NRA School Shield: Why should the NRA be the voice of how schools are protected?

It wouldn't matter what the Nra said, the reactionary people would put it down no matter..

so it's useless for them to say anything really
 
This blaming everything except the guns ...

The gun nuts want guns in schools so kids will be safe but that didn't help Ft Hood where there are not only armed guards but hundreds of armed people with quick and easy access to guns.

They also say that its the fault of those murdered because we don't pray in schools. The Sikhs were praying and it didn't help them.

After the theater shooting, gun nuts wanted armed guards in all theaters.

So, how long before the gun nuts say preachers should be armed too?

What the gun nuts really want is an end to all freedom - except the armed thugs.
 
Ft Hood.

We can turn all schools into Ft Hood but all their hundreds of guns didn't stop the mass murder.

Was someone armed at Ft. Hood, or did Hasan shoot all the unarmed. In Afghanistan the military was required to be unarmed while on the base. Then they had the Afghans turning guns on our military. NOW everyone on the base is required to be armed at all times.

See how that works.

No they weren't armed.

Ludnut is a liar like the rest of the liberals here.

You might want to actually visit a military base. If you did, you would see armed guards all over the base. Starting with the gate and throughout the entire base, many armed guards are out in the open.
 
oh waaaa, they blamed everything but the gun..




OH WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
 
He wants to condemn those who want to limit your right to own a gun. Your second amendment right.

But in the same damn breath condems the first amendment right of film makers and game developers.


Why can't the right defend their constitutional rights without trying to limit mine?

Who the fuck is LaPierre?

By the way, there are plenty of idiotic experts that tell me violence in video games and movies makes people more violent, despite the fact that there are plenty of studies that say otherwise, why shouldn't we use them to limit speech if you think we can use stupid experts to limit other rights? What makes your rights more important than mine?
 
Last edited:
You want that to be true but the facts do not support it at all. I've found only one example of a civilian with a gun taking a gun away from a crazy shooter. It simply does not happen and since there are more 310 MILLION guns in the US, how many more do you think we need?

It's starting again.
The number's creep.
We went from 280 million to 300 million now it's up to 310 million guns.
The left does this all the time,when they start pushing for new legislation.
When Jan. comes around it will be up to 350 million guns. :lol:

Fair enough. I went looking for factual numbers. Here's what I found -

National Rifle Association (NRA) Statistics | Statistic Brain
NRA says 300 million in 2010
(You might also want to look at the membership and $$ figures)

How many guns are in the United States of America
FBI says 200 million
National Rifle Association (NRA) Statistics | Statistic Brain

Gun Ownership: An International Comparison - Independent Voter Network
Compared to the rest of the world
United States – The United States is ranked at No. 1 for civilian gun ownership in comparison with all other industrialized countries. There are approximately 88.8 firearms for every 100 people in the U.S. In the past 14 years, the year with the greatest number of homicides caused by a firearm occurred in 2006, when 10,225 people were killed by the use of a gun. Annual firearm suicides within the United States are high as well. In 2005, 17,002 suicides were committed using a firearm.

Does it really matter whether there are 200 million or 300 million or 310 million?

What the gun nuts are saying is that we need more but, according to the news, people are spending their rent and food money on guns to celebrate this xmas season. If 200 million to 300 million have not made anyone more safe, its just ridiculous to think more will.

There would not be so many if the President and the Dems were not saying they were going to pass semi automatic gun laws.
Any time Dem's do this guns sales soar.

Guns has kept many safe. The news don't report them.
There are millions of reports of how guns has been successful in being used as a deterrent. The vast majority go unreported.
Cases in which guns saved lives
 
Last edited:
That's why I don't watch the news, if it bleeds it leads

they have as much blame in this as anyone else you all want to accuse
 
Last edited:
This blaming everything except the guns ...

The gun nuts want guns in schools so kids will be safe but that didn't help Ft Hood where there are not only armed guards but hundreds of armed people with quick and easy access to guns.

They also say that its the fault of those murdered because we don't pray in schools. The Sikhs were praying and it didn't help them.

After the theater shooting, gun nuts wanted armed guards in all theaters.

So, how long before the gun nuts say preachers should be armed too?

What the gun nuts really want is an end to all freedom - except the armed thugs.

You're just as bad. They blame media you blame guns. Both are lifeless objects subjet to user abuse.
 
because to them dead childern is just collateral damage for their right to own a gun with no reason to exsit

Unless you want to outlaw the use of motor vehicles, you must believe that dead children are just collateral damage of your right to drive to work.

Liberal stupidity has no natural limit.
 
Who the fuck is LaPierre?

By the way, there are plenty of idiotic experts that tell me violence in video games and movies makes people more violent, despite the fact that there are plenty of studies that say otherwise, why shouldn't we use them to limit speech if you think we can use stupid experts to limit other rights? What makes your rights more important than mine?

Don't give the libturds any ideas. The first amendment is the next one on their list of rights to be obliterated. All the other amendments have already been pretty much cancelled.
 
Last edited:
Was someone armed at Ft. Hood, or did Hasan shoot all the unarmed. In Afghanistan the military was required to be unarmed while on the base. Then they had the Afghans turning guns on our military. NOW everyone on the base is required to be armed at all times.

See how that works.

No they weren't armed.

Ludnut is a liar like the rest of the liberals here.
The civilian police were armed and exchanged fire with the shooter.

No reason to make things up. Lud was correct. Having armed police on hand didn't save those lives at Ft. Hood.

there was no one in the facility who was armed. According to Wikipedia:

Fort Hood shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Base civilian police Sergeant Kimberly Munley, who had rushed to the scene in her patrol car, encountered Hasan in the area outside the Soldier Readiness Processing Center.[31] Hasan fired at Munley, who exchanged shots with him using her 9mm M9 pistol. Munley's hand was hit by shrapnel when one of Hasan's bullets struck a nearby rain gutter, and then two bullets struck Munley: the first bullet hit her thigh, and the second hit her knee.[19][29] As she began to fall from the first bullet, the second bullet struck her femur, shattering it and knocking her to the ground.[19][29] Hasan then walked up to Munley and kicked her pistol out of reach.[32]

. . . . . . . . . .

In the area outside the building, Hasan continued to shoot at fleeing soldiers, and civilian police Sergeant Mark Todd arrived and shouted commands at Hasan to surrender.[29] Todd said: "Then he turned and fired a couple of rounds at me. I didn't hear him say a word, he just turned and fired."[35] The two exchanged shots, and Hasan was felled by five shots from Todd,[3][36] who then kicked his pistol out of his hand and placed him in handcuffs as he fell unconscious.[37]
 
The NRA is still the largest firearm educaton and safety organization out there. Gun grabbers just focus on their political arm.

National Rifle Association - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Probably because that is the face they have CHOSEN to wear. The NRA is no longer being represented by responsible gun owners, but by the $ behind the making and selling of as many guns as possible.

Once again the tired liberal matra of ITS ALL ABOUT THE MONEY. God forbid you people can contemplate someone disagreeing with you for reasons other than greed, evil or stupidity.

I guess it just makes you feel better to slam millions of gun owners, alot of whom are represented by the NRA.

The gun OWNERS are no longer represented by the NRA. What part of that don't you get? The NRA represents the gun manufacturer first and foremost. And why is that? Cause that's where the money is.
 
Probably because that is the face they have CHOSEN to wear. The NRA is no longer being represented by responsible gun owners, but by the $ behind the making and selling of as many guns as possible.

Once again the tired liberal matra of ITS ALL ABOUT THE MONEY. God forbid you people can contemplate someone disagreeing with you for reasons other than greed, evil or stupidity.

I guess it just makes you feel better to slam millions of gun owners, alot of whom are represented by the NRA.

The gun OWNERS are no longer represented by the NRA. What part of that don't you get? The NRA represents the gun manufacturer first and foremost. And why is that? Cause that's where the money is.

bs
that is only YOUR opinion, nothing else
 
Once again the tired liberal matra of ITS ALL ABOUT THE MONEY. God forbid you people can contemplate someone disagreeing with you for reasons other than greed, evil or stupidity.

I guess it just makes you feel better to slam millions of gun owners, alot of whom are represented by the NRA.

The gun OWNERS are no longer represented by the NRA. What part of that don't you get? The NRA represents the gun manufacturer first and foremost. And why is that? Cause that's where the money is.

bs
that is only YOUR opinion, nothing else

Nah; widely recognized truth, due to a pivital shift under LaPierre. Previlously it was as the acronymn suggests: an association of rifle owners (hunters) that in fact had a lot value. But then a shift in leadership, most notably LaPierre, changed its mission, which is now carrying the water for the weapons manufacturing industry, who rather than spending millions on ads and PR exposing themselves to criticism, put the money into the NRA, who can say and do (lobbying) what it wishes without the stink rubbing off on the manufacturers. And it was a brilliiant move, making LaPierre very wealthy with a near 7-fugure salary, not to mention the envy of everyone in the association management game. He's among few peers, i.e. Nancy Brinker of Susan G. Komen (1/2 Mill a year, at the end).
 
Last edited:
The gun OWNERS are no longer represented by the NRA. What part of that don't you get? The NRA represents the gun manufacturer first and foremost. And why is that? Cause that's where the money is.

bs
that is only YOUR opinion, nothing else

Nah; widely recognized truth, due to a pivital shift under LaPierre. Previlously it was as the acronymn suggests: an association of rifle owners (hunters) that in fact had a lot value. But then a shift in leadership, most notably LaPierre, changed its mission, which is now carrying the water for the weapons manufacturing industry, who rather than spending millions on ads and PR exposing themselves to criticism, put the money into the NRA, who can say and do (lobbying) what it wishes without the stink rubbing off on the manufacturers. And it was a brilliiant move, making LaPierre very wealthy with a near 7-fugure salary, not to mention the envy of everyone in the association management game. He's among few peers, i.e. Nancy Brinker of Susan G. Komen (1/2 Mill a year, at the end).

The second some prog calls something a "widely recognized truth" its obvious they know its bullshit, but they have to stick to the script, be it from simple lack of imagination, or a feverent hope that beleiving something makes it true.
 
bs
that is only YOUR opinion, nothing else

Nah; widely recognized truth, due to a pivital shift under LaPierre. Previlously it was as the acronymn suggests: an association of rifle owners (hunters) that in fact had a lot value. But then a shift in leadership, most notably LaPierre, changed its mission, which is now carrying the water for the weapons manufacturing industry, who rather than spending millions on ads and PR exposing themselves to criticism, put the money into the NRA, who can say and do (lobbying) what it wishes without the stink rubbing off on the manufacturers. And it was a brilliiant move, making LaPierre very wealthy with a near 7-fugure salary, not to mention the envy of everyone in the association management game. He's among few peers, i.e. Nancy Brinker of Susan G. Komen (1/2 Mill a year, at the end).

The second some prog calls something a "widely recognized truth" its obvious they know its bullshit, but they have to stick to the script, be it from simple lack of imagination, or a feverent hope that beleiving something makes it true.

The NRA represents gun makers...

And the gun industry – led by Ruger – has benefited tremendously from the NRA. According to IRS fillings, from 2004 to 2010, the NRA’s revenue from fundraising — including gifts from gun makers who benefit from its political activism — grew twice as fast as its income from members’ dues.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/petercohan/2012/07/23/the-nra-industrial-complex/

You aren't where the money is.
 
Nah; widely recognized truth, due to a pivital shift under LaPierre. Previlously it was as the acronymn suggests: an association of rifle owners (hunters) that in fact had a lot value. But then a shift in leadership, most notably LaPierre, changed its mission, which is now carrying the water for the weapons manufacturing industry, who rather than spending millions on ads and PR exposing themselves to criticism, put the money into the NRA, who can say and do (lobbying) what it wishes without the stink rubbing off on the manufacturers. And it was a brilliiant move, making LaPierre very wealthy with a near 7-fugure salary, not to mention the envy of everyone in the association management game. He's among few peers, i.e. Nancy Brinker of Susan G. Komen (1/2 Mill a year, at the end).

The second some prog calls something a "widely recognized truth" its obvious they know its bullshit, but they have to stick to the script, be it from simple lack of imagination, or a feverent hope that beleiving something makes it true.

The NRA represents gun makers...

And the gun industry – led by Ruger – has benefited tremendously from the NRA. According to IRS fillings, from 2004 to 2010, the NRA’s revenue from fundraising — including gifts from gun makers who benefit from its political activism — grew twice as fast as its income from members’ dues.

You aren't where the money is.


and nothing you posted refutes my previous statement. It also backs up my other observation that progs can't fathom someone having an opposite opinion than thiers in good faith. it has to be about money or evil or stupid.
 

Forum List

Back
Top