Announcement

Announcement Module
Collapse
No announcement yet.

NRA -are they Serious?!?

Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    So what I'm getting from the last two post is we're too cheap and we're too stupid to take care of our kids. Got it!

    Comment


    • #17
      So I will ask again... Has anyone come up with a better idea?

      Comment


      • #18
        Well well, it seems we do care more for our money and our political elite than our children.

        The logic of some of the knuckleheads here who are dismissing solutions out of hand just because it comes from the NRA is baffling.

        Let's see...we post armed guards in various places already because...why? Discuss amongst yourselves.

        If you'd like to wish the problem away with some more feel good legislation that will do diddly squat, go ahead, but I'm not jumping on your bandwagon. Nothing short of the elimination of ALL, and I do mean ALL guns will prevent gun violence in schools. So until you can guarantee me that the are NO guns in society, which has proven that our degredation of culture and devaluation of human life has created monsters like we have seen, I'm having none of it.

        I can drop a half dozen 10 round clips into a Glock nearly as fast as I can fire off 50 rounds in an "assault" weapon. Rules are not the answer. Effective deterrent and protection is.

        Wake up and smell the coffee folks. It's 2012 in America.

        Comment


        • #19
          Nah, we're not dismissing anything just because it comes from da NRA, Brewmeister.

          We're commentin' on how completely ridiculous and over the top that NRA event was. Da NRA spokesperson also was goin' after video games, eh? Are yeh really suggesting a ban on video games is goin' to be more effective? Do yeh really think like da NRA spokesman that Hollywood made the lad do it?

          I'm not sure what that press statement was supposed to be, but it was a complete joke.

          We lost scouts in Sandy Hook. Let's approach this as somethin' other than a political lobbying game.

          Beavah

          Comment


          • #20
            Sorry, but requirements for being a teacher or principle being a sharp shooter will not work. Everyone does not have the care, interest or desire to spend their weekends at a gun range. If they don't practice, or no matter how much practice can't hit the side of a barn, or are great at teaching kindergardeners, but don't have enough bravery to stand up to a full armored mad man with a automatic rifle with a 100 round drum (or who knows in a few years it may be a 1,000 round drum) with a normal six bullet revolver.

            Legislature will never solve ALL.. It just reduces. And yes, it should not all be about gun legislature, but also legislature that changes the social perspective that has desensitised how we look at murder and mayham (movies & games). Same as cigerettes commercials had to change the image that cigerettes were cool or said you were an adult. Have you ever looked at older shows, and noticed those who smoked in them? Now movies rarely has someone be a smoker unless they are the bad guy, or the show hits upon lung cancer. Sure social media can help form social perspective. But, they don't kill the guns do.. Same as cigerettes kill, not the commercial about them.

            Drunk driving laws and re-educating the public, does not eliminate ALL drunk drivers, but it has reduced the problem.

            Sure a knife could kill, but you can't stab 50 people in a movie theater before someone tackles you. Sure you could kill with a bomb, but that takes alot more thought and planning then picking up a gun. I would expect legislature on bombs if they were sold like candy as guns are, and we saw an uptick in bombings because of it.

            Free speech comes with limits. You can't yell "Fire" in a crowded theater, or write lies about someone that ruins their reputation without being sued.. Right to bare arms should come with limits.

            Also glad to know you don't consider yourself cheap. Perhaps those with guns can start paying high taxes on their purchases of guns and ammo to pay for either extra patrolmen where needed, and to help pay for the hospital/burial costs of the lives lost by guns.. Similar to the cigarette taxes.(This message has been edited by moosetracker)

            Comment


            • #21
              Yah, moosetracker, I'm sorry. That post just left me with da biggest smile.

              Settin' aside da 1000 round drum magazine, on behalf of guys everywhere, let's not put any limits on da right to bare arms. I can just see da legislature legislation requirin' long-sleeve turtlenecks! What a tragedy!

              Beavah


              Comment


              • #22
                Ok.. Legislation, legislature.. ya got me.. But turtleneck??? I was more thinking for the 1,000 round drum you might need to do weights or your rifle may need to have wheels for the weight of it.. But, I don't get the turtleneck reference.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Honestly Brew, Your full of reindeer droppings. stopping and reloading as fast as a fellow just pulling the trigger....I call reindeer shhhhhh

                  I have emailed and called all of my elected officials and let them know that I WILL be watching their voting record closely on this issue and I will make sure local folks are aware of it as well. This will be my voting point in the coming election. I told them reasonable controls and not do what the NRA tells them too.

                  Interestingly my urban neighbors have had enough as well.

                  I am a gun owner and it is time for reasonable restrictions. If I need to turn in some of my firearms to comply with new laws I am prepared to do so.


                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Ok Basement, what reasonable restrictions would make a difference.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Yeah, the NRA needs to learn to just keep their mouths shut after these tragedies. Then again, it strikes me as a bit opportunistic and ham-fisted for the CSE to run out and personally present Spirit of the Eagle awards to Chase and Ben's families quite so soon. But I digress/hijack....

                      Anyway, If you read only one article on all this I recommend the following, sent to my by one of my ASMs:

                      http://www.policeone.com/active-shooter/articles/2058168-Active-shooters-in-schools-The-enemy-is-denial/

                      The article notes there hasn't been ONE SINGLE fire fatality in an American school in the past 50 years. Why? Because we've taken a systematic approach to fire prevention and protection. But, you say, we don't have arsonists targeting school children. No, but we could, if you think in terms of terrorist attacks. And if, God forbid, terrorists decide to fire-bomb schools, the same drills and fire safety devices which save lives in electrical fires will save lives during attacks.

                      Some of the things the article suggest better training of students and teachers, but more importantly systematically upgrading the design and construction of schools with an eye toward security. For example, we now have automatic fire doors which close whenever a fire alarm is pulled. Why not similar security doors? We need to rethink the light, open and airy design of schools. The article mentioned the number of students killed at Columbine who were trying to "hide" in a glass-walled library. I was at one of the local high schools last week and couldn't help to notice how impossible it would have been to secure the school. More than a dozen small buildings built over decades connected by breezeways and sidewalks. Folks who want to make the point will note the trillions of dollars required to replace all the schools in the country. But that's a red herring. We didn't improve fire safety in one budget cycle. As wooden doors wore out we replaced them with steel doors. As buildings were renovated, they were brought up to fire code. When new schools were built, they met modern standards. I don't want our schools to look like CIA headquarters, but I'll bet most folks who work in any sort of corporate facility are better protected than their children.

                      Fire protection building codes are based on making fires survivable until the fire department arrives. If a building has a 15 minute fire rating but the local fire station is a half hour away, you've got a problem. But with shootings, the response time needs to be in seconds. So yes, the article does recommend armed guards. It asks if we would put firemen in schools with uniforms and badges but no fire extinguishers? Again, I've already read articles saying it would take the entire active-duty US military to put one armed guard in each school in the country. Horse hockey. I don't know about other areas, but in our school district all the schools already have School Resource Officers. SRO is really a misnomer -- these folks are real cops who have real patrol assignments when schools are not in session. Honestly, I never thought to look and see if they carry their service arms while working at school, but I bet the do and if they don' they should. As regular cops they're on call to respond off campus if an emergency requires it.

                      And this my opinion, not the article, but I do think trying to make kindergarten teaches into SWAT team members is just silly. People are drawn toward professions based on their aptitudes and general outlooks on life. Maybe there are some heat-packing kindergarten teachers out there, but I tend to think those things which make one a good kindergarten teacher is not the skill set they're looking for in a scout-sniper.

                      While there are a lot of small things we could be doing to improve school security, I don't have a problem looking at the state of gun laws either. As with every other civil rights, the Second Amendment is and ought to be tempered by the other ten. Maybe banning high-volume magazines is a reasonable thing to do. I don't know, I can't say I've ever fired a semi-automatic weapon in my life, so this is outside my area of experience. But then I have to wonder if there is a big difference between a shooter in one of these situations with 10, 10-round magazines vs. one 100-round mag. The bad guys will always find a work around, like flying airplanes into building, righ?

                      I've always thought anything said in the immediate wake of these tragedies is bound to generate more heat than light and the current round of debate seems to be proving me right. But then I'm not doing the political trigonometry to get my point of view through Congress, either. Hopefully, we'll find a balance. Unfortnately, we don't seem to have many folks in leadership these days with balance as their goal.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Maybe you're just old and uncoordinated basement. I dunno.

                        Anyhoo, as I've said before, we have accepted restrictions on the first amendment as well as the second.

                        The problem is there is a significant contingent of people, including here, who think the second amendment is irrelevant, outdated, or should be abolished. The news already has politicos talking about confiscation.

                        Nobody argues that the first amendment is outdated when proposing restrictions in the interest of public safety.

                        That's the slippery slope of gun control--the end game of many who are proposing it.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Well reasonable....

                          Australia is too restrictive.

                          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia

                          British seems reasonable.

                          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom

                          Germany....gotta love the Germans. psych evaluation for those under 25, hmmm should we include all owners in that.

                          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Germany

                          Canada, Probably has it right.

                          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Canada

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            >>We lost scouts in Sandy Hook. Let's approach this as somethin' other than a political lobbying game.

                            We know. And we're not.

                            Just because somebody doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they are either "mentally ill" or a "nutter."

                            You might want to entertain the possiblility that the people proposing a solution are quite sane and believe in their solution as quite reasonable. I know it's a stretch.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Basement, I asked what reasonable restrictions would make a difference. I don't think any of those would have prevented the latest school tragedy.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Lets see most of above nations have ban private ownership of assault/semiautomatic centerfire weapons.

                                I think that would have slowed things down considerably.



                                You asked

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X