It don't support the stoopid Liberal agenda.



Or, would there be another reason?

http://www.tricities.com/news/article_35434f30-00d3-522f-98f1-58f372591713.html

Actually it did make the local news... Not every story will make nation wide news that happens each day or we would have to listen to news 27/7 to hear all the cases... Just saying....


But honestly it should make it nation wide to show that if we have our schools protected we could stop more school killings...

But then what I don't understand is that what I heard even Sandy Elementry did have someone on the grounds that was carring. Not all cases would turn out as the one above.

I don't see what the big issue of protecting our schools are when many have already taken that step already...So it seems the issue is not so much there but the guns that some are getting ahold of to do these shooting..Who really needs a Miltary gun?

WTG! If the media would report things like this, perhaps the killers would get the message.

Perhaps the liberals would get the message armed police at schools work, if that was what this was.

Nevertheless, I agree with you.

What is a military gun???
I posted a picture of two rifles. The same caliber. One just looked different.
Any smaller caliber will be a BB Gun. Ban those as well?

This here is a Colt Mod 1911. Issued to Military.


They are sold to Citizens. It shoots a pea that's just under 1/2".

This is really one of those questions that presupposes something it shouldn't.

The military as an organization understands that lives are lost in deadly situations when you have inferior equipment.

Why would this axiom all of a sudden not be true when the person in the deadly situation is a civilian?

You answer my question, and it will answer yours.

the military provides extensive TRAINING

AND emotional/physical evaluations

and also understands the weaponry is for combat against MASSES of soldiers,,,,

if civilians were REQUIRED to go through such a sacrifice (similarly to the gun lovers beloved switzerlan) and effort

and if the weapons were not designed to result similarly in mass deaths,,,,,,,,

Ahhhhhhh

So that's why we have soldiers freaking out and killing villages of people or committing more suicides a day than is lost in battle?

Training, regulation and banning helps prevent psych disorders.....I'll have to remember that

Thanks for the insight

Guess I should clarify what I mean. I'm talking about assualt guns that you can automatically shoot off several rounds as you can with machine guns there is no reason one needs to have a gun that shoots off more then one round at a time..JMO

I have yet known a hunter that needs to shoot more then one round at a time... I have nothing against owning a gun. Just that there are guns that there is no need for unless they are being used by the military...

Restricting anything only keeps it out of the hands of the willing, not the obcessed or criminal element. That in turn exposes law abiding people to the violence of those obcessed or criminal gun toters.

Address the problem, not the tool, or nothing changes!

As long as there is a penny to be made they will never stop the mfg of guns....ALL guns! So who would you rather have them in the hands of? Someone who will defend and stand with you or attack and harm you?

The police investigate crime, not prevent it!

I guarantee, if you are ever in a situation with your life threatened by an armed assailant you'll be praying someone close has a gun capable of defending you! Police or ANYONE! You'll also be praying they have enough ammo and guts to finish the job!

I've been there! Who here that is touting anti-gun policy EVER has?

Not to mention that Muslim shrink who did the Ft Hood massacre.
He was well evaluated, no?

PS
These two rifles are, in design, the same weapon. They both shoot a pea that is just a hair bigger than a 1/4".

They both have the capacity to be fired, accurately and fire the same number of rounds ate the same speed of delivery. Neither is fully automatic.

Which one do ya'll want banned and why?

the issue at ft hood is that he WASNT well evaluated ( I suspect because of his rank) often enough

Anyone care about facts?

http://www.fox19.com/story/20538164/piers-morgan-vs-alex-jones-the-truth-about-gun-homicide-rates

I do believe that the weapons you speak of have been banned since the 1930's. Automatics are sold with a tax, extensive background check and 4 month waiting period. The weapons in these shootings were not fully automatic. Semi-automatic guns are sold to hunters for hunting purposes as well. But that is besides the point. The 2nd amendment never had anything to do with hunting and any point in time. Its sole purpose was so the people, as a whole, had the power to defend themselves against our government. Whether the government is a threat now is another issue. But it could be, and historically speaking, will be someday.

It is merely the last and final check and balance in our system. We cannot keep getting rid of these checks and balances for our "safety" because it does just the opposite. And it allows our current government more leeway to become corrupt (more corrupt). Not to mention it makes us much more dependent (for protection) on the same government which may grow corrupt someday.

Again, weapons were never the threat. The wielder is. Lets start there instead.

You did not answer my question.

This bares repeating:

The 2nd amendment never had anything to do with hunting and any point in time. Its sole purpose was so the people, as a whole, had the power to defend themselves against our government. Whether the government is a threat now is another issue. But it could be, and historically speaking, will be someday.

And since some people on here have stated over and over that the government doesn't care about our little pea shooters I repeat this:

Then leave us alone and don't try to take our little pea shooters from us.

Gun Crime is not up and we do not need more gun control or regulations. That is a bald faced media lie and propaganda.

But............it is the willing that are involved in these type of shootings....

Many of these shootings are those that either have the guns legally or access to the guns that their parents in fact have legally...

I would reconsider your statement.
The Ft Hood Muslim didn't enter the military an officer.
The evaluations are done upon entry and during training.

On the contrary... The "willing" of which we speak are those not wanting to break any laws. The shooters in question have always broken several in their efforts. For instance, carrying a gun into a firearm-restricted area (Note: gun laws that were prohibiting ANY firearm were broken), Murder, open carrying in public, etc. All laws that had to be broken placing them far from any law abiding individual.

This happened two and half years ago.

I bet if it happened this week it *would* be on the national news, as the news people love to ride on the coattails of the latest high profile events with reports of similar events.