KRISTEN'S BOARD
KB - a better class of pervert

joan1984 · **Reply #40 on:** December 23, 2012, 10:19:35 PM

Thanks to a Clinton Administration executive order, still in effect, our Military are disarmed when not at the range, or in combat. So Fort Hood was a Gun Free Zone, sitting ducks.. for the Islamist terrorist Major Nadal Hassan, screaming God Is Great in Arabic while he murdered and injured all those people... classified at a workplace incident, btw, not a terror attack, thanks to Carter III.

Quote from: Gia1978 on December 23, 2012, 03:01:57 AM

Gina Marie · **Reply #41 on:** December 24, 2012, 02:08:53 AM

What, no rebuttal for Columbine or Virginia Tech?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQXx8z0ERbQ

joan1984 · **Reply #42 on:** December 24, 2012, 02:15:47 AM

Ineffective police are just that. Mentally ill must not buy guns.

Quote from: Gia1978 on December 24, 2012, 02:08:53 AM

What, no rebuttal for Columbine or Virginia Tech?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQXx8z0ERbQ

Lois · **Reply #43 on:** December 24, 2012, 04:17:01 AM

Quote from: joan1984 on December 23, 2012, 10:19:35 PM

Thanks to a Clinton Administration executive order, still in effect, our Military are disarmed when not at the range, or in combat. So Fort Hood was a Gun Free Zone, sitting ducks..

Where did you get this idea? Live ammo is used during training and that's it, there is no need to walk around base armed for war. But there were still plenty of weapons available, and the Military Police are fully armed at all times.

joan1984 · **Reply #44 on:** December 24, 2012, 10:55:09 PM

Gregory Mocks LaPierre for Proposing
Armed Guards, but Sends Kids
to High-Security School

David Gregory mocked the NRA's Wayne LaPierre for proposing that armed guards be at every school in America. But the NBC host seems to have no problem with armed guards protecting his kids everyday where they attend school in Washington, D.C.

"You proposed armed guards in school. We'll talk about that in some detail in a moment. You confronted the news media. You blamed Hollywood and the gaming industry. But never once did you concede that guns could actually be part of the problem. Is that a meaningful contribution, Mr. LaPierre, or a dodge?," asked Gregory.

Later the host suggested that guns don't prevent violence in schools (he cited the mass shootings at Columbine and Virginia Tech). "But you would concede that, as good as an idea as you think this is, it may not work. Because there have been cases where armed guards have not prevented this kind of massacre, this kind of carnage. I want you would concede that point, wouldn't you?," Gregory pleaded.

The NBC host would go on the rest of the segment to suggest that armed guards might not be effective in preventing mass murders at school. Which is perhaps an interesting theoretical argument.

But when it comes to Gregory's own kids, however, they are secured every school day by armed guards.

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.

Lois · **Reply #45 on:** December 26, 2012, 03:33:22 PM

Even if we do put an armed guard in every school, it would never come close to providing the same protection we provide for the President's children. So what is your point?

joan1984 · **Reply #46 on:** December 26, 2012, 05:54:29 PM

The point is that rather than entertain some response to the actual issue, some with little to no risk themselves, who already have armed security for their children even, will go to their routine position and try to reopen once again any debate they can muster regarding other peoples rights.

The Second Amendment is as sacrosanct as the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, etc. Regulating snippets of clip size, what a weapon looks like and such is just meddling, a long running and boring battleground, having nothing to do with the fact that people with mental problems cause harm, using mostly guns they have come by illegally when such mass killings happen.

Stopping legal possession by lunatics and criminals is the best anyone can do, and it makes sense to revisit how HIPPA influences valid results in the background search for gun purchases, to isolate those who are not suited for gun purchases, state so openly, and prosecute those who attempt to purchase who have a criminal background.

Stop blaming an inanimate object for what lunatics do. Let's work together to stop those people from acquiring weapons, and at the same time revisit those blocked for reasons not valid today. The type they wish to own is irrelevant, and we have a ton of laws today to regulate real automatic and combat weaponry. Passing "feel good" legislation that the lawyers and reporters deem helpful is a giant waste of time for all involved.

Quote from: Lois on December 26, 2012, 03:33:22 PM

Even if we do put an armed guard in every school, it would never come close to providing the same protection we provide for the President's children. So what is your point?

Gina Marie · **Reply #47 on:** December 26, 2012, 11:17:13 PM

Quote from: joan1984 on December 26, 2012, 05:54:29 PM

Stop blaming an inanimate object for what lunatics do.

How about "Stop defending an inanimate object for what lunatics do with it"?

How about you look at the gun for what it is? An "assault weapon"; a weapon for assaulting.

It is designed to do one thing: Kill a lot of beings very quickly.

WHY would any healthy, rational person need or desire such a specific item? Oh yah... I remember... "This is 'Merikkkuh n its my right!"

whatthefuckever.

Lois · **Reply #48 on:** December 26, 2012, 11:48:56 PM

Once again Joan proves she does not understand the 2nd Amendment at all.

act456 · **Reply #49 on:** December 27, 2012, 02:25:18 AM

I am so tired of hearing all this "knee jerk" reaction to something that is not the problem, only a tool!
when McVey blew up the Oklahoma City building was there a call to outlaw "U-haul" trucks, or diesel fuel, or fertilizer??
I didn't catch who it was on the news that made a very good observation, "it's easier in this country to buy assault weapons than it is get psychiatric help.
What good would a ban on guns do now?? Very, very few criminals & or psycho's use guns they bought legally. There are over 300 million guns in America now. How many do you think will be give up without a significant fight?
Why don't we lobby congress to licence parenting?? Or tell us when to get up, go to bed, what to eat?
The answer is not new laws that make you think you did something to help, ENFORCE THE ONES ON THE BOOKS NOW!!

chapelsnightmare · **Reply #50 on:** December 27, 2012, 04:32:47 AM

AS a former Marine and a Combat veteran, I have seen death and horror. Guns are not the answer or the problem. The lack of responsibility is the thing we need to focus on. A mad man is just that a mad man, they will find a way to do what they want with or without guns or gun laws.

Criminals do not abide by laws, yet new gun laws that most want, would disarm me and ask me to depend on an overworked, understaffed, underpaided police force. There are what 7 billion people on this planet, I trust about 10 of that 7billion. So yes I am considering carrying, yes I am considering buying body arm because I fear that one day I will need to defend myself and my family. So until there is peace throughtout the world, until all are equal and money isn't the root of all evil.

Lois · **Reply #51 on:** December 27, 2012, 04:50:43 AM

Quote from: act456 on December 27, 2012, 02:25:18 AM

when McVey blew up the Oklahoma City building was there a call to outlaw "U-haul" trucks, or diesel fuel, or fertilizer??

Why not try buying that quantity of fertilizer and see what happens? In short, there are now restrictions on such purchases. It seems to have worked. There has not been any fertilizer bombs since.

Quote

I didn't catch who it was on the news that made a very good observation, "it's easier in this country to buy assault weapons than it is get psychiatric help.
What good would a ban on guns do now?? Very, very few criminals & or psycho's use guns they bought legally.

Actually most of the guns bought in the recent mass shooting were bought legally. There are no figures on the criminals, but I'm sure a number of those were bought legally too.

Quote

There are over 300 million guns in America now. How many do you think will be give up without a significant fight?

I doubt any confiscations would be involved. Anyone who has such weapons now will no doubt be "grandfathered-in". There might also be gun buy-back programs to help get guns off the street.

Quote

Why don't we lobby congress to licence parenting??

That might be a good idea. Or at least required parenting classes. Think of all the child abuse we might stop in advance.

Quote

The answer is not new laws that make you think you did something to help, ENFORCE THE ONES ON THE BOOKS NOW!!

Which ones are those? Can you provide a list?

Lois · **Reply #52 on:** December 27, 2012, 05:50:07 AM

Guns pour in at L.A. buyback events
Thousands of people line up to exchange guns for supermarket gift cards at the Los Angeles Memorial Sports Arena and the Van Nuys Masonic Temple.

Mall parking lots were packed with after-Christmas shoppers. But nowhere were the lines longer than at the Los Angeles Memorial Sports Arena and the Van Nuys Masonic Temple, where thousands of people came to exchange their guns for Ralphs gift cards.

Cars queued up for blocks at the drive-through events, with the city giving cards worth up to $100 for handguns, shotguns and rifles, and up to $200 for assault weapons. There was a bit of haggling involved, but the guns were all taken.

more: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-1227-gun-buyback-20121227,0,7293938.story

Athos131 · **Reply #53 on:** December 27, 2012, 11:37:25 PM

Lois · **Reply #54 on:** December 28, 2012, 02:53:46 AM

With a couple of exceptions, the top twenty list of most dangerous states for gunfire death rates reads like a 'Who's Who' of red states. Check it out:

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-death-rate-per-100-000

Poppet · **Reply #55 on:** December 28, 2012, 08:09:03 AM

I'm saddened by this debate. Firstly by the incessant pillorying of Joan for presenting a legitimate point of view. It IS appropriate to discuss the ability to defend oneself and one's family with firearms because as has been alluded to but not stated, the bad guys don't give two hoots and a fart what susie homemaker or Diane I-used-to-keep-a-personal-carry-gun Feinstein wants to do. And by bad guys, I mean every asswipe 15 year old bag seller on a corner maybe a block or two from your house - every single one of them has a gun. Every. Single. One.

People might not want to acknowledge it, but "gun-free-zones" are really "helpless victim zones" to whackjob nutters like the VA Tech, Columbine, Aurora and Sandy Hook murderers were. It's interesting that apparently no-one who sent a kid to that school was a CT CCW holder (yes, people in CT are able to carry concealed firearms fo self defense, and many many do). I'd like to hear THEIR opinion and I'd be staggered if it wasn't some version of "I'd have shot that fucker in a heartbeat". At least two teachers were forced to confronting that Sandy Hook kid directly - does noone really think that if they had engaged him with gunfire he would not possibly have been distracted? Get real.

A military base is a DISARMED zone. VA tech was a DISARMED zone (sorry - cops in cars cruising around don't cut it). The Aurora guy chose the only one of seven cinemas which specifically FORBADE firearms to do his thing. The Columbine event was allowed to go as far as it did because the cops then were working under different rules than they do now - wait for SWAT (and of course that gave the two nutter murderer kids time - the security guards MUST have saved lives by distracting them) - to say otherwise is frankly, seditious.

And don't give me that parsimonious bullshit that you care about kids dying - you care about kids dying en mass because it gets on TV. You care because you get to enjoy the misery of the parents and the crass exploitation of victims by media who interview 7 year olds. WTF? You care because somewhere inside you ENJOY it and this is true because I don't see anywhere anyone saying "We must write to dear Rachael and tell her we'd like MSNBC to stop publicizing this event and potentially setting up copycat events".

Texting and driving? "sure". Buzzed driving? "hey it's a teen thing, I did it.." Kids not getting enough to eat? "I'm ok with that". Kids being beaten, tortured by parents, or other responsible adults? "Well there will always be social problems and families are dynamic.." Noone cares a damn about kids, they just want to push a cowardly liberal agenda directed against people who have the balls to take responsibility rather than delegate it to the government. Yes, that means YOU. You are like the rabbits in "Watership Down". Pathetic. You are being manipulated by Lawrence, Rachael and that testosterone-free little punk whatever his name is. Oh and Solidad (but she's a MINORITY, so she's hip..)

It's far easier to cry "Ban Guns" than to cry "confine mentally ill people", or "enable free people to defend themselves"

http://storeyinstitute.blogspot.com/2012/12/homicides-and-guns-what-us-data-shows.html

http://storeyinstitute.blogspot.com/2012/12/homicides-and-gun-onwership-what.html

http://blog.uritraining.com/?p=45#comment-4

http://www.handgunclub.com/hca/?p=3524

http://www.lohud.com/article/20121222/OPINION/312220023

https://twitter.com/ScotShotLLC/status/283431504359587840/photo/1

Mass shootings are a social issue, not a gun control problem. They are horrible, but they are a social issue, not a gun control problem. They are carried out by mentally ill or abnormal people who are isolated from society and have a major defect in how to relate to others. They are facilitated by their family members who, having no recourse to mental health services, are forced to accommodate them within their families and watch in fear as their problems grow.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/16/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother-mental-illness-conversation_n_2311009.html?icid=maing-grid10|htmlws-main-bb|dl8|sec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D246517

If you want to make a difference and not just masturbate your knee-jerk intellect's quick-fix function, start being active in your community for mental health, outdoor play for kids; start pushing for decent wages and after school care to prevent kids being plonked down in front of TVs or computer games or the internet; start being more concerned about the next generation than (y)our own and start asking how you can fix America, not just flick the channel and send $10 to some has-been singer songwriter with a dog that, humanely, should be put down.

oh yes - no time for that, might miss my latte... best just ban guns...

and Joan, too, I expect.

Read the Sheep, Wolves and Sheepdog "parable". There are wolves. You can't ban teeth.

Pop

ps - for all you "large capacity 'clips" fans - if the highest speed limit in the USA is (say) 65 mph, should it be illegal to buy, sell trade or possess any vehicle that can go faster?

pps - should David Gregory be prosecuted for breaking a DC statute blatantly on National TV?

ppps - don't DARE correct my grammar, Gia

FLAME ON

Athos131 · **Reply #56 on:** December 28, 2012, 08:42:35 AM

Grm · **Reply #57 on:** December 28, 2012, 01:22:41 PM

Quote from: joan1984 on December 26, 2012, 05:54:29 PM

The point is that rather than entertain some response to the actual issue, some with little to no risk themselves, who already have armed security for their children even, will go to their routine position and try to reopen once again any debate they can muster regarding other peoples rights.

The Second Amendment is as sacrosanct as the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, etc. Regulating snippets of clip size, what a weapon looks like and such is just meddling, a long running and boring battleground, having nothing to do with the fact that people with mental problems cause harm, using mostly guns they have come by illegally when such mass killings happen.

Stopping legal possession by lunatics and criminals is the best anyone can do, and it makes sense to revisit how HIPPA influences valid results in the background search for gun purchases, to isolate those who are not suited for gun purchases, state so openly, and prosecute those who attempt to purchase who have a criminal background.
Stop blaming an inanimate object for what lunatics do. Let's work together to stop those people from acquiring weapons, and at the same time revisit those blocked for reasons not valid today. The type they wish to own is irrelevant, and we have a ton of laws today to regulate real automatic and combat weaponry. Passing "feel good" legislation that the lawyers and reporters deem helpful is a giant waste of time for all involved.

Sounds like a convincing argument for universal heath care.

Grm · **Reply #58 on:** December 28, 2012, 01:41:26 PM

Quote from: pixie on December 22, 2012, 10:26:06 PM

everytime thiers a mass shooting,everybody jumps up and screams for gun control.has anybody ever bothered to go look at the guns laws already on the books??
why dont they enforce those laws instead of making more,doesnt make any sense to me.
we have a soon 2b retired cop in the school i work in,will he do any good if the same thing happens? who knows,at least he is there.
before you ask athos,i've been a teacher for over 5 years now,kindergarten,if i could,id carry my gun in school.iv been well trained on how to use it and ive taken every safety course they have offered.and no,im not a member nor do i wish 2b a member of the NRA.
instead of jerking your knee everytime time this happens,why dont they try to get to the root of the problem,which i believe is mental health.the lack of treatment people who realy need it the most is appalling.so instead of calling names,why dont we try to come up with a solution to the problems facing us as a society.thx

As Gia says, five years teaching kindergarten and this is the result, seems the 4 year olds could have written a more coherent reply. Maybe they should have the guns too.

Poppet · **Reply #59 on:** December 28, 2012, 02:27:53 PM

..and for the record, it was Bill Clinton who first pushed for funds to put armed police in schools (after Columbine). OK for Dem to suggest it, not OK for the NRA? hmm.. I smell an agenda. And also for the record, the current administration has cut this...

P

NRA's answer: armed guards in schools

Athos131

Athos131