Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="soberups" data-source="post: 1124510" data-attributes="member: 14668">You contradict yourself.In the first sentence, you admit that Lanza was law-abiding prior to the shooting and would therefore have passed a background check.Yet in the third sentence, you still advocate mandatory background checks in the hope that they &quot;might&quot; somehow prevent a would-be murder with premeditated intent from getting a gun.Adam Lanza planned and premeditated the murders for over two years prior to carrying them out. Do you seriously think that he would have been unable to obtain a weapon, even illegally, in that time frame?Rather than continuing to pretend that we can somehow keep guns out of the hands of criminals, perhaps instead we should accept the fact that a determined criminal will find a way to arm himself and make plans to deal with that contingency by giving teachers and school staff and law-abiding civilians the tools they need to protect themselves.Adam Lanza had already broken over 50 laws before he pulled the trigger for the first time at Sandy Hook. Simply writing more laws isnt going to stop the future Adam Lanzas from doing the same thing with guns that they have obtained by whatever means are necessary. What will stop them...is armed school staff who can fight back.Heres a question; would you trade mandatory background checks on all purchases for 50-state reciprocity on cancealed carry permits and armed teachers? Or are you only interested in symbolic, feel-good measures that restrict rights without doing anything to prevent criminals from having their way with a room full of unarmed victims?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="soberups, post: 1124510, member: 14668"] You contradict yourself. In the first sentence, you [I]admit[/I] that Lanza was law-abiding prior to the shooting and would therefore have [I]passed[/I] a background check. Yet in the [I]third[/I] sentence, you [I]still[/I] advocate mandatory background checks in the hope that they "[I]might"[/I] somehow prevent a would-be murder with premeditated intent from getting a gun. Adam Lanza planned and premeditated the murders for over [I]two years [/I]prior to carrying them out. Do you seriously think that he would have been unable to obtain a weapon, even illegally, in that time frame? Rather than continuing to [I]pretend[/I] that we can somehow keep guns out of the hands of criminals, perhaps instead we should [I]accept[/I] the fact that a determined criminal will find a way to arm himself and make plans to [I]deal[/I] with that contingency by giving teachers and school staff and law-abiding civilians the tools they need to protect themselves. Adam Lanza had already broken over 50 laws [I]before[/I] he pulled the trigger for the first time at Sandy Hook. Simply writing [I]more[/I] laws isnt going to stop the future Adam Lanzas from doing the same thing with guns that they have obtained by whatever means are necessary. What [I]will[/I] stop them...is armed school staff who can [I]fight back[/I]. Heres a question; would you trade mandatory background checks on all purchases for 50-state reciprocity on cancealed carry permits and armed teachers? Or are you only interested in symbolic, feel-good measures that [I]restrict[/I] rights without doing anything to prevent criminals from having their way with a room full of unarmed victims? [/QUOTE]

Verification