Agree? Disagree?

[Ernie S.]

Interesting how few sheeples will admit they really don't want safer schools and how few are too cowardly to just answer the two questions. As always, they hide behind name calling.

it always amazes me when one of the biggest SHEEP here calls someone else a sheep....geezus Dudley.....will you ever pop your head out of the Democrats collective ass's?........

Luddley has his head up his ass so much, he's contracted colon cancer of the scalp.

 

[Ernie S.]

So now I am somehow negligent if someone breaks into my home and steals my firearm that you think isn't secure enough? Really guy!

Yup - really.
If you are grossly neglegent (look it up if you don't know what it means).

So if someone breaks into my home and sees a rifle in plain view, steals it and then uses in in another crime, I am somehow grossly negligent? Please explain.
Explain in careful detail please because I am obviously too dumb to grasp how I might be held negligent for the consequences of a burglary on my locked and secured property.

 

[ZimothyTahn]

which one of those would have stopped the Newtown shooting?

none of them. but that's not the point of laws, you dumbfuck. laws are meant to be deterrents from and punishments for doing things that are detrimental to society, or they're there to simply discourage or make dangerous things harder to obtain or achieve.

what's so motherfucking hard for you gun-fuckers to realize about that? of course no single law or ban will stop every single gun crime. we'd have to actually do what what you fucktards fear most and round up all the guns. but that's not going to happen.

so if we're going to be a society where we carry guns, the consensus is forming to not cater to the gun-fuckers anymore. we're going to cater to the sensible and responsible gun owners. the ones that overwhelmingly support the exact measures that Obama proposed and enacted. i feel sorry for you guys, you really are not the majority you think you are, but goddamn it, you'll burn the house down if you can't have a ham sandwich and a glass of tang, won't you?

 

[Ernie S.]

which one of those would have stopped the Newtown shooting?

#3 had a good chance. An armed guard in the main office, perhaps with an assault weapon and a high capacity magazine or two could have reduced the body count to 1, namely a 20 year old crazy man who was shooting his way through security doors.

 

[whitehall]

Why didn't they put "world peace" on the list? It's not a plan, it's a combination of a political ploy and a wish list. The strange thing is that radical lefties can't tell the difference.

 

[Politico]

Every State must have the right to license or to deny a license to own, possess or have in one's custody and control a gun for cause.

Derp they already do.

 

[aaronleland]

If you say you realize criminals don't obey the law but we need more laws to keep criminals from breaking the law, you're an idiot.

I agree, but I don't think turning our schools into prisons is the answer either.

Obviously, declaring schools to be gun-free zones has done nothing but tell nutcases that they can kill kids with impunity.

I agree. I don't pretend to know the solution to stopping school shootings, but I personally don't think armed guards is the answer. Where do we draw the line? Our children frequent movie theaters that have been the targets of spree shooters as well. Should there be an armed guard in every theater? Every store? Should we just start training the kids and arming them instead?

 

[FJO]

Not all old folks have grandchildren. Some who don't take pleasure just seeing the smiles and hear the laughter of kids and so, they volunteer for being crossing guards and do it voluntarily, without any claims for compensation.

Since volunteering is an alien concept to liberals, they don't understand that a well-trained retired former police officer would be happy to stand guard for children. With or without pay.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Interesting how few sheeples will admit they really don't want safer schools and how few are too cowardly to just answer the two questions. As always, they hide behind name calling.

it always amazes me when one of the biggest SHEEP here calls someone else a sheep....geezus Dudley.....will you ever pop your head out of the Democrats collective ass's?........

Luddley has his head up his ass so much, he's contracted colon cancer of the scalp.

well that might explain his baldness......you think he knows a hair transplant wont help?....

 

[percysunshine]

"Agree? Disagree? "

Why is the cliche always "We agree to disagree", instead of "We disagree to agree." ?

Makes more sense the second way.

 

[daveman]

In MY house I can keep ANYTHING ANYWHERE openly, freely, without hiding it, without fear of anyone stealing it, and without fear of getting punished and persecuted if I don't.

No matter what is stolen from MY house, no matter what crime is committed with what is stolen from my house, it is the criminal who did the stealing who is guilty, NOT ME.

It's not progressive to hold criminals accountable for their actions.

All the more reason to do it.

Of course. If progressives want it, it's bad for America.

 

[daveman]

Ever notice how Obama is all platitudes, and speeches?

His Idea's sound fine on the surface, but the Devil is always in the details.

Unfortunately, his audience -- those who voted for and support him -- confuse platitudes with actual thought.

Anyone can say, "Make schools safer!!"...and no one's going to disagree with it.

But what's your idea to actually DO it?

 

[daveman]

which one of those would have stopped the Newtown shooting?

none of them. but that's not the point of laws, you dumbfuck. laws are meant to be deterrents from and punishments for doing things that are detrimental to society, or they're there to simply discourage or make dangerous things harder to obtain or achieve.

what's so motherfucking hard for you gun-fuckers to realize about that? of course no single law or ban will stop every single gun crime. we'd have to actually do what what you fucktards fear most and round up all the guns. but that's not going to happen.

so if we're going to be a society where we carry guns, the consensus is forming to not cater to the gun-fuckers anymore. we're going to cater to the sensible and responsible gun owners. the ones that overwhelmingly support the exact measures that Obama proposed and enacted. i feel sorry for you guys, you really are not the majority you think you are, but goddamn it, you'll burn the house down if you can't have a ham sandwich and a glass of tang, won't you?

Welcome to the board, you ignorant retard.

 

[daveman]

I agree, but I don't think turning our schools into prisons is the answer either.

Obviously, declaring schools to be gun-free zones has done nothing but tell nutcases that they can kill kids with impunity.

I agree. I don't pretend to know the solution to stopping school shootings, but I personally don't think armed guards is the answer. Where do we draw the line? Our children frequent movie theaters that have been the targets of spree shooters as well. Should there be an armed guard in every theater? Every store? Should we just start training the kids and arming them instead?

No one is suggesting minors be allowed to carry weapons, despite what irrational gun-haters insist.

The ONLY thing that can stop a criminal with a weapon is a law-abiding citizen with a weapon.

Period.

 

[martybegan]

which one of those would have stopped the Newtown shooting?

none of them. but that's not the point of laws, you dumbfuck. laws are meant to be deterrents from and punishments for doing things that are detrimental to society, or they're there to simply discourage or make dangerous things harder to obtain or achieve.

what's so motherfucking hard for you gun-fuckers to realize about that? of course no single law or ban will stop every single gun crime. we'd have to actually do what what you fucktards fear most and round up all the guns. but that's not going to happen.

so if we're going to be a society where we carry guns, the consensus is forming to not cater to the gun-fuckers anymore. we're going to cater to the sensible and responsible gun owners. the ones that overwhelmingly support the exact measures that Obama proposed and enacted. i feel sorry for you guys, you really are not the majority you think you are, but goddamn it, you'll burn the house down if you can't have a ham sandwich and a glass of tang, won't you?

so limiting clips to 7 rounds for someone who has no intent or desire to commit a crime is somehow a detterent? how about the 25 years you can get for murder? is the 30 day probation on top of that for having a 15 round mag somehow going to make the personn see the error of thier ways?

We see the other side for what it is. Not for responsible gun ownership, but no gun ownership, except for of course government agents, and those who have to protect our new government elite overlords.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I agree, but I don't think turning our schools into prisons is the answer either.

Obviously, declaring schools to be gun-free zones has done nothing but tell nutcases that they can kill kids with impunity.

I agree. I don't pretend to know the solution to stopping school shootings, but I personally don't think armed guards is the answer. Where do we draw the line? Our children frequent movie theaters that have been the targets of spree shooters as well. Should there be an armed guard in every theater? Every store? Should we just start training the kids and arming them instead?

Or, you know, we could just let the adults around them be prepared to protect themselves and the children, instead of demanding that they all stand around like helpless sheep to the slaughter before the next deranged psycho who turns up armed.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Obviously, declaring schools to be gun-free zones has done nothing but tell nutcases that they can kill kids with impunity.

I agree. I don't pretend to know the solution to stopping school shootings, but I personally don't think armed guards is the answer. Where do we draw the line? Our children frequent movie theaters that have been the targets of spree shooters as well. Should there be an armed guard in every theater? Every store? Should we just start training the kids and arming them instead?

No one is suggesting minors be allowed to carry weapons, despite what irrational gun-haters insist.

The ONLY thing that can stop a criminal with a weapon is a law-abiding citizen with a weapon.

Period.

Well, in the case of mass shooters, it would also help if they could be put in a psychiatric hospital when people first start noticing that they're a ticking time bomb on legs. Unfortunately, the "progressives" in this country, spearheaded by the ACLU, have decided that psychopathy is an "alternative lifestyle choice".

Rumor has it - which I am currently attempting to verify - that Adam Lanza's mother was trying to get him involuntarily committed to psychiatric care, but Connecticut's laws on that are so restrictive as to make it virtually impossible. Has anyone else heard anything about this?

 

[Cecilie1200]

which one of those would have stopped the Newtown shooting?

none of them. but that's not the point of laws, you dumbfuck. laws are meant to be deterrents from and punishments for doing things that are detrimental to society, or they're there to simply discourage or make dangerous things harder to obtain or achieve.

what's so motherfucking hard for you gun-fuckers to realize about that? of course no single law or ban will stop every single gun crime. we'd have to actually do what what you fucktards fear most and round up all the guns. but that's not going to happen.

so if we're going to be a society where we carry guns, the consensus is forming to not cater to the gun-fuckers anymore. we're going to cater to the sensible and responsible gun owners. the ones that overwhelmingly support the exact measures that Obama proposed and enacted. i feel sorry for you guys, you really are not the majority you think you are, but goddamn it, you'll burn the house down if you can't have a ham sandwich and a glass of tang, won't you?

so limiting clips to 7 rounds for someone who has no intent or desire to commit a crime is somehow a detterent? how about the 25 years you can get for murder? is the 30 day probation on top of that for having a 15 round mag somehow going to make the personn see the error of thier ways?

We see the other side for what it is. Not for responsible gun ownership, but no gun ownership, except for of course government agents, and those who have to protect our new government elite overlords.

If you're not already deterred from walking into a school and shooting an entire kindergarten class by . . . you know, being a decent human being, how deterred are you going to be from it by any law whatsoever? If morality isn't bugging you, laws probably don't mean much, either.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Do not agree.

I agree with 100% of The President's Proposal but it does not go far enough. Every State must have the right to license or to deny a license to own, possess or have in one's custody and control a gun for cause. Said license should require a background check as well as requirements for the training of both the legal and operational use of a gun.

Said license can be suspended or revoked for cause. Cause being an arrest (suspension) or revoked (for conviction) for an act of violence (i.e. sexually battery, domestic violence, any Felony or detention as a danger to himself or others).

All licensed gun owners must carry liability insurance to cover any harm done to anyone by anyone's use of their gun. Unless the evidence shows the gun owner had taken reasonable precautions to prevent the unauthorized use of their gun, they may be found culpable for civil and/or criminal penalties.

P.S. Anyone licensed who sells or provides a gun to anyone not licensed shall be forever denied al license to own, possess or have in their custody or control a gun, and if he gun sold to the unlicensed person is used in any felony, said seller would serve not less than 10 years in the state prison.

Nope, sorry charlie....I love your intricate idea, so Tyrone selling a gun to Jerome, does Tryone really give a shit about a liscense......why are you so afraid of law abiding citizens getting guns and want them to have a difficult time, while you liberals allow criminals to roam free....as long as they're "Good" in jail......what a crock.

 

[Freewill]

which one of those would have stopped the Newtown shooting?

none of them. but that's not the point of laws, you dumbfuck. laws are meant to be deterrents from and punishments for doing things that are detrimental to society, or they're there to simply discourage or make dangerous things harder to obtain or achieve.

what's so motherfucking hard for you gun-fuckers to realize about that? of course no single law or ban will stop every single gun crime. we'd have to actually do what what you fucktards fear most and round up all the guns. but that's not going to happen.

so if we're going to be a society where we carry guns, the consensus is forming to not cater to the gun-fuckers anymore. we're going to cater to the sensible and responsible gun owners. the ones that overwhelmingly support the exact measures that Obama proposed and enacted. i feel sorry for you guys, you really are not the majority you think you are, but goddamn it, you'll burn the house down if you can't have a ham sandwich and a glass of tang, won't you?

Blah blah blah, all I read is another liberal who wants to dictate what everyone else must think and do. Doing the dictating from their mother's basement. You posted a list of feel good BS, idiotic feel good BS that would not have stopped ANY of the last mass shooting. The left are such idiots, if they were really worried about our youth they would attempt to teach them something other then the violence churned out but the Hollywood elitists or the violent game manufacturers. But no they wish to attack those who obey the law.