That's horrible. But I think that what I propose would comport with your desires.
To carry is convenient & secure. Being careful when answering the door is good too.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The 2nd Amendment
- Thread starter Jayhawker Soule
- Start date
To carry is convenient & secure. Being careful when answering the door is good too.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
Did I mention his neighbor was shot and killed for his wallet?
Thief
Rogue Theologian
Not yet....he's a nurse in a cancer hospital.
He stands where he can do the good thing.
God bless the land of the brave!
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
More like vice versa.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
Well again I say....if only I could have been there to return fire!!!!
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Such a hero you'd be!!!!
Thief
Rogue Theologian
Try a more realistic rebuttal.
Let's say.....yeah,
If return fire saves the life of someone who would've been a victim.....
That's not an acceptable scenario for statists to consider.
One must place one's security solely in the hands of professional law enforcement....
Police Shoot, Kill Dog When Going To A Home By Mistake « CBS Denver
(I needed a pretext to post this link.)
Mr Spinkles
Mr
Revoltingest said:
Not wanting armed guards around children = statist.
Oh, you rascal, you!
To want kids undefended is only one small part of the American flavor of statism.
We've a problem. Gov doesn't want armed private citizens in schools, since such
power isn't for us ignorant masses. But neither do they want to fund more than
1 cop per 100 schools. By design, the schools are unprotected.
Last edited:
Why are you ignoring any other option besides guns in the schools?
Thief
Rogue Theologian
Options?
If the bad guy shows up and the noise begins.....
Option one....return fire.
Option two.....die.
In a high school southwest of the projects...
Plain clothed police, two on each floor, was the everyday norm.
Needful.
The students were that sort of people.
I dropped out that year because if it.
But student attitude isn't the issue here...is it?
Or maybe it is?
Or maybe it doesn't matter who opens fire?
as long as someone is there to return fire.
Really?
So, this doesn't happen: Teacher Disarms Student
What about metal detectors? What about limiting access to guns in the first place? What about a more robust mental health system?
I've covered other options extensively in other posts, eg, mental health
services, databases of prohibited gun owners, storage standards.
I know you have, and I agree with most of your suggestions.
I was responding to this post:
You presented a false dichotomy. You are claiming that anyone who doesn't want guns in schools is a statist, since according to you, that position amounts to doing nothing and keeps our kids unsafe. But what about all those other excellent suggestions you have put forth? Are we statists because we prefer those suggestions to fixing the problem, rather than the "put more guns in the schools" solutions you offered here?Revoltingest said:
That's not a false dichotomy. I'm explaining that I see statists as seeking ever greater government control. In this case,
it's prohibition of private citizens carrying concealed guns in schools because this is a power they want only government
types to have. But gov isn't stepping up to the claimed need for armed gov officials in schools. If we have 1000 cops, but
100,000 schools, the reality falls short of the rhetoric.
The "statism" charge is a needless distraction. I argue that to make schools a gun free zone & to provide cops in only 1%
of them makes them vulnerable to bad guys who know there will be no self defense. Other measures are worth taking
independently but they only mitigate the problem. We should do everything that makes sense. (Of course, the argument
will be about what makes sense.)
Too true.
Mr Spinkles
Mr
So, when parents and teachers vote and decide to keep guns away from their children, that's really "Gov" and "statism" rearing their ugly heads. Again:Revoltingest said:
We all know you have your own opinions, Revoltingest, but don't label the other side "statists". That would be like me accusing you of wanting to turn kindergarten classrooms into an O.K. Corral waiting to happen. Exaggerating the other side's point of view isn't really fair, is it?
Last edited:
Oh, dear...I didn't mean to cause the heartbreak of a triple face palm + blue smiley!So, when parents and teachers vote and decide to keep guns away from their children, that's really "Gov" and "statism" rearing their ugly heads. Again:
That statism is supported by the masses does not diminish the fact that it is statism.
Your objection to "statism" is fair. I had intended the word to be mirthful, rather than a distraction.
And since then, I've used it only when responding to comments about it, & hereafter plan to use it sparingly.
(Note: I don't wield it as insult or hyperbole, but I see that its connotations are inflammatory.)
For reference, this definition fits my usage....
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/statism
Last edited: