National Rifle Association Calls For Armed Guards In U S Schools

[midas]

• 
  

things are getting very interesting now in this debate because

the Federal Government will have a real fight on their hands ......

If it goes all the way, I could not see the US Supreme Court deciding against the States ... does anyone disagree ?

State vs. Federal: The Nullification Movement

Consider the clear language of the 10th Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

The Montana FFA states that a “personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in Montana and that remains within the borders of Montana is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce. It is declared by the legislature that those items have not traveled in interstate commerce.”

http://thenewamerica... ... n-movement

Edited January 13, 2013 by midas

[Chicog]

However, if you have evidence showing that the Assault Weapons ban was "ineffective", please post it.

I already have previously, but you guys are too busy trying to impress people with how smart you are, you couldn't be bothered to read it

Why on earth would I feel the need to impress you, or anyone else?

I'm merely asking a question and I have yet to get an answer.

Sorry if I missed where you proved the Assault Weapons ban was ineffective. Perhaps you could post a link?

Both the Aurora (12 dead) and Sandy Hook (27 dead) involved the use of AR-15's (or the manufacturer's version).

Wow, there's even a "AR-7 semi-automatic survival rifle". Dear God.

Edited January 13, 2013 by Chicog

[Sing_Sling]

Wow, there's even a "AR-7 semi-automatic survival rifle". Dear God.

You never know when a vicious squirrel comes jumping at you while you're hunting

[Chicog]

Wow, there's even a "AR-7 semi-automatic survival rifle". Dear God.

You never know when a vicious squirrel comes jumping at you while you're hunting

Or failing that its target audience is folk like Nancy Lanza.

[submaniac]

Sorry if I missed where you proved the Assault Weapons ban was ineffective. Perhaps you could post a link?

Both the Aurora (12 dead) and Sandy Hook (27 dead) involved the use of AR-15's (or the manufacturer's version).

Can't believe I'm back on this thread...it has become unamusing for me....but

Getting back to the evil assault rifles.

Let's play a game called "let's see what actually happened"".

in 1987, there was the the Hungerford massacre in the UK, where one deranged person killed 16 people with a chinese ak-47 variant. The result: all semi automatic centerfire rifles were banned in England.

Then in 1996 there was the Dunblane massacre. Semi-automatic rifles had already been banned. So the shooter used 4 handguns to kill 16 children and an adult. The result: handguns were banned in England.

so after rifles were banned, and handguns were banned, in 2010 there was the Cumbria shootings.which resulted in the death of 12, and injuring 11. Since no semi auto rifles were legal, and no handguns, what did the Cumbria shooter use? A twelve gauge (limited to three rounds per load) and a BOLT ACTION .22 rimfire rifle.

Get the point? If you get rid of the assault rifles, the loonies will just use something else. And after Cumbria, they really couldn't ban 3 shot shotguns or .22 bolt action rifles because they were about as simple and harmless of the kind of firearms you can get.

[slapout]

The history of mankind seems to indicate a perchance by some people to take a device which was orginally made for the benifit of mankind and use it for a opposite purpose. This same behavior seems to be true for rules/laws adapted by societies for the general betterment of same.

Some would say that those who have adapoted this opposite thinking/action could possibly be pinpointed eatly enough, for preventive action to be taken, before the hedious actions are performed. I am not sure who would determine which ones in society fit this profile, what treatment/action would be taken, etc, but I doubt we will ever rid the world of what some term the "misfits" Maybe in another 10,000 years of "tweaking the system" a final solution will be found/implemented.

[Sing_Sling]

Get the point? If you get rid of the assault rifles, the loonies will just use something else.

Rubber chickens would be a suitable replacement.

[Credo]

I am all for gun control, but it must be reasonable and it needs to be effective. Out lawing this gun or that gun seems like a knee jerk reaction. I doubt very much that even the crazies have a number in mind when they go out shooting at people.

Repealing the second amendment simply won't happen and even many of us who are for tighter gun control would not vote for such a repeal.

[Chicog]

Get the point? If you get rid of the assault rifles, the loonies will just use something else. And after Cumbria, they really couldn't ban 3 shot shotguns or .22 bolt action rifles because they were about as simple and harmless of the kind of firearms you can get.

No I don't get the point, especially when previous legislation has knocked some 8,000 deaths off the annual honours board.

I realise it is impractical for America to eliminate guns altogether,, but when there are steps that have already proven to be effective, why not take them?

And by the way, the low figures for "rifle" homicides does not take into account the 2000+ that are attributed to "unknown guns".

Oh, and the Dunblane killer got 109 shots off with a Magnum revolver and a 13-shot Browning HP. Hard to get that number off with a shotgun, isn't it?

You can't eliminate gun deaths without eliminating guns. What we are talking about is tangible steps that at least reduce the death toll.

Got the point?

Edited January 13, 2013 by Chicog

[F430murci]

Get the point? If you get rid of the assault rifles, the loonies will just use something else.

Rubber chickens would be a suitable replacement.

Or a sling shot for jello shooters.

[dhrobertson]

Get the point? If you get rid of the assault rifles, the loonies will just use something else. And after Cumbria, they really couldn't ban 3 shot shotguns or .22 bolt action rifles because they were about as simple and harmless of the kind of firearms you can get.

No I don't get the point, especially when previous legislation has knocked some 8,000 deaths off the annual honours board.

I realise it is impractical for America to eliminate guns altogether,, but when there are steps that have already proven to be effective, why not take them?

And by the way, the low figures for "rifle" homicides does not take into account the 2000+ that are attributed to "unknown guns".

Oh, and the Dunblane killer got 109 shots off with a Magnum revolver and a 13-shot Browning HP. Hard to get that number off with a shotgun, isn't it?

You can't eliminate gun deaths without eliminating guns. What we are talking about is tangible steps that at least reduce the death toll.

Got the point?

If one relies upon the second amendment to justify the right to bear arms, the link to a well regulated militia seems inescapeable. That being so, maybe it would help that anyone having such a licence is automatically liable to being called up for national (state?) service?

[endure]

Sorry if I missed where you proved the Assault Weapons ban was ineffective. Perhaps you could post a link?

Both the Aurora (12 dead) and Sandy Hook (27 dead) involved the use of AR-15's (or the manufacturer's version).

Can't believe I'm back on this thread...it has become unamusing for me....but

Getting back to the evil assault rifles.

Let's play a game called "let's see what actually happened"".

in 1987, there was the the Hungerford massacre in the UK, where one deranged person killed 16 people with a chinese ak-47 variant. The result: all semi automatic centerfire rifles were banned in England.

Then in 1996 there was the Dunblane massacre. Semi-automatic rifles had already been banned. So the shooter used 4 handguns to kill 16 children and an adult. The result: handguns were banned in England.

so after rifles were banned, and handguns were banned, in 2010 there was the Cumbria shootings.which resulted in the death of 12, and injuring 11. Since no semi auto rifles were legal, and no handguns, what did the Cumbria shooter use? A twelve gauge (limited to three rounds per load) and a BOLT ACTION .22 rimfire rifle.

Get the point? If you get rid of the assault rifles, the loonies will just use something else. And after Cumbria, they really couldn't ban 3 shot shotguns or .22 bolt action rifles because they were about as simple and harmless of the kind of firearms you can get.

We've had 3 mass shooting incidents in the UK in the past 23 years. Last year alone there were 7 school shooting incidents in the US - according to Wiki.

[dhrobertson]

Says a lot about so called sane people holding gun licences.

"The CEO of a US company that trains people in weapon and tactical skills has shown he is willing to go to great lengths to protect his right to own a gun by posting a video online that claims he will start "killing people" if gun control policies are passed."

Video and news story here.

http://www.huffingto...hp_ref=business

In any civilised country, this man would be locked up for a very long time.

he is clearly unwell and needs to be in a secure hospital.

Let's see what the great USA does about him.....

[marstons]

Sorry if I missed where you proved the Assault Weapons ban was ineffective. Perhaps you could post a link?

Both the Aurora (12 dead) and Sandy Hook (27 dead) involved the use of AR-15's (or the manufacturer's version).

Can't believe I'm back on this thread...it has become unamusing for me....but

Getting back to the evil assault rifles.

Let's play a game called "let's see what actually happened"".

in 1987, there was the the Hungerford massacre in the UK, where one deranged person killed 16 people with a chinese ak-47 variant. The result: all semi automatic centerfire rifles were banned in England.

Then in 1996 there was the Dunblane massacre. Semi-automatic rifles had already been banned. So the shooter used 4 handguns to kill 16 children and an adult. The result: handguns were banned in England.

so after rifles were banned, and handguns were banned, in 2010 there was the Cumbria shootings.which resulted in the death of 12, and injuring 11. Since no semi auto rifles were legal, and no handguns, what did the Cumbria shooter use? A twelve gauge (limited to three rounds per load) and a BOLT ACTION .22 rimfire rifle.

Get the point? If you get rid of the assault rifles, the loonies will just use something else. And after Cumbria, they really couldn't ban 3 shot shotguns or .22 bolt action rifles because they were about as simple and harmless of the kind of firearms you can get.

At least the weapons used were banned irrispective of whatthe pro gun lobby said. It was simple they are banned or stay at the gun club. So far far Obama has done Jack s**t, just skireted around possible options, he does not have the balls to ban anything. Its nearly impossible unless you have licence to get a 12 bore now days

[Chicog]

At least the weapons used were banned irrispective of whatthe pro gun lobby said. It was simple they are banned or stay at the gun club. So far far Obama has done Jack s**t, just skireted around possible options, he does not have the balls to ban anything. Its nearly impossible unless you have licence to get a 12 bore now days

He has convened a panel under Joe Biden that is due to report back what measures need to be taken. They are not restricted to simply banning guns. I think it's reasonable of Obama not to respond in knee jerk fashion.

[DocN]

Sorry if I missed where you proved the Assault Weapons ban was ineffective. Perhaps you could post a link?

Both the Aurora (12 dead) and Sandy Hook (27 dead) involved the use of AR-15's (or the manufacturer's version).

Can't believe I'm back on this thread...it has become unamusing for me....but

Getting back to the evil assault rifles.

Let's play a game called "let's see what actually happened"".

in 1987, there was the the Hungerford massacre in the UK, where one deranged person killed 16 people with a chinese ak-47 variant. The result: all semi automatic centerfire rifles were banned in England.

Then in 1996 there was the Dunblane massacre. Semi-automatic rifles had already been banned. So the shooter used 4 handguns to kill 16 children and an adult. The result: handguns were banned in England.

so after rifles were banned, and handguns were banned, in 2010 there was the Cumbria shootings.which resulted in the death of 12, and injuring 11. Since no semi auto rifles were legal, and no handguns, what did the Cumbria shooter use? A twelve gauge (limited to three rounds per load) and a BOLT ACTION .22 rimfire rifle.

Get the point? If you get rid of the assault rifles, the loonies will just use something else. And after Cumbria, they really couldn't ban 3 shot shotguns or .22 bolt action rifles because they were about as simple and harmless of the kind of firearms you can get.

At least the weapons used were banned irrispective of whatthe pro gun lobby said. It was simple they are banned or stay at the gun club. So far far Obama has done Jack s**t, just skireted around possible options, he does not have the balls to ban anything. Its nearly impossible unless you have licence to get a 12 bore now days

Since Obama is an elected president and not a dictator (although some may see that differently) "he" can not do anything.

It will take some time, to come up with a solution that pleases everybody...which is exactly the problem, if you ask me.

In cases like this, "pleasing everybody" is absolutely the wrong way to go...

[chuckd]

Says a lot about so called sane people holding gun licences.

"The CEO of a US company that trains people in weapon and tactical skills has shown he is willing to go to great lengths to protect his right to own a gun by posting a video online that claims he will start "killing people" if gun control policies are passed."

Video and news story here.

http://www.huffingto...hp_ref=business

In any civilised country, this man would be locked up for a very long time.

he is clearly unwell and needs to be in a secure hospital.

Let's see what the great USA does about him.....

You are exercising your first amendment rights by voicing your opinion yet you don't seem to think this guy has the same right.

An interesting comment.

[DocN]

Says a lot about so called sane people holding gun licences.

"The CEO of a US company that trains people in weapon and tactical skills has shown he is willing to go to great lengths to protect his right to own a gun by posting a video online that claims he will start "killing people" if gun control policies are passed."

Video and news story here.

http://www.huffingto...hp_ref=business

In any civilised country, this man would be locked up for a very long time.

he is clearly unwell and needs to be in a secure hospital.

Let's see what the great USA does about him.....

You are exercising your first amendment rights by voicing your opinion yet you don't seem to think this guy has the same right.

An interesting comment.

Are you serious?

A guy, who announces, he will go an kill people, if certain laws are passed....

So he is strolling away from abiding LAWS and instead will go bezerk...but sure he has the right to voice this opinion...by LAW???

...and that is exactly, what is wrong in America: you cherrypick the laws, you like.

Freedom of speech! Yeah, I like it! Separation of church and state...naaaah....not so much!

If someone says, he will not obey past laws...what right has he to fall back on other laws, just because they might fit his POV?

[F430murci]

Says a lot about so called sane people holding gun licences.

"The CEO of a US company that trains people in weapon and tactical skills has shown he is willing to go to great lengths to protect his right to own a gun by posting a video online that claims he will start "killing people" if gun control policies are passed."

Video and news story here.

http://www.huffingto...hp_ref=business

In any civilised country, this man would be locked up for a very long time.

he is clearly unwell and needs to be in a secure hospital.

Let's see what the great USA does about him.....

You are exercising your first amendment rights by voicing your opinion yet you don't seem to think this guy has the same right.

An interesting comment.

Are you serious?

A guy, who announces, he will go an kill people, if certain laws are passed....

So he is strolling away from abiding LAWS and instead will go bezerk...but sure he has the right to voice this opinion...by LAW???

...and that is exactly, what is wrong in America: you cherrypick the laws, you like.

Freedom of speech! Yeah, I like it! Separation of church and state...naaaah....not so much!

If someone says, he will not obey past laws...what right has he to fall back on other laws, just because they might fit his POV?

Haha, just throw reason out the window. Why even bother trying to reason.

[chiangmaikelly]

In any civilised country, this man would be locked up for a very long time.

he is clearly unwell and needs to be in a secure hospital.

Let's see what the great USA does about him.....

You are exercising your first amendment rights by voicing your opinion yet you don't seem to think this guy has the same right.

An interesting comment.

Are you serious?

A guy, who announces, he will go an kill people, if certain laws are passed....

So he is strolling away from abiding LAWS and instead will go bezerk...but sure he has the right to voice this opinion...by LAW???

...and that is exactly, what is wrong in America: you cherrypick the laws, you like.

Freedom of speech! Yeah, I like it! Separation of church and state...naaaah....not so much!

If someone says, he will not obey past laws...what right has he to fall back on other laws, just because they might fit his POV?

Haha, just throw reason out the window. Why even bother trying to reason.

They took away his (James Yeager) gun permit. The day after Alex Jones aggressively defended the Right to Bear Arms on CNN, Piers Morgan and his guests, Daily Beast sports columnist Buzz Bissinger and Abby Huntsman (Huffington Post), decided , on the air, to talk about murdering Alex Jones in cold blood. I doubt they will do anything to them.

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474981836086

[simple1]

They took away his (James Yeager) gun permit. The day after Alex Jones aggressively defended the Right to Bear Arms on CNN, Piers Morgan and his guests, Daily Beast sports columnist Buzz Bissinger and Abby Huntsman (Huffington Post), decided , on the air, to talk about murdering Alex Jones in cold blood. I doubt they will do anything to them.

http://www.gather.co...281474981836086

I watched that discussion & no way did they advocate the murder of Alex Jones. The URL you posted is yet another opinion piece & not based upon fact

[chiangmaikelly]

They took away his (James Yeager) gun permit. The day after Alex Jones aggressively defended the Right to Bear Arms on CNN, Piers Morgan and his guests, Daily Beast sports columnist Buzz Bissinger and Abby Huntsman (Huffington Post), decided , on the air, to talk about murdering Alex Jones in cold blood. I doubt they will do anything to them.

http://www.gather.co...281474981836086

I watched that discussion & no way did they advocate the murder of Alex Jones. The URL you posted is yet another opinion piece & not based upon fact

I read this from the above piece, "Not only were threats made against Jones but innuendos about hoping Jones "kids aren't killed" were made. These types of veiled threats are not only illegal but they are immoral and Piers Morgan should be, at the very least, fired for this."

You mean he didn't say any of those things? If they just made that stuff up I'm sorry I posted it. I should have checked better.

[DocN]

They took away his (James Yeager) gun permit. The day after Alex Jones aggressively defended the Right to Bear Arms on CNN, Piers Morgan and his guests, Daily Beast sports columnist Buzz Bissinger and Abby Huntsman (Huffington Post), decided , on the air, to talk about murdering Alex Jones in cold blood. I doubt they will do anything to them.

http://www.gather.co...281474981836086

I watched that discussion & no way did they advocate the murder of Alex Jones. The URL you posted is yet another opinion piece & not based upon fact

I read this from the above piece, "Not only were threats made against Jones but innuendos about hoping Jones "kids aren't killed" were made. These types of veiled threats are not only illegal but they are immoral and Piers Morgan should be, at the very least, fired for this."

You mean he didn't say any of those things? If they just made that stuff up I'm sorry I posted it. I should have checked better.

...and since when do 2 wrongs make 1 right?

[beechguy]

However, if you have evidence showing that the Assault Weapons ban was "ineffective", please post it.

I already have previously, but you guys are too busy trying to impress people with how smart you are, you couldn't be bothered to read it

Why on earth would I feel the need to impress you, or anyone else?

I'm merely asking a question and I have yet to get an answer.

Sorry if I missed where you proved the Assault Weapons ban was ineffective. Perhaps you could post a link?

Both the Aurora (12 dead) and Sandy Hook (27 dead) involved the use of AR-15's (or the manufacturer's version).

Wow, there's even a "AR-7 semi-automatic survival rifle". Dear God.

The ban didn't have anything to do with it, because the weapons were never taken off the street, they were just redesigned. Have a look at submaniac's earlier posts. As I said, the information has been put out there in various forms, you just chose to ignore.

Edited January 14, 2013 by beechguy

[simple1]

They took away his (James Yeager) gun permit. The day after Alex Jones aggressively defended the Right to Bear Arms on CNN, Piers Morgan and his guests, Daily Beast sports columnist Buzz Bissinger and Abby Huntsman (Huffington Post), decided , on the air, to talk about murdering Alex Jones in cold blood. I doubt they will do anything to them.

http://www.gather.co...281474981836086

I watched that discussion & no way did they advocate the murder of Alex Jones. The URL you posted is yet another opinion piece & not based upon fact

I read this from the above piece, "Not only were threats made against Jones but innuendos about hoping Jones "kids aren't killed" were made. These types of veiled threats are not only illegal but they are immoral and Piers Morgan should be, at the very least, fired for this."

You mean he didn't say any of those things? If they just made that stuff up I'm sorry I posted it. I should have checked better.

Do not remember the debate word for word, but it was not my takeaway that you could construe veiled threats were made to Alex Jones and his family - that innuendo I would definitely recall.

[chuckd]

In any civilised country, this man would be locked up for a very long time.

he is clearly unwell and needs to be in a secure hospital.

Let's see what the great USA does about him.....

You are exercising your first amendment rights by voicing your opinion yet you don't seem to think this guy has the same right.

An interesting comment.

Are you serious?

A guy, who announces, he will go an kill people, if certain laws are passed....

So he is strolling away from abiding LAWS and instead will go bezerk...but sure he has the right to voice this opinion...by LAW???

...and that is exactly, what is wrong in America: you cherrypick the laws, you like.

Freedom of speech! Yeah, I like it! Separation of church and state...naaaah....not so much!

If someone says, he will not obey past laws...what right has he to fall back on other laws, just because they might fit his POV?

Haha, just throw reason out the window. Why even bother trying to reason.

What completely ignorant posts the last two are. You accuse me of picking and choosing which laws to break yet you both appear to feel the First Amendment doesn't apply to those that disagree with your particular party line.

F430 you claim to be a lawyer so please tell us if you would defend the First Amendment right in Mr. Yeager's situation or would you refuse to take the case, regardless of how much money you might make off your client.

DocN, you are German so your misinformation can be understood. What Mr. Yeager said is within his constitutional right to freedom of speech in the US. Probably not in Germany...but this isn't Germany, is it.

Edit in:

DocN, there is no such thing as "Separation of church and state" mentioned in the US Constitution.

Edited January 14, 2013 by chuckd

[chuckd]

They took away his (James Yeager) gun permit. The day after Alex Jones aggressively defended the Right to Bear Arms on CNN, Piers Morgan and his guests, Daily Beast sports columnist Buzz Bissinger and Abby Huntsman (Huffington Post), decided , on the air, to talk about murdering Alex Jones in cold blood. I doubt they will do anything to them.

http://www.gather.co...281474981836086

I watched that discussion & no way did they advocate the murder of Alex Jones. The URL you posted is yet another opinion piece & not based upon fact

I read this from the above piece, "Not only were threats made against Jones but innuendos about hoping Jones "kids aren't killed" were made. These types of veiled threats are not only illegal but they are immoral and Piers Morgan should be, at the very least, fired for this."

You mean he didn't say any of those things? If they just made that stuff up I'm sorry I posted it. I should have checked better.

Do not remember the debate word for word, but it was not my takeaway that you could construe veiled threats were made to Alex Jones and his family - that innuendo I would definitely recall.

Look at the debate again. I think it is near the one minute spot when the male guest suggests Piers should get an assault weapon and go "pop him". This comment brought much hilarity to both Piers and his other guests.

In the context of this particular conversation "pop him" would mean to shoot him in the US.

[metisdead]

Posts meandering off topic have been removed as well as the replies.

[pomchop]

If you like the TSA spending billions of tax money every year then you will just love the NRA plan to put armed guards in all the schools...no doubt followed by armed guards at all kiddie,high school, college sporting events, plays, piano recitals, concerts etc....next you can go through a nice throrough frisking everytime you want to enter a shopping mall...hey why not arm all the retail clerks as well...just send the bill for this new arming of america to the taxpayers and then whine about the deficit. Gee let me think the NRA is a lobbyist for the gun manufacturers so IF they can convince america that we need to have EVEN MORE guns out there then their clients will be very happy to sell more....better yet they will send the bill to the taxpayers.

[chuckd]

If you like the TSA spending billions of tax money every year then you will just love the NRA plan to put armed guards in all the schools...no doubt followed by armed guards at all kiddie,high school, college sporting events, plays, piano recitals, concerts etc....next you can go through a nice throrough frisking everytime you want to enter a shopping mall...hey why not arm all the retail clerks as well...just send the bill for this new arming of america to the taxpayers and then whine about the deficit. Gee let me think the NRA is a lobbyist for the gun manufacturers so IF they can convince america that we need to have EVEN MORE guns out there then their clients will be very happy to sell more....better yet they will send the bill to the taxpayers.

I think the average taxpayer in the US would much rather spend the Billions protecting the children than hiring 16,500 new IRS agents to enforce Obamacare.