Next Assault on 2nd Amendment: Mandatory Liability Insurance

[bevo]

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Family Maps of Hinds County, Mississippi, Deluxe Edition - Grab it through Amazon!

[packerbacker]

btw, I'm not afraid of any slippery slope. Every gun has it's use and some guns are more effective than others but they are all quite capable of killing. I think the theater shooter would have killed LESS people with a full auto. I think the school killer, except for the adult victims, could have killed just as many children with a sword. More flying dove are killed with shotguns than fully auto AK47's. I can shoot someone with my 338 Win mag much farther away than I can with an AR. Now, where did this come from? You said: "Why aren't you telling people to defend themselves with golf clubs and hammers?? The argument is a foolish one"
I don't think I argued that people should defend themselves with golf clubs and hammers. What argument is a foolish one? I don't know where you are coming from on this. Let's just get to the subject of the post. Do you think insurance purchased by legal gun owners will stop crime? Yes or No? If yes, how? If no, then just say it's another ploy to eliminate guns.

 

[-Taz-]

Their kids can have multiple armed guards at their school including on the roof of the school but Joe citizens kids don't need them.

They can have armed bodyguards for their selves and their families paid by taxpayers, but Joe Citizen can not be trusted with a firearm.

For me the difference is that they have trained personnel/representatives from different law enforcement agencies. You can of course argue about their training, but still trained personnel/official law enforcement personnel is something quit different then having the average joe showing up a school packing heat either just to follow their kids to school or to stay to watch over them. The nepotism is one thing, should taxpayers money be used for this? I don´t know and its beside the point. I am more concerned about the fact that people see it necessary to have weapons in the schools at all. Where did things go wrong? How will that make things better?

From my point of view, living in a country where not even the police carry arms (they just recently got permission to have weapons in a locked box in the trunk of the car), it’s a something just out off this world. Having guns at schools, the place where our children go to learn how to become the persons they are going to be, starting their road to shaping their own future. What kind of a start in life is that? Where did things go so wrong? And more guns and more freedom to use guns will not solve this situation.

 

[packerbacker]

Okay Taz, I didn't know I had to go this far in my statement so I'll adjust to hopefully eliminate any misunderstanding. I think the school shooter could have possibly been stopped by a WELL TRAINED person EMPLOYED by the school and LICENSED to carry a firearm who has received a full background check by law enforcement. Any redneck father with a sawed-off shotgun and drunk on white lightening need not apply. The person trained and allowed to carry will be a WILLING participant and not some Berkley grad that just can't find it in themselves to get involved in a scary situation.

 

[packerbacker]

Taxpayer money is used on foodstamps to buy bread to feed the ducks in the local park so why not use some to protect the kids?

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Because their is evil in this world and their always will be, we will never ever have the utopia the liberals want, I figured that out 40 years ago. (Former hippie)

What do people want to do, raise kids who think the world is perfect and safe , all rainbows and unicorns. We do our kids no good service, teach them to be aware , tell them the truth so they are prepared as adults.

Our forefathers kids grew up facing danger daily, they were taught to be prepared, today some don't even want to teach them their is evil in the world, much less prepare them....

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

[packerbacker]

Look at what you wrote Taz. Even your own police are RETURNING to guns. Why? Where did you go wrong?

 

[-Taz-]

Okay Taz, I didn't know I had to go this far in my statement so I'll adjust to hopefully eliminate any misunderstanding. I think the school shooter could have possibly been stopped by a WELL TRAINED person EMPLOYED by the school and LICENSED to carry a firearm who has received a full background check by law enforcement. Any redneck father with a sawed-off shotgun and drunk on white lightening need not apply. The person trained and allowed to carry will be a WILLING participant and not some Berkley grad that just can't find it in themselves to get involved in a scary situation.

Off course there shouldn´t be any parents with guns in the schools, that was a comment to TH about the fact that the average Joe can´t protect theire children in school while the elite can (buy using professionals). When you said the thing about having someone at the school with an access to a weapon in case of such an emergency my first thoughts went to the comments made after the last shooting where people started to say that the principle should have access to a weapon. Somebody that maybe takes a 10 hour course and yearly 2 hour follow up....not the greatest idea in the world.

IF you are going to have one you of course have to have a profesional, but then other problems come up. What kind of athourity would that person have? Stop children from swearing, smoking, sneaking out of school etc, or just be there to take of the potential violent threats?

Unfortunately we live in totaly different worlds and here weapons at school would be soout the question that you can´t even imagine it, meanwhile you unfortunately have larger issues at hand to deal with and I can see that second amendment supporters would see it as a natural thing to ensure the wellbeing of theire children in school by using armed guards.

 

[-Taz-]

Look at what you wrote Taz. Even your own police are RETURNING to guns. Why? Where did you go wrong?

Its not returning to guns, its just a more practical thing. Earlier they used to have to wait for back up coming from the station with the guns, after a permit of usage has been issued. This way they will have it sooner the few times they have to use it, but they still have to have the chiefs permission to break out the weapons. It still a national news story every time police arm them selves...thankfully..

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Stock I never said the average parent should have a gun in the school, I said Joe citizen has just as much right to have his kids protected by armed guard as the president or any other politician.

There are lots of police officers who work nights who would be happy to do so to earn extra money. Their only job would be the protection of the kids....They are well trained both in firearms and handling situations under stress..

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Its not returning to guns, its just a more practical thing. Earlier they used to have to wait for back up coming from the station with the guns, after a permit of usage has been issued. This way they will have it sooner the few times they have to use it, but they still have to have the chiefs permission to break out the weapons. It still a national news story every time police arm them selves...thankfully..

Well that makes a lot of sense, wait for backup to bring you a weapon, what do they do ask the armed criminal for a "timeout" while guns are delivered?

What if the criminal or terrorist doesn't want to wait and starts firing, do they just throw rocks back at them?...:banghead:

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

[0121stockpicker]

Correct picker but the military does not usually have a non-lethal target. A killer in a school full of small children could use a knife to kill 20 small kids.

Could but I doubt it. You don't think it would be much easier from the killer to do so with a semiautomatic? He could kill 20 with a nice fluffy pillow - right? Again you can kill someone with anything. But some things are easier to kill with - correct? This isn't a difficult concept.

 

[0121stockpicker]

Correct picker but the military does not usually have a non-lethal target. A killer in a school full of small children could use a knife to kill 20 small kids.

Only someone with a complete lack of knowledge knowledge of guns and weapons would ever state that they all have the same lethality. That's just foolish - right. I assume you are familiar with weapons?

 

[Native Floridian]

Let's try this:

Is a motorcycle crash the result of a deliberate action put in motion to kill the rider, or is it an accident?

Are mass shootings the result of someone dropping a rifle while climbing up their deer stand or the result of a deliberate action put in motion to kill people.

1. Insurance will cover the accidents, but there is no way in hell they will pay for deliberate action.
2. Some dipwad is going to think that having the insurance gives them permission to kill 50 kids . . . after all they do have insurance they bought and paid for.

When are you people going to even bother to TRY to THINK OUT your proposals before stating something so damned STUPID!!!

I guess, first you would have to think rather than parroting your talking points.

Chad, I'll admit that I'm new to this section of the forum. I didn't realize reading comprehension doesn't count here. i say that because even though you parsed my comments, your reply has nothing to do with my post.

And, i can see you are having trouble grasping the entire "Accident" concept. " I can't help you with that.

Doesn't your tin foil hat have one of those adjuster buttons on it? Try that before commenting again. But if it will help i'll try posting in single syllable words so you can keep up. ( sorry, i couldn't come up with a synonym for syllable. Ops i did it again!)

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

This isn't a difficult concept.

Neither is placing armed guards in schools....

We put armed guards in banks, sporting events, concerts, politician's kids schools, government buildings, airports, but our kids are not worth protecting....


Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

[Chadeaux]

TAZ - This isn't O'slow . . . you guys have that gun control thingy, and look at what happened:

80 murdered by single gunman

Again, you foolks don't get it - and I know it is a tired old statement, but:

WHEN GUNS ARE OUTLAWED, ONLY OUTLAWS WILL (DO) HAVE GUNS!

Now, like Danon (just picking Dano - you know my name isn't chad, but it doesn't stop ya so lets have some friendly ribbing), you guys have no dog in this fight aside from testifying how that gun control stuff has negatively affected your countries.

Of those 80, how many would have been armed if it were legal?

How many might still be alive?

Did gun control stop Anders Breivik?

Unless you are ANOTHER OBAMA DISINFORMATION OFFICER, can you honestly answer those questions and still support gun control?

Gun Control Laws Around The World Spurred By Mass Shootings

Those who believe tighter gun laws are necessary acknowledge they are no panacea. Norway has strict gun controls, but Anders Behring Breivik shot 69 people dead in July 2011 with a pistol and a rifle he acquired legally by joining a shooting club and taking a hunting course.

Disarming your citizens ENABLED Anders to kill 80 people. Don't you feel proud? So again, how's that gun control thingy working out for you?

 

[0121stockpicker]

Neither is placing armed guards in schools....

We put armed guards in banks, sporting events, concerts, politician's kids schools, government buildings, airports, but our kids are not worth protecting....

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

Not sure how this thread morphed into armed guards at school - I thought it was about requiring gun owners to carry insurance? Maybe we can add a tax to guns and ammo to pay for the armed guards at schools, is that what you are proposing?

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Not sure how this thread morphed into armed guards at school - I thought it was about requiring gun owners to carry insurance? Maybe we can add a tax to guns and ammo to pay for the armed guards at schools, is that what you are proposing?

I see you relate protecting our kids to money..

How about we cut out half the welfare in this country, that is enough to cover it many times over...

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

[Chadeaux]

I see you relate protecting our kids to money..

How about we cut out half the welfare in this country, that is enough to cover it many times over...

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

Or at least disqualify anyone who is using any illegal drug. Disqualify anyone who commits a felony while on welfare. Disqualify anyone who gets pregnant while unmarried and on welfare from collecting a larger check for having another kid. That's big business here in Arkansas, and probably the rest of the U.S.

 

[0121stockpicker]

I see you relate protecting our kids to money..

How about we cut out half the welfare in this country, that is enough to cover it many times over...

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

I'm just not for big government and big taxes. I'm sure you would love to see the "department of armed school guards" could probably slide it right into DHS? That's not for me. Or maybe you think that the schools themselves should pay? We all know that schools are just flushed with money and this would be a simple thing to do. Or maybe you just want to pay for it all. I got enough taxes and big gov thanks.