Jump to content

The second amendment is failing the USA : Another school shooting!


Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, LonJowett said:

Why do you draw the line after the AR-15? If it's "obvious" some should be banned, why not make that line those weapons like the AR-15 that (by design or through modification) are capable of discharging hundreds of rounds in a minute?

I'm more interested in what a gun will do than I am about it's name or how intimidating it looks.  The AR-15 on its own is no more or no less dangerous than any semi-auto rifle, it just happens to be the name brand that people choose.  

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said:

I'm more interested in what a gun will do than I am about it's name or how intimidating it looks.  The AR-15 on its own is no more or no less dangerous than any semi-auto rifle, it just happens to be the name brand that people choose.  

 

I'm more interested in what they can do as well, as well as what they can easily be adapted to do. Again, why do you draw the line after rifles that are capable of firing hundreds of rounds in a minute?

(I find you usually have to ask a question about five times around here to get any kind of response, and then they just call you a troll for asking too much.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, LonJowett said:

I'm more interested in what they can do as well, as well as what they can easily be adapted to do. Again, why do you draw the line after rifles that are capable of firing hundreds of rounds in a minute?

(I find you usually have to ask a question about five times around here to get any kind of response, and then they just call you a troll for asking too much.)

That's okay. I thought I had some interesting things to say earlier on this topic that gets overlooked. People may not respond ....especially WHEN people may agree. We tend to pay attention where we agree less. But then this tends to hide good arguments as they get buried under those who like to keep questioning things. I think this thread is too long anyways. Maybe some could split the discussion into certain SUB-arguments in separate threads so that they can get their significant points dealt with more specifically?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said:

The AR-15 on its own is no more or no less dangerous than any semi-auto rifle, it just happens to be the name brand that people choose. 

Untrue. The short, compact nature of assault rifles does make them more dangerous. The after market accessories targeted to these weapons also make them more dangerous. Most important, the entire culture that has been created by these weapons demonstrates their owners make them the most dangerous of all.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ?Impact said:

Trump brings guns into schools, what a complete jackass. If any of these guns is ever misplaced and someone ends up dying, then Trump should be charged with murder.

 

Let's see....which "North American" city put armed police officers in secondary schools almost ten years ago ?

Answer:  Toronto, Ontario

Quote

Race-ing Police in Schools. In early September 2008, on the first day of a new school year in Toronto, fully armed and uniformed police officers called School Resource Officers, or SROs, were deployed to thirty public high schools to patrol the hallways on a full-time basis (CBC,. 2008b)

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Boges said:

Actually that program just ended. 

But those are cops, not the teachers. 

What if no teacher wants the responsibility of being the one packing? Or do they all have to be packing? This going to be part of their Collective Agreement? 

 

Sure...but it happened in Canada years before Trump said anything about it.    Guns in Ontario schools...OH MY !!!!!!!!

I'm sure that some teachers would volunteer to be "packing"...some are already licensed for concealed carry off school grounds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Sure...but it happened in Canada years before Trump said anything about it.    Guns in Ontario schools...OH MY !!!!!!!!

I'm sure that some teachers would volunteer to be "packing"...some are already licensed for concealed carry off school grounds.

Some. . . As Trump says it today, these schools that don't have people packing are like Ice Cream stores for "killers". So for the program to be effective, it'd have to be ALL. 

It's not a serious proposal, it's just an attempt to change the channel on debating the fact that 18-year-olds can buy guns in Florida but not beer. 

Edited by Boges
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Sure...but it happened in Canada years before Trump said anything about it.    Guns in Ontario schools...OH MY !!!!!!!!

I'm sure that some teachers would volunteer to be "packing"...some are already licensed for concealed carry off school grounds.

I Would rather not have to worry about school shootings and nip it in the butt by gun control  which is proven to work as the last Ontario school shooting happened in 2007. There is always a chance of a school shooting happening but the indents a very low with gun control . If i had to pick between teachers or armed police to protect my kids it would definitely be a well trained officer.....but as you know teachers would be a cost effective...how much are your kids worth.....a teacher protecting or an officer.

Edited by Kerfuffle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, if we're talking about conceal and carry of a handgun, you'd be outgunned against someone legally obtaining an AR15, especially with a bumpstock and/or large magazine. 

So will each school also have an AR15 stored somewhere? I can see every school being a theft target then. 

Edited by Boges
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Boges said:

Also, if we're talking about conceal and carry of a handgun, you'd be outgunned against someone legally obtaining an AR15, especially with a bumpstock and/or large magazine.

 

Then so are the "vast majority" of police officers in the United States....so they all need "assault rifles" too, right ?

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, LonJowett said:

You're not answering the question again. How is your argument for inclusion of assault rifles under the second amendment different from an American jihadi arguing for the right to bear nuclear arms? It's a simple question about your own position that you should be able to answer. 

I never heard of any American jihadi that's lobbying for the right to bear nuclear arms - so, you lost me there.

 

Furthermore, if an American jihadi - though the left loves to use the term "home-grown" - although the jihadi most likely got roots from places that do jihad for fun - lobbies for the right to bear nuclear arms - shouldn't that raise the red flag, sound the alarm with flashing lights and bells, and whistles?  Chances are - he's got mental health problems!

 

Tell me, Lon.  What jihadi in his right mind would want to argue for his right to bear nuclear arms? :D

Edited by betsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Then so are the "vast majority" of police officers in the United States....so they all need "assault rifles" too, right ?

I'm sure you'd support that. But I'm sure if someone wanted to kill a cop with an AR15, they could. Doesn't mean schools must have them. That's a deflection. 

Edited by Boges
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, betsy said:

I never heard of any American jihadi that's lobbying for the right to bear nuclear arms - so, you lost me there.

 

Furthermore, if an American jihadi - though the left loves to use the term "home-grown" - although the jihadi most likely got roots from places that do jihad for fun - lobbies for the right to bear nuclear arms - shouldn't that raise the red flag, sound the alarm with flashing lights and bells, and whistles?  Chances are - he's got mental health problems!

 

Tell me, Lon.  What jihadi in his right mind would want to argue for his right to bear nuclear arms? :D

The question was based on a hypothetical scenario. Rather than choose to answer it, you decided to question why anyone would ask a hypothetical question.

I will be more direct. Hal was  honest enough to admit that he feels there should be some sort of limit under the second amendment, although he was unwilling to express why he felt that limit should come after weapons that can shoot hundreds of rounds in a minute.

I will phrase it in a way that will be difficult for you to obfuscate: DO YOU FEEL THERE SHOULD BE ANY LIMIT WHATSOEVER TO THE DEGREE OF WEAPONS ALLOWED UNDER THE SECOND AMENDMENT? If yes, what is that limit? If no, then American jihadis with nuclear ambitions are okay to you?

I look forward to your refusal to answer. :lol:

Edited by LonJowett
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

No, it is not a deflection to point out the failed logic of gun grabbers.

Calling people names is never an argument. It just shows a lack of ability to discuss the issue.

I would ask whether there are any weapons you feel should be restricted, but I don't think you've thought the issue through enough to provide a response. Perhaps an anecdote about Trudeau would make it seem like you know what you're talking about.

Edited by LonJowett
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, LonJowett said:

I'm more interested in what they can do as well, as well as what they can easily be adapted to do. Again, why do you draw the line after rifles that are capable of firing hundreds of rounds in a minute?

(I find you usually have to ask a question about five times around here to get any kind of response, and then they just call you a troll for asking too much.)

I thought I did answer, but I guess I'll dumb it down.  The AR-15 is a semi-auto rifle, just like any other semi-auto rifle that you can purchase here in Canada at your nearest Cabelas.  I can accept these rifles as they are, where I draw the line is with automatic rifles and guns such as AK-47s or UZIs (those that do fire hundreds per minute) or accessories that do speed up the firing of AR-15s.  I'd also be in favor of smaller magazines.  I draw the line at anything that fires automatic.

There are relatively few people who get killed by AR-15s, as I said they're just the most popular right now.  It's the same argument as when people look at dog attacks and decide that anything looking like a Pit Bull should be eliminated.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,714
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    wopsas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Venandi went up a rank
      Explorer
    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...