Armed Guards

[Quantum Windbag]

Yep.

And, they seem incapable of understanding that while they're yammering about keeping rights, they're actually throwing rights away.

Having more cops takes away our rights? Glad you finally got something right.

 

[Oldguy]

the Bill of Rights says they should not do that.

The Bill of Rights says the bad guys should not hurt us? Coupla question:

1. Where?

2. How is "hurt us" defined?

I'm not sure I should even respond to such a retarded edit and question, except to say that it's a retarded edit and question based on a retarded edit.

Merry Christmas, idiot.

Ok. You got nuthin'.

Fine. I can live with that.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Another "Do as I say, not as I do." Libtard!

The Weekly Standard is reporting that despite his criticism of the NRA school proposal, Meet The Press - David Gregory’s own kids go to a high-security school with armed guards on the premises: "The Gregory children go to school with the children of President Barack Obama, according to the Washington Post. That school is the co-ed Quaker school Sidwell Friends. According to a scan of the school’s online faculty-staff directory, Sidwell has a security department made up of at least 11 people. Many of those are police officers, who are presumably armed. Moreover, with the Obama kids in attendance, there is a secret service presence at the institution, as well."

Not to mention that the Secret Service has a reserve force nearby to respond to any situation as quickly as possible.

 

[Oldguy]

An armed citizen is armed for his self-defense only, not to defend others and try to be a ‘hero.’

So, armed guards at school would only be armed to defend themselves?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Liberals want you understand that guns are the primary cause... Mental illness is not. Guns are scary, so they should be banned. They only push their anti gun nonsense when there is a tragedy, because when there is no tragedy to back up their assault on your Second Amendment Rights, they lose their argument every time. They are a tyrannical bunch who use the deaths of children to push their anti Freedom agendas, which in itself makes them truly despicable people. Gun control isn't about controlling guns... It's about controlling people.

PROOF please.

The FACT is, just as guns have not stopped mass shootings in the schools where they already are, there is no evidence that banning the ultimate goal of those who do not want the mentally ill, criminals, terrorists, illegals to be able to easily buy guns.

The question is, WHY do the gun nuts/rw's want to arm the mentally ill, criminals, terrorists and illegals? WHY do the gun nuts/rw's always run away from THAT question?

Utah has always allowed teachers to carry guns on school campuses. How many school shootings have there been in Utah?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Liberals want you understand that guns are the primary cause... Mental illness is not. Guns are scary, so they should be banned. They only push their anti gun nonsense when there is a tragedy, because when there is no tragedy to back up their assault on your Second Amendment Rights, they lose their argument every time. They are a tyrannical bunch who use the deaths of children to push their anti Freedom agendas, which in itself makes them truly despicable people. Gun control isn't about controlling guns... It's about controlling people.

Then why do the repubs not allow automatic machine guns?

?Because they are part of the government, and just as afraid of armed citizens as anyone else in the government.

Next question.

 

[Oldguy]

Question for the Nutter's: How is REQUIRING armed guards NOT an exercise in gun legislation or gun control, even if a positive example? How is that not government intrusion into our 2nd amendment rights?

I am feeling generous today, so I am willing to give you a chance how to be proven stupid beyond measure. All you have to do is not respond to this post in an attempt to defend that stupid beyond measure question.

Merry Christmas.

Really? How so?

 

[kwc57]

An armed citizen is armed for his self-defense only, not to defend others and try to be a ‘hero.’

So, armed guards at school would only be armed to defend themselves?

Do you understand the difference between an armed citizen and an armed guard Einstein?

 

[Katzndogz]

When seconds count, the police are only minutes away. Whether its a school, mall or city.

 

[kwc57]

When seconds count, the police are only minutes away. Whether its a school, mall or city.

I'm sure that if you put your hands and arms in a defensive position and beg for your life, it will give the shooter pause long enough for help to arrive.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

We all know that Columbine had an armed sheriff's deputy on duty at the time of shooting. Virginia Tech had armed police on duty. Ft Hood had dozens of guards and MPs not to mention the trained military who were shot.

We also know that there was an armed civilian at the Tucson shooting who stayed inside the Walgreen's store until the unarmed people wrestled the gun away from Loughner. He later said he almost came out but then his story changed several more times. It was the unarmed people, including an elderly lady, who held Loughner until the police arrived.

In almost all shootings, its the police who stop the shooter or the shooter kills himself. In searching, I've found only one case of a civilian and one case of an off duty police officer taking down a shooter. There are also occasional cases of people disarming home invaders but, since this is not a second amendment issue, those stories have nothing at all to do with the question of armed police at schools.

Since having armed guards has never helped before, why do gun nuts believe that will change?

Do gun nuts want armed guards at other places as well? Churches? Restaurants? There have been shootings at both so should there be armed guards there as well?

Which is exactly what he was supposed to do.

An armed citizen is armed for his self-defense only, not to defend others and try to be a ‘hero.’

And although armed guards may be a factor in preventing gun violence, they can not be the only factor.

True, you must have courage to die in the effort to help others to live.

One must have the courage, training, the presence of mind to understand when and when not to use his firearm. With regard to the Tucson shooting and the armed citizen, had he gone out to the parking lot, whom would he have shot, how would he know whom to shoot, and how would he have kept from becoming a victim himself?

The ignorance on both left and right as to the facts of firearms, tactics, training, and how humans interact with guns is our greatest obstacle to finding a solution to gun violence.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

An armed citizen is armed for his self-defense only, not to defend others and try to be a ‘hero.’

So, armed guards at school would only be armed to defend themselves?

Armed guards are not the same as private citizens with a CHL, or open carrying where allowed.

 

[Cassandro]

Dear Luddite: Have you actually read the sequence of events at Columbine? The armed guard was at the other end of the school when the shooting began, so he could not have prevented the initial shootings. However, his quick response undoubtedly saved the lives of other students who would have been killed. According to your flawed logic, anti-submarine warfare should not have been conducted in WW2 because it did not prevent every single ship from being sunk by a U-boat.

 

[Sunshine]

the Bill of Rights says they should not do that.

The Bill of Rights says the bad guys should not hurt us? Coupla question:

1. Where?

2. How is "hurt us" defined?

I'm not sure I should even respond to such a retarded edit and question, except to say that it's a retarded edit and question based on a retarded edit.

Merry Christmas, idiot.

Hey Si. Have a Merry Christmas!

 

[Yurt]

We all know that Columbine had an armed sheriff's deputy on duty at the time of shooting. Virginia Tech had armed police on duty. Ft Hood had dozens of guards and MPs not to mention the trained military who were shot.

We also know that there was an armed civilian at the Tucson shooting who stayed inside the Walgreen's store until the unarmed people wrestled the gun away from Loughner. He later said he almost came out but then his story changed several more times. It was the unarmed people, including an elderly lady, who held Loughner until the police arrived.

In almost all shootings, its the police who stop the shooter or the shooter kills himself. In searching, I've found only one case of a civilian and one case of an off duty police officer taking down a shooter. There are also occasional cases of people disarming home invaders but, since this is not a second amendment issue, those stories have nothing at all to do with the question of armed police at schools.

Since having armed guards has never helped before, why do gun nuts believe that will change?

Do gun nuts want armed guards at other places as well? Churches? Restaurants? There have been shootings at both so should there be armed guards there as well?

Don't worry. I'm not going to post about every gun murder.

 

[Si modo]

The Bill of Rights says the bad guys should not hurt us? Coupla question:

1. Where?

2. How is "hurt us" defined?

I'm not sure I should even respond to such a retarded edit and question, except to say that it's a retarded edit and question based on a retarded edit.

Merry Christmas, idiot.

Hey Si. Have a Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas, sweetie. And, Happy New Year.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

We all know that Columbine had an armed sheriff's deputy on duty at the time of shooting. Virginia Tech had armed police on duty. Ft Hood had dozens of guards and MPs not to mention the trained military who were shot.

We also know that there was an armed civilian at the Tucson shooting who stayed inside the Walgreen's store until the unarmed people wrestled the gun away from Loughner. He later said he almost came out but then his story changed several more times. It was the unarmed people, including an elderly lady, who held Loughner until the police arrived.

In almost all shootings, its the police who stop the shooter or the shooter kills himself. In searching, I've found only one case of a civilian and one case of an off duty police officer taking down a shooter. There are also occasional cases of people disarming home invaders but, since this is not a second amendment issue, those stories have nothing at all to do with the question of armed police at schools.

Since having armed guards has never helped before, why do gun nuts believe that will change?

Do gun nuts want armed guards at other places as well? Churches? Restaurants? There have been shootings at both so should there be armed guards there as well?

Which is exactly what he was supposed to do.

An armed citizen is armed for his self-defense only, not to defend others and try to be a ‘hero.’

And although armed guards may be a factor in preventing gun violence, they can not be the only factor.

But the gun nuts tell us that carrying a gun would stop criminals.

Oh yeah, and they'd be able to overthrow the government if they "need" to.

 

[Mr. Jones]

Liberals want you understand that guns are the primary cause... Mental illness is not. Guns are scary, so they should be banned. They only push their anti gun nonsense when there is a tragedy, because when there is no tragedy to back up their assault on your Second Amendment Rights, they lose their argument every time. They are a tyrannical bunch who use the deaths of children to push their anti Freedom agendas, which in itself makes them truly despicable people. Gun control isn't about controlling guns... It's about controlling people.

PROOF please.

The FACT is, just as guns have not stopped mass shootings in the schools where they already are, there is no evidence that banning the ultimate goal of those who do not want the mentally ill, criminals, terrorists, illegals to be able to easily buy guns.

The question is, WHY do the gun nuts/rw's want to arm the mentally ill, criminals, terrorists and illegals? WHY do the gun nuts/rw's always run away from THAT question?

There is historic factual data of what happens when populations are disarmed. People get killed. Taking the right to defend yourself with a firearm is siding with the criminal element. Police authorities learned from the Columbine massacre to not stand back and wait for lunatics to finish their job. Gun control legislation including magazine capacity was tried and it failed.

It is not the gun itself that is the problem. It's the lunatics that use them to kill innocent people that is the problem. It is the problem with the effects of SSRI's on people that is a problem as well. Taking away the ability to defend oneself against these problems and those people is asking for more bloodshed.
Criminals don't give a shit about laws. Outlawing 30 round mags isn't going to solve anything. They will be smuggled into this country the same way illegal drugs are, and create a lucrative black market for the criminals.

Your logic is flawed and your reasoning is not backed up with anything of substance and is just more BS and hyper hysteria.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Dear Luddite: Have you actually read the sequence of events at Columbine? The armed guard was at the other end of the school when the shooting began, so he could not have prevented the initial shootings. Exactly. But, the gun nuts say they can guarantee that an armed guard will be at the exact right place and time. However, his quick response undoubtedly saved the lives of other students who would have been killed. You don't know that. According to your flawed logic, anti-submarine warfare should not have been conducted in WW2 because it did not prevent every single ship from being sunk by a U-boat.YOUR total lack of logic ignores the fact that anti-subs had to hunt for their prey.

.

 

[Mr. Jones]

Anyone who would not want to protect our children while they are at school is sick and twisted.
Like it or not taking the ability to defend oneself from criminals and lunatics by taking away guns is appalling. Calling for this action is itself akin with being an accomplice to murder.

Here's a thought in line with your way of thinking...Suppose we end the violence in the ME by taking away their guns, and by not sending anymore arms to Israel?