"Gee, It's Too Bad Nobody At Fort Hood Had Any Weapons To Stop That shooter."
But its Christmas....lets not argue...
the law can be wrong about people who are supposed to protect our kids. a CHL doesn't certify sanity or good sense. sometimes, the CHL person would be the one who ends up shooting a kid -- maybe even accidentally -- over some silly .If the law deems an individual is responsible enough to carry concealed, then what's wrong with trusting them to help protect our kinds?
Military bases I think are all gun free zones except for training times. I believe except for designated times, weapons are always required to be locked up.
Do you know how seldom anyone ever gets shot by a CHL holder? Your argument has no merit as it is extremely rare that someone gets shot as you describe by a CHL holder.
How often does someone get shot by a mass murderer?
very seldom, I believe
therefore, it couldn't possibly happen
or, there's no reasonable inference it might, according to WC.
More guns make schools safer. It's just common sense. Whomever the state licenses to carry, is fit not only to keep the peace in public schools, but to take on mass murderers. No extra training required.
Far more often than by a CHL holder I bet.
I'm sorry for you if you believe that.
I don't. Should have blued it, though the trend of my comments runs to the contrary . . .
I'll ask you to post the odds for me.
Confidence in you is low.
I knew what you were doing, but pushing my meaning outside of my intent shows you either don't want to, or cannot have an honest debate on this topic. Why are you acting like one of these other idiots?
That's OK. Low is better than the zero you are.
Jeez, who has attempted an honest debate since Sandy Hook?
So you're not going to post the respective odds?
Su ion confirmed.
I stated it as an opinion. I'm sorry if you fail to understand that.
I completely understand you will never even attempt to back up something like that.
I never understood your compulsion to attack people on their opinions. If you want to, show me that I'm wrong. Myself, I really don't care about your baiting. I just think you are being really pathetic with your methodology.
so then, to question your methodology is pathetic . . .
moreover, it's on us to prove you wrong, rather than on you to prove your own claims
that way, conveniently enough, you never have to do your own homework.
nifty!
I'm curious. Why are your panties in a bunch?
Top Conservative Magazine: Newtown Massacre Is The Price We Pay For The Second Amendment
The practical consequence of living for nearly two-and-a-half centuries under the almost universally benevolent protection of the Second Amendment is a society in which there are hundreds of millions of guns…Those upset with the order of things are welcome to try, and doomed to fail, to repeal the Second Amendment via the cons utional process. But the guns of America aren’t going anywhere any time soon, and generic calls to “do something” — even insofar as doing something is desirable — must reckon with this fact.
On Friday, the president promised “meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics.” We doubt that something like this is possible, in a way consistent with the principle and the fact of the Second Amendment. If the possibility of terrors like Newtown are a reminder of why we need politics, their reality is a reminder that politics can do only so much.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/201...ond-amendment/
"politics can do only so much."
so mass murders are the price of impotent politics. But the perverted politics of the 2nd Amendment marketing smokescreen for SELLING MORE GUNS is not impotent.
Good point as we had law abiding citizens there to stop Holmes and Loughner.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote