.
Echoing what Mark Levin spoke of on his radio show last pm.
Think of the security that our Congresscritters have-both federal and state. Think of the security of the White House and other federal sites.
Think of the security in place at airports.
And on and on. Guards, arms, metal detectors, fences, gates, locks.......
Not 100% secure, but in a free society 100% security is not attainable. Probably not attainable in any scenario.
His statement was, if we meet with our Congresscritters, ask them if our children deserve even a tenth of the security at schools that they do.
I agree. We need to provide security at schools.
All these mass shootings happened after the mental hospitals closed. Just saying.
One thing lost amongst the barrage of rhetoric - apparently there WAS an armed "School Resource Officer" in the school who claims "he didn't encounter the shooter".
My question is - What precisely was he doing while people were dying?
Notice how the Left never vents its rage against the lunatic who did the shooting and never wonders how Cruz was visited 39 times by local law enforcement, multiple government social workers, psychologists and educators, at huge taxpayer expense, and yet nothing was accomplished. They find it much easier and emotionally gratifying to blame an inanimate object and their political opponents.
And I’m sure Mr. Goldberg remembers when many high school students participated in rifle clubs and hunting. Yet these shoot ‘em up rampages were not happening in the schools back during those years. I got all sorts of pathetic remarks about how “they didn’t have Rambo types of guns back then, did they?” but people seem to have a hard time accepting that these incidents simply were not taking place back then as they’ve had in all of these recent years, regardless of what guns were or were not legally available.
There's that word again, need. I've read the 2nd Amendment many times. As I recall, the word "need" does not appear in any way, shape, or form in there.
People want to ban "assault rifles" because they sound scary and dangerous. Couple of problems with that - one, defining just what makes a rifle an "assault" rifle. It is a relatively subjective term. Two, even with all the various tragedies brought to us by the evil and insane, your chances of getting killed by a rifle - any kind of rifle, are somewhat less than your chances of being bludgeoned to death by a hammer from the local big box home improvement store. So statistically speaking and for efficiency's sake we should focus our energy on the bigger threats first - assault hammers.
People want to ban AR-15s any time they are used to commit a crime. Guess what, the AR-15 is the most popular rifle in America. Of course they are going to wind up in criminal's hands. Even if you managed to ban them without starting a civil war, even if you managed to confiscate them from law abiding citizens without starting a civil war (and remember, there's a lot of them seeing as how they are the most popular)... Some other rile would then "move up" to being the most popular and guess what - they would end up being used in crimes.
People want to ban "high capacity" magazines. This is generally absurd. If you take a reasoned, dispassionate look at the timelines of virtually any/all mass shootings you find out the perpetrator had all kinds of time - minutes to tens of minutes - to commit his/her crimes. Magazine swaps take just a couple of seconds. The number of rounds in a magazine has virtually no impact on the outcome of the event.
People want to ban pistol grips. I really don't know why. I think it is because they believe such grips make the weapon somehow significantly more effective? Two thoughts here, sort of at opposite ends of the spectrum. One, at the ranges most of these shots are taken at, a rifle, any rifle, is going to be very effective regardless of any one feature. Two, if we're talking about my self defense firearm that I'm using to defend my family from a home invasion, h**l yeah I want the most effective weapon possible. Why would you want to deny me effective protection? What's "effective enough?" Hey, maybe airbags and seat belts for just 3 out of the 4 seats in my car are "safe enough" too. Or obeying the speed limit for 20 out of the 32 miles of my commute is good enough...
People want to ban bayonet lugs. This is ridiculous. Why is anyone wasting time/energy arguing this? When was the last time a bayonet on a rifle was used to kill someone???
People want to ban ... It doesn't matter because the one universal feature of every ban, every limit is that in order to be effective, criminals must obey the ban/law. This is patently absurd. By definition criminals break laws. Expecting a new law to deter someone already prepared to break a dozen or more other laws... You might as well expect that requiring everyone to floss and use mouthwash would stop crime. Yes, that level of absurdity.
Sorry Bernie, but if cops are called about someone 39 times and you can’t find anything to arrest them for, you aren’t really trying.
The only thing we know for sure is that it was a gun free zone.
What was that definition of insanity again?
Bump