BoatShoes;1375510 wrote:I think it's worth trying because anything is worth trying but look at the evidence. Gun massacres have occurred at schools that employed police officers and at universities that employed full time police forces. One just happened in Texas for example at a University with full time police and security guards.

There's also the fact that this is lip service once again from the conservatives. They say, "why haven't democrats introduced legislation with our ideas about appropriating monies to put police officers in school" because they can't jump on that sword and increase gubmint spending....they just complain when democrats don't write up bills with their preferences in them (we saw this same behavior during the fiscal cliff debate when they supported "spending cuts" in the abstract but wouldn't put specifics on the table).

On the other hand, gun massacres have largely ceased to exist in places that have imposed strict gun control despite your intuition that there would be a black market in which mass murderers would get there guns. With that it mind, it ought to be Republicans who put their own ideas on paper rather than just whining about what the democrats do while they do nothing.

Gun control is working perfect in Chicago, New York, LA and Detroit .... all democrat goverment strong hold cities... More people are killed in those cities with gun control in one weekend that in all of Ohio cities.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-boy-16-and-man-32-gunned-down-on-west-side-street-20130126,0,3833533.story

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-chicago-crime-gun-violence-shooting-double-homicide,0,7211153.story

Dr Winston O'Boogie;1375272 wrote:An AK style rifle is not necessary for hunting or self protection. If the second ammendment was intended to protect the right to own such a weapon, why not take it a step further and say the second ammendment guarantess my right to own a shoulder held heat seeking surface to air launcher? That is an "arm", is it not? So why shouldn't we be allowed to own these. Or grenades, or napalm bombs, etc?

I haven't check into this lately but a few years back for $250.00 I think because of my military training, I could own full auto weapons ClassIII permit and with some additional updated training explosives also … boom boom mofo

For those of you who are all of a sudden fired up about how life is so precious that we shouldn't have the means to defend it, I have some questions.

The government kills hundreds of times as many people as private individuals do. Why not call to disarm them?

If it is ok for the government to slaughter people, why do you feel the lives they take are less valuable than the tiny fraction that get killed by private actors?

There's also the fact that this is lip service once again from the conservatives. They say, "why haven't democrats introduced legislation with our ideas about appropriating monies to put police officers in school" because they can't jump on that sword and increase gubmint spending....

Seriously? "Is that what they say"? Why does the federal government need to 'spend'? Shouldn't/couldn't that be the responsibility of local districts? All the feds need to do is issue an unfunded mandate( something that Barry is good at). Security/what types of security is left in the hands of the districts. It isn't always about the 'spending' although I understand the typical leftist mindset at throwing federal money at a problem.

....and blaming Republicans again? Really? This is just part of leftist/democrat strategy of defining an issue to divide and gain political advantage. Gender warfare, class warfare, race warfare....and now a war on guns to continue to advance their political agenda. All of what they do pushing the limits of the Constitution.They talk "unify" but their actions belie their words. If they really want to bring the country together then they need to open a dialogue with guns part of the dialogue but not the main thrust. Instead they just are just pushing their agenda. Note Biden's weeklong dog and pony show where he interviewed "all sides"...and then came to the exact same conclusion that the left put out at the beginning. He wasn't interested in finding common ground or effective legislation...it was a show, an act, with the ending predetermined.

HitsRus;1375547 wrote:Note Biden's weeklong dog and pony show where he interviewed "all sides"...and then came to the exact same conclusion that the left put out at the beginning. He wasn't interested in finding common ground or effective legislation...it was a show, an act, with the ending predetermined.

Agreed. Did anyone have any doubt what their conclusion was going to be?

FatHobbit;1375767 wrote:Agreed. Did anyone have any doubt what their conclusion was going to be?

BoatShoes;1375510 wrote:On the other hand, gun massacres have largely ceased to exist in places that have imposed strict gun control despite your intuition that there would be a black market in which mass murderers would get there guns. With that it mind, it ought to be Republicans who put their own ideas on paper rather than just whining about what the democrats do while they do nothing.

Those "places" are a whole lot different from our country in a number of ways, not the least of which includes our significantly long, porous borders. We can't keep illegal drugs and illegal people out, but we're supposed to believe they can keep out illegal guns?