I would try and explain egress standards and building codes for a building with thousands of students in it and how/why we need “all of those entrances and exits” (hint: during a fire) but all I’ll get back is that we should just send thoughts and prayers that there isn’t any fires and the exits won’t be needed. If God wants these children dead, then that’s just how it is. Thoughts and prayers.
Uh, according to this article: Santa Fe ISH has two armed officers at their high school, and their teacher and staff can be armed.
Pointing out that his attempts at finding some sort of maneuver to manipulate the public and come out a hero in the end exposes how crippled we by the gun lobby and how the public needs to make major changes in our elected officials to get the guys out that aren't beholden to the gun lobby. Trump just can't help himself. He has to try and be a hero but its all self serving BS. He knows the public is overwhelmingly wanting SOMETHING to happen to stop these mass shootings, and won't just ignore it like someone like Paul Ryan would. His insistence on being the savior ultimately will keep exposing them more and more, and make the public outcry that much louder.
I don't have a problem with a waiting period. However, can you please send me a link where a mass shooter bought the gun the very day he went on his rampage? I can't remember that happening. The national registry will not be accepted. That has always been the first step in confiscation in other countries. Plus, it would not be effective in states like Texas. You can sell a gun to ANY adult as long as they can show TX residency and the seller does not personally know the buyer to be legally unable to buy a gun. So as long as I don't know for sure you are a felon I can sell the gun. Guns have been bought and sold many times. Tracking them would be very hard and many people won't register a gun that isn't on the books as belonging to them when it was originally purchased and a background check performed. Here's a solution that I think would help, but gun control people would NEVER do it and most pro gun people would not want it. Put all AR15 style weapons under the NFA system like short barrel rifles and suppressors. That means you have to pass a more extensive background check, send recent passport photo, send finger prints, pay a 200 dollar tax, and anytime you take the gun out of your house you are required to carry a copy of the approval certification with you. The compromise would be hiring more workers to process NFA items. The current wait time is 9 months to a year and if you added all semi auto rifles to the list it would be years to get an approval. Has anyone heard the details of how the guns were stored in this case? I haven't seen that yet. You can't require all guns to be locked up. That makes using them for self defense almost useless. Home invaders don't stop at the fridge for a snack when they come in. They go straight for the master bedroom where the valuables are usually located. It really is personal responsibility. I don't have kids in my house so I have a gun where I can get to it. When my nephews come over though I lock all the guns up. You can't blame the gun owner if their gun gets stolen. If someone breaks into my house to steal my stuff how is that my fault? If someone steals your keys and your car and runs people over are you responsible if you didn't put your keys in a safe? Not to mention, the gun "safes" sold at sporting goods stores and sams club can be broken into in a few minutes. To get a safe that is actually hard to break into costs thousands and thousands of dollars. Most people can't afford them and requiring a gun owner to have them would probably be viewed as a violation of the 2nd Amendment. If we accept that not all guns can be banned, and we now see what damage can be done with just a shotgun and a revolver, how can this be stopped without additional security measures at schools? That has always been my contention. The gun bans on assault rifles and even high capacity magazines won't stop these shootings. When the bad guy is standing in the only doorway into or out of the classroom the type of weapon isn't all that important. Kids aren't going to charge a gunman so he can reload whenever he wants.
Stricter storage requirements would have at least established liability and requiring gun owners to carry liability insurance would ensure that they would be financially responsible if their guns fell into the wrong hands.
That narrative is pants on head r****ded and ends any potential for discussion with people like that. Also, if you are claiming that anyone who isn't anti-gun are complicit in crimes involving guns, you are going to do nothing but alienate more of the country than Hillary Clinton did with her "deplorables" comments which will lead to more lost elections.....so keep it up if you like.
That would be as unconstitutional as a poll tax, we've been over this before. Now you can pass laws in order to prosecute people who don't make reasonable efforts to secure firearms that end up used in these kinds of attacks, but you can't financially infringe upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms any more than you can financially infringe upon the right of the people to vote.
That's not a straw man....do you even know what that means? I'm directly responding to a really stupid statement speaking about the consequences for making really stupid statements like that. There was no strawman.
Where did you come up with this nugget of bullshit? Yes, and you're just as deluded as always. Wow, you do realize that saying this makes you "anti second amendment" to a great many people, right? According to who?
Yes, you said... "Also, if you are claiming that anyone who isn't anti-gun are complicit in crimes involving guns," Nobody made any such claim, that's a straw man. You're the one making really stupid statements. Discussed above, try again, rookie.
If you aren't intelligent enough to follow along with that obvious statement, I'll understand. Not anyone that knows what the 2nd amendment says. The constitution of the United States along with relevant court precedent.
That's EXACTLY what the person was saying though. He was blaming the congressional GOP members and the NRA for the shooting based on the fact that they aren't rabidly anti-civil rights as he'd have them be. That was the entire basis of his statement, it very much is a scenario where if you support civil rights, people like that moron blame you for shootings......which clearly you didn't understand, but I guess you not following along is kind of expected at this point. I don't think you've been shown to be competent to determine what is and what isn't stupid. You have a.....we'll say "special" history when it comes to making foolish statements.
Insults and bullshit are all you've got. The NRA opposes storage requirements. Are you saying they don't understand the second amendment? There is no relevant court precedent regarding insurance requirements for firearms. Nice try, though.
No, it wasn't, you just made that **** up and pretended that it was part of his point. That's the very definition of a straw man. Your inability to see the shades of grey between "rabidly anti-civil rights" and desiring reasonable restrictions on firearms is noted. Not even remotely, try again. Again, there is a wide gulf between "rabidly anti-civil rights" and desiring reasonable restrictions on firearms. Only to people who refuse to try and understand what I and other people say. No, I have a special history with calling out YOUR foolish statements.
They are a civil rights advocacy group, just like all of them, they go overboard. It's like how other civil rights advocacy groups oppose voter ID laws despite the fact that they wouldn't really infringe upon anyone's civil rights. Also, when you say "storage requirements" that can mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people. Some are reasonable, some are not. I would imagine most normal people would oppose some of the more ridiculous "storage requirements" proposed by the anti-civil rights people. Aww, that's adorable, you didn't follow along. Insurance requirements would be the same thing as a poll tax in that it would be a financial hurdle that someone would face in order to exercise their civil rights.....and there is plenty of relevant court precedent when it comes to putting financial hurdles between people and their civil rights. Hopefully that helps you figure it out.
Okay, I'll play along, why is it you think that he was targeting those groups and claiming that they were complicit in the crime committed by the crazy Greek Nazi Commie? Of course there is, but it's the "rabidly anti-civil rights" people who use the type of rhetoric that I was responding to.
