There is simply no denying it is time for "common sense" gun laws

[NoNukes]

You sound pretty unsure about your masculinity.

You sound like an immature idealist and a coward. "No Nukes". Bwahahahaha. Typical immature idealist libtard. Mutually Assured Destruction brought more peace and stability to the world than anything ever. And your dumb ass wants to get rid of them simply because you pee down your leg every time you see a video of what the bomb is capable of.

Listen junior, stay in the corner playing with your toys. Let the adults handle running the country. Ok?

You sound even more insecure. Big man at the keyboard.

You poor little pussy.
People call you out here for being an asshole and you can't take it.
Typical LIB coward.
Still hiding your hoodie with Trayvon's twelve year old face on it?
Face it.
You're a loser.

Another big tough guy behind the computer. I love getting up into the face of guys like you, you always turn coward quickly.

 

[emilynghiem]

San Bernardino - Workplace of the killer.

Roseberg - School of the killer

Sandy Hook - School of the killer

Washington Navy Yard - Workplace of the killer

Virginia Tech - School of the killer

Santa Monica College - School of the killer


The ones that are NOT the workplace or school of the killer are the outliers, but even the Orlando killer had frequented that night club once or twice a month for over a year.

Dear g5000 And in ALL these cases, the attacker was either mentally or criminally ill.

You remind me of the story of the person who
drinks Scotch and water on Monday and gets drunk
drinks Gin and water on Tuesday and gets drunk
drinks Wine and water on Wednesday and gets drunk
drinks Rum and water on Thursday and gets drunk etc.

Then blames the WATER for why they got drunk since it was the common factor?
No, idiot, the other drinks all contain ALCOHOL as the factor actually causing inebriation.

Yes, g5000 once people are mentally ill and they chose a target they can access,
of course it's going to be some place like you said!

But that doesn't mean it's the CAUSE.

The CAUSE is mental and criminal illness that goes unchecked.
You accuse other people of being TARDS for missing the obvious?

Do you want to go to the bullring over this?
If mental and criminal illness is the root issue in all attacks?
or whether it is the place they are targeting that causes the attacks? really?

 

[Flash]

No one has ever answered my question about cracking down on the mentally ill.

Please flesh out exactly what this means. Are you going to confiscate their guns? What about the guns of their families? After all, the Sandy Hook shooter is when all this "mentally ill" shit by the NRA and their puppets got started. The Sandy Hook shooter acquired his guns by killing his mother and taking HER guns.

So how about it? Exactly what sort of confiscation plan do you have for the "mentall ill" so that we can keep "assault weapons" legal for everyone else?

Answer, please.

Just as we demand the liberals to define "assault weapons", you should define "mentally ill". Who qualifies for confiscation?

It is hilarious when you see a Moon Bat talk about the mentality ill and gun control.

The other day the Democrats (Party of Moon Bats) voted down a bill that would have strengthen the reporting of the mentally ill into the NCIS system. The bill also increased funding for the NCIS system.

Democrats don't give a shit about common sense gun control laws because their agenda is not common sense. It is doing away with the Second Amendment because they hate the idea of the people having power over their precious filthy ass government. Crooked Hillary even said so herself.

 

[Brain357]

No one has ever answered my question about cracking down on the mentally ill.

Please flesh out exactly what this means. Are you going to confiscate their guns? What about the guns of their families? After all, the Sandy Hook shooter is when all this "mentally ill" shit by the NRA and their puppets got started. The Sandy Hook shooter acquired his guns by killing his mother and taking HER guns.

So how about it? Exactly what sort of confiscation plan do you have for the "mentall ill" so that we can keep "assault weapons" legal for everyone else?

Answer, please.

Just as we demand the liberals to define "assault weapons", you should define "mentally ill". Who qualifies for confiscation?

Which is why the obvious answer is to make sure people are armed everywhere all the time. That's the only solution. If people can defend themselves, they don't become victims. Every other suggestion is an ignorant, half-backed idea by lazy liberals who don't want to have to take personal responsibility for their own security.

More people are accidently killed by guns than by mass shooters. Your solution kills more than the problem.

 

[dannyboys]

You sound pretty unsure about your masculinity.

You sound like an immature idealist and a coward. "No Nukes". Bwahahahaha. Typical immature idealist libtard. Mutually Assured Destruction brought more peace and stability to the world than anything ever. And your dumb ass wants to get rid of them simply because you pee down your leg every time you see a video of what the bomb is capable of.

Listen junior, stay in the corner playing with your toys. Let the adults handle running the country. Ok?

You sound even more insecure. Big man at the keyboard.

You poor little pussy.
People call you out here for being an asshole and you can't take it.
Typical LIB coward.
Still hiding your hoodie with Trayvon's twelve year old face on it?
Face it.
You're a loser.

Another big tough guy behind the computer. I love getting up into the face of guys like you, you always turn coward quickly.

You're not worth the bandwidth loser.
Permanent Ignore.

 

[P@triot]

You sound pretty unsure about your masculinity.

You sound like an immature idealist and a coward. "No Nukes". Bwahahahaha. Typical immature idealist libtard. Mutually Assured Destruction brought more peace and stability to the world than anything ever. And your dumb ass wants to get rid of them simply because you pee down your leg every time you see a video of what the bomb is capable of.

Listen junior, stay in the corner playing with your toys. Let the adults handle running the country. Ok?

You sound even more insecure. Big man at the keyboard.

You poor little pussy.
People call you out here for being an asshole and you can't take it.
Typical LIB coward.
Still hiding your hoodie with Trayvon's twelve year old face on it?
Face it.
You're a loser.

Another big tough guy behind the computer. I love getting up into the face of guys like you, you always turn coward quickly.

Oh yeah.....I'm sure kumbaya "no nuke" boy here really gets aggressive with people in the real world

Do you have any idea what an asshole you sound like? If this is not true (as I'm sure it's not) then you sound like an idiot "internet tough guy" - a coward in real life while lying about it in the cyber world. If it is true, you're committing a crime and are an even bigger asshole who is going to get knocked out. Either way, that comment speaks volumes about what an asshole you are.

 

[P@triot]

We have seen it far too often. Way too many tragic and unnecessary deaths. We have reached the point that no honest person could deny that it is time for "common sense" gun laws. Barack Obama has preached this for 8 straight years now and he has been right all along.

Wherever guns are banned (public schools, universities, movie theaters, etc.) - horrific tragedy ensues. Wherever guns are prevalent (White House, police departments, NRA meetings, etc.) peace and security ensues. Anybody with "common sense" would look at the indisputable reality and immediately implement "common sense" gun laws which would permit firearms everywhere, all the time. Fully automatic weapons in every building (just the Secret Service has while the president is in public). Teachers with guns on them. College students conceal carrying.

Anybody who doesn't support these basic "common sense" gun laws clearly isn't interested in public safety, preserving human life, or security. Instead they are simply interested in control. This one is so obvious - both sides can agree on it. Again - unless someone is more interested in a control/oppression agenda.

A totally false premise.

Even our bases in Afghanistan and Iraq were places of mass shootings even though our troops are armed to the teeth in those places.

Here you go junior. Indisputable proof that you have no idea what you are talking about (as usual)....

 

[NoNukes]

You sound pretty unsure about your masculinity.

You sound like an immature idealist and a coward. "No Nukes". Bwahahahaha. Typical immature idealist libtard. Mutually Assured Destruction brought more peace and stability to the world than anything ever. And your dumb ass wants to get rid of them simply because you pee down your leg every time you see a video of what the bomb is capable of.

Listen junior, stay in the corner playing with your toys. Let the adults handle running the country. Ok?

You sound even more insecure. Big man at the keyboard.

You poor little pussy.
People call you out here for being an asshole and you can't take it.
Typical LIB coward.
Still hiding your hoodie with Trayvon's twelve year old face on it?
Face it.
You're a loser.

Another big tough guy behind the computer. I love getting up into the face of guys like you, you always turn coward quickly.

Oh yeah.....I'm sure kumbaya "no nuke" boy here really gets aggressive with people in the real world

Do you have any idea what an asshole you sound like? If this is not true (as I'm sure it's not) then you sound like an idiot "internet tough guy" - a coward in real life while lying about it in the cyber world. If it is true, you're committing a crime and are an even bigger asshole who is going to get knocked out. Either way, that comment speaks volumes about what an asshole you are.

Listen to the Internet tough guy. You are pathetic.

 

[mgh80]

No one has ever answered my question about cracking down on the mentally ill.

Please flesh out exactly what this means. Are you going to confiscate their guns? What about the guns of their families? After all, the Sandy Hook shooter is when all this "mentally ill" shit by the NRA and their puppets got started. The Sandy Hook shooter acquired his guns by killing his mother and taking HER guns.

So how about it? Exactly what sort of confiscation plan do you have for the "mentall ill" so that we can keep "assault weapons" legal for everyone else?

Answer, please.

Just as we demand the liberals to define "assault weapons", you should define "mentally ill". Who qualifies for confiscation?

Which is why the obvious answer is to make sure people are armed everywhere all the time. That's the only solution. If people can defend themselves, they don't become victims. Every other suggestion is an ignorant, half-backed idea by lazy liberals who don't want to have to take personal responsibility for their own security.

More people are accidently killed by guns than by mass shooters. Your solution kills more than the problem.

I've posed this question numerous times now in this thread and no "anti-gun" people have provided any answers yet:

I teach 25 students per class period (I teach juniors and seniors in high school), if a kid stands up and starts shooting at the other 24 students, or myself how can I protect myself and those other students?

Same thing if there's a shooter in the hallway outside of my room...I don't mind risking my life for my students and would always do so...I just want a fighting chance and not to be a sitting duck. Is that really too much to ask for?

 

[g5000]

What mental health laws do you guys want to enact to stop mass shootings? I am still waiting on an answer.

No one can answer that one, it seems. Retards just parrot that idiotic line from the NRA and yet can't provide a single idea of what kind of mental health law would stop mass shootings.

Stop being such mouth-breathing creduloids.

 

[Brain357]

No one has ever answered my question about cracking down on the mentally ill.

Please flesh out exactly what this means. Are you going to confiscate their guns? What about the guns of their families? After all, the Sandy Hook shooter is when all this "mentally ill" shit by the NRA and their puppets got started. The Sandy Hook shooter acquired his guns by killing his mother and taking HER guns.

So how about it? Exactly what sort of confiscation plan do you have for the "mentall ill" so that we can keep "assault weapons" legal for everyone else?

Answer, please.

Just as we demand the liberals to define "assault weapons", you should define "mentally ill". Who qualifies for confiscation?

Which is why the obvious answer is to make sure people are armed everywhere all the time. That's the only solution. If people can defend themselves, they don't become victims. Every other suggestion is an ignorant, half-backed idea by lazy liberals who don't want to have to take personal responsibility for their own security.

More people are accidently killed by guns than by mass shooters. Your solution kills more than the problem.

I've posed this question numerous times now in this thread and no "anti-gun" people have provided any answers yet:

I teach 25 students per class period (I teach juniors and seniors in high school), if a kid stands up and starts shooting at the other 24 students, or myself how can I protect myself and those other students?

Same thing if there's a shooter in the hallway outside of my room...I don't mind risking my life for my students and would always do so...I just want a fighting chance and not to be a sitting duck. Is that really too much to ask for?

You are far more likely to accidently shoot yourself than ever need to defend your students. If students know teachers can be armed, you can bet you would be the first shot and never see it coming. I would allow smart guns in. Gun nuts however prefer to shoot themselves than allow smart guns in the country.

 

[paulitician]

The OP still hasn't articulated what 'Common Sense Gun Laws' means. He or she hasn't listed specifically, what the proposed laws will be. I'll wait a little longer.

 

[mgh80]

No one has ever answered my question about cracking down on the mentally ill.

Please flesh out exactly what this means. Are you going to confiscate their guns? What about the guns of their families? After all, the Sandy Hook shooter is when all this "mentally ill" shit by the NRA and their puppets got started. The Sandy Hook shooter acquired his guns by killing his mother and taking HER guns.

So how about it? Exactly what sort of confiscation plan do you have for the "mentall ill" so that we can keep "assault weapons" legal for everyone else?

Answer, please.

Just as we demand the liberals to define "assault weapons", you should define "mentally ill". Who qualifies for confiscation?

Which is why the obvious answer is to make sure people are armed everywhere all the time. That's the only solution. If people can defend themselves, they don't become victims. Every other suggestion is an ignorant, half-backed idea by lazy liberals who don't want to have to take personal responsibility for their own security.

More people are accidently killed by guns than by mass shooters. Your solution kills more than the problem.

I've posed this question numerous times now in this thread and no "anti-gun" people have provided any answers yet:

I teach 25 students per class period (I teach juniors and seniors in high school), if a kid stands up and starts shooting at the other 24 students, or myself how can I protect myself and those other students?

Same thing if there's a shooter in the hallway outside of my room...I don't mind risking my life for my students and would always do so...I just want a fighting chance and not to be a sitting duck. Is that really too much to ask for?

You are far more likely to accidently shoot yourself than ever need to defend your students. If students know teachers can be armed, you can bet you would be the first shot and never see it coming. I would allow smart guns in. Gun nuts however prefer to shoot themselves than allow smart guns in the country.

I'd be the first target regardless if I was carrying or not. I'm well aware of that.

I had a student this year arrested for bringing a 45 to school...the scenario may not be probable-but it is possible.

Honestly I agree with allowing smart guns and would have no problem with that. Student safety is my #1 priority, parents entrust their kid's education and lives in my hands every day at school, and I take that very seriously. I want them protected from myself accidentally firing a gun as well.

I'm well aware that the scenario is unlikely (school shooting), but keep in mind I've literally been to student funerals for gang members, have had students bring guns to school, etc. I am not exaggerating in the least. I don't want a wild west...but I also don't want a Columbine where those poor students in the library were sitting ducks and were slaughtered as such.

 

[Brain357]

No one has ever answered my question about cracking down on the mentally ill.

Please flesh out exactly what this means. Are you going to confiscate their guns? What about the guns of their families? After all, the Sandy Hook shooter is when all this "mentally ill" shit by the NRA and their puppets got started. The Sandy Hook shooter acquired his guns by killing his mother and taking HER guns.

So how about it? Exactly what sort of confiscation plan do you have for the "mentall ill" so that we can keep "assault weapons" legal for everyone else?

Answer, please.

Just as we demand the liberals to define "assault weapons", you should define "mentally ill". Who qualifies for confiscation?

Which is why the obvious answer is to make sure people are armed everywhere all the time. That's the only solution. If people can defend themselves, they don't become victims. Every other suggestion is an ignorant, half-backed idea by lazy liberals who don't want to have to take personal responsibility for their own security.

More people are accidently killed by guns than by mass shooters. Your solution kills more than the problem.

I've posed this question numerous times now in this thread and no "anti-gun" people have provided any answers yet:

I teach 25 students per class period (I teach juniors and seniors in high school), if a kid stands up and starts shooting at the other 24 students, or myself how can I protect myself and those other students?

Same thing if there's a shooter in the hallway outside of my room...I don't mind risking my life for my students and would always do so...I just want a fighting chance and not to be a sitting duck. Is that really too much to ask for?

You are far more likely to accidently shoot yourself than ever need to defend your students. If students know teachers can be armed, you can bet you would be the first shot and never see it coming. I would allow smart guns in. Gun nuts however prefer to shoot themselves than allow smart guns in the country.

I'd be the first target regardless if I was carrying or not. I'm well aware of that.

I had a student this year arrested for bringing a 45 to school...the scenario may not be probable-but it is possible.

Honestly I agree with allowing smart guns and would have no problem with that. Student safety is my #1 priority, parents entrust their kid's education and lives in my hands every day at school, and I take that very seriously. I want them protected from myself accidentally firing a gun as well.

I'm well aware that the scenario is unlikely (school shooting), but keep in mind I've literally been to student funerals for gang members, have had students bring guns to school, etc. I am not exaggerating in the least. I don't want a wild west...but I also don't want a Columbine where those poor students in the library were sitting ducks and were slaughtered as such.

I'm glad we agree on smart guns. Now we need to get the gun nuts on board. It is amazing when it comes to assault rifles everyone gets a choice. But want a smart gun and they do everything to keep them out of the country. Where is the choice now?

 

[mgh80]

Which is why the obvious answer is to make sure people are armed everywhere all the time. That's the only solution. If people can defend themselves, they don't become victims. Every other suggestion is an ignorant, half-backed idea by lazy liberals who don't want to have to take personal responsibility for their own security.

More people are accidently killed by guns than by mass shooters. Your solution kills more than the problem.

I've posed this question numerous times now in this thread and no "anti-gun" people have provided any answers yet:

I teach 25 students per class period (I teach juniors and seniors in high school), if a kid stands up and starts shooting at the other 24 students, or myself how can I protect myself and those other students?

Same thing if there's a shooter in the hallway outside of my room...I don't mind risking my life for my students and would always do so...I just want a fighting chance and not to be a sitting duck. Is that really too much to ask for?

You are far more likely to accidently shoot yourself than ever need to defend your students. If students know teachers can be armed, you can bet you would be the first shot and never see it coming. I would allow smart guns in. Gun nuts however prefer to shoot themselves than allow smart guns in the country.

I'd be the first target regardless if I was carrying or not. I'm well aware of that.

I had a student this year arrested for bringing a 45 to school...the scenario may not be probable-but it is possible.

Honestly I agree with allowing smart guns and would have no problem with that. Student safety is my #1 priority, parents entrust their kid's education and lives in my hands every day at school, and I take that very seriously. I want them protected from myself accidentally firing a gun as well.

I'm well aware that the scenario is unlikely (school shooting), but keep in mind I've literally been to student funerals for gang members, have had students bring guns to school, etc. I am not exaggerating in the least. I don't want a wild west...but I also don't want a Columbine where those poor students in the library were sitting ducks and were slaughtered as such.

I'm glad we agree on smart guns. Now we need to get the gun nuts on board. It is amazing when it comes to assault rifles everyone gets a choice. But want a smart gun and they do everything to keep them out of the country. Where is the choice now?

Well I think there's a difference between what a teacher should be able to carry and a private citizen. When I'm at work I'm on government property and the Constitution does not (fully) apply to me (I can't just say whatever I'd like to to my students for example).

I think your view on smart guns for a teacher is very reasonable, and I agree with you so the rest of my post isn't really directed toward you specifically.

The problem is that for every "gun nut" who says not to that, there's a "anti gun" person who says that teachers shouldn't be allowed to even carry a smart gun.

There's a big number of people who think teachers shouldn't have a taser, or even a fire extinguisher for defense (this was brought up in my district actually).

The status quo is not unacceptable. They say have an armed resource officer on campus and that will work. Well Columbine had one, and that didn't prevent the shooters. They say increase the gun laws, again the guns were illegally acquired by the shooters (where there's a will there's a way). So I have a tough time with people who don't understand what has happened in the past and could happen in the future.

 

[P@triot]

Thank goodness that Chicago outlawed firearms. It certainly kept this woman very safe. Thanks to the Chicago ban she did not get shot at all. Not once. She was merely stabbed to death.

Family of Murder Victim Furious After Video of Subway Stabbing Goes Viral

 

[Chuz Life]

We have seen it far too often. Way too many tragic and unnecessary deaths. We have reached the point that no honest person could deny that it is time for "common sense" gun laws. Barack Obama has preached this for 8 straight years now and he has been right all along.

Wherever guns are banned (public schools, universities, movie theaters, etc.) - horrific tragedy ensues. Wherever guns are prevalent (White House, police departments, NRA meetings, etc.) peace and security ensues. Anybody with "common sense" would look at the indisputable reality and immediately implement "common sense" gun laws which would permit firearms everywhere, all the time. Fully automatic weapons in every building (just the Secret Service has while the president is in public). Teachers with guns on them. College students conceal carrying.

Anybody who doesn't support these basic "common sense" gun laws clearly isn't interested in public safety, preserving human life, or security. Instead they are simply interested in control. This one is so obvious - both sides can agree on it. Again - unless someone is more interested in a control/oppression agenda.

You people are so far up your own asses. Don't you see how ridiculous your logic is? Ok you want more "good guys" with guns but you fail to realize that by arming everyone you are only increasing the risk of more nut jobs getting guns. It's such a brainless idea.

And let's examine the "good guy" scenario. Many concealed carried people may have good intentions, but many of them probably know next to nothing about gun safety. How do you think that would turn out?

Like it or not, the people of the United States are (Constitutionally) supposed to be FREE to do anything we want to do in our daily lives short of violating or infringing upon the lives and the rights of others. We are also supposed to be considered "innocent until PROVEN" guilty. And, we "the people" also have a Constitutional Right to "keep and bear arms."

Gun laws (or any other law) that presumes someone is guilty and forces them to prove their innocence are contrary to our Constitutional Rights and the ideals on which the country was founded upon.

 

[Skull Pilot]

No one has ever answered my question about cracking down on the mentally ill.

Please flesh out exactly what this means. Are you going to confiscate their guns? What about the guns of their families? After all, the Sandy Hook shooter is when all this "mentally ill" shit by the NRA and their puppets got started. The Sandy Hook shooter acquired his guns by killing his mother and taking HER guns.

So how about it? Exactly what sort of confiscation plan do you have for the "mentall ill" so that we can keep "assault weapons" legal for everyone else?

Answer, please.

Just as we demand the liberals to define "assault weapons", you should define "mentally ill". Who qualifies for confiscation?

Which is why the obvious answer is to make sure people are armed everywhere all the time. That's the only solution. If people can defend themselves, they don't become victims. Every other suggestion is an ignorant, half-backed idea by lazy liberals who don't want to have to take personal responsibility for their own security.

More people are accidently killed by guns than by mass shooters. Your solution kills more than the problem.

I've posed this question numerous times now in this thread and no "anti-gun" people have provided any answers yet:

I teach 25 students per class period (I teach juniors and seniors in high school), if a kid stands up and starts shooting at the other 24 students, or myself how can I protect myself and those other students?

Same thing if there's a shooter in the hallway outside of my room...I don't mind risking my life for my students and would always do so...I just want a fighting chance and not to be a sitting duck. Is that really too much to ask for?

You are far more likely to accidently shoot yourself than ever need to defend your students. If students know teachers can be armed, you can bet you would be the first shot and never see it coming. I would allow smart guns in. Gun nuts however prefer to shoot themselves than allow smart guns in the country.

So you can't shoot yourself with a so called smart gun?

 

[P@triot]

The OP still hasn't articulated what 'Common Sense Gun Laws' means. He or she hasn't listed specifically, what the proposed laws will be. I'll wait a little longer.

Actually, I did. You didn't read my post. Common sense tells us that wherever guns are banned - people die. Therefore true "common sense" guns laws would be to eliminate all gun laws and restore the 2nd Amendment to its true intent.

 

[P@triot]

You are far more likely to accidently shoot yourself than ever need to defend your students.

This liberal lie (redundant, I know - as all lies are liberal) was debunked years ago.