guns

bbsam

Moderator
Staff member
I don't think anyone on here is talking about having "more" guns for any an all. Not unless you are saying that more than none is more. It IS saying that having certain armed and educated individuals can help in specific situations. That the problems in our society isn't going to be fixed by simply banning or outlawing guns.
never have I advocated for banning or outlawing guns. The strange thing is that when I suggested giving ALL students guns, sober says "Don't be ridiculous..." and you talk about what the definition of "more" is. In fact, it isn't that you are against gun regulation or that gun laws naturally infringe on the Second Amendment, it's that you disagree with what those laws are. That's a point where real discussion and can be had instead of one side making the ridiculous charge that "they're coming to take our guns" and the other side insisting "we have to take their guns". Both are foolish, demonizing, and counter-productive.
 

tourists24

Well-Known Member
two priests were shot today in church. yeah no gun problem here move along nothing to see




http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/12/justice/arizona-church-shooting/

CNN) -- A priest was killed and another critically wounded in an attack at a Catholic church in Phoenix, police said early Thursday.

The Rev. Kenneth Walker was fatally shot, and the Rev. Joseph Terra is hospitalized in critical condition, police and church officials said. It was not clear what type of weapon was used to attack Terra, Sgt. Steve Martos of the Phoenix Police Department said.

A 911 call came in about 9 p.m. Wednesday (12 a.m. ET Thursday) from the Mater Misericordiae (Mother of Mercy) Mission Catholic Church, Martos said.

The emergency call to police was for a burglary and was made by Terra, Martos said. It was unclear if Terra made the phone call before or after he was injured.


Priest killed in Phoenix church shooting
When police arrived, they found the two priests badly injured. Walker died at the hospital.

Terra, the injured priest, was only able to minimally speak with authorities about what happened, Martos said. The priority is for him to be treated.

"Hopefully, once that individual receives treatment and is able to pull through, we can gather more information," Martos said.

The church, in a statement on its website, referred to more than one armed burglar breaking into and entering the property. Police have not confirmed or denied that assertion, saying only that it is not an official police statement.

A green 2003 Mazda Tribute was stolen from church property, police said, and it was found abandoned.

The vehicle is being examined for clues, but as of Thursday morning, nothing significant had been found, Martos said.

"The police are still gathering information and trying to sort through the details of this senseless act of violence," the Diocese of Phoenix said in a statement. "We ask that people offer prayers for both priests, the religious community, their families and the parish."

Investigators have gathered physical evidence at the crime scene, but they lack witness information, police said. Authorities asked for anyone with information to call in tips to police.

Walker, 29, was a member of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, a small community of priests founded in 1988 and dedicated to reviving the traditional Latin Mass. Terra, 56, is also a member.

A Catholic blog, Rorate Caeli, said Walker was born in upstate New York in a family that became intrigued by the traditional Latin Mass. He was ordained as a priest two years ago.

The blog described the area around the church in downtown Phoenix as "deserted and dangerous at night" but asked followers to avoid speculation about a motive for the crime. It suggested prayer instead.
Soooo,,,, does this mean that if there were a gun ban in Phoenix then the criminals would not have committed this crime?
 

bbsam

Moderator
Staff member
Not trying to be rude, but the reason you think it unlikely is because you don't know anything about guns or holsters or concealment.

Part of proper training in the use of guns involves the correct and safe way to carry concealed. It can be done. It is possible. The alternative that you propose...continuing to deny our teachers the tools they need to protect our children...isn't working.
I don't take you for rude at all. But just because you carry a concealed weapon doesn't mean people don't notice it. I've seen it. You've noticed it on others. Kids aren't stupid and they see everything and tell everything. They are the Borg
 

tourists24

Well-Known Member
never have I advocated for banning or outlawing guns. The strange thing is that when I suggested giving ALL students guns, sober says "Don't be ridiculous..." and you talk about what the definition of "more" is. In fact, it isn't that you are against gun regulation or that gun laws naturally infringe on the Second Amendment, it's that you disagree with what those laws are. That's a point where real discussion and can be had instead of one side making the ridiculous charge that "they're coming to take our guns" and the other side insisting "we have to take their guns". Both are foolish, demonizing, and counter-productive.
Gun requirements can and should be debated; but this is not we have been discussing... as what we are discussing at the moment is schools, and the lack of any guns allowed in them. Yes I disagree with complete gun free zones for everyone because they will simply be ignored by criminals. So yes I do have a problem with that.
I also think that it isn't the elimination of guns to solve our problems, but how to handle a society that has guns in it.
 

tourists24

Well-Known Member
I deliver to quite a few schools, the ideas of the teachers I see every day being armed is both funny and downright scary at the same time.

you are putting the bandage on the nose when the snakebite is on the arse: LESS guns nationwide is the answer, not MORE guns
and how does outlawing guns make us more safe from the criminals?
 

bbsam

Moderator
Staff member
Gun requirements can and should be debated; but this is not we have been discussing... as what we are discussing at the moment is schools, and the lack of any guns allowed in them. Yes I disagree with complete gun free zones for everyone because they will simply be ignored by criminals. So yes I do have a problem with that.
I also think that it isn't the elimination of guns to solve our problems, but how to handle a society that has guns in it.
So to boil it down who gets guns and where and when they can have them...gun control.
 

tourists24

Well-Known Member
So to boil it down who gets guns and where and when they can have them...gun control.
as long as its done constitutionally then id say lets figure that out..... Ive never disagreed that school systems may have the right to have so called gun free zones, I just think that's stupid and doesn't work.
 

bbsam

Moderator
Staff member
as long as its done constitutionally then id say lets figure that out..... Ive never disagreed that school systems may have the right to have so called gun free zones, I just think that's stupid and doesn't work.
Ah. Constitutionally. Like when the framers were around and teens regularly carried guns and fought in wars?
 

soberups

Pees in the brown Koolaid
I don't take you for rude at all. But just because you carry a concealed weapon doesn't mean people don't notice it. I've seen it. You've noticed it on others. Kids aren't stupid and they see everything and tell everything. They are the Borg

Ok,...how about using retention holsters, like what the police wear, to prevent the gun from being pulled out from behind?

Or what about a heavy-gauge steel lockbox bolted to the wall of the classroom, and in office, with a gun inside of it and the access code only given out to teachers who have been trained in its use?

Something tells me your fear/dislike of guns will cause you to find flaws in even the most stringent precautions because you simply do not want to comprehend the idea of teachers being armed in any way. So we will stay stuck in the status quo--unarmed teachers and lone gunmen who can show up at a school and murder with impunity.
 

tourists24

Well-Known Member
Ah. Constitutionally. Like when the framers were around and teens regularly carried guns and fought in wars?
No as in constitutional as philosophically intended by said framers. Is their a problem with that? What is a better way? And you think the people of that era had a lesser idea of war?
 

bbsam

Moderator
Staff member
Ok,...how about using retention holsters, like what the police wear, to prevent the gun from being pulled out from behind?

Or what about a heavy-gauge steel lockbox bolted to the wall of the classroom, and in office, with a gun inside of it and the access code only given out to teachers who have been trained in its use?

Something tells me your fear/dislike of guns will cause you to find flaws in even the most stringent precautions because you simply do not want to comprehend the idea of teachers being armed in any way. So we will stay stuck in the status quo--unarmed teachers and lone gunmen who can show up at a school and murder with impunity.
You see, it isn't fear at all. I'm not the least bit afraid without one. I just don't have faith in the idea that relaxing gun laws, that claiming all gun laws are unconstitutional make the situation better and the sample sizes people site are way to small.
 

bbsam

Moderator
Staff member
No as in constitutional as philosophically intended by said framers. Is their a problem with that? What is a better way? And you think the people of that era had a lesser idea of war?
The problem is that philosophies are not timeless in daily application. Those daily manifestations change through the ages. So what was their philosophy and how does it apply to today?
 

bbsam

Moderator
Staff member
You see, it isn't fear at all. I'm not the least bit afraid without one. I just don't have faith in the idea that relaxing gun laws, that claiming all gun laws are unconstitutional make the situation better and the sample sizes people site are way to small.
Now that i think about it, it is people I don't trust...especially people with just enough training to think they "got it".
 

soberups

Pees in the brown Koolaid
You see, it isn't fear at all. I'm not the least bit afraid without one. I just don't have faith in the idea that relaxing gun laws, that claiming all gun laws are unconstitutional make the situation better and the sample sizes people site are way to small.
I never said that all gun laws are unconstitutional.

Philosophically, I would not necessarily have a problem with a higher initial barrier to gun ownership, in the form of licensing and training of gun owners...but I would then expect the "other side" to at least admit that their bans and restrictions and "gun free" zones haven't and wont work and that concealed carry by licensed and trained persons, including teachers, is part of the solution.

Problem is, the "other side" consists of people like Michael Bloomberg, whose idea of "common sense" and "reasonable" consists of using the force of law to deny me the right to buy a 32 ounce cup of soda, and whose ultimate goal is the virtual disarmament of the American public through creeping incrementalism. I am not interested in negotiating for my rights with a hypocrite like that who hires armed security for himself while actively seeking to deny such rights to his subjects. I am not interested in negotiating for my rights with people who have never fired or handled a gun, who hate guns, and whose knowledge of firearms is limited to what they saw watching "A-Team" growing up.
 

soberups

Pees in the brown Koolaid
You in essence want to negotiate with people who agree with you. Good luck with that.
If the default position of the people I am "negotiating" with is that I should not have any rights at all, then we really don't have anything to negotiate about in the first place.

The definition of insanity is repeating the same action over and over while expecting a different result. "Gun free zones" don't work. They didn't work at Thurston, they didn't work at Columbine, they didn't work at Virginia Tech, they didn't work at the theater in Aurora, they didn't work at Sandy Hook, they didn't work at UCSB, and they didn't work the other day at Reynolds High school less than an hour from my home. Banning guns hasn't prevented Chicago from having one of the highest gun crime rates in the nation. Bans don't work. Magazine capacity restrictions don't work. Banning cosmetic features such as pistol grips and flash suppressors on so-called "assault weapons" don't work. I guess I don't see any point in "negotiating" with people who aren't willing to do anything but continue pushing for more and more laws and bans and restrictions that don't work.
 

bbsam

Moderator
Staff member
If the default position of the people I am "negotiating" with is that I should not have any rights at all, then we really don't have anything to negotiate about in the first place.

The definition of insanity is repeating the same action over and over while expecting a different result. "Gun free zones" don't work. They didn't work at Thurston, they didn't work at Columbine, they didn't work at Virginia Tech, they didn't work at the theater in Aurora, they didn't work at Sandy Hook, they didn't work at UCSB, and they didn't work the other day at Reynolds High school less than an hour from my home. Banning guns hasn't prevented Chicago from having one of the highest gun crime rates in the nation. Bans don't work. Magazine capacity restrictions don't work. Banning cosmetic features such as pistol grips and flash suppressors on so-called "assault weapons" don't work. I guess I don't see any point in "negotiating" with people who aren't willing to do anything but continue pushing for more and more laws and bans and restrictions that don't work.
listen to yourself. You nearly spit the name Bloomberg. Pelosi makes your blood pressure climb. Whether or not you like them or their politics, they are the ones who will be negotiating for the "other side". Prove to Bloomberg that the inner city of New York and Chicago will be safer if guns are easily available. Dismissing them as fools or unconstitutional political hacks does nothing. Oh, it might get "likes" from your internet brethren, but that's as far as the banter goes. Forget about their side for a moment and what is it you are for? How can we be certain that what you are proposing doesn't make the problem worse? Hitting oneself in the head with a hammer may be insane. That doesn't mean putting a power drill through your temple is more sane.
 

soberups

Pees in the brown Koolaid
You in essence want to negotiate with people who agree with you. Good luck with that.

People like Michael Bloomberg and Diane Feinstein are to gun owners what Bull Connor was to African Americans back in 1964 Alabama. There really isn't any point in negotiating with such people. Their idea of what constitutes "reasonable" in regards to my rights is so completely divorced from fairness that there isn't any basis for compromise.
 

soberups

Pees in the brown Koolaid
listen to yourself. You nearly spit the name Bloomberg. Pelosi makes your blood pressure climb. Whether or not you like them or their politics, they are the ones who will be negotiating for the "other side". Prove to Bloomberg that the inner city of New York and Chicago will be safer if guns are easily available. Dismissing them as fools or unconstitutional political hacks does nothing. Oh, it might get "likes" from your internet brethren, but that's as far as the banter goes. Forget about their side for a moment and what is it you are for? How can we be certain that what you are proposing doesn't make the problem worse? Hitting oneself in the head with a hammer may be insane. That doesn't mean putting a power drill through your temple is more sane.

You cant prove anything to someone who wont listen and whose mind is made up.

I have no problem with taking steps or implementing restrictions to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, but the flip side to that coin would be to acknowledge that law-abiding people have a basic human right to armed self-defense.

I don't necessarily agree with everything the NRA says, but at the same time I have to admit that without them my 2nd Amendment rights would be virtually eliminated. This is a battle in which I have to pick a side, so I pick the NRA.
 

bbsam

Moderator
Staff member
People like Michael Bloomberg and Diane Feinstein are to gun owners what Bull Connor was to African Americans back in 1964 Alabama. There really isn't any point in negotiating with such people. Their idea of what constitutes "reasonable" in regards to my rights is so completely divorced from fairness that there isn't any basis for compromise.
The Supreme Court disagrees with you.
 
Top