Another horrendous school shooting....What will the Left do NOW?

[TNHarley]

Claiming the left thinks they can prevent all shootings is a straw man argument. What they do claim is that restricting guns would probably make the frequency go down and more then likely the damage done when these attacks do happen will be less severe. But that's a harder argument for you to win, so you rather revert to this old chestnut.

I see your point. And whether the argument is old or not is irrelevant if it's a vital issue like the 2nd Amendment.
And doing nothing is unfortunately also a bad idea.
2nd Amendment rights must be protected.....not always eroded.

The argument that giving up a pound more liberty for an ounce of security is dangerous and is also a very valid argument.

The UK has no 2nd Amendment and FAR fewer guns, yet they have not only a dramatic rise in crime, but also gun related violence.
How long do you think it will be before the UK has a mass shooting at one of it's schools? I say it will be within a year. We'll see.

So let them argue their talking points.....the Pro 2nd Amendment side needs to voice it's own arguments and demands.

The 2nd amendment isn't vital. By the way do you think it's a good idea that anyone can own any weapon? If not you are also for gun restrictions. Even if you read the 2nd amendment it's ambiguous. There is no militia anymore and "well armed' can be taken however you want. As to your UK bit, even if they have a mass shooting tomorrow it would still not invalidate gun restrictions. My point was exactly that gun restriction are not a wonder cure. They are just a way to keep the problem under a semblance of control. And the oldness of the argument is indeed irrelevant, the fact that the argument is a logical fallacy is.

Without the second, we have no Constitution. The 2nd is what guarantees our freedoms. Try reading some American history. Very insightful.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Ah the “laws don't work” argument

17 people in Parkland posthumously agree

 

[miketx]

Thanks for being honest and admitting that massacres and slaughters are just a small price to you. The WW2 comparison is terrible though.

Welp, you just convinced me you're too stupid to debate with.

Please don't shoot up any schools ok?

Why do you say that? Your stance is that massacres are fine as long as your access to guns isn’t impeded. So what do you care if somebody shoots up a school?

Can't help lying can you? No ones "stance" is massacres are fine, except perhaps regressives. If select teachers were allowed to armed the massacres you drool over would be drastically reduced.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Ah the “laws don't work” argument

17 people in Parkland posthumously agree

You too? Well you realize that murdering people is illegal right? Another law that didn’t work. Gotta get rid of it.

 

[Auld Phart]

Claiming the left thinks they can prevent all shootings is a straw man argument. What they do claim is that restricting guns would probably make the frequency go down and more then likely the damage done when these attacks do happen will be less severe. But that's a harder argument for you to win, so you rather revert to this old chestnut.

I see your point. And whether the argument is old or not is irrelevant if it's a vital issue like the 2nd Amendment.
And doing nothing is unfortunately also a bad idea.
2nd Amendment rights must be protected.....not always eroded.

The argument that giving up a pound more liberty for an ounce of security is dangerous and is also a very valid argument.

The UK has no 2nd Amendment and FAR fewer guns, yet they have not only a dramatic rise in crime, but also gun related violence.
How long do you think it will be before the UK has a mass shooting at one of it's schools? I say it will be within a year. We'll see.

So let them argue their talking points.....the Pro 2nd Amendment side needs to voice it's own arguments and demands.

The 2nd amendment isn't vital. By the way do you think it's a good idea that anyone can own any weapon? If not you are also for gun restrictions. Even if you read the 2nd amendment it's ambiguous. There is no militia anymore and "well armed' can be taken however you want. As to your UK bit, even if they have a mass shooting tomorrow it would still not invalidate gun restrictions. My point was exactly that gun restriction are not a wonder cure. They are just a way to keep the problem under a semblance of control. And the oldness of the argument is indeed irrelevant, the fact that the argument is a logical fallacy is.

There is no militia anymore and "well armed' can be taken however you want.

Guess it 's a good thing the Founders gave the right to keep and bear arms to the people, not the militia.

 

[miketx]

After the dust settles from the last one.....and all the Gun Grabbers and the Left media have marched, screamed and protested....and after the 2nd Amendment side suffers even more restrictions......

What next?

Do you think the Left will EVER concede there are enough laws on the books?

We ALL know that no matter what, even if ALL guns were totally confiscated, that school shootings will never be completely eradicated by Gun Control measures.

We also know that the Left RESISTS any suggestion that we need to focus on the human factor.

So how many "Inches" do we surrender after every shooting to Gun Grabbers?

Inches make Feet and Feet make Miles. If they get a few inches after EVERY incident, it won't be long before they've achieved their goals.

I propose that for ANY and EVERY concession made to Gun Grabbers, an equal or better concession MUST be made to lawful and law abiding gun owners.

For example, IF the Pro-Gun side allows the age restriction to be raised, then the Anti-Gun side Must agree to no limits on magazine size.

If the Pro Gun side agrees to more stringent background checks, the Left MUST agree (in written law) that states like California CANNOT write their own anti-gun laws.

We cannot continue to give give give without concessions from the other side. Who the hell in their right mind would ever agree to a strategy like that and have any hope of staying in the game?

Claiming the left thinks they can prevent all shootings is a straw man argument. What they do claim is that restricting guns would probably make the frequency go down and more then likely the damage done when these attacks do happen will be less severe. But that's a harder argument for you to win, so you rather revert to this old chestnut.

But that argument is irrelevant. We have a 2nd.

Which

Okay Mr. pro mass slaughters

Spastic knee-jerk, cowardly gun grabber response.

You are claiming that grabbing guns will save lives, when already your "Gun Free Zones" are where most children die.

You're irrational if you think you can take all guns away.

Remember, ONLY CRIMINALS AND THE MENTALLY DISTURBED shoot up innocent people.

But you focus on objects. Do you blame cellphones for texting deaths also?

A gun free zone is designed to increase the punishment in the event that somebody commits a gun crime. Go ahead and take away the label. Won’t change anything.

Not surprising that they are not designed to keep guns out. lol. Nothing liberals do makes any sense. Just, we need another law, another law, yeah!

Ah the “laws don't work” argument

It's against the law to carry a gun in school. It's a against the law to murder someone. You are sick!

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

The second amendment is vital to the security of a free people. It's keeps tyranny in check and enables people to stop from being murdered and raped like all you libs want.

TRUE!

Most libs don't know that there are more rapes and assaults in the UK than the US, even though we have WAY more people.

Thanks that make you go hmmmmm

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Claiming the left thinks they can prevent all shootings is a straw man argument. What they do claim is that restricting guns would probably make the frequency go down and more then likely the damage done when these attacks do happen will be less severe. But that's a harder argument for you to win, so you rather revert to this old chestnut.

I see your point. And whether the argument is old or not is irrelevant if it's a vital issue like the 2nd Amendment.
And doing nothing is unfortunately also a bad idea.
2nd Amendment rights must be protected.....not always eroded.

The argument that giving up a pound more liberty for an ounce of security is dangerous and is also a very valid argument.

The UK has no 2nd Amendment and FAR fewer guns, yet they have not only a dramatic rise in crime, but also gun related violence.
How long do you think it will be before the UK has a mass shooting at one of it's schools? I say it will be within a year. We'll see.

So let them argue their talking points.....the Pro 2nd Amendment side needs to voice it's own arguments and demands.

The 2nd amendment isn't vital. By the way do you think it's a good idea that anyone can own any weapon? If not you are also for gun restrictions. Even if you read the 2nd amendment it's ambiguous. There is no militia anymore and "well armed' can be taken however you want. As to your UK bit, even if they have a mass shooting tomorrow it would still not invalidate gun restrictions. My point was exactly that gun restriction are not a wonder cure. They are just a way to keep the problem under a semblance of control. And the oldness of the argument is indeed irrelevant, the fact that the argument is a logical fallacy is.

There is no militia anymore and "well armed' can be taken however you want.

Guess it 's a good thing the Founders gave the right to keep and bear arms to the people, not the militia.

And of course there IS a militia it is every person 17 to 45 in the US per US law.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

You too? Well you realize that murdering people is illegal right? Another law that didn’t work. Gotta get rid of it.

 

[miketx]

Ah the “laws don't work” argument

You too? Well you realize that murdering people is illegal right? Another law that didn’t work. Gotta get rid of it.

If this ain't talking out your ass I don't know what is.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Thanks for being honest and admitting that massacres and slaughters are just a small price to you. The WW2 comparison is terrible though.

Welp, you just convinced me you're too stupid to debate with.

Please don't shoot up any schools ok?

Why do you say that? Your stance is that massacres are fine as long as your access to guns isn’t impeded. So what do you care if somebody shoots up a school?

Can't help lying can you? No ones "stance" is massacres are fine, except perhaps regressives. If select teachers were allowed to armed the massacres you drool over would be drastically reduced.

I assume you’ll support large wage increases for teachers who’s job description will now include grabbing your gun and confronting threats?

You should try googling if students have ever stolen guns from their teachers. Short answer: yes.

 

[Rigby5]

After the dust settles from the last one.....and all the Gun Grabbers and the Left media have marched, screamed and protested....and after the 2nd Amendment side suffers even more restrictions......

What next?

Do you think the Left will EVER concede there are enough laws on the books?

We ALL know that no matter what, even if ALL guns were totally confiscated, that school shootings will never be completely eradicated by Gun Control measures.

We also know that the Left RESISTS any suggestion that we need to focus on the human factor.

So how many "Inches" do we surrender after every shooting to Gun Grabbers?

Inches make Feet and Feet make Miles. If they get a few inches after EVERY incident, it won't be long before they've achieved their goals.

I propose that for ANY and EVERY concession made to Gun Grabbers, an equal or better concession MUST be made to lawful and law abiding gun owners.

For example, IF the Pro-Gun side allows the age restriction to be raised, then the Anti-Gun side Must agree to no limits on magazine size.

If the Pro Gun side agrees to more stringent background checks, the Left MUST agree (in written law) that states like California CANNOT write their own anti-gun laws.

We cannot continue to give give give without concessions from the other side. Who the hell in their right mind would ever agree to a strategy like that and have any hope of staying in the game?

Claiming the left thinks they can prevent all shootings is a straw man argument. What they do claim is that restricting guns would probably make the frequency go down and more then likely the damage done when these attacks do happen will be less severe. But that's a harder argument for you to win, so you rather revert to this old chestnut.

Obviously the only reason why the shooting happened is insensitive classmates bullied and teased an autistic person who had just lost his second set of parents.

But the even more obvious solution in this particular school, would be to lock all of the back doors to the school, so that anyone carrying a rifle in the open would have had to gone passed security and stopped.

It was all totally the fault of the school, and it is silly to try to fix problems with the school by enacting more illegal federal weapons legislation.

 

[Auld Phart]

Claiming the left thinks they can prevent all shootings is a straw man argument. What they do claim is that restricting guns would probably make the frequency go down and more then likely the damage done when these attacks do happen will be less severe. But that's a harder argument for you to win, so you rather revert to this old chestnut.

I see your point. And whether the argument is old or not is irrelevant if it's a vital issue like the 2nd Amendment.
And doing nothing is unfortunately also a bad idea.
2nd Amendment rights must be protected.....not always eroded.

The argument that giving up a pound more liberty for an ounce of security is dangerous and is also a very valid argument.

The UK has no 2nd Amendment and FAR fewer guns, yet they have not only a dramatic rise in crime, but also gun related violence.
How long do you think it will be before the UK has a mass shooting at one of it's schools? I say it will be within a year. We'll see.

So let them argue their talking points.....the Pro 2nd Amendment side needs to voice it's own arguments and demands.

The 2nd amendment isn't vital. By the way do you think it's a good idea that anyone can own any weapon? If not you are also for gun restrictions. Even if you read the 2nd amendment it's ambiguous. There is no militia anymore and "well armed' can be taken however you want. As to your UK bit, even if they have a mass shooting tomorrow it would still not invalidate gun restrictions. My point was exactly that gun restriction are not a wonder cure. They are just a way to keep the problem under a semblance of control. And the oldness of the argument is indeed irrelevant, the fact that the argument is a logical fallacy is.

There is no militia anymore and "well armed' can be taken however you want.

Guess it 's a good thing the Founders gave the right to keep and bear arms to the people, not the militia.

And of course there IS a militia it is every person 17 to 45 in the US per US law.

'Militias' were discontinued in favor of the National Guard

 

[miketx]

Thanks for being honest and admitting that massacres and slaughters are just a small price to you. The WW2 comparison is terrible though.

Welp, you just convinced me you're too stupid to debate with.

Please don't shoot up any schools ok?

Why do you say that? Your stance is that massacres are fine as long as your access to guns isn’t impeded. So what do you care if somebody shoots up a school?

Can't help lying can you? No ones "stance" is massacres are fine, except perhaps regressives. If select teachers were allowed to armed the massacres you drool over would be drastically reduced.

I assume you’ll support large wage increases for teachers who’s job description will now include grabbing your gun and confronting threats?

You should try googling if students have ever stolen guns from their teachers. Short answer: yes.

You should try being truthful.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

I assume you’ll support large wage increases for teachers who’s job description will now include grabbing your gun and confronting threats?
You should try googling if students have ever stolen guns from their teachers. Short answer: yes.

Old School Says....
"A man went to the moon.....therefore....ALL men went to the moon....."

"Ever"......

You must lead a very miserable life is every bad thing that EVER happened still haunts you like this

Why don't you Google to see if Guns ever saved lives.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

You should try being truthful.

Mike, I think a lot of these twisted brainwashed Leftist THINK they are being honest.
We might be underestimating the degree of their conditioning.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Claiming the left thinks they can prevent all shootings is a straw man argument. What they do claim is that restricting guns would probably make the frequency go down and more then likely the damage done when these attacks do happen will be less severe. But that's a harder argument for you to win, so you rather revert to this old chestnut.

I see your point. And whether the argument is old or not is irrelevant if it's a vital issue like the 2nd Amendment.
And doing nothing is unfortunately also a bad idea.
2nd Amendment rights must be protected.....not always eroded.

The argument that giving up a pound more liberty for an ounce of security is dangerous and is also a very valid argument.

The UK has no 2nd Amendment and FAR fewer guns, yet they have not only a dramatic rise in crime, but also gun related violence.
How long do you think it will be before the UK has a mass shooting at one of it's schools? I say it will be within a year. We'll see.

So let them argue their talking points.....the Pro 2nd Amendment side needs to voice it's own arguments and demands.

The 2nd amendment isn't vital. By the way do you think it's a good idea that anyone can own any weapon? If not you are also for gun restrictions. Even if you read the 2nd amendment it's ambiguous. There is no militia anymore and "well armed' can be taken however you want. As to your UK bit, even if they have a mass shooting tomorrow it would still not invalidate gun restrictions. My point was exactly that gun restriction are not a wonder cure. They are just a way to keep the problem under a semblance of control. And the oldness of the argument is indeed irrelevant, the fact that the argument is a logical fallacy is.

There is no militia anymore and "well armed' can be taken however you want.

Guess it 's a good thing the Founders gave the right to keep and bear arms to the people, not the militia.

And of course there IS a militia it is every person 17 to 45 in the US per US law.

'Militias' were discontinued in favor of the National Guard

NO they were not read the US law every person 17 to 45 is part of the unorganized Militia. At least have your facts straight before talking out your ass.

 

[TheOldSchool]

I assume you’ll support large wage increases for teachers who’s job description will now include grabbing your gun and confronting threats?
You should try googling if students have ever stolen guns from their teachers. Short answer: yes.

Old School Says....
"A man went to the moon.....therefore....ALL men went to the moon....."

"Ever"......

You must lead a very miserable life is every bad thing that EVER happened still haunts you like this

Why don't you Google to see if Guns ever saved lives.

You say “A gun law didn’t work......therefore..... all gun laws don’t work”

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I assume you’ll support large wage increases for teachers who’s job description will now include grabbing your gun and confronting threats?
You should try googling if students have ever stolen guns from their teachers. Short answer: yes.

Old School Says....
"A man went to the moon.....therefore....ALL men went to the moon....."

"Ever"......

You must lead a very miserable life is every bad thing that EVER happened still haunts you like this

Why don't you Google to see if Guns ever saved lives.

You say “A gun law didn’t work......therefore..... all gun laws don’t work”

No he did not laws a do NOT prevent things from happening they punish the criminal for doing the crime. Firearms laws punish law abiding citizens while doing NOTHING to prevent criminals from getting and using firearms.

 

[TheOldSchool]

I assume you’ll support large wage increases for teachers who’s job description will now include grabbing your gun and confronting threats?
You should try googling if students have ever stolen guns from their teachers. Short answer: yes.

Old School Says....
"A man went to the moon.....therefore....ALL men went to the moon....."

"Ever"......

You must lead a very miserable life is every bad thing that EVER happened still haunts you like this

Why don't you Google to see if Guns ever saved lives.

You say “A gun law didn’t work......therefore..... all gun laws don’t work”

No he did not laws a do NOT prevent things from happening they punish the criminal for doing the crime. Firearms laws punish law abiding citizens while doing NOTHING to prevent criminals from getting and using firearms.

They do a lot to make it more difficult for criminals to get guns but you refuse to be honest about it.

Circulating guns is more important to you than even preventing people with mental illness and people on the no fly list from getting guns. And so the Parkland massacre is acceptable price to you cons for ignoring “well regulated” in the 2nd amendment.