Federal judge blocks ca high capacity magazine law
- Thread starter Chris142
- Start date
- Status
I have a global job and and people all over the world ask me "what would it take to get Americans to actually stop buying or actually turn in guns."
One big step would actually be to create accountability to protect and respond. There is NONE today.
People have this silly idea that they are - they are not. They have no obligation to protect anyone.
When the laws get rewritten so that police and the government are actually liable for our protection we can start to talk about change.
There has never been a successful "failure to protect" lawsuit brought against any department in the US.
UD
One big step would actually be to create accountability to protect and respond. There is NONE today.
People have this silly idea that they are - they are not. They have no obligation to protect anyone.
When the laws get rewritten so that police and the government are actually liable for our protection we can start to talk about change.
There has never been a successful "failure to protect" lawsuit brought against any department in the US.
UD
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: UncleDave
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
In practical terms, if your kid was in a school where some guy was trying to kill everyone, what size of magazines would you prefer him to have? 10 rounds or 30?
I know what I would choose...
While were talking about school killings - How would you stop the guy in China with the knife that killed 8 in march2010 , or the guy with the knife that wounded 16 the month after, then the guy that killed another 7 kids and 2 adults and 11 others that tried to stop him with a meat cleaver in may 2010 ? it goes on and on.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_(2010–12)
In practical terms - in you lived through the LA riot like I did, and had to traverse through south central to get home with no police protection (because they don't show up during civil unrest) like I did how big a magazine would you like to have?
How about when the mob looted and firebombed and my business? What would be the ideal sized magazine to keep away 30 people with molotov cocktails that the police couldn't bother with that day?
Ex post facto laws are unconstitutional and wrong the judge has some sanity here.
UD
So what if the guys in China had AR15s with 30 round magazines instead of knives? Would more or less kids been killed do you think?
As for the LA riot, did anyone need to shoot 30 guys with molotov cocktails in under a minute? I think in practical terms, other than against trained forces in combat, a rifle is a pretty strong deterrent, with ether 10 or 30 rounds...
I guess I see it as, a 30 round magazine has far more potential to kill more defenseless people, than it saves in a self defense situation. So on that basis, it should be illegal.
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
In practical terms, if your kid was in a school where some guy was trying to kill everyone, what size of magazines would you prefer him to have? 10 rounds or 30?
I know what I would choose...
While were talking about school killings - How would you stop the guy in China with the knife that killed 8 in march2010 , or the guy with the knife that wounded 16 the month after, then the guy that killed another 7 kids and 2 adults and 11 others that tried to stop him with a meat cleaver in may 2010 ? it goes on and on.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_(2010–12)
In practical terms - in you lived through the LA riot like I did, and had to traverse through south central to get home with no police protection (because they don't show up during civil unrest) like I did how big a magazine would you like to have?
How about when the mob looted and firebombed and my business? What would be the ideal sized magazine to keep away 30 people with molotov cocktails that the police couldn't bother with that day?
Ex post facto laws are unconstitutional and wrong the judge has some sanity here.
UD
So what if the guys in China had AR15s with 30 round magazines instead of knives? Would more or less kids been killed do you think?
As for the LA riot, did anyone need to shoot 30 guys with molotov cocktails in under a minute? I think in practical terms, other than against trained forces in combat, a rifle is a pretty strong deterrent, with ether 10 or 30 rounds...
I guess I see it as, a 30 round magazine has far more potential to kill more defenseless people, than it saves in a self defense situation. So on that basis, it should be illegal.
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
So what if the guys in China had AR15s with 30 round magazines instead of knives? Would more or less kids been killed do you think?
As for the LA riot, did anyone need to shoot 30 guys with molotov cocktails in under a minute? I think in practical terms, other than against trained forces in combat, a rifle is a pretty strong deterrent, with ether 10 or 30 rounds...
I guess I see it as, a 30 round magazine has far more potential to kill more defenseless people, than it saves in a self defense situation. So on that basis, it should be illegal.
To the first part of your post about China: Of course, more people would have died if he had an AR. That part of the populace (well, all of china's populace, really) isn't allowed the ability to protect themselves from these attacks.
I find it interesting that the example from your first reply was at a school. A place where people are known to be defenseless. A place where a high percentage of mass shootings happen. Do you not see the link between the two?
These mass killers are cowards. They nearly always bring their attacks onto those who they KNOW cannot protect themselves. Not EVERY time. But, it holds true more often than not. The laws that we have in place, are literally creating killing fields of our children.
In regards to your response to the LA riot: Once you've been in the situation that UncleDave was in, I'll respect your decision as to how many rounds you want your mags to hold. Until then, UncleDave's opinions and experience are what I'll use to prepare myself. I respect your right to do otherwise. Please respect mine.
Edit: You haven't responded to the fact that the criminals won't turn in their 30 round mags. How do you plan to recover these mags? Remember, there are millions, possibly even billions of them out in the wild.
So what if the guys in China had AR15s with 30 round magazines instead of knives? Would more or less kids been killed do you think?
As for the LA riot, did anyone need to shoot 30 guys with molotov cocktails in under a minute? I think in practical terms, other than against trained forces in combat, a rifle is a pretty strong deterrent, with ether 10 or 30 rounds...
I guess I see it as, a 30 round magazine has far more potential to kill more defenseless people, than it saves in a self defense situation. So on that basis, it should be illegal.
To the first part of your post about China: Of course, more people would have died if he had an AR. That part of the populace (well, all of china's populace, really) isn't allowed the ability to protect themselves from these attacks.
I find it interesting that the example from your first reply was at a school. A place where people are known to be defenseless. A place where a high percentage of mass shootings happen. Do you not see the link between the two?
These mass killers are cowards. They nearly always bring their attacks onto those who they KNOW cannot protect themselves. Not EVERY time. But, it holds true more often than not. The laws that we have in place, are literally creating killing fields of our children.
In regards to your response to the LA riot: Once you've been in the situation that UncleDave was in, I'll respect your decision as to how many rounds you want your mags to hold. Until then, UncleDave's opinions and experience are what I'll use to prepare myself. I respect your right to do otherwise. Please respect mine.
Edit: You haven't responded to the fact that the criminals won't turn in their 30 round mags. How do you plan to recover these mags? Remember, there are millions, possibly even billions of them out in the wild.
Last edited:
It would be nice if there were no guns at all in the USA - not necessarily safer, but nice. But those entertaining this dream are 230 years too late, as there are now over 300,000,000 firearms in private hands in the USA. So instead of fantasizing, what is the practical solution?
The antis would like to see all firearms and ammunition banned and confiscated - nice simple and clean solution, but would it work? By definition, outlaws ignore laws, so do they really think all the gang-bangers, drug dealers, thieves, rapists, murderers, and other assorted criminals will line up to turn in their guns? No, they will be smiling ear-to-ear because their occupation just became much safer as the convenience store clerks, gas station attendants, liquor store employees, home owners, and other assorted good guys all obediently disarm. The only thing that changes is the balance of power.
It is estimated that there are already over 20,000 laws on the books in the USA, federal, state, county, and local, governing firearms and ammunition. Enacting more restrictions on law abiding citizens who want to protect their homes, businesses, and families will only tend to increase crime. Mass shootings, especially of children, elicit very emotional reactions, but not rational ones. The efforts should be placed on disarming criminals and mentally disturbed people, not ordinary people. In other words, enforce the existing laws, not make new ones.
I will be happy to turn in all of my home protection guns. As soon as you have disarmed all of the sick and evil people, just give me a call.
The antis would like to see all firearms and ammunition banned and confiscated - nice simple and clean solution, but would it work? By definition, outlaws ignore laws, so do they really think all the gang-bangers, drug dealers, thieves, rapists, murderers, and other assorted criminals will line up to turn in their guns? No, they will be smiling ear-to-ear because their occupation just became much safer as the convenience store clerks, gas station attendants, liquor store employees, home owners, and other assorted good guys all obediently disarm. The only thing that changes is the balance of power.
It is estimated that there are already over 20,000 laws on the books in the USA, federal, state, county, and local, governing firearms and ammunition. Enacting more restrictions on law abiding citizens who want to protect their homes, businesses, and families will only tend to increase crime. Mass shootings, especially of children, elicit very emotional reactions, but not rational ones. The efforts should be placed on disarming criminals and mentally disturbed people, not ordinary people. In other words, enforce the existing laws, not make new ones.
I will be happy to turn in all of my home protection guns. As soon as you have disarmed all of the sick and evil people, just give me a call.
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
Originally Posted By: UncleDave
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
In practical terms, if your kid was in a school where some guy was trying to kill everyone, what size of magazines would you prefer him to have? 10 rounds or 30?
I know what I would choose...
While were talking about school killings - How would you stop the guy in China with the knife that killed 8 in march2010 , or the guy with the knife that wounded 16 the month after, then the guy that killed another 7 kids and 2 adults and 11 others that tried to stop him with a meat cleaver in may 2010 ? it goes on and on.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_(2010–12)
In practical terms - in you lived through the LA riot like I did, and had to traverse through south central to get home with no police protection (because they don't show up during civil unrest) like I did how big a magazine would you like to have?
How about when the mob looted and firebombed and my business? What would be the ideal sized magazine to keep away 30 people with molotov cocktails that the police couldn't bother with that day?
Ex post facto laws are unconstitutional and wrong the judge has some sanity here.
UD
So what if the guys in China had AR15s with 30 round magazines instead of knives? Would more or less kids been killed do you think?
As for the LA riot, did anyone need to shoot 30 guys with molotov cocktails in under a minute? I think in practical terms, other than against trained forces in combat, a rifle is a pretty strong deterrent, with ether 10 or 30 rounds...
I guess I see it as, a 30 round magazine has far more potential to kill more defenseless people, than it saves in a self defense situation. So on that basis, it should be illegal.
I think if one security guy, principal, teacher had a gun in these schools had any weapons with a sufficient capacity those tragedies would be lessened. Murderers come in many forms.
Yes there was a reason to shoot 30 guys with molotov cocktails because thats not all they had, they were armed as well and there were hundreds of them out to kill maim and burn.
I got everybody out when there were only 5-6 guys trying to murder my staff via arson, by the time 30-100 firebombed the building we were gone.
A CBS news cameraman named hunter block was parked in a van across the street taping the event so we saw the mob close in.
It was the only time in my life when I feared needed more weapons capacity than I had.
We were lucky - we could leave. The Korean store owners weren't all so lucky the LA gangs had targeted them.
The Bloods and Crips were out for revenge against an entire community and were in full auto shootouts with the korean store owners over the acquittal of the Latasha Harlans killing.
Go watch what happened and imagine yourself in those situations - being burned out by a mob who sets fire to your building then gunned down when you tried to escape.
Had that community not had large cap semi autos and defended itself from the rooftops at a distance against dozens of attacking gasngsters - they would have all been burned alive or murdered.
People selectively remember history then when presented with a real life scenario that would be death for themselves and family without adequate defense say things like - "well that rarely happens so you still shouldn't have that."
The cops were nowhere while all this was happening - they were home protecting their families with the weapons you and I can't have.
You "see it" one way, I see it another from the experience of having lived through a full blown riot that only cost my business, if it not for the ability to ward off attackers - it would have likely cost me and my employees our lives - all that over Rodney King.
I wonder whats going to happen in the next big earthquake when the water shuts off for a week?
UD
Originally Posted By: UncleDave
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
In practical terms, if your kid was in a school where some guy was trying to kill everyone, what size of magazines would you prefer him to have? 10 rounds or 30?
I know what I would choose...
While were talking about school killings - How would you stop the guy in China with the knife that killed 8 in march2010 , or the guy with the knife that wounded 16 the month after, then the guy that killed another 7 kids and 2 adults and 11 others that tried to stop him with a meat cleaver in may 2010 ? it goes on and on.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_(2010–12)
In practical terms - in you lived through the LA riot like I did, and had to traverse through south central to get home with no police protection (because they don't show up during civil unrest) like I did how big a magazine would you like to have?
How about when the mob looted and firebombed and my business? What would be the ideal sized magazine to keep away 30 people with molotov cocktails that the police couldn't bother with that day?
Ex post facto laws are unconstitutional and wrong the judge has some sanity here.
UD
So what if the guys in China had AR15s with 30 round magazines instead of knives? Would more or less kids been killed do you think?
As for the LA riot, did anyone need to shoot 30 guys with molotov cocktails in under a minute? I think in practical terms, other than against trained forces in combat, a rifle is a pretty strong deterrent, with ether 10 or 30 rounds...
I guess I see it as, a 30 round magazine has far more potential to kill more defenseless people, than it saves in a self defense situation. So on that basis, it should be illegal.
I think if one security guy, principal, teacher had a gun in these schools had any weapons with a sufficient capacity those tragedies would be lessened. Murderers come in many forms.
Yes there was a reason to shoot 30 guys with molotov cocktails because thats not all they had, they were armed as well and there were hundreds of them out to kill maim and burn.
I got everybody out when there were only 5-6 guys trying to murder my staff via arson, by the time 30-100 firebombed the building we were gone.
A CBS news cameraman named hunter block was parked in a van across the street taping the event so we saw the mob close in.
It was the only time in my life when I feared needed more weapons capacity than I had.
We were lucky - we could leave. The Korean store owners weren't all so lucky the LA gangs had targeted them.
The Bloods and Crips were out for revenge against an entire community and were in full auto shootouts with the korean store owners over the acquittal of the Latasha Harlans killing.
Go watch what happened and imagine yourself in those situations - being burned out by a mob who sets fire to your building then gunned down when you tried to escape.
Had that community not had large cap semi autos and defended itself from the rooftops at a distance against dozens of attacking gasngsters - they would have all been burned alive or murdered.
People selectively remember history then when presented with a real life scenario that would be death for themselves and family without adequate defense say things like - "well that rarely happens so you still shouldn't have that."
The cops were nowhere while all this was happening - they were home protecting their families with the weapons you and I can't have.
You "see it" one way, I see it another from the experience of having lived through a full blown riot that only cost my business, if it not for the ability to ward off attackers - it would have likely cost me and my employees our lives - all that over Rodney King.
I wonder whats going to happen in the next big earthquake when the water shuts off for a week?
UD
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: UncleDave
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
Originally Posted By: UncleDave
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
In practical terms, if your kid was in a school where some guy was trying to kill everyone, what size of magazines would you prefer him to have? 10 rounds or 30?
I know what I would choose...
While were talking about school killings - How would you stop the guy in China with the knife that killed 8 in march2010 , or the guy with the knife that wounded 16 the month after, then the guy that killed another 7 kids and 2 adults and 11 others that tried to stop him with a meat cleaver in may 2010 ? it goes on and on.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_(2010–12)
In practical terms - in you lived through the LA riot like I did, and had to traverse through south central to get home with no police protection (because they don't show up during civil unrest) like I did how big a magazine would you like to have?
How about when the mob looted and firebombed and my business? What would be the ideal sized magazine to keep away 30 people with molotov cocktails that the police couldn't bother with that day?
Ex post facto laws are unconstitutional and wrong the judge has some sanity here.
UD
So what if the guys in China had AR15s with 30 round magazines instead of knives? Would more or less kids been killed do you think?
As for the LA riot, did anyone need to shoot 30 guys with molotov cocktails in under a minute? I think in practical terms, other than against trained forces in combat, a rifle is a pretty strong deterrent, with ether 10 or 30 rounds...
I guess I see it as, a 30 round magazine has far more potential to kill more defenseless people, than it saves in a self defense situation. So on that basis, it should be illegal.
I think if one security guy, principal, teacher had a gun in these schools had any weapons with a sufficient capacity those tragedies would be lessened. Murderers come in many forms.
Yes there was a reason to shoot 30 guys with molotov cocktails because thats not all they had, they were armed as well and there were hundreds of them out to kill maim and burn.
I got everybody out when there were only 5-6 guys trying to murder my staff via arson, by the time 30-100 firebombed the building we were gone.
A CBS news cameraman named hunter block was parked in a van across the street taping the event so we saw the mob close in.
It was the only time in my life when I feared needed more weapons capacity than I had.
We were lucky - we could leave. The Korean store owners weren't all so lucky the LA gangs had targeted them.
The Bloods and Crips were out for revenge against an entire community and were in full auto shootouts with the korean store owners over the acquittal of the Latasha Harlans killing.
Go watch what happened and imagine yourself in those situations - being burned out by a mob who sets fire to your building then gunned down when you tried to escape.
Had that community not had large cap semi autos and defended itself from the rooftops at a distance against dozens of attacking gasngsters - they would have all been burned alive or murdered.
People selectively remember history then when presented with a real life scenario that would be death for themselves and family without adequate defense say things like - "well that rarely happens so you still shouldn't have that."
The cops were nowhere while all this was happening - they were home protecting their families with the weapons you and I can't have.
You "see it" one way, I see it another from the experience of having lived through a full blown riot that only cost my business, if it not for the ability to ward off attackers - it would have likely cost me and my employees our lives - all that over Rodney King.
I wonder whats going to happen in the next big earthquake when the water shuts off for a week?
UD
Well said. As usual, real experience trumps speculation.
Laws should benefit the majority of people. Restricting capacity hampers more people than it helps. Plus, it is unconstitutional.
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
Originally Posted By: UncleDave
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
In practical terms, if your kid was in a school where some guy was trying to kill everyone, what size of magazines would you prefer him to have? 10 rounds or 30?
I know what I would choose...
While were talking about school killings - How would you stop the guy in China with the knife that killed 8 in march2010 , or the guy with the knife that wounded 16 the month after, then the guy that killed another 7 kids and 2 adults and 11 others that tried to stop him with a meat cleaver in may 2010 ? it goes on and on.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_(2010–12)
In practical terms - in you lived through the LA riot like I did, and had to traverse through south central to get home with no police protection (because they don't show up during civil unrest) like I did how big a magazine would you like to have?
How about when the mob looted and firebombed and my business? What would be the ideal sized magazine to keep away 30 people with molotov cocktails that the police couldn't bother with that day?
Ex post facto laws are unconstitutional and wrong the judge has some sanity here.
UD
So what if the guys in China had AR15s with 30 round magazines instead of knives? Would more or less kids been killed do you think?
As for the LA riot, did anyone need to shoot 30 guys with molotov cocktails in under a minute? I think in practical terms, other than against trained forces in combat, a rifle is a pretty strong deterrent, with ether 10 or 30 rounds...
I guess I see it as, a 30 round magazine has far more potential to kill more defenseless people, than it saves in a self defense situation. So on that basis, it should be illegal.
I think if one security guy, principal, teacher had a gun in these schools had any weapons with a sufficient capacity those tragedies would be lessened. Murderers come in many forms.
Yes there was a reason to shoot 30 guys with molotov cocktails because thats not all they had, they were armed as well and there were hundreds of them out to kill maim and burn.
I got everybody out when there were only 5-6 guys trying to murder my staff via arson, by the time 30-100 firebombed the building we were gone.
A CBS news cameraman named hunter block was parked in a van across the street taping the event so we saw the mob close in.
It was the only time in my life when I feared needed more weapons capacity than I had.
We were lucky - we could leave. The Korean store owners weren't all so lucky the LA gangs had targeted them.
The Bloods and Crips were out for revenge against an entire community and were in full auto shootouts with the korean store owners over the acquittal of the Latasha Harlans killing.
Go watch what happened and imagine yourself in those situations - being burned out by a mob who sets fire to your building then gunned down when you tried to escape.
Had that community not had large cap semi autos and defended itself from the rooftops at a distance against dozens of attacking gasngsters - they would have all been burned alive or murdered.
People selectively remember history then when presented with a real life scenario that would be death for themselves and family without adequate defense say things like - "well that rarely happens so you still shouldn't have that."
The cops were nowhere while all this was happening - they were home protecting their families with the weapons you and I can't have.
You "see it" one way, I see it another from the experience of having lived through a full blown riot that only cost my business, if it not for the ability to ward off attackers - it would have likely cost me and my employees our lives - all that over Rodney King.
I wonder whats going to happen in the next big earthquake when the water shuts off for a week?
UD
Well said. As usual, real experience trumps speculation.
Laws should benefit the majority of people. Restricting capacity hampers more people than it helps. Plus, it is unconstitutional.
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
So what's your answer?
The answer is don't take your your comments seriously..you are from Canada.
So what's your answer?
The answer is don't take your your comments seriously..you are from Canada.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
So what if the guys in China had AR15s with 30 round magazines instead of knives? Would more or less kids been killed do you think?
Well, the AR15 is an effective tool, no doubt. The Aurora theater shooter shot 82 people, with 12 fatally, a 14% death rate. Do its not a death laser that some folks think it is.
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
As for the LA riot, did anyone need to shoot 30 guys with molotov cocktails in under a minute? I think in practical terms, other than against trained forces in combat, a rifle is a pretty strong deterrent, with ether 10 or 30 rounds...
I dont think you know HOW bad the LA riiots were. Anyone that survived it would have wanted 30 rd mags. Period. Not 20 rd mags, not 10 rd mags, but 30 rd mags (or greater). And what is this "under a minute" thing. What does having standard capacity mags have to do with time frame? There were many instances where just having a rifle was not any sort of "deterrent" at all. People actually had to fire those rifles in the direction of other people in order to get the desired "deterrent". In some cases it was "lots of people."
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
I think in practical terms, other than against trained forces in combat, a rifle is a pretty strong deterrent, with ether 10 or 30 rounds... I guess I see it as, a 30 round magazine has far more potential to kill more defenseless people, than it saves in a self defense situation. So on that basis, it should be illegal.
One of the original intents of the second amendment is for a citizen army to rise up against foreign invasion. While definitely a long shot(right now, in this instant in history), the possibility is there. And as such, as the original intent applied in 1790, 1890, 1990, and 2490, a nation can effectively defend itself from foreign invasion if the populace is well armed, with similar weapons to what an actual army would use (enter AR-15 with 30 rd mags). The fact that bad people can get their hands on them is a "so what" proposition. In a free society, the bad comes with the good. Perhaps if the state mental institution in every state were not closed down in the 70's, and the budget for mental health drastically cut in every state in America, then perhaps maybe many of these instances could be stopped and managed, before they happen. The mental health budget of this country needs to be increased 10 fold.
So what if the guys in China had AR15s with 30 round magazines instead of knives? Would more or less kids been killed do you think?
Well, the AR15 is an effective tool, no doubt. The Aurora theater shooter shot 82 people, with 12 fatally, a 14% death rate. Do its not a death laser that some folks think it is.
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
As for the LA riot, did anyone need to shoot 30 guys with molotov cocktails in under a minute? I think in practical terms, other than against trained forces in combat, a rifle is a pretty strong deterrent, with ether 10 or 30 rounds...
I dont think you know HOW bad the LA riiots were. Anyone that survived it would have wanted 30 rd mags. Period. Not 20 rd mags, not 10 rd mags, but 30 rd mags (or greater). And what is this "under a minute" thing. What does having standard capacity mags have to do with time frame? There were many instances where just having a rifle was not any sort of "deterrent" at all. People actually had to fire those rifles in the direction of other people in order to get the desired "deterrent". In some cases it was "lots of people."
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
I think in practical terms, other than against trained forces in combat, a rifle is a pretty strong deterrent, with ether 10 or 30 rounds... I guess I see it as, a 30 round magazine has far more potential to kill more defenseless people, than it saves in a self defense situation. So on that basis, it should be illegal.
One of the original intents of the second amendment is for a citizen army to rise up against foreign invasion. While definitely a long shot(right now, in this instant in history), the possibility is there. And as such, as the original intent applied in 1790, 1890, 1990, and 2490, a nation can effectively defend itself from foreign invasion if the populace is well armed, with similar weapons to what an actual army would use (enter AR-15 with 30 rd mags). The fact that bad people can get their hands on them is a "so what" proposition. In a free society, the bad comes with the good. Perhaps if the state mental institution in every state were not closed down in the 70's, and the budget for mental health drastically cut in every state in America, then perhaps maybe many of these instances could be stopped and managed, before they happen. The mental health budget of this country needs to be increased 10 fold.
Originally Posted By: Panzerman
Shall Not Be Infringe, can't be much clearer than that.
And it should be as simple as that. Our rights should be the law of the land. Period!
Shall Not Be Infringe, can't be much clearer than that.
And it should be as simple as that. Our rights should be the law of the land. Period!
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
In practical terms, if your kid was in a school where some guy was trying to kill everyone, what size of magazines would you prefer him to have? 10 rounds or 30? I know what I would choose...
I know what I would choose in a school shooting.
In my high school, many of my teachers were ex-military and ex law-enforcement. One was a retired marine infantry. One was a stealth bomber pilot from the first gulf war. One was a retired Detroit cop. These people are good people, with good firearms skills from prior jobs. In my state it is ILLEGAL to possess a firearm on school grounds. Would it not have made a ton more sense, for it to be legal for teachers to carry guns at schools? And for the police department to train teachers that want to carry firearms, how to respond to an active shooter effectively with their firearms? The training is a one time cost. Perhaps $750 to train one teacher, to put them in an active shooter combat pistol class. Instead of hiring security guards at a cost of $35K a year, I'd much rather have 2, 5, or 10 armed teachers at every school in America. They are ALREADY there, already earning a salary. It's free additional security to arm these people. Of course this would be on a voluntary basis as most teachers dont have the skills, willingness, or ability to learn about armed combat. But what about those that are capable, and willing, and trained?
The Israelis appear to be the only folks that have figured this out (teachers are armed). But I guess when your country gets hit with a terrorist attack weakly for decades, you learn to adapt.
And yes your counter argument is that guns are gross and icky, and should not be around our precious little children. The horrors!! All I can say to that, is when someone is kicking on your front door in a home invasion, would you rather have a phone in your hand? Or a gun?
In practical terms, if your kid was in a school where some guy was trying to kill everyone, what size of magazines would you prefer him to have? 10 rounds or 30? I know what I would choose...
I know what I would choose in a school shooting.
In my high school, many of my teachers were ex-military and ex law-enforcement. One was a retired marine infantry. One was a stealth bomber pilot from the first gulf war. One was a retired Detroit cop. These people are good people, with good firearms skills from prior jobs. In my state it is ILLEGAL to possess a firearm on school grounds. Would it not have made a ton more sense, for it to be legal for teachers to carry guns at schools? And for the police department to train teachers that want to carry firearms, how to respond to an active shooter effectively with their firearms? The training is a one time cost. Perhaps $750 to train one teacher, to put them in an active shooter combat pistol class. Instead of hiring security guards at a cost of $35K a year, I'd much rather have 2, 5, or 10 armed teachers at every school in America. They are ALREADY there, already earning a salary. It's free additional security to arm these people. Of course this would be on a voluntary basis as most teachers dont have the skills, willingness, or ability to learn about armed combat. But what about those that are capable, and willing, and trained?
The Israelis appear to be the only folks that have figured this out (teachers are armed). But I guess when your country gets hit with a terrorist attack weakly for decades, you learn to adapt.
And yes your counter argument is that guns are gross and icky, and should not be around our precious little children. The horrors!! All I can say to that, is when someone is kicking on your front door in a home invasion, would you rather have a phone in your hand? Or a gun?
JHZR2
Staff member
Intrinsically political.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
