smitt86 said:

---

GuerrillaPack said:

---

smitt86 said:

---

PackFansXL said:

---

Glasswolf said:

---

Is there a more sad statement than having to have armed people at church or schools? These are supposed to be safe places to worship and learn. When I was in HS the only guns were in the back glass of most pick up trucks. Never ever saw one brought into a school

---

What do you think has changed since the early 70's when you were in high school?

---

AR-15s weren't available to the public until the 90s. One thing to have a hunting rifle in your back glass, another to have a semi-automatic weapon that can be modified, illegally, to be fully automatic. From a family of avid hunters and concealed-carry certified, but still see zero reason for the general public to own an AR-15, and never will.

---

Look up the statistics. Semi-automatic rifles are literally used for less than 1% of all homicides using guns. It's over 90% using handguns.

If the Left are truly these "bleeding heart humanitarians", then why aren't they calling for handguns to be banned? Why are they so obsessed with banning a type of rifle that is used in less than 1% of all gun homicides?

Why? Because this is about population control, and subjecting the population to the (communist) government. They don't want the public able to fight back against a tyrannical government.

Do you realize that the entire purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to have a "civilian army" capable of defending the nation -- against all enemies, foreign or domestic? If you want, I can break that down in detail. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is not to hunt squirrels and deer. It's right there in plain English in the text of the Amendment. A civilian militia is necessary to defend the security of the nation...therefore, the right of the people to own and carry firearms shall not be infringed. That means that we have the right to military-grade weaponry. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to be able to equip an ARMY...a civilian army.

---

Do anyone believe a few thousand people with AR-15s, that have gone through a couple of backyard taught tactical courses, bought some online body armor, and shot at targets is going to be be able to form an army that can actually do anything to our real armed forces? Seriously? I get the concept behind the 2nd Amendment, but when that was written, it was muskets and canons, not tanks and fighter jets, so the whole premise of saying it's to be able to fight back against our industrial military complex is laughable. And we spend enough in military not to expect to form a militia to defend the country.

Now to your "statistics". No argument, tons of killing with handguns, but how many mass shootings have happened with a hunting rifle or only a handgun? What is the pure volume of handguns in circulation in the US vs ARs?

In 2021 Newsweek had an article that said of the last 80 mass shootings, 26% of them involved an AR-15. The one a few weeks ago in Buffalo did as well, same as today.

Once again, all for the right to own guns, just don't think the AR-15 should be one that should either be owned or available without a LOT of hoops to jump through(psych eval, background, course on how to use it, higher age limit, longer waiting times, more expensive, etc).

---

I don't mean to keep picking out your post, but those are the ones that catch my eye as I read through.

On the 2nd amendment point. When the first amendment was created there was no TV or Internet, nor any type of digital media...would you be ok with the government not allowing 1st amendment rights on those forms of speech?

On fighting back against the military complex...Didn't a bunch of people living in caves just do that in Afghanistan for the last 20 years against us? What about what happened in Iraq? The people of those countries fought back just fine against our military without any type of massive government behind them....although i suspect that if the US government turned the military onto its own population there would be a completely different set of rules of engagement. Everyone here seems to be cheering on the Ukrainian resistance fighters against the mighty Russia right now...isn't that the same concept?

cowboypack02 said:

---

Actually - AR-15 rifles have been around since 1963 according to NPR....

I also want to point out that there are several rifles that I can purchase that aren't AR-15's that shoot the same round and can still hold a magazine too. People harp on AR-15s because it looks scary. In all reality there are many more rifles that can do alot more damage, but people get riled up because of the looks of the gun.

---

Is that a good thing?

I believe hand guns are the most commonly used gun in mass shootings - do you have any recommendations on how to address it? Is it just something we need to learn to live with?

Also - any advice you have for me and my Kindergartner? Or maybe for my PreK and 1st Graders as of next school year?

cowboypack02 said:

---

We have sent 53 billion to Ukraine over the last few months. There are 130,930 K-12 schools in this country. That breaks down to 404,796 dollars per school to fund top notch security guards. I bet I can find 4 high quality guards per school that are willing to make 100K per year....

The money is there for stuff like that...unfortunately like most things the government doesn't know how to manage it correctly

---

He was engaged by police before entering the school and was still able to kill close to 20 children.

2/ At other points in interview, rep makes clear the shooter stormed the school in body armor. Presumably that was a big part of how he was able to fight his way into the school. Really important to emphasize that cops engaged him with gunfire BEFORE he ever got into the school.

— Josh Marshall (@joshtpm) May 25, 2022

Packchem91 said:

---

GuerrillaPack said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

PackFansXL said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

PackFansXL said:

---

Glasswolf said:

---

Is there a more sad statement than having to have armed people at church or schools? These are supposed to be safe places to worship and learn. When I was in HS the only guns were in the back glass of most pick up trucks. Never ever saw one brought into a school

---

What do you think has changed since the early 70's when you were in high school?

---

A whole bunch of things - and I don't think even the most liberal person would argue human influences have changed from the 1940s and 1950s and 1970s. Hey, in the 1940s and 50s, we still made black people go to different bathrooms than us. So...things progress.

in most normal non-gun scenarios, we'd look for enhancements to make things safer. Add seat belts, lower speed limit, put "you're going to die" labels on cigarette packs.

But when 15 elementary kids get killed, gun amendment folks say, "just hire more security guards at churches and schools and give teachers big guns". We can't even afford teachers, and you want to hire 2-3 FT security guards at every. single. school in America, rather than make meaningful changes within the gun proliferation.
I'm sure we'll have lots of $$ to throw at top-notch security guards.

---

Well, Chem, I would love to hear your well thought out solution. Do you honestly think putting labels on boxes of shells warning against shooting kids will actually have an effect? Do you truly believe restricting access to guns will somehow end all shootings? Perhaps if you lose the preachy BS, kneejerk reaction attitude, we can have a discussion.

As I suggested, deterrence seems to me to be the best solution. Perhaps you think we have a prayer of eliminating guns even if we pass the most draconian laws. The usual response is to go look where they have done that and see if it was effective. Chicago has those laws and they are supposedly the most dangerous city in the country. Perhaps the fear of getting shot at would deter the criminal. I think it's interesting that idiots have selected elementary schools and churches for many of these violent acts.

For the record, I have never owned a firearm, but I understand the deterrence aspect of having one. If we continue to see copycat shootings, I may have to get around to making the purchase. I know that gun purchases were dramatically up last year during all the defund police nonsense. Folks living in tough neighborhoods realized that if the police couldn't be relied on they better prepare themselves.

---

I don't know the answer. But letting the NRA dictate any meaningful action on them is NOT the answer. What is sad is, some people don't want to even consider changes to reduce the availability of ARs or some of the ammo that is available --- that was not available in the romantic periods you want to reference.

Look, we've all just moved on and accept the individual killings in Chicago, NY, Detroit, Miami, etc. No one really cares, clearly, and it'll likely never be stopped.
I mean, you really want Austin and Charlotte and Marshville and _____ to be like Guatemala City and San Pedro Sula and Managua where everywhere you go, you have teenaged guards with rifles parading around (And plenty of people still get killed).
Maybe the guns over life crowd can start some bumper stickers -- we want our schools to be like those in Guatemala instead of Tokyo!!!

I just don't get it....where else do we have to hear stories like today? Or two weekends ago? But we just accept it.

---

You know what makes places like Guatemala, Mexico, and South America so dangerous? The "type" of people who live there. And now we are importing tens of millions of those people here. THAT is the reason that so much of America is becoming crime-infested and dangerous. Because you are allowing the nation to be flooded with tens of millions of these type of people.

If you have good people making up the population (like America from it's founding until the mid 1900s), then you could have every person in the country having 2 or 3 firearms, and you would have virtually zero crime.

Banning weapons does not stop crime. Weapons are not the cause of crime. Wicked people are the cause of crime. Mexico and many central and south American nations have very strict gun control. And yet they have the highest crime in the world.

---

Ahhh yes, the "brown people are bad" argument. I figured it would be you or BBW.

---

Come on, Chem, that's completely uncalled for. That BS is so damn lame. GP doesn't strike me as that kind of person. That thought never even crossed my mind when I read his comments. Y'all have got to stop looking for stuff to be offended by!!

Why is it so easy to get into a school
I could not get into Rex hospital ER the other day without screening

Not mentioning names but the gun store/range I shop at in Raleigh/Garner has had a minimum age of 21 to purchase way before any of this became normal

Americans right or left should easily come together for this simple federal law 21 years old for any semi auto rifle
Will it hurt law abiding people yes there are plenty of good kids that will be punished
But if it saves life's I hope they will understand

My wife is a Kindergarten teacher, here in Cary. Since Covid, all doors are locked from the outside and no one is allowed in any building. You have to ring a bell for any type of communication. A parent is not allowed in a building; rather, their child will be brought to them.

As much as I hate the Covid mess, it at least brought that to the table. I feel more at ease knowing that.

statefan91 said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

Actually - AR-15 rifles have been around since 1963 according to NPR....

I also want to point out that there are several rifles that I can purchase that aren't AR-15's that shoot the same round and can still hold a magazine too. People harp on AR-15s because it looks scary. In all reality there are many more rifles that can do alot more damage, but people get riled up because of the looks of the gun.

---

Is that a good thing?

I believe hand guns are the most commonly used gun in mass shootings - do you have any recommendations on how to address it? Is it just something we need to learn to live with?

Also - any advice you have for me and my Kindergartner? Or maybe for my PreK and 1st Graders as of next school year?

---

Have them wear masks.

So to be clear, people are mocking adding security to schools because police engaged the person before he even got in the school. The same people think that adding another law on guns will be more effective though. Lol. Those darn second amendment people are the problem! The blood is on their hands!

statefan91 said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

Actually - AR-15 rifles have been around since 1963 according to NPR....

I also want to point out that there are several rifles that I can purchase that aren't AR-15's that shoot the same round and can still hold a magazine too. People harp on AR-15s because it looks scary. In all reality there are many more rifles that can do alot more damage, but people get riled up because of the looks of the gun.

---

Is that a good thing?

I believe hand guns are the most commonly used gun in mass shootings - do you have any recommendations on how to address it? Is it just something we need to learn to live with?

Also - any advice you have for me and my Kindergartner? Or maybe for my PreK and 1st Graders as of next school year?

---

I'm all for locking crazy people back in loony bins...

The other thing worth mentioning here is that all of these mass shooters seem to be on the radar if the FBI but they still end up committing atrocities...but the FBI has time to investigate parents who protest at school boards. Maybe our government should be focused in protecting the people it's supposed to instead of going after it's political enemies?

statefan91 said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

We have sent 53 billion to Ukraine over the last few months. There are 130,930 K-12 schools in this country. That breaks down to 404,796 dollars per school to fund top notch security guards. I bet I can find 4 high quality guards per school that are willing to make 100K per year....

The money is there for stuff like that...unfortunately like most things the government doesn't know how to manage it correctly

---

He was engaged by police before entering the school and was still able to kill close to 20 children.

2/ At other points in interview, rep makes clear the shooter stormed the school in body armor. Presumably that was a big part of how he was able to fight his way into the school. Really important to emphasize that cops engaged him with gunfire BEFORE he ever got into the school.

— Josh Marshall (@joshtpm) May 25, 2022

---

So to get this straight...one CBP agent was able to go into the school and take this guy out...but an entire police force was unable to stop him before he got into the school? Was the CBP agent Rambo or were the police poorly trained and not able to do their job? Like I said in the a previous post....4 well trained guards per school we could of paid for...

Everyone keeps talking about the guy wearing body armor. Body armor isn't something that turns you into a walking terminator that keeps you upright and acting like normal. It will help to keep you alive if you get shot but your still going to be hurt, you just don't get the penetration of the bullet. I would be curious as to how many times the guy was actually shot before he made it into the school

statefan91 said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

Actually - AR-15 rifles have been around since 1963 according to NPR....

I also want to point out that there are several rifles that I can purchase that aren't AR-15's that shoot the same round and can still hold a magazine too. People harp on AR-15s because it looks scary. In all reality there are many more rifles that can do alot more damage, but people get riled up because of the looks of the gun.

---

Is that a good thing?

I believe hand guns are the most commonly used gun in mass shootings - do you have any recommendations on how to address it? Is it just something we need to learn to live with?

Also - any advice you have for me and my Kindergartner? Or maybe for my PreK and 1st Graders as of next school year?

---

We should be putting more security in place to stop these thing from happening. The school buildings should be secure to not allow intruders to come in. We're able to secure all types of other buildings, but not school buildings to keep people out that shouldn't be there?

Packchem91 said:

---

GuerrillaPack said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

PackFansXL said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

PackFansXL said:

---

Glasswolf said:

---

Is there a more sad statement than having to have armed people at church or schools? These are supposed to be safe places to worship and learn. When I was in HS the only guns were in the back glass of most pick up trucks. Never ever saw one brought into a school

---

What do you think has changed since the early 70's when you were in high school?

---

A whole bunch of things - and I don't think even the most liberal person would argue human influences have changed from the 1940s and 1950s and 1970s. Hey, in the 1940s and 50s, we still made black people go to different bathrooms than us. So...things progress.

in most normal non-gun scenarios, we'd look for enhancements to make things safer. Add seat belts, lower speed limit, put "you're going to die" labels on cigarette packs.

But when 15 elementary kids get killed, gun amendment folks say, "just hire more security guards at churches and schools and give teachers big guns". We can't even afford teachers, and you want to hire 2-3 FT security guards at every. single. school in America, rather than make meaningful changes within the gun proliferation.
I'm sure we'll have lots of $$ to throw at top-notch security guards.

---

Well, Chem, I would love to hear your well thought out solution. Do you honestly think putting labels on boxes of shells warning against shooting kids will actually have an effect? Do you truly believe restricting access to guns will somehow end all shootings? Perhaps if you lose the preachy BS, kneejerk reaction attitude, we can have a discussion.

As I suggested, deterrence seems to me to be the best solution. Perhaps you think we have a prayer of eliminating guns even if we pass the most draconian laws. The usual response is to go look where they have done that and see if it was effective. Chicago has those laws and they are supposedly the most dangerous city in the country. Perhaps the fear of getting shot at would deter the criminal. I think it's interesting that idiots have selected elementary schools and churches for many of these violent acts.

For the record, I have never owned a firearm, but I understand the deterrence aspect of having one. If we continue to see copycat shootings, I may have to get around to making the purchase. I know that gun purchases were dramatically up last year during all the defund police nonsense. Folks living in tough neighborhoods realized that if the police couldn't be relied on they better prepare themselves.

---

I don't know the answer. But letting the NRA dictate any meaningful action on them is NOT the answer. What is sad is, some people don't want to even consider changes to reduce the availability of ARs or some of the ammo that is available --- that was not available in the romantic periods you want to reference.

Look, we've all just moved on and accept the individual killings in Chicago, NY, Detroit, Miami, etc. No one really cares, clearly, and it'll likely never be stopped.
I mean, you really want Austin and Charlotte and Marshville and _____ to be like Guatemala City and San Pedro Sula and Managua where everywhere you go, you have teenaged guards with rifles parading around (And plenty of people still get killed).
Maybe the guns over life crowd can start some bumper stickers -- we want our schools to be like those in Guatemala instead of Tokyo!!!

I just don't get it....where else do we have to hear stories like today? Or two weekends ago? But we just accept it.

---

You know what makes places like Guatemala, Mexico, and South America so dangerous? The "type" of people who live there. And now we are importing tens of millions of those people here. THAT is the reason that so much of America is becoming crime-infested and dangerous. Because you are allowing the nation to be flooded with tens of millions of these type of people.

If you have good people making up the population (like America from it's founding until the mid 1900s), then you could have every person in the country having 2 or 3 firearms, and you would have virtually zero crime.

Banning weapons does not stop crime. Weapons are not the cause of crime. Wicked people are the cause of crime. Mexico and many central and south American nations have very strict gun control. And yet they have the highest crime in the world.

---

Ahhh yes, the "brown people are bad" argument. I figured it would be you or BBW.

---

As expected from lefties... when the facts are stacked against you always claim an "ism."

Wouldn't expect anything less from someone like you.

I can say this…. An unfortunate tragedy, like this, has brought this forum back to life…. We have people commenting, debating, calling others names, sarcasm, and all the crap that brought us here in the first place.

Keep it up!!! I love it!!!

Cowboy, welcome back…

cowboypack02 said:

---

statefan91 said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

Actually - AR-15 rifles have been around since 1963 according to NPR....

I also want to point out that there are several rifles that I can purchase that aren't AR-15's that shoot the same round and can still hold a magazine too. People harp on AR-15s because it looks scary. In all reality there are many more rifles that can do alot more damage, but people get riled up because of the looks of the gun.

---

Is that a good thing?

I believe hand guns are the most commonly used gun in mass shootings - do you have any recommendations on how to address it? Is it just something we need to learn to live with?

Also - any advice you have for me and my Kindergartner? Or maybe for my PreK and 1st Graders as of next school year?

---

We should be putting more security in place to stop these thing from happening. The school buildings should be secure to not allow intruders to come in. We're able to secure all types of other buildings, but not school buildings to keep people out that shouldn't be there?

---

In an ideal world, we wouldn't need trained and armed security at every school, church, grocery store, movie theater, and concert venue to ensure people's safety.

That being said, I don't see a realistic scenario where we can accomplish what people are suggesting. We barely pay teachers enough money to stay in the profession and there is already shortages in policing around the country. You think we are going to find the money to hire, I think someone earlier threw out the number "4 trained security officers" for every school in the US. As of 2020, there were 139,930 public and private K-12 schools in the US. We are talking about hiring, training, and arming a minimum of 560,000 security officers. We ***** about taxes all the time, where in the world is that money coming from? You would need extensive training, background checks, certifications, psych evals, and a bunch of money to accomplish all of that. And don't get me started on arming teachers. My mother and wife were teachers, you think we pay those folks enough to be responsible for defending the school?? Gonna need a school of Kindergarten Cops moving forward I guess.

The Texas school had multiple police officers on campus and they couldn't get the job done. But it doesn't go well when the intruder has better body armor and weapons than the police defending it. Not to mention every school I attended had numerous points of entry and hard to have a security officer at every potential entry point.

smitt86 said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

statefan91 said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

Actually - AR-15 rifles have been around since 1963 according to NPR....

I also want to point out that there are several rifles that I can purchase that aren't AR-15's that shoot the same round and can still hold a magazine too. People harp on AR-15s because it looks scary. In all reality there are many more rifles that can do alot more damage, but people get riled up because of the looks of the gun.

---

Is that a good thing?

I believe hand guns are the most commonly used gun in mass shootings - do you have any recommendations on how to address it? Is it just something we need to learn to live with?

Also - any advice you have for me and my Kindergartner? Or maybe for my PreK and 1st Graders as of next school year?

---

We should be putting more security in place to stop these thing from happening. The school buildings should be secure to not allow intruders to come in. We're able to secure all types of other buildings, but not school buildings to keep people out that shouldn't be there?

---

In an ideal world, we wouldn't need trained and armed security at every school, church, grocery store, movie theater, and concert venue to ensure people's safety.

That being said, I don't see a realistic scenario where we can accomplish what people are suggesting. We barely pay teachers enough money to stay in the profession and there is already shortages in policing around the country. You think we are going to find the money to hire, I think someone earlier threw out the number "4 trained security officers" for every school in the US. As of 2020, there were 139,930 public and private K-12 schools in the US. We are talking about hiring, training, and arming a minimum of 560,000 security officers. We ***** about taxes all the time, where in the world is that money coming from? You would need extensive training, background checks, certifications, psych evals, and a bunch of money to accomplish all of that. And don't get me started on arming teachers. My mother and wife were teachers, you think we pay those folks enough to be responsible for defending the school?? Gonna need a school of Kindergarten Cops moving forward I guess.

The Texas school had multiple police officers on campus and they couldn't get the job done. But it doesn't go well when the intruder has better body armor and weapons than the police defending it. Not to mention every school I attended had numerous points of entry and hard to have a security officer at every potential entry point.

---

Not that I'm a federal funding type person. We just sent 40B to Ukraine!!!!

Are you willing to "NOT" be the protector of the world and spend that money locally? It's on you to make a decision. What do you do??

smitt86 said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

statefan91 said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

Actually - AR-15 rifles have been around since 1963 according to NPR....

I also want to point out that there are several rifles that I can purchase that aren't AR-15's that shoot the same round and can still hold a magazine too. People harp on AR-15s because it looks scary. In all reality there are many more rifles that can do alot more damage, but people get riled up because of the looks of the gun.

---

Is that a good thing?

I believe hand guns are the most commonly used gun in mass shootings - do you have any recommendations on how to address it? Is it just something we need to learn to live with?

Also - any advice you have for me and my Kindergartner? Or maybe for my PreK and 1st Graders as of next school year?

---

We should be putting more security in place to stop these thing from happening. The school buildings should be secure to not allow intruders to come in. We're able to secure all types of other buildings, but not school buildings to keep people out that shouldn't be there?

---

In an ideal world, we wouldn't need trained and armed security at every school, church, grocery store, movie theater, and concert venue to ensure people's safety.

That being said, I don't see a realistic scenario where we can accomplish what people are suggesting. We barely pay teachers enough money to stay in the profession and there is already shortages in policing around the country. You think we are going to find the money to hire, I think someone earlier threw out the number "4 trained security officers" for every school in the US. As of 2020, there were 139,930 public and private K-12 schools in the US. We are talking about hiring, training, and arming a minimum of 560,000 security officers. We ***** about taxes all the time, where in the world is that money coming from? You would need extensive training, background checks, certifications, psych evals, and a bunch of money to accomplish all of that. And don't get me started on arming teachers. My mother and wife were teachers, you think we pay those folks enough to be responsible for defending the school?? Gonna need a school of Kindergarten Cops moving forward I guess.

The Texas school had multiple police officers on campus and they couldn't get the job done. But it doesn't go well when the intruder has better body armor and weapons than the police defending it. Not to mention every school I attended had numerous points of entry and hard to have a security officer at every potential entry point.

---

Now, here is a little lesson for you…

The States created the federal government by writing the constitution and ratifying its existence. Never was is intended to be as big as it is. If you don't think it's too big: look at the percentage of what you pay that goes to the federal government vs the state government. It's 100% upside down.

Now, once reversed, each state can apportion the collected local and state taxes to supporting schools. This is so basic, it's hard to believe we have people that don't see it. Local politics has far more of a chance to get **** done than a top down politics. Sorry, if you think otherwise, you're part of the problem!!

Why do you think we have such a divide in this country? You and I have very little in common with people in California and New York; therefore, we've become polarized. Shrink the federal government and you will see change! I'm talking about cultural, societal, crime, etc…

cowboypack02 said:

---

smitt86 said:

---

GuerrillaPack said:

---

smitt86 said:

---

PackFansXL said:

---

Glasswolf said:

---

Is there a more sad statement than having to have armed people at church or schools? These are supposed to be safe places to worship and learn. When I was in HS the only guns were in the back glass of most pick up trucks. Never ever saw one brought into a school

---

What do you think has changed since the early 70's when you were in high school?

---

AR-15s weren't available to the public until the 90s. One thing to have a hunting rifle in your back glass, another to have a semi-automatic weapon that can be modified, illegally, to be fully automatic. From a family of avid hunters and concealed-carry certified, but still see zero reason for the general public to own an AR-15, and never will.

---

Look up the statistics. Semi-automatic rifles are literally used for less than 1% of all homicides using guns. It's over 90% using handguns.

If the Left are truly these "bleeding heart humanitarians", then why aren't they calling for handguns to be banned? Why are they so obsessed with banning a type of rifle that is used in less than 1% of all gun homicides?

Why? Because this is about population control, and subjecting the population to the (communist) government. They don't want the public able to fight back against a tyrannical government.

Do you realize that the entire purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to have a "civilian army" capable of defending the nation -- against all enemies, foreign or domestic? If you want, I can break that down in detail. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is not to hunt squirrels and deer. It's right there in plain English in the text of the Amendment. A civilian militia is necessary to defend the security of the nation...therefore, the right of the people to own and carry firearms shall not be infringed. That means that we have the right to military-grade weaponry. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to be able to equip an ARMY...a civilian army.

---

Do anyone believe a few thousand people with AR-15s, that have gone through a couple of backyard taught tactical courses, bought some online body armor, and shot at targets is going to be be able to form an army that can actually do anything to our real armed forces? Seriously? I get the concept behind the 2nd Amendment, but when that was written, it was muskets and canons, not tanks and fighter jets, so the whole premise of saying it's to be able to fight back against our industrial military complex is laughable. And we spend enough in military not to expect to form a militia to defend the country.

Now to your "statistics". No argument, tons of killing with handguns, but how many mass shootings have happened with a hunting rifle or only a handgun? What is the pure volume of handguns in circulation in the US vs ARs?

In 2021 Newsweek had an article that said of the last 80 mass shootings, 26% of them involved an AR-15. The one a few weeks ago in Buffalo did as well, same as today.

Once again, all for the right to own guns, just don't think the AR-15 should be one that should either be owned or available without a LOT of hoops to jump through(psych eval, background, course on how to use it, higher age limit, longer waiting times, more expensive, etc).

---

I don't mean to keep picking out your post, but those are the ones that catch my eye as I read through.

On the 2nd amendment point. When the first amendment was created there was no TV or Internet, nor any type of digital media...would you be ok with the government not allowing 1st amendment rights on those forms of speech?

On fighting back against the military complex...Didn't a bunch of people living in caves just do that in Afghanistan for the last 20 years against us? What about what happened in Iraq? The people of those countries fought back just fine against our military without any type of massive government behind them....although i suspect that if the US government turned the military onto its own population there would be a completely different set of rules of engagement. Everyone here seems to be cheering on the Ukrainian resistance fighters against the mighty Russia right now...isn't that the same concept?

---

Your point about the 1st amendment and social media, aren't we literally seeing that be changed? We had our former President BANNED from posting because he said some things that people saw as inciting violence. Twitter has banned tons of people for saying whatever the company has found offensive. The freedom of speech gives you the right to say what you want, but your words can have repercussions, hell look at the cancel culture and people losing their jobs over things they said. If our society can view that amendment different than 100+ years ago, why shouldn't we view the 2nd through today's lens instead of clutching onto something written generations ago? I mean I know plenty of Christians who ignore things from the Bible because they don't like them or doesn't fit today's culture because we know better than over a 1,000 years ago.

You really think the US having folks with guns to defend against our government is the same as Ukraine defending itself from an invading country? Also, where did the Ukrainians get their training and weapons to defend their country? Oh yeah, the GOVERNMENT armed and trained them when it was time to defend themselves. So they handed them guns, showed them how to use them, and hey what do you know, it's worked fairly well all things considered. It's not like these folks just had AKs and anti-tank weapons sitting in their over-sized gun safes just waiting to be used if war broke out. I just don't see a land war happening in the US, much more likely it would be cyber, biologic, or nuclear type attacks and those guns won't matter.

I'm not saying abolish the 2nd Amendment, but its well past time to revisit it and 100% past time to overhaul how people can legally buy guys and the hoops they should have to jump through. I can buy a semi-automatic weapon before I can buy alcohol, ridiculous.

So you want the Constitution to evolve in the way you want it to and that's it.

Cool story bro!!

As far as President Trump being banned from Twitter tell me you are joking with that line of BS right? Twitter officials have admitted numerous times they target Conservative entities, people, groups etc.. because they are LEFTTIST ORGANIZATION.

Jeez... you ever heard of Elon Musk? Have you been in a cave for the last few weeks?

By the way, you don't have to read the entire Constitution but brush up on the Bill of Rights.

smitt86 said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

smitt86 said:

---

GuerrillaPack said:

---

smitt86 said:

---

PackFansXL said:

---

Glasswolf said:

---

Is there a more sad statement than having to have armed people at church or schools? These are supposed to be safe places to worship and learn. When I was in HS the only guns were in the back glass of most pick up trucks. Never ever saw one brought into a school

---

What do you think has changed since the early 70's when you were in high school?

---

AR-15s weren't available to the public until the 90s. One thing to have a hunting rifle in your back glass, another to have a semi-automatic weapon that can be modified, illegally, to be fully automatic. From a family of avid hunters and concealed-carry certified, but still see zero reason for the general public to own an AR-15, and never will.

---

Look up the statistics. Semi-automatic rifles are literally used for less than 1% of all homicides using guns. It's over 90% using handguns.

If the Left are truly these "bleeding heart humanitarians", then why aren't they calling for handguns to be banned? Why are they so obsessed with banning a type of rifle that is used in less than 1% of all gun homicides?

Why? Because this is about population control, and subjecting the population to the (communist) government. They don't want the public able to fight back against a tyrannical government.

Do you realize that the entire purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to have a "civilian army" capable of defending the nation -- against all enemies, foreign or domestic? If you want, I can break that down in detail. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is not to hunt squirrels and deer. It's right there in plain English in the text of the Amendment. A civilian militia is necessary to defend the security of the nation...therefore, the right of the people to own and carry firearms shall not be infringed. That means that we have the right to military-grade weaponry. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to be able to equip an ARMY...a civilian army.

---

Do anyone believe a few thousand people with AR-15s, that have gone through a couple of backyard taught tactical courses, bought some online body armor, and shot at targets is going to be be able to form an army that can actually do anything to our real armed forces? Seriously? I get the concept behind the 2nd Amendment, but when that was written, it was muskets and canons, not tanks and fighter jets, so the whole premise of saying it's to be able to fight back against our industrial military complex is laughable. And we spend enough in military not to expect to form a militia to defend the country.

Now to your "statistics". No argument, tons of killing with handguns, but how many mass shootings have happened with a hunting rifle or only a handgun? What is the pure volume of handguns in circulation in the US vs ARs?

In 2021 Newsweek had an article that said of the last 80 mass shootings, 26% of them involved an AR-15. The one a few weeks ago in Buffalo did as well, same as today.

Once again, all for the right to own guns, just don't think the AR-15 should be one that should either be owned or available without a LOT of hoops to jump through(psych eval, background, course on how to use it, higher age limit, longer waiting times, more expensive, etc).

---

I don't mean to keep picking out your post, but those are the ones that catch my eye as I read through.

On the 2nd amendment point. When the first amendment was created there was no TV or Internet, nor any type of digital media...would you be ok with the government not allowing 1st amendment rights on those forms of speech?

On fighting back against the military complex...Didn't a bunch of people living in caves just do that in Afghanistan for the last 20 years against us? What about what happened in Iraq? The people of those countries fought back just fine against our military without any type of massive government behind them....although i suspect that if the US government turned the military onto its own population there would be a completely different set of rules of engagement. Everyone here seems to be cheering on the Ukrainian resistance fighters against the mighty Russia right now...isn't that the same concept?

---

Your point about the 1st amendment and social media, aren't we literally seeing that be changed? We had our former President BANNED from posting because he said some things that people saw as inciting violence. Twitter has banned tons of people for saying whatever the company has found offensive. The freedom of speech gives you the right to say what you want, but your words can have repercussions, hell look at the cancel culture and people losing their jobs over things they said. If our society can view that amendment different than 100+ years ago, why shouldn't we view the 2nd through today's lens instead of clutching onto something written generations ago? I mean I know plenty of Christians who ignore things from the Bible because they don't like them or doesn't fit today's culture because we know better than over a 1,000 years ago.

You really think the US having folks with guns to defend against our government is the same as Ukraine defending itself from an invading country? Also, where did the Ukrainians get their training and weapons to defend their country? Oh yeah, the GOVERNMENT armed and trained them when it was time to defend themselves. So they handed them guns, showed them how to use them, and hey what do you know, it's worked fairly well all things considered. It's not like these folks just had AKs and anti-tank weapons sitting in their over-sized gun safes just waiting to be used if war broke out. I just don't see a land war happening in the US, much more likely it would be cyber, biologic, or nuclear type attacks and those guns won't matter.

I'm not saying abolish the 2nd Amendment, but its well past time to revisit it and 100% past time to overhaul how people can legally buy guys and the hoops they should have to jump through. I can buy a semi-automatic weapon before I can buy alcohol, ridiculous.

---

Yes. You can buy a semi automatic rifle or shotgun before you can buy alcohol. Nothing remotely ridiculous about that.

Again.. the "outrage" by the left on this and every other media shooting event is they can politicize it they think to their advantage.

I listed 4-5 "mass shooting" events that occurred over the last few weeks and questioned a poster on why they didn't show concern about those events.

Crickets.

They didn't post anything about it because it puts his party of choice, their leaders and their policies out in the public square for everyone to see that the MARXIST ideology that they so want for this country doesn't work.

And then you have the Senator from Connecticut on the Senate floor acting like a damn fool yesterday about guns. Where was this outrage when 34 were shot in L.A.? Where was the outrage when 21 were shot in Milwaukee? Chicago had 38 shot last weekend and are expecting the number to double that this Memorial Day weekend.

Spare me the drama lefties. When you only show concern when you think it benefits your party you have already lost the argument with people who have common sense and can think for themselves.

Good thing there are enough lefty liberals that can't and they will always have blindly following sheep that will vote for them regardless of how ****ty their policies and results are.

packgrad said:

---

smitt86 said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

smitt86 said:

---

GuerrillaPack said:

---

smitt86 said:

---

PackFansXL said:

---

Glasswolf said:

---

Is there a more sad statement than having to have armed people at church or schools? These are supposed to be safe places to worship and learn. When I was in HS the only guns were in the back glass of most pick up trucks. Never ever saw one brought into a school

---

What do you think has changed since the early 70's when you were in high school?

---

AR-15s weren't available to the public until the 90s. One thing to have a hunting rifle in your back glass, another to have a semi-automatic weapon that can be modified, illegally, to be fully automatic. From a family of avid hunters and concealed-carry certified, but still see zero reason for the general public to own an AR-15, and never will.

---

Look up the statistics. Semi-automatic rifles are literally used for less than 1% of all homicides using guns. It's over 90% using handguns.

If the Left are truly these "bleeding heart humanitarians", then why aren't they calling for handguns to be banned? Why are they so obsessed with banning a type of rifle that is used in less than 1% of all gun homicides?

Why? Because this is about population control, and subjecting the population to the (communist) government. They don't want the public able to fight back against a tyrannical government.

Do you realize that the entire purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to have a "civilian army" capable of defending the nation -- against all enemies, foreign or domestic? If you want, I can break that down in detail. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is not to hunt squirrels and deer. It's right there in plain English in the text of the Amendment. A civilian militia is necessary to defend the security of the nation...therefore, the right of the people to own and carry firearms shall not be infringed. That means that we have the right to military-grade weaponry. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to be able to equip an ARMY...a civilian army.

---

Do anyone believe a few thousand people with AR-15s, that have gone through a couple of backyard taught tactical courses, bought some online body armor, and shot at targets is going to be be able to form an army that can actually do anything to our real armed forces? Seriously? I get the concept behind the 2nd Amendment, but when that was written, it was muskets and canons, not tanks and fighter jets, so the whole premise of saying it's to be able to fight back against our industrial military complex is laughable. And we spend enough in military not to expect to form a militia to defend the country.

Now to your "statistics". No argument, tons of killing with handguns, but how many mass shootings have happened with a hunting rifle or only a handgun? What is the pure volume of handguns in circulation in the US vs ARs?

In 2021 Newsweek had an article that said of the last 80 mass shootings, 26% of them involved an AR-15. The one a few weeks ago in Buffalo did as well, same as today.

Once again, all for the right to own guns, just don't think the AR-15 should be one that should either be owned or available without a LOT of hoops to jump through(psych eval, background, course on how to use it, higher age limit, longer waiting times, more expensive, etc).

---

I don't mean to keep picking out your post, but those are the ones that catch my eye as I read through.

On the 2nd amendment point. When the first amendment was created there was no TV or Internet, nor any type of digital media...would you be ok with the government not allowing 1st amendment rights on those forms of speech?

On fighting back against the military complex...Didn't a bunch of people living in caves just do that in Afghanistan for the last 20 years against us? What about what happened in Iraq? The people of those countries fought back just fine against our military without any type of massive government behind them....although i suspect that if the US government turned the military onto its own population there would be a completely different set of rules of engagement. Everyone here seems to be cheering on the Ukrainian resistance fighters against the mighty Russia right now...isn't that the same concept?

---

Your point about the 1st amendment and social media, aren't we literally seeing that be changed? We had our former President BANNED from posting because he said some things that people saw as inciting violence. Twitter has banned tons of people for saying whatever the company has found offensive. The freedom of speech gives you the right to say what you want, but your words can have repercussions, hell look at the cancel culture and people losing their jobs over things they said. If our society can view that amendment different than 100+ years ago, why shouldn't we view the 2nd through today's lens instead of clutching onto something written generations ago? I mean I know plenty of Christians who ignore things from the Bible because they don't like them or doesn't fit today's culture because we know better than over a 1,000 years ago.

You really think the US having folks with guns to defend against our government is the same as Ukraine defending itself from an invading country? Also, where did the Ukrainians get their training and weapons to defend their country? Oh yeah, the GOVERNMENT armed and trained them when it was time to defend themselves. So they handed them guns, showed them how to use them, and hey what do you know, it's worked fairly well all things considered. It's not like these folks just had AKs and anti-tank weapons sitting in their over-sized gun safes just waiting to be used if war broke out. I just don't see a land war happening in the US, much more likely it would be cyber, biologic, or nuclear type attacks and those guns won't matter.

I'm not saying abolish the 2nd Amendment, but its well past time to revisit it and 100% past time to overhaul how people can legally buy guys and the hoops they should have to jump through. I can buy a semi-automatic weapon before I can buy alcohol, ridiculous.

---

Yes. You can buy a semi automatic rifle or shotgun before you can buy alcohol. Nothing remotely ridiculous about that.

---

No Federal law is going to fix what people see as a problem. It's all about local, local, local…

I love how it's being said that Ukraine is being invaded; however, we have a struggle, by the left, saying we are being invaded on our southern border. Oh, and by the way, our southern border is a Federal responsibility. Hell, they can do that correct. Get real about them getting a correct law on guns and then enforcing it. Yep, that ain't happening. You all need to quit expecting a political solution from a bunch of political hacks!!!

smitt86 said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

statefan91 said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

Actually - AR-15 rifles have been around since 1963 according to NPR....

I also want to point out that there are several rifles that I can purchase that aren't AR-15's that shoot the same round and can still hold a magazine too. People harp on AR-15s because it looks scary. In all reality there are many more rifles that can do alot more damage, but people get riled up because of the looks of the gun.

---

Is that a good thing?

I believe hand guns are the most commonly used gun in mass shootings - do you have any recommendations on how to address it? Is it just something we need to learn to live with?

Also - any advice you have for me and my Kindergartner? Or maybe for my PreK and 1st Graders as of next school year?

---

We should be putting more security in place to stop these thing from happening. The school buildings should be secure to not allow intruders to come in. We're able to secure all types of other buildings, but not school buildings to keep people out that shouldn't be there?

---

In an ideal world, we wouldn't need trained and armed security at every school, church, grocery store, movie theater, and concert venue to ensure people's safety.

That being said, I don't see a realistic scenario where we can accomplish what people are suggesting. We barely pay teachers enough money to stay in the profession and there is already shortages in policing around the country. You think we are going to find the money to hire, I think someone earlier threw out the number "4 trained security officers" for every school in the US. As of 2020, there were 139,930 public and private K-12 schools in the US. We are talking about hiring, training, and arming a minimum of 560,000 security officers. We ***** about taxes all the time, where in the world is that money coming from? You would need extensive training, background checks, certifications, psych evals, and a bunch of money to accomplish all of that. And don't get me started on arming teachers. My mother and wife were teachers, you think we pay those folks enough to be responsible for defending the school?? Gonna need a school of Kindergarten Cops moving forward I guess.

The Texas school had multiple police officers on campus and they couldn't get the job done. But it doesn't go well when the intruder has better body armor and weapons than the police defending it. Not to mention every school I attended had numerous points of entry and hard to have a security officer at every potential entry point.

---

I put this number out there...the rest of my post said that if we took the 53 billion that we sent to Ukraine this year and used it here in our country to protect our kids and school instead of pissing it away in some foreign country we could pay 4 trained officers 100K a year. There is lots of wasteful spending every year by our governments.

Unless you have seen an article that I haven't there hasn't been anything reported about multiple police officers on this campus before the shooting started....

For teacher pay...Its the same problem that we have with government as a whole. Too much wasteful spending. NPR did a great report on school spending using West Virginia as an example. From 2010 to 2018 40 schools closed in WV, and the budget increased by 50 million dollars per year, but the teachers didn't get a raise. What NPR found was that the money by large went to non teaching administrators.

hokiewolf said:

---

Here's a great start at middle ground. And you are correct Big Beautiful Wolf, gun bans don't work.

https://frenchpress.thedispatch.com/p/pass-and-enforce-red-flag-laws-now

---

I encourage you BBW to take the 5 mins to read this. This responds to all of your points. Gun laws on the books now are there to try and address your point that shootings related to crime don't get people as upset as mass shootings involving children.

It also addresses that new restrictions or bans on gun sales or guns doesn't address the problem at hand. But there is middle ground if everyone comes together and crafts well written red flag law..

As to your point about why threads aren't started about crime in other cities - I think it's very sad that shootings that occur as a result of gang and drug violence in inner cities don't get as much attention as these mass shooting do. Those numbers should be just as jarring as yesterdays shootings but the violence has gone on for so long that I think people are numb to it.

I look locally here to Durham, as a native of that city and I am very concerned and saddened by the violence that continues in areas of the city. You and I have had good discussions in the past about the whys and whats and the how to go about fixing it.

As someone who had a personal connection to people killed at the Virginia Tech mass shooting I do get extremely bothered when the next one happens. Especially when they involve young children. That tears me up inside and I struggle with that tremendously. I appreciate the advocacy for the 2nd Amendment and what it means, but at some point we have to collectively shed our tribalism ideals and come to the table with a solution that yes, impinges on that right, but doesn't completely eliminate the ability and the right to bear arms. That's why I think a red flag law might be the solution.

smitt86 said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

smitt86 said:

---

GuerrillaPack said:

---

smitt86 said:

---

PackFansXL said:

---

Glasswolf said:

---

Is there a more sad statement than having to have armed people at church or schools? These are supposed to be safe places to worship and learn. When I was in HS the only guns were in the back glass of most pick up trucks. Never ever saw one brought into a school

---

What do you think has changed since the early 70's when you were in high school?

---

AR-15s weren't available to the public until the 90s. One thing to have a hunting rifle in your back glass, another to have a semi-automatic weapon that can be modified, illegally, to be fully automatic. From a family of avid hunters and concealed-carry certified, but still see zero reason for the general public to own an AR-15, and never will.

---

Look up the statistics. Semi-automatic rifles are literally used for less than 1% of all homicides using guns. It's over 90% using handguns.

If the Left are truly these "bleeding heart humanitarians", then why aren't they calling for handguns to be banned? Why are they so obsessed with banning a type of rifle that is used in less than 1% of all gun homicides?

Why? Because this is about population control, and subjecting the population to the (communist) government. They don't want the public able to fight back against a tyrannical government.

Do you realize that the entire purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to have a "civilian army" capable of defending the nation -- against all enemies, foreign or domestic? If you want, I can break that down in detail. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is not to hunt squirrels and deer. It's right there in plain English in the text of the Amendment. A civilian militia is necessary to defend the security of the nation...therefore, the right of the people to own and carry firearms shall not be infringed. That means that we have the right to military-grade weaponry. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to be able to equip an ARMY...a civilian army.

---

Do anyone believe a few thousand people with AR-15s, that have gone through a couple of backyard taught tactical courses, bought some online body armor, and shot at targets is going to be be able to form an army that can actually do anything to our real armed forces? Seriously? I get the concept behind the 2nd Amendment, but when that was written, it was muskets and canons, not tanks and fighter jets, so the whole premise of saying it's to be able to fight back against our industrial military complex is laughable. And we spend enough in military not to expect to form a militia to defend the country.

Now to your "statistics". No argument, tons of killing with handguns, but how many mass shootings have happened with a hunting rifle or only a handgun? What is the pure volume of handguns in circulation in the US vs ARs?

In 2021 Newsweek had an article that said of the last 80 mass shootings, 26% of them involved an AR-15. The one a few weeks ago in Buffalo did as well, same as today.

Once again, all for the right to own guns, just don't think the AR-15 should be one that should either be owned or available without a LOT of hoops to jump through(psych eval, background, course on how to use it, higher age limit, longer waiting times, more expensive, etc).

---

I don't mean to keep picking out your post, but those are the ones that catch my eye as I read through.

On the 2nd amendment point. When the first amendment was created there was no TV or Internet, nor any type of digital media...would you be ok with the government not allowing 1st amendment rights on those forms of speech?

On fighting back against the military complex...Didn't a bunch of people living in caves just do that in Afghanistan for the last 20 years against us? What about what happened in Iraq? The people of those countries fought back just fine against our military without any type of massive government behind them....although i suspect that if the US government turned the military onto its own population there would be a completely different set of rules of engagement. Everyone here seems to be cheering on the Ukrainian resistance fighters against the mighty Russia right now...isn't that the same concept?

---

Your point about the 1st amendment and social media, aren't we literally seeing that be changed? We had our former President BANNED from posting because he said some things that people saw as inciting violence. Twitter has banned tons of people for saying whatever the company has found offensive. The freedom of speech gives you the right to say what you want, but your words can have repercussions, hell look at the cancel culture and people losing their jobs over things they said. If our society can view that amendment different than 100+ years ago, why shouldn't we view the 2nd through today's lens instead of clutching onto something written generations ago? I mean I know plenty of Christians who ignore things from the Bible because they don't like them or doesn't fit today's culture because we know better than over a 1,000 years ago.

You really think the US having folks with guns to defend against our government is the same as Ukraine defending itself from an invading country? Also, where did the Ukrainians get their training and weapons to defend their country? Oh yeah, the GOVERNMENT armed and trained them when it was time to defend themselves. So they handed them guns, showed them how to use them, and hey what do you know, it's worked fairly well all things considered. It's not like these folks just had AKs and anti-tank weapons sitting in their over-sized gun safes just waiting to be used if war broke out. I just don't see a land war happening in the US, much more likely it would be cyber, biologic, or nuclear type attacks and those guns won't matter.

I'm not saying abolish the 2nd Amendment, but its well past time to revisit it and 100% past time to overhaul how people can legally buy guys and the hoops they should have to jump through. I can buy a semi-automatic weapon before I can buy alcohol, ridiculous.

---

You realize that the 1st amendment has nothing to do with social media companies...right? As much as I disagree with Trump being banned, as a private company Twitter or any other social media company had the right to ban him. In saying that Jen Psaki did come out and say that they were coordinating with social media companies to censor things that the government viewed as "mis-information". That is unconstitutional.

How would we be any different that if our government turned against us than in Ukraine. Where to you think that the people who are going against the government got their training? Where to you think that some of the weapons that would be used against the government will come from?

On your last point...That's bull and we both know it. If it was easier for you to buy a gun than it is for you to buy alcohol then you illegally bought it. Every single gun that I have ever purchased I had to fill out paperwork had background checks done, and in NC if you go to buy a pistol you have to go get a permit from the sheriff's office. Make sure to keep in mind that I can't just buy a gun in another state. If I find something I want that isn't in NC I have to have it shipped to a licensed dealer here and then purchase it. If i go to the ABC store I get a little cash out of my wallet, give it to the guy, and just walk out with the bottle that I want. Hell...in a lot of states there aren't any ABC stores, you just go to the gas station. This was a long paragraph to get to my point that you've never bought a gun if you actually believe that.

GuerrillaPack said:

---

smitt86 said:

---

PackFansXL said:

---

Glasswolf said:

---

Is there a more sad statement than having to have armed people at church or schools? These are supposed to be safe places to worship and learn. When I was in HS the only guns were in the back glass of most pick up trucks. Never ever saw one brought into a school

---

What do you think has changed since the early 70's when you were in high school?

---

AR-15s weren't available to the public until the 90s. One thing to have a hunting rifle in your back glass, another to have a semi-automatic weapon that can be modified, illegally, to be fully automatic. From a family of avid hunters and concealed-carry certified, but still see zero reason for the general public to own an AR-15, and never will.

---

Look up the statistics. Semi-automatic rifles are literally used for less than 1% of all homicides using guns. It's over 90% using handguns.

If the Left are truly these "bleeding heart humanitarians", then why aren't they calling for handguns to be banned? Why are they so obsessed with banning a type of rifle that is used in less than 1% of all gun homicides?

Why? Because this is about population control, and subjecting the population to the (communist) government. They don't want the public able to fight back against a tyrannical government.

Do you realize that the entire purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to have a "civilian army" capable of defending the nation -- against all enemies, foreign or domestic? If you want, I can break that down in detail. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is not to hunt squirrels and deer. It's right there in plain English in the text of the Amendment. A civilian militia is necessary to defend the security of the nation...therefore, the right of the people to own and carry firearms shall not be infringed. That means that we have the right to military-grade weaponry. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to be able to equip an ARMY...a civilian army.

---

And the AR-15 was originally a hunting rifle from back in the 50's or 60's. The military liked it so they developed versions of it. I think the M-16 was a version of that but not totally sure. What is the difference between a semi-automatic pistol and and semi-automatic rifle. Either one can get off a whole lot of shots quickly and they both have to have someone pulling the trigger. If that damn driver in Waukesha only had a gun instead of running through a Christmas parade of children and older adults. The point is if you want to hurt somebody you can. Whether that be guns, knives, automobiles, explosives and so on. The gun is not the problem.

And GP is right...SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

caryking said:

---

I can say this…. An unfortunate tragedy, like this, has brought this forum back to life…. We have people commenting, debating, calling others names, sarcasm, and all the crap that brought us here in the first place.

Keep it up!!! I love it!!!

Cowboy, welcome back…

---

Forums like these are absolutely the problem with silo thinking and continued polarization.
UNLESS there is the foundational premise at the beginning of the thread to DISCERN A SOLUTION for a problem to which all persons are committed to work towards for the common good, it only continues the polarization.

Until that happens, I'm so glad the legislature banned books for the kids to keep them safe. Unburdened from extra weight, those lil kids will now be able to pack a piece to protect themselves. Or for them or the teachers to unload on each other on a bad day.

PackFansXL said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

GuerrillaPack said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

PackFansXL said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

PackFansXL said:

---

Glasswolf said:

---

Is there a more sad statement than having to have armed people at church or schools? These are supposed to be safe places to worship and learn. When I was in HS the only guns were in the back glass of most pick up trucks. Never ever saw one brought into a school

---

What do you think has changed since the early 70's when you were in high school?

---

A whole bunch of things - and I don't think even the most liberal person would argue human influences have changed from the 1940s and 1950s and 1970s. Hey, in the 1940s and 50s, we still made black people go to different bathrooms than us. So...things progress.

in most normal non-gun scenarios, we'd look for enhancements to make things safer. Add seat belts, lower speed limit, put "you're going to die" labels on cigarette packs.

But when 15 elementary kids get killed, gun amendment folks say, "just hire more security guards at churches and schools and give teachers big guns". We can't even afford teachers, and you want to hire 2-3 FT security guards at every. single. school in America, rather than make meaningful changes within the gun proliferation.
I'm sure we'll have lots of $$ to throw at top-notch security guards.

---

Well, Chem, I would love to hear your well thought out solution. Do you honestly think putting labels on boxes of shells warning against shooting kids will actually have an effect? Do you truly believe restricting access to guns will somehow end all shootings? Perhaps if you lose the preachy BS, kneejerk reaction attitude, we can have a discussion.

As I suggested, deterrence seems to me to be the best solution. Perhaps you think we have a prayer of eliminating guns even if we pass the most draconian laws. The usual response is to go look where they have done that and see if it was effective. Chicago has those laws and they are supposedly the most dangerous city in the country. Perhaps the fear of getting shot at would deter the criminal. I think it's interesting that idiots have selected elementary schools and churches for many of these violent acts.

For the record, I have never owned a firearm, but I understand the deterrence aspect of having one. If we continue to see copycat shootings, I may have to get around to making the purchase. I know that gun purchases were dramatically up last year during all the defund police nonsense. Folks living in tough neighborhoods realized that if the police couldn't be relied on they better prepare themselves.

---

I don't know the answer. But letting the NRA dictate any meaningful action on them is NOT the answer. What is sad is, some people don't want to even consider changes to reduce the availability of ARs or some of the ammo that is available --- that was not available in the romantic periods you want to reference.

Look, we've all just moved on and accept the individual killings in Chicago, NY, Detroit, Miami, etc. No one really cares, clearly, and it'll likely never be stopped.
I mean, you really want Austin and Charlotte and Marshville and _____ to be like Guatemala City and San Pedro Sula and Managua where everywhere you go, you have teenaged guards with rifles parading around (And plenty of people still get killed).
Maybe the guns over life crowd can start some bumper stickers -- we want our schools to be like those in Guatemala instead of Tokyo!!!

I just don't get it....where else do we have to hear stories like today? Or two weekends ago? But we just accept it.

---

You know what makes places like Guatemala, Mexico, and South America so dangerous? The "type" of people who live there. And now we are importing tens of millions of those people here. THAT is the reason that so much of America is becoming crime-infested and dangerous. Because you are allowing the nation to be flooded with tens of millions of these type of people.

If you have good people making up the population (like America from it's founding until the mid 1900s), then you could have every person in the country having 2 or 3 firearms, and you would have virtually zero crime.

Banning weapons does not stop crime. Weapons are not the cause of crime. Wicked people are the cause of crime. Mexico and many central and south American nations have very strict gun control. And yet they have the highest crime in the world.

---

Ahhh yes, the "brown people are bad" argument. I figured it would be you or BBW.

---

Come on, Chem, that's completely uncalled for. That BS is so damn lame. GP doesn't strike me as that kind of person. That thought never even crossed my mind when I read his comments. Y'all have got to stop looking for stuff to be offended by!!

---

That is EXACTLY what he said. I'm not offended by his statement -- just calling out the guy many of you are willing to line up with for what he is.

I mean then he says "good people making up the population until the mid 1900s". So I guess we overlook that nearly all those people (N and S) treated black people as 3rd class citizens? Heck, most treated women that way?
Or that up until the mid 1900s, we lynched, threatened, segregated, and mistreated people ONLY because of the color of hteir skin. But, yeah, they went to church a lot, so really just good people...not like us people today.

Packchem91 said:

---

PackFansXL said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

GuerrillaPack said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

PackFansXL said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

PackFansXL said:

---

Glasswolf said:

---

Is there a more sad statement than having to have armed people at church or schools? These are supposed to be safe places to worship and learn. When I was in HS the only guns were in the back glass of most pick up trucks. Never ever saw one brought into a school

---

What do you think has changed since the early 70's when you were in high school?

---

A whole bunch of things - and I don't think even the most liberal person would argue human influences have changed from the 1940s and 1950s and 1970s. Hey, in the 1940s and 50s, we still made black people go to different bathrooms than us. So...things progress.

in most normal non-gun scenarios, we'd look for enhancements to make things safer. Add seat belts, lower speed limit, put "you're going to die" labels on cigarette packs.

But when 15 elementary kids get killed, gun amendment folks say, "just hire more security guards at churches and schools and give teachers big guns". We can't even afford teachers, and you want to hire 2-3 FT security guards at every. single. school in America, rather than make meaningful changes within the gun proliferation.
I'm sure we'll have lots of $$ to throw at top-notch security guards.

---

Well, Chem, I would love to hear your well thought out solution. Do you honestly think putting labels on boxes of shells warning against shooting kids will actually have an effect? Do you truly believe restricting access to guns will somehow end all shootings? Perhaps if you lose the preachy BS, kneejerk reaction attitude, we can have a discussion.

As I suggested, deterrence seems to me to be the best solution. Perhaps you think we have a prayer of eliminating guns even if we pass the most draconian laws. The usual response is to go look where they have done that and see if it was effective. Chicago has those laws and they are supposedly the most dangerous city in the country. Perhaps the fear of getting shot at would deter the criminal. I think it's interesting that idiots have selected elementary schools and churches for many of these violent acts.

For the record, I have never owned a firearm, but I understand the deterrence aspect of having one. If we continue to see copycat shootings, I may have to get around to making the purchase. I know that gun purchases were dramatically up last year during all the defund police nonsense. Folks living in tough neighborhoods realized that if the police couldn't be relied on they better prepare themselves.

---

I don't know the answer. But letting the NRA dictate any meaningful action on them is NOT the answer. What is sad is, some people don't want to even consider changes to reduce the availability of ARs or some of the ammo that is available --- that was not available in the romantic periods you want to reference.

Look, we've all just moved on and accept the individual killings in Chicago, NY, Detroit, Miami, etc. No one really cares, clearly, and it'll likely never be stopped.
I mean, you really want Austin and Charlotte and Marshville and _____ to be like Guatemala City and San Pedro Sula and Managua where everywhere you go, you have teenaged guards with rifles parading around (And plenty of people still get killed).
Maybe the guns over life crowd can start some bumper stickers -- we want our schools to be like those in Guatemala instead of Tokyo!!!

I just don't get it....where else do we have to hear stories like today? Or two weekends ago? But we just accept it.

---

You know what makes places like Guatemala, Mexico, and South America so dangerous? The "type" of people who live there. And now we are importing tens of millions of those people here. THAT is the reason that so much of America is becoming crime-infested and dangerous. Because you are allowing the nation to be flooded with tens of millions of these type of people.

If you have good people making up the population (like America from it's founding until the mid 1900s), then you could have every person in the country having 2 or 3 firearms, and you would have virtually zero crime.

Banning weapons does not stop crime. Weapons are not the cause of crime. Wicked people are the cause of crime. Mexico and many central and south American nations have very strict gun control. And yet they have the highest crime in the world.

---

Ahhh yes, the "brown people are bad" argument. I figured it would be you or BBW.

---

Come on, Chem, that's completely uncalled for. That BS is so damn lame. GP doesn't strike me as that kind of person. That thought never even crossed my mind when I read his comments. Y'all have got to stop looking for stuff to be offended by!!

---

That is EXACTLY what he said. I'm not offended by his statement -- just calling out the guy many of you are willing to line up with for what he is.

I mean then he says "good people making up the population until the mid 1900s". So I guess we overlook that nearly all those people (N and S) treated black people as 3rd class citizens? Heck, most treated women that way?
Or that up until the mid 1900s, we lynched, threatened, segregated, and mistreated people ONLY because of the color of hteir skin. But, yeah, they went to church a lot, so really just good people...not like us people today.

---

Always playing the race card. The Left can't help it. Lynchings were rare, and were done against people of all races, and almost always because the person that was lynched had committed a crime (such a rape, etc). White and jewish people were lynched. Look up the case of Leo Frank, a jewish man who raped a girl and was lynched in 1915, and led to the founding of the ADL.

As far as racial segregation, the Marxist Left is bringing that back today. They are calling for "safe spaces" where white people are banned (eg, all non-white dorm rooms at colleges, etc). So don't cry those crocodile tears over racial segregation. The Left is all for that, as long as white people are the ones being ostracized.

As for racial discrimination, look at affirmative action. This is government-sanctioned discrimination against white people (and men). So the Left is all for racial and gender discrimination, as well -- as long as they can vilify and "punish" white people and men.

This is pretty common phenomenon amongst those shouting the loudest on social media.

Steve Kerr, who last night demanded new gun laws to keep kids safe, protested to demand the removal of all armed police from schools two years go. https://t.co/Tx8heuvIG9

— Clay Travis (@ClayTravis) May 25, 2022

caryking said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

PackFansXL said:

---

Glasswolf said:

---

Is there a more sad statement than having to have armed people at church or schools? These are supposed to be safe places to worship and learn. When I was in HS the only guns were in the back glass of most pick up trucks. Never ever saw one brought into a school

---

What do you think has changed since the early 70's when you were in high school?

---

A whole bunch of things - and I don't think even the most liberal person would argue human influences have changed from the 1940s and 1950s and 1970s. Hey, in the 1940s and 50s, we still made black people go to different bathrooms than us. So...things progress.

in most normal non-gun scenarios, we'd look for enhancements to make things safer. Add seat belts, lower speed limit, put "you're going to die" labels on cigarette packs.

But when 15 elementary kids get killed, gun amendment folks say, "just hire more security guards at churches and schools and give teachers big guns". We can't even afford teachers, and you want to hire 2-3 FT security guards at every. single. school in America, rather than make meaningful changes within the gun proliferation.
I'm sure we'll have lots of $$ to throw at top-notch security guards.

---

Yes! Hire security guards. Or, do like my church does… have certain people carrying during church services!

---

My church has at least one armed parishioner at all services.

cowboypack02 said:

---

statefan91 said:

---

Is that a good thing?

I believe hand guns are the most commonly used gun in mass shootings - do you have any recommendations on how to address it? Is it just something we need to learn to live with?

Also - any advice you have for me and my Kindergartner? Or maybe for my PreK and 1st Graders as of next school year?

---

We should be putting more security in place to stop these thing from happening. The school buildings should be secure to not allow intruders to come in. We're able to secure all types of other buildings, but not school buildings to keep people out that shouldn't be there?

---

Do you think that's the only solution? I would happily see my tax money go to more security at schools, I think Charlotte Mecklenburg police already get about 40% of the city's general fund.

But it seems like there's room for more to be done than add a couple security guards.

Both you and Glass have provided interesting and common sense statements. Thanks to you both.

I've thought about this most of the night and Mrs. BTG and I talked about it at breakfast this morning. I still believe the larger part of the issue is lack of mental health treatment for people, regardless of their age. We discussed this some here in a previous topic recently. Maybe more than once in differing threads, actually.

If proper MH care, and enough facilities were available to help deal with the wide ranging degrees of MH problems, and those in need of such treatment were given (or if need be forced to go) it, once those folks were stabilized and able to function in society, we would see a welcome change for the better in our society.

Granted, some folks won't ever be able to be treated and released - maybe this man that killed the folks in Texas is one of them. Those are the folks that have to have long term to permanent institutional care (not prison). It used to be available years ago and from what I can tell, worked a lot better than how things are today.

Once the mental health crisis in America is seriously dealt with, then and only then can the other issues (guns, drugs, lack of parental control, etc.) be addressed.

The hell of it is, those with the power to help deal with it, just don't want to. And to me, that makes them as responsible for a lot of what we are seeing happen today as is the person(s) carrying out the actual event.

God, help us all.

Why wouldn't you try to do things concurrently to help address the problems?

If started in earnest today, how long would you think it would take to meet your requirement to get MH issues and treatment under control? 10 years? 20 years?

The hell of it is, those with the power to help deal with it, just don't want to. And to me, that makes them as responsible for a lot of what we are seeing happen today as is the person(s) carrying out the actual event.

God, WILL help us. We must ask for his help.