Yet another school shooting in the US

[Stantheman]

[tamada]

Apartheid deprived citizens of rights based on race and used government to preserve those injustices. Apartheid was government tyranny, and it is exactly that kind of government oppression that the 2nd Amendment was designed to thwart. The 2nd Amendment is a safeguard against the tyranny imposed by a tyrannical government upon its citizens -- tyranny in the form of programs and policies exactly like Apartheid.

These so-called normal and moral people view correctly that Apartheid was wrong, and I agree with them. That policy of racist and systemic discrimination preserved by law by the government and used to persecute citizens and deny them their human and civil rights is why Americans wish to preserve the 2nd Amendment. Yet, these normal and moral people would seek to disarm the law-abiding American citizen and subject them to the threat of similar government tyranny or worse.

One so-called normal and moral person recently criticized the Florida Senate for voting to allow school districts to arm teachers. So the government that he trusts enough to treat people well after being disarmed, is the same government that he criticized for doing what he thought was a wrong-headed move by allowing school systems the freedom to do what's best for their communities and schools.

Another normal and moral person claims that the US is one of six countries carrying out 95% of the world's executions, and he wants to disarm the lawful American Citizen. If so many executions are being carried out, then either the lawless criminals are a threat to lawful citizens, or the government that executed them is the threat. In both cases, the 2nd Amendment protects law-abiding citizens if they so choose to exercise their right to bear arms.

The normal and moral folks can't have it both ways. Can't praise the end of Apartheid and want to weaken a society against government tyranny. Trust government to protect its citizens and then criticize them for taking an action that is thought to be incorrect. Can't call for the disarming of law-abiding Americans at the same time that stats show large numbers of executions of violent criminals by the government.

I choose not to follow these self-proclaimed normal and moral people. The facts that they use to make their arguments against gun ownership, actually point out how little government can be trusted, which is the whole point of the 2nd Amendment. These normal and moral folks will get us all killed.

Despite the unfortunate choice of meme, that was a very well stated argument for the very unique protections of the US's 2nd Amendment.

Thanks for that.

Meanwhile, here's another target that needs hardening.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-cali ... SKCN1GL2TB

[felixcat]

panick, I am with ya, Pal. Lets get down to the truth here and maybe we will be able to get beyond this.
I would like to introduce my Jewish friend Brother Nathanel (born Jewish, converted to christianity), here listen, he has some insight...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zy227hN5B0
Lone Star. no "dis" to you, but "come-on Man", "we Americans " got sold a faulty bill of sale.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlGztzYObRM

[ttom]

https://mobile.twitter.com/NRATV/status ... 24/video/1

[papafarang]

"Apartheid deprived citizens of rights based on race and used government to preserve those injustices. Apartheid was government tyranny, and it is exactly that kind of government oppression that the 2nd Amendment was designed to thwart. The 2nd Amendment is a safeguard against the tyranny imposed by a tyrannical government upon its citizens -- tyranny in the form of programs and policies exactly like Apartheid. "

On 28 August 1963, more than 200,000 demonstrators took part in the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom in the nation’s capital. The march was successful in pressuring the administration of John F. Kennedy to initiate a strong federal civil rights bill in Congress. During this event, Martin Luther individual delivered his memorable ‘‘I Have a Dream’’ speech.
are you saying they should have all took guns with them ?

don't get it ,oranges and apples as they say. are you saying Apartheid was ended because of the American 2nd amendment ? or are you saying black americans need to arm themselves against white people that might oppress them ?
tyrannical government ? get your head out the 17th century will you. the last time America had anything like a tyrannical government it started a war in Vietnam and conscripted young americans and sent them off to die, can't remember reading anything about everyone grabbing a gun and fighting the tyranny ...I do remember people peacefully exercising their right to demonstrate .

so fighting tyranny . ? kim jung ping pong is doing right by fighting American tyranny then ? Iran has the right too ...just in case America wants to invade and kill them.
democracy if the weapon of choice to fight tyranny. people power, not gun power. even terrorists work that one out eventually . but sorry it still comes down to people wanting to shoot other people because it gives them a hard on, nothing to do with protection or tyranny, more base human instinct to kill. the same instinct the drives hunters to kill for sport . and face it all these school shootings ,what do you think is going through their heads...score...how many can they kill quickly

[tamada]

... If so many executions are being carried out, then either the lawless criminals are a threat to lawful citizens, or the government that executed them is the threat. ...

So the US has either a hugely understated and largely ignored threat to the American way of life by armed thugs or the American system of government is deeply distrusted by Americans and thus no better than the Chinese or Saudi derivatives.

Or is it both? Talk about the 'elephant(s) in the room'.

Gets me back to this whole 'Land of the Free' notion. Maybe those words were chosen simply because of rhyme and couplets? Either way, like God Save the Queen, Deutschland über alles and Одна ты на свете! Одна ты такая –
Хранимая Богом родная земля!, it is all nationalist jingoism at its musical finest.

[Lone Star]

First of all, it would probably be a good idea to look at my full statement regarding SOMEONE ELSE'S executions claim to get the full and proper context. I didn't make the claim, nor did I ever agree with it.

It was someone else's claim that "so many executions are being carried out." I was only repeating the claim and stating that IF TRUE, then Americans should fear either the large number of violent criminals -- or the government for carrying out so many executions. The claim made by someone else only reinforced a need to remain armed. All Americans have different reasons for arming themselves, but their reasons have nothing to do with their choice to exercise their right. Americans can arm themselves for many different reasons, or no reason, or not arm themselves at all. Up to them.

The statement used by someone else just piggybacks their original claim.

So the US has either a hugely understated and largely ignored threat to the American way of life by armed thugs or the American system of government is deeply distrusted by Americans and thus no better than the Chinese or Saudi derivatives.

Or is it both? Talk about the 'elephant(s) in the room'.

My original quotes regarding the executions of criminals (my emphasis added):

Another normal and moral person claims that the US is one of six countries carrying out 95% of the world's executions, and he wants to disarm the lawful American Citizen. If so many executions are being carried out, then either the lawless criminals are a threat to lawful citizens, or the government that executed them is the threat. In both cases, the 2nd Amendment protects law-abiding citizens if they so choose to exercise their right to bear arms.

Can't call for the disarming of law-abiding Americans at the same time that stats show large numbers of executions of violent criminals by the government.

Then they turn kommando again and make a circular argument trying to use this incomplete context to create some "opening" (that was never there) to attack America for being the "Land of Free." America is, and will continue to be, "The Land of the Free" as long as the Amendment Rights of Citizens are protected and citizens have the freedom to choose to exercise their rights.

In summary, it was just another hate America post trying to use an incomplete quote of mine in an effort to reinforce someone else's original claim.

Whether the executions are extreme, or whether the number of violent criminals is out of control, I have no idea. I'm not even contesting the claim and don't care about its origin. The fact remains that none of that affects the choice of a Citizen to exercise their 2nd Amendment Right.

[Lone Star]

Now to address an ill-informed kommando's another sometimes incoherent and scattered rant against America.

Exercising one's 2nd Amendment Right is a personal choice. Dr. Martin Luther K i n g, Jr. used a nonviolent philosophy to gain nationwide support for his movement. It worked.

At no time was there any statement made in previous posts that promoted rioting with guns, that Apartheid was ended with guns or as a result of the 2nd Amendment (duh ... not in the US), or that the 2nd Amendment is the only means by which injustices can be addressed in the US.

During the years of segregation and the Klan Nightriders, it was common for armed men in Black neighborhoods to stand watch and protect the lives of their families and their property. Their 2nd Amendment Right allowed them to do so.

The American Colonies had their first tyrannical government in the form of K i n g George's monarchy. I'm sure all of the Imperialists remember him. Tyrant George and his ways are the reason why the 2nd Amendment exists and why there is no pure democracy or monarchy in the US. Tyrant George is why the Founders and Framers chose to form a federal republic and write a Bill of Rights empowering the Citizen.

The US never started a war in Vietnam; but as a result of America's involvement there, the People demanded an end to the military draft, and the voting age was reduced to the age of 18 by constitutional amendment. When the People want something badly enough, their voices are heard and changes occur. The US has an all-volunteer military today.

Foreign entanglements are not usually addressed in intelligent discussions of tyranny unless an imperialist is occupying another country and oppressing the citizens of that occupied country. Additionally, none of that has anything to do with the 2nd Amendment, which only applies within US borders (duh). Other countries can do whatever the hell they want to do regarding the US or what they think the US is doing to them-- and suffer whatever consequences result from it.

And all those other opinions and statements about hunters and killers and whatnot are based on this particular kommando's ability to read minds and get inside the brains of law-abiding American gun owners -- which translates to ZERO ability. Not being a law-abiding American gun owner himself, he's not even qualified to make a judgment from personal experience. He's only doing what he does on every issue involving the US -- attack with blind hate.

Kommandos are always entitled to their warped and uninformed opinions, but it's why they end up being wrong most of the time. Their rush to attack always clouds what sound reasoning and comprehension skills they happen to possess.

[tamada]

Now to address an ill-informed kommando's another sometimes incoherent and scattered rant against America.

Exercising one's 2nd Amendment Right is a personal choice. Dr. Martin Luther K i n g, Jr. used a nonviolent philosophy to gain nationwide support for his movement. It worked.

At no time was there any statement made in previous posts that promoted rioting with guns, that Apartheid was ended with guns or as a result of the 2nd Amendment (duh ... not in the US), or that the 2nd Amendment is the only means by which injustices can be addressed in the US.

During the years of segregation and the Klan Nightriders, it was common for armed men in Black neighborhoods to stand watch and protect the lives of their families and their property. Their 2nd Amendment Right allowed them to do so.

The American Colonies had their first tyrannical government in the form of K i n g George's monarchy. I'm sure all of the Imperialists remember him. Tyrant George and his ways are the reason why the 2nd Amendment exists and why there is no pure democracy or monarchy in the US. Tyrant George is why the Founders and Framers chose to form a federal republic and write a Bill of Rights empowering the Citizen.

The US never started a war in Vietnam; but as a result of America's involvement there, the People demanded an end to the military draft, and the voting age was reduced to the age of 18 by constitutional amendment. When the People want something badly enough, their voices are heard and changes occur. The US has an all-volunteer military today.

Foreign entanglements are not usually addressed in intelligent discussions of tyranny unless an imperialist is occupying another country and oppressing the citizens of that occupied country. Additionally, none of that has anything to do with the 2nd Amendment, which only applies within US borders (duh). Other countries can do whatever the hell they want to do regarding the US or what they think the US is doing to them-- and suffer whatever consequences result from it.

And all those other opinions and statements about hunters and killers and whatnot are based on this particular kommando's ability to read minds and get inside the brains of law-abiding American gun owners -- which translates to ZERO ability. Not being a law-abiding American gun owner himself, he's not even qualified to make a judgment from personal experience. He's only doing what he does on every issue involving the US -- attack with blind hate.

Kommandos are always entitled to their warped and uninformed opinions, but it's why they end up being wrong most of the time. Their rush to attack always clouds what sound reasoning and comprehension skills they happen to possess.

You carry on falsely claiming that I hate America, hate Americans and would prefer the the US government totally disarm their own and I will keep asking for the justification for private AR-15 ownership.

Tyrant George and his ways are the reason why the 2nd Amendment exists and why there is no pure democracy or monarchy in the US. Tyrant George is why the Founders and Framers chose to form a federal republic and write a Bill of Rights empowering the Citizen.

Absolutely correct and all this happened way-way before the AR-15 had been invented as well.

"Because I can" or the "Bill of Rights says I can"... or any unsubtle variation of this doesn't really make much sense at all.

[papafarang]

yes ,well calling people haters is just a cop out, no reason to hate ,no one has shot my child at school .just in your mind hate is, but I do get a sense that you rejoice in the fact these shootings happen as you seem too think it reinforces your gun rights, k1ng George died a long time ago so don't worry the red coats ain't coming. and by the sound of it it's you that hates the US government, after all you keep telling us that it's your right to protect yourself from your government

[Lone Star]

... and I will keep asking for the justification for private AR-15 ownership.

Justification is not required to exercise any Right in the US -- not even for ownership of a semi-automatic weapon in the US. Even the courts support and uphold that choice.

Educate yourself about the AR-15, and then come tell me what makes it different than any other semi-automatic weapon that is legal in the US.

https://www.nssf.org/msr/

I owned one many years ago. Sold it after having it less than a year. Found it to be a less than durable weapon and too long to use in confined spaces -- like swinging it from the back seat to the front seat and exiting. I opted instead for the Ruger Mini 14 -- shorter, easier to use in confined spaces, much more durable physically and shoots the same caliber round.

So maybe you should ask an AR-15 owner why they have one and like it. I didn't care for it much and still don't, but anyone can purchase whatever semi-automatic weapon they choose. Up to them.

I've repeated this over and over again, and you repeatedly reject it; but it is also the stance of the judicial system in the US:
RIGHTS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH WHY.

They are a choice to be exercised by each individual for whatever reason they choose -- or not. I realize that this may be foreign to those who come from countries where speech and guns are restricted, but it's the way it is in The Land of the Free; and the courts support it. I can't address the AR-15 issue -- or any other semi-automatic weapon -- any more than I have already.

[tamada]

... and I will keep asking for the justification for private AR-15 ownership.

Justification is not required to exercise any Right in the US -- not even for ownership of a semi-automatic weapon in the US. Even the courts support and uphold that choice.

Educate yourself about the AR-15, and then come tell me what makes it different than any other semi-automatic weapon that is legal in the US.

https://www.nssf.org/msr/

I owned one many years ago. Sold it after having it less than a year. Found it to be a less than durable weapon and too long to use in confined spaces -- like swinging it from the back seat to the front seat and exiting. I opted instead for the Ruger Mini 14 -- shorter, easier to use in confined spaces, much more durable physically and shoots the same caliber round.

So maybe you should ask an AR-15 owner why they have one and like it. I didn't care for it much and still don't, but anyone can purchase whatever semi-automatic weapon they choose. Up to them.

I've repeated this over and over again, and you repeatedly reject it; but it is also the stance of the judicial system in the US:
RIGHTS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH WHY.

They are a choice to be exercised by each individual for whatever reason they choose -- or not. I realize that this may be foreign to those who come from countries where speech and guns are restricted, but it's the way it is in The Land of the Free; and the courts support it. I can't address the AR-15 issue -- or any other semi-automatic weapon -- any more than I have already.

Not a problem Lone Star, not a problem. We will have to just agree to differ... as it is our mutual Right to do so.

No need to repeat the rather ill-informed claim that the US of A is the only country where people are free because they have guns versus some other countries "where speech and guns are restricted'. Why the need to lump 'speech and guns' together BTW? I thought there was a Right to free speech. I guess you are compounding the misguided notion that the Second Amendment is a Right to free guns too?

I was interested to read how you opined that the AR-15 is less portable, swinging it off the back seat, jumping out of vehicles and use in confined spaces. I thought yes, that could be a liability in a firefight in The Helmand. Then I thought about you finding a parking space in front of your favorite Target or Walmart and swinging around to grab something off the back seat... and the moment was lost. No, I'm not suggesting that you would start shooting it for the hell of it... but the concept of needing to be always alert to the risk of concentrated enemy fire while simply picking up the groceries in middle America would be really funny if it wasn't so grotesque.

I have already pointed out in an earlier post the typical American's need for laws and acquiescence with laws. You have posted your counter-argument suggesting real Americans don't care for government telling them what they can and can't do. This only confirms what I suspect, that you are not by any stretch of the imagination, the typical American. That and the machine gun in the car bit.

But after all that, I still respect your views, sir.

I have to. You are probably armed!

[Lone Star]

I was interested to read how you opined that the AR-15 is less portable, swinging it off the back seat, jumping out of vehicles and use in confined spaces. I thought yes, that could be a liability in a firefight in The Helmand. Then I thought about you finding a parking space in front of your favorite Target or Walmart and swinging around to grab something off the back seat... and the moment was lost. No, I'm not suggesting that you would start shooting it for the hell of it... but the concept of needing to be always alert to the risk of concentrated enemy fire while simply picking up the groceries in middle America would be really funny if it wasn't so grotesque.

I was a law enforcement officer at the time of my AR-15 ownership and opting for the Mini 14. As usual, you assume too much in your eagerness to look for an opening.

[tamada]

I was interested to read how you opined that the AR-15 is less portable, swinging it off the back seat, jumping out of vehicles and use in confined spaces. I thought yes, that could be a liability in a firefight in The Helmand. Then I thought about you finding a parking space in front of your favorite Target or Walmart and swinging around to grab something off the back seat... and the moment was lost. No, I'm not suggesting that you would start shooting it for the hell of it... but the concept of needing to be always alert to the risk of concentrated enemy fire while simply picking up the groceries in middle America would be really funny if it wasn't so grotesque.

I was a law enforcement officer at the time of my AR-15 ownership and opting for the Mini 14. As usual, you assume too much in your eagerness to look for an opening.

You mean your carefully crafted, two days to formulate, one day to write, oh so easy bear trap of an opening don't you? I mean just casually leave out the 'I was a law enforcement officer' until tam plants both feet in it? I bet your right proud of that 'catch' eh?

Anyway, I hope that like my dad and my mums dad before that that you were a good cop 'cos right now, you're coming across all a bit disingenuous. Maybe it's your nascent insecurity.

[fatbob]

Jeezzuz, a university lecturer, law enforcement officer and all your other claims of employment, what haven't you been and done, how about just sticking to the kotoeys and leave it at that, and they let you own a AR 15, shows you exactly how flawed the law is....F me...

[Lone Star]

... until tam plants both feet in it ...

If you and the rest of your Gaggle of Kommandos weren't so eager to make it about ME, you wouldn't step in much of anything with both feet. As usual, your eagerness to look for some opening to mischaracterize me as some kind of vigilante or lawless paramilitary goon backfired on you because you wanted to make it personal and show me in some negative way. Stick with what you know -- and you don't know a damn thing about me. You can either choose the safe route of dealing with the topic, or keep making it personal by doing what you've been doing and increase your risk of being dead wrong most of the time.

What my personal role is/was in the American society has nothing to do with my gun ownership or the exercising of my right to own a gun -- or choosing not to own a gun. My role had nothing to do with my choice of firearms AFTER I returned to the university. I still had the same weapons -- including the Mini 14 -- and I kept it for the same reasons.

As previously stated, the judicial system in the US also backs me up on my choices to exercise my rights.

[tamada]

... until tam plants both feet in it ...

If you and the rest of your Gaggle of Kommandos weren't so eager to make it about ME, you wouldn't step in much of anything with both feet. As usual, your eagerness to look for some opening to mischaracterize me as some kind of vigilante or lawless paramilitary goon backfired on you because you wanted to make it personal and show me in some negative way. Stick with what you know -- and you don't know a damn thing about me. You can either choose the safe route of dealing with the topic, or keep making it personal by doing what you've been doing and increase your risk of being dead wrong most of the time.

What my personal role is/was in the American society has nothing to do with my gun ownership or the exercising of my right to own a gun -- or choosing not to own a gun. My role had nothing to do with my choice of firearms AFTER I returned to the university. I still had the same weapons -- including the Mini 14 -- and I kept it for the same reasons.

As previously stated, the judicial system in the US also backs me up on my choices to exercise my rights.

I categorically deny that it's about 'mischaracterizing' you or that I try to show you 'in some negative way'.

You consistently manage that feat totally unassisted every time you post.

The topic has been dealt with.

We agree to differ.

End of.

[stattointhailand]

Teacher accidentally shoots kids during "GUN SAFETY" class.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-15/t ... ss/9550762

Quick ........ someone arm the kids for their own safety in class

[papafarang]

Teacher accidentally shoots kids during "GUN SAFETY" class.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-15/t ... ss/9550762

Quick ........ someone arm the kids for their own safety in class

bet the NRA can't wait for a teacher to go postal and kill a few kids, then the can demand kids be armed next

[Doodoo]

Papafarang


I agree with arming the children as it is their RIGHT and who can take that from them?
Could also dedicate one afternoon to Show and Tell and everyone could show off their weapons