NRA says public wants armed guards in every school

 @albion  @FrankJames What happens when you lose the gun culture? Problems. Look at what happened in Mumbai. the gun culture had been so thoroughly stamped out that even the *police* didn't know how to respond, and the gunmen took a city of millions hostage for three days. how is that an improvement? Shooters like the mental-defective of Sandy Hook are not a part of the Gun Culture. They are a cancer that needs to be shot early and often when they are committing their crime, rather than waiting for the cops.

 @SalParadise  @Beam_Me_Up Oh, yes, and you are arguing from a false premiss. You are equating "easier to stop an intruder" with "more powerful," which assumes that power is the sole (or at least primary) determining factor in determining "easier to stop." A long arm such as an AR is easier to aim, less felt recoil, less problem with over-penetration than many handgun rounds (due to light-weight and fragmenting bullets), has greater stopping power (which is not exactly the same as more muzzle energy), is more accurate, has a long range in the event that is needed, carries more ammunition in the magazine in the event of multiple attackers (or body armor or drugs or other need for multiple shots to stop). In the event of a hostage situation, it's easier to take out a bad guy hiding behind your child with a rifle than a handgun because of the aforementioned accuracy and aiming qualities. Speaking as someone who has taught both rifle shooters and handgun shooters, it's MUCH easier to get a two inch group at ten yards with a rifle than a handgun. 

 

So, for a whole lot of reasons, your "just use nuke" argument is ridiculous, and indicates a lack of understanding of the underlying issues.

 @RN1 Right on, way to go, way to reduce that persons argument to it's basic elements by using logic, I was wondering when you would catch on, keep it up.

 @SalParadise  @Beam_Me_Up Reducto ad absurdum, and you know it. Some practical flaws, too.

 @RN1  @Beam_Me_Up Well, with that reasoning and logic the easiest thing to do would be to drop an atom bomb on the whole lot, problem solved, right?

 @SalParadise  @Beam_Me_Up Yup. It is also much easier to stop an intruder or assailant with an AR15 than a handgun. Also easier to keep looters and mob violence under control (look up LA riots and Korean shopkeepers).

 @SalParadise  @RN1 "If you need them to hunt you either need your eyesight checked or you are a piss poor hunter. Give me one legitimate reason a regular citizen would need an assault weapon with a high capacity magazine."

Man where to start. But lets just cover a couple.

1. Hunting. The goal of shot placement, ammunition choice, cartridge choice, etc is a one shot, quick humane kill. But sometimes things do go as you plan and you need a quick followup shot. This is where the semi-automatic rifles excel. BTW, i"m talking semi-auto rifles not assault rifles as assault rifles are so expensive and difficult to get its too impractical to obtain.

2. Hunting continued. There are some hunting situations with multiple targets (varmint hunting) so rapid fire is important. You can't do this effectively with a bolt action etc. 

3. Defense. There have been numerous home invasions with multiple attackers. If a person had something effective enough, as in an AR-15 etc then they could possibly survive. 

4. Zombie hords. Word has it they travel in packs so you need lots and lots of rounds at your disposal. But then again this example is ridiculous, as is having to explain the obvious.

 @SalParadise (side note: I HATE this commenting system - it can't even do threading right) What's the problem with the poorly defined "assault weapon" being designed to stop people? (technically, they ARE designed to *stop*, not kill) Some people NEED stopping. how much cheaper would our prison system be if most of the time a criminal attempting to rape, rob, or kill was shot in the process? I fail to see the downside, there. I generally don't use them to hunt, but they are good (and legal) for some varmints, but for he 9hopefully) last time, the 2nd amendment ISN'T about hunting. It's got nothing to do with it.

 

One good reason: Simplicity. A friend of mine has a messed up shoulder and wrist/hand. Manipulating the magazine is very difficult, She and her husband live in a rural area, with help a fair ways away. A small group of home-invaders / thieves have operated in the area before. Having 30 rounds available without having to worry about lugging around a spare magazine, having a low-recoil (remember, bad shoulder?) accurate, inexpensive, easy to operate rifle is a (possibly literally) life-saver.

 

Still not sure what your fixation is with what others think about their genitalia, but of denigrating the motives of others builds you up, well, that's your psychosis. (note - please read the Markley's Law link above). I'm aware of those that are so insecure they are afraid of guns, because they either don't trust themselves and by projection don't trust others, and those that know so little about them that they ascribe to them all sorts of mystical powers, but I don't know anyone personally that identifies their man-hood with guns. i liek them because I just am not very good at throwing something at 12000 fps (shoulder problems), and a cop is too large to carry in my pocket.

 

The founders said "ARMS", not "muskets." They also said "army and navy," but not "air force." Many of the canons used in the revolution were privately owned. They also didn't envision the internet when they said "press." Their goal was clear: the average citizen should be able to own arms comparable to those in common use by the average soldier. That means that things like AR15s are *exactly* the sort of things they had in mind.

 @Crimsonkid  @SalParadise  @RN1 Where does it ever say "form" in the Amendment. It doesn't give you the right to "form" a militia. You are adding words that aren't there.

@SalParadise @RN1 Absolutely wrong there buddy. The 2nd Amendment states two rights that belong to the people only; the Right to Bear Arms and the Right to form a militia, and neither are to be regulated by the government but to be regulated by the people. There is NOTHING stated in the 2nd Amendment that requires you to belong to a militia to own, carry, or, conceal a weapon.

 @SalParadise Do'h. Way to many incorrect uses of "it's" when I mean "its" and such. I HATE this commenting system where you can't edit a post, only delete it, which is a pain when typing fast. Please excuse the usage, spelling, and grammar technicalities.

 @RN1  Assault weapons are meant to kill other people. There is no reason they need to circulating through the general population. If you need them to hunt you either need your eyesight checked or you are a piss poor hunter. Give me one legitimate reason a regular citizen would need an assault weapon with a high capacity magazine.

 

There are legitimate reasons to own a gun (not an assault weapon) such as those of your friend. But there are many (mostly all men) who feel like their manhood is missing without a gun. I'm sure you know the type, they usually have balls hanging off their trailer hitch.

 

I'm not against the 2nd Amendment. I just think that when the Founders wrote "right to bear arms" they weren't thinking about assault weapons just like they weren't thinking of SCUD missiles, biological weapons or nuclear bombs. They're all considered arms.

 

My ultimate point is the line has to be drawn somewhere and I think reinstating the assault weapons ban and licensing guns like we license driving/cars is a good way to go.

 @SalParadise And with that, you make a Markley's Law appearance. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Markley%27s%20Law

So, what's that say about the friend of mine who carries because she was almost raped twice? Seems to not make a lot of sense, but feel free to toss such garbage around if it makes you feel better about yourself.

 

But to say that the NRA is pushing an agenda is like saying gravity is down. OF COURSE it is. It is called a "special interest" because it's very PURPOSE is to push the interest of it's members, more than four million of them, which includes safety training and protecting gun ownership rights. That *IS* what it does. You should be no more surprised by it than NOW pushing women's rights, or the NAACP pushing the rights of colored people. So again, your point?

Ok, I was wrong there, it's late. But you really don't think the NRA is pushing their agenda? 

 

I could be wrong. It could be possible that it is every American's God given right to own a surrogate penis. Just be careful when you cock it to discharge a load.

 @SalParadise OK, my mathematically challenged poster. You were taught in HS that a one dimensional item is a LINE. A ZERO dimensional object is a point. A two dimensional item is called a PLANE. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimension

 

Now then, you were saying?

 @RN1 A One Dimensional political spectrum would be useless. It is considered a dot. I am talking about a two dimensional political spectrum; it is called a line.

 

You don't think the NRA is pushing their agenda? I don't know what you're smoking.

 @SalParadise *sigh* Putting fascism and socialism on opposite ends of the political spectrum is just as stupid as putting them on the same end, because a one-dimensional political spectrum is REALLY limiting. It should be at LEAST two dimensional, for economic freedom on one axis, and personal freedom on the other, like a Nolan chart, or perhaps like a Pournelle Chart http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pournelle_chart , where the the Nazis and the Commies are close together on one axis and far apart on the other, but free folks are screwed either way.

 

OK. Whatever YOU call it, the political left in this country is trying to move us toward a [name of your choice here] where everything is either required or forbidden, private lives and industry are regulated to death, and I'm much less free than I would be if I were just left the blipp'n heck alone. 

 

Obama has been spending FAR more than Regan, who's main fault was that he though liberals were rational enough to fear deficit spending as much as conservatives, and they'd call for cutbacks when they saw the read ink.. Instead they said "we can push this borrowing from the future on until we are not in power any more, and buy votes by borrowing money in the mean-time!" Marginal rates don't mean much; it's debt and spending relative to GDP, and less is better in the long term. Debt will eat everything, eventually, because of compounding interest working *against you.*

 

Now, back to the topic at hand: The Left in dancing in the blood of innocents, pushing THEIR agenda. ANYTHING the NRA said would be ridiculed: say something soon, and it's disrespectful, late and it's out of shame, etc., etc., etc. What's chemotherapy? Poisoning your tumor faster than you poison yourself. What's a "back-fire" It's fighting fire *with fire*. How do you stop a violent criminal? With immediate counter-violence to lower his blood-pressure to zero, or reduce his cranial-nervous connectivity to a level that stops the attack. Cops use guns sometimes for that very reason; they work. When a school shooting happens, what do they do? call FOR GUYS WITH GUNS. A (civilian) gun-free place is a police-state (to be named later by yourself).

 @SalParadise  @RN1 Oh boy another one of the constitutional scholars on the forums. Try reading RN1s links and learn something.

 @RN1 That proves you don't even know what socialist or socialism means. It is nowhere close to fascism. They are at two different ends of the political spectrum. And just because you don't like left wingers that doesn't mean they're socialist. Obama has lower federal tax rates than Reagan did.

 @SalParadise Actually, I do (or at least was until recently), and you may well. too.  The unorganized militia. Part (b) (2) of USC Title 10, Section 311. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311 . Also see http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm .

 

Using "socialist," in the broadest sense, a general term. Technically, fascism is closer (private ownership property and the means of production, but with intense government regulation and control over a lot of the details, often characterized by cronyism and unofficial backroom deals between the political and business elites)