Me give it to them? I am trying to stop people like you from taking the whole ship down with you.

Of course some of the arguments they could come up with could be used to take all firearms but it is a myth that those on the left all want to take all of our guns. You are just demonizing the other side with positions like that, not making any friends against the moderates.

Most of these events are planned, they make rational choices. Get guns, ammo, armor, etc. And yes, sometimes they attack targets known to have armed presence, look at Columbine, an armed cop was present and it didn't stop them. Being mentally deranged doesn't mean irrational, you are creating a false dichotomy there.

For the 13th amendment wouldn't really apply here to this conversation because that ended a practice, it didn't enshrine of right. As for the 19th amendment that is similar, it didn't enshrine a right so much as it prevented the restriction of voting based on sex. Nonetheless let's use voting here as an example. People are not allowed to vote under 18, felons are not allowed to vote in some jurisdictions, and people with certain mental handicaps are also not allowed to vote in certain jurisdictions. Let's take the fourth amendment, you don't have an absolute right against someone searching your property. Under exegent circumstances cops can search your property without first obtaining a warrant.

If the second amendment is an absolute right then that means a person of any age, of any mental capacity, any criminal record, even an incarcerated person would and should be able to own any arm they want. Unless you are prepared to defend that position then you are admitting there are limits

Yes, you are literally giving it to them by accepting a compromise on your rights. I’m 31 years old I’ve only been politically active for about 4 years, I was given this shitty ship because of people like you who were willing to compromise my rights away.

Strawman alert! I never said ALL wanted to take our guns. The percentage of the left that wants to take guns is irrelevant because the vast majority of them want guns banned. Your full of shit if you think that’s just a “myth”. The house Democrat official Twitter account just tweeted out that they think all semiautomatic rifles should be banned. How long until they classify glocks or semiautomatic handguns as “weapons of war that should also be banned” which by the way are responsible for wayyyyy more deaths than ALL rifles combined. Myth my ass. Then when a shooter uses a revolver with a ten round cylinder with speed loaders and kills a bunch of people they’ll come after that too. So we went from a “reasonable” ban on automatics to only being able to own single shot rifles and pistols. I’m not demonizing anyone I’m simply putting the pieces of their arguments together to form a clearer picture of what’s in store for the future of gun rights.

Show me where in my response did I say that because they are mentally deranged they are irrational? I never said that. You said they are making rational decisions and I agreed with you which is why I don’t think they’ll run into an area with CC personnel. Having CC personnel prohibits them from planning an attack. I’ve already explained that armed guards are a bad idea because they can plan around the guard or just kill him first.

All amendments “ended a practice” and they all “enshrined” a right. That didn’t even make sense. Try and actually read the 15th amendment no where does it specify any of the examples you gave. The 4th amendment doesn’t say a warrant is needed to search. If it did you’d have a point, but it doesn’t so you don’t. The wording unreasonable obviously gives the government some wiggle room as the term reasonable could be subjective I assume, but it’s atleast in the wording.

No actually I don’t need to defend any of your silly examples. Kids are under the age of consent and mentally incapable people should be locked up. None of those are gun issues. Any free man should have full rights restored regardless of record.

Yes, you are literally giving it to them by accepting a compromise on your rights. I’m 31 years old I’ve only been politically active for about 4 years, I was given this shitty ship because of people like you who were willing to compromise my rights away.

Strawman alert! I never said ALL wanted to take our guns. The percentage of the left that wants to take guns is irrelevant because the vast majority of them want guns banned. Your full of shit if you think that’s just a “myth”. The house Democrat official Twitter account just tweeted out that they think all semiautomatic rifles should be banned. How long until they classify glocks or semiautomatic handguns as “weapons of war that should also be banned” which by the way are responsible for wayyyyy more deaths than ALL rifles combined. Myth my ass. Then when a shooter uses a revolver with a ten round cylinder with speed loaders and kills a bunch of people they’ll come after that too. So we went from a “reasonable” ban on automatics to only being able to own single shot rifles and pistols. I’m not demonizing anyone I’m simply putting the pieces of their arguments together to form a clearer picture of what’s in store for the future of gun rights.

Show me where in my response did I say that because they are mentally deranged they are irrational? I never said that. You said they are making rational decisions and I agreed with you which is why I don’t think they’ll run into an area with CC personnel. Having CC personnel prohibits them from planning an attack. I’ve already explained that armed guards are a bad idea because they can plan around the guard or just kill him first.

All amendments “ended a practice” and they all “enshrined” a right. That didn’t even make sense. Try and actually read the 15th amendment no where does it specify any of the examples you gave. The 4th amendment doesn’t say a warrant is needed to search. If it did you’d have a point, but it doesn’t so you don’t. The wording unreasonable obviously gives the government some wiggle room as the term reasonable could be subjective I assume, but it’s atleast in the wording.

No actually I don’t need to defend any of your silly examples. Kids are under the age of consent and mentally incapable people should be locked up. None of those are gun issues. Any free man should have full rights restored regardless of record.

" I’m 31 years old I’ve only been politically active for about 4 years, I was given this shitty ship because of people like you who were willing to compromise my rights away."

What took you so long?
I was in the second grade when LBJ was elected and I knew he was a POS
and bad for our rights.
My mother and step father at the time never discussed politics.
I could just sense danger/evil better than most people.
You cannot compromise with Democrats.
 

Wow this is a great video that explains a lot of societal problems.
It's only 5 minutes long, so watch it.

1) the left is not a monolithic group.
2) sorry I don't follow what you're getting at here.
3) this is too generic of a statement. Clearly we have States with significantly different gun laws.

If we can't find some way of reducing these mass shooting then I think we are eventually going to lose more of our gun rights. So I think we need a better answer than just armed teachers. I think red flag type laws, if crafted properly, maybe the solution because it does not restrict gun rights on a mass scale but instead on individual instances. If not that then we better have some other good ideas because right now it looks like we're sitting here stubbornly with our thumbs up our butts providing Band-Aid solutions

Still waiting for your response to this . . .

Not all of us have the option to being armed at work, or surrounded by a 90% armed staff.  So maybe you need to think about how the rest of us regular folk are doing (I don't mean this in a mean or sarcastic way).

Also assuming you are in possession when not on duty

You can, it's all in how you talk to people. Some people are harder to break through to than others but it can be done. I can tell you that insulting them just ends up fulfilling your prophecy.

You obviously haven't tried your method with many on the far Left.

Talking to them about guns and the 2A rights of Americans is like trying to explain anything to you.  You deal in absolutes:  Not necessarily, not all, not everyone, not the entire party, etc, etc.  Those are straw arguments that nobody here posted.  What we are saying is the overwhelming majority adhere to our opinions of their beliefs and behaviors.  You like to ague, so you focus on the one-offs and minorities that, if their minds were to change, solves nothing. 

The majority still remains unconvinced.

1) the left is not a monolithic group.
2) sorry I don't follow what you're getting at here.
3) this is too generic of a statement. Clearly we have States with significantly different gun laws.

If we can't find some way of reducing these mass shooting then I think we are eventually going to lose more of our gun rights. So I think we need a better answer than just armed teachers. I think red flag type laws, if crafted properly, maybe the solution because it does not restrict gun rights on a mass scale but instead on individual instances. If not that then we better have some other good ideas because right now it looks like we're sitting here stubbornly with our thumbs up our butts providing Band-Aid solutions

There are approximately 35,000 deaths per year in which a firearm played a roll. According to the
FBI there were 85 deaths in 2018 in active shooter situations. 85/35000 = .0024% of “gun deaths”
were from “mass shootings”

Why are you focused on mass shootings?  Because the narrative is being dictated by the anti-gun groups and the media.

.0024% == Percentage of gun deaths in a year from mass shootings compared to all gun deaths.

Again, you are focused on the minority and looking for a solution while ignoring the carnage of all other gun-related deaths.

Ask yourself why that's not a logical approach to saving lives.

1) the left is not a monolithic group.
2) sorry I don't follow what you're getting at here.
3) this is too generic of a statement. Clearly we have States with significantly different gun laws.

If we can't find some way of reducing these mass shooting then I think we are eventually going to lose more of our gun rights. So I think we need a better answer than just armed teachers. I think red flag type laws, if crafted properly, maybe the solution because it does not restrict gun rights on a mass scale but instead on individual instances. If not that then we better have some other good ideas because right now it looks like we're sitting here stubbornly with our thumbs up our butts providing Band-Aid solutions

1) The common thing the left have is they want to take some of the 2a right away for now (assault rifles, standard cap mags, bump stocks, P80's, etc...). If this was done, then the next logical step is handguns because that accounts for way more annual deaths than "assault rifles".  If you cannot see their plan, this is why I'm telling it to you. If you think they aren't that powerful either, just remember we are always an active shooting away from more laws because anti 2a people use emotion and not facts to get stuff passed. Refer to yesterdays house vote in DC and NY's soft armor ban (they used the NY market shooting as the main reason)

2) My reply was to yours that stated "Armed teachers would have some advantage in not being marked targets but they would still be prime targets" (assuming they are open carrying). "Any rational shooter would first target the guards, then any adults, and then the children. " This next statement implies there is no benefit/win. Which is why I brought up guarding the buildings with armored vehicles like banks in Cuba does. Then you may bring up what if RPG types are used against said armored vehicles. So circular thought.

3) It is not a generic statement. Look at all the federal laws that passed in the past 30 years or the ones they have tried to pass.  Lets also use what is usually the most pro 2A state when brought up into conversation (Texas). Certain cities have no guns allowed signs that have the weight of the law behind them. So if you do not leave your gun in the car, you can be arrested. Compare this to Nevada that their gun free zones have no weight of the law behind them.  And can you honestly say that any of the 50 states passed/tried zero new anti gun laws in the past 30 years?  So it isn't a generic statement.

1 way we tried to reduce active shootings is with gun free signs. Apparently this doesn't work well enough because they still happen and at large scales of deaths until a good guy (civilian included) with a gun shows up.  And the media uses these events to get feelings involved so law makers pass more gun laws.  And since we cannot take 100% of guns away, lets try something that we haven't tried before. Reduce the gun laws. Specifically, let people who are allowed to own guns carry where ever they want.  Then if this doesn't show signs of reducing the damage done by active shooters, we can think of something else to do. 

When Florida became a shall issue CCW state, they wanted to keep a 10 year study on how it affects crime rates.  Every year crime dropped and kept dropping. So much that they called the study off after 7 years or so.

" I think red flag type laws, if crafted properly, maybe the solution because it does not restrict gun rights on a mass scale but instead on individual instances".  Do you not know how red flag law currently works?  LMK and I can explain how it is on an individual instance.

" If not that then we better have some other good ideas because right now it looks like we're sitting here stubbornly with our thumbs up our butts providing Band-Aid solutions". I mentioned my good idea, but the left will never allow it.

Why are you focused on mass shootings?  Because the narrative is being dictated by the anti-gun groups and the media.

.0024% == Percentage of gun deaths in a year from mass shootings compared to all gun deaths.

Again, you are focused on the minority and looking for a solution while ignoring the carnage of all other gun-related deaths.

Ask yourself why that's not a logical approach to saving lives.

What is the number of innocent people being killed by police guns?  As in the person standing 40 feet behind who the cops were shooting at, or they got the wrong house and killed the homeowner/resident.  Don't count if someone escalated a situation where the cops shot.

Plus armed teachers would rarely prevent a shooting, just end it sooner.

If that's the perspective your holding,  then it's clear why you can't find the answers your looking for. 

Short of the minority report(thought crimes), you can't prevent people from doing bad things, no matter how hard you try. 

Like you said,  all you can do is end it sooner.
The sooner a law abiding citizen arrives with a firearm,  the sooner it will be ended.

Still trying to dance around it I see

Still trying to dance around it I see

TX church shooter comes to mind. He killed 1 person with his shotgun and as he ran toward more people, he was stopped with a headshot within seconds by an NRA instructor from probably 20 yards away.  What if this armed good guy instead of having his pistol, he had a gun free zone sign instead?

Tired of having the same stupid conversation over and over again?

Ask yourself what we are not allowed to talk about.



https://americasfreedomfighters.com/every-mass-shooting-in-the-last-20-years-has-one-thing-in-common-and-its-not-just-weapons-3/

" I’m 31 years old I’ve only been politically active for about 4 years, I was given this shitty ship because of people like you who were willing to compromise my rights away."

What took you so long?
I was in the second grade when LBJ was elected and I knew he was a POS
and bad for our rights.
My mother and step father at the time never discussed politics.
I could just sense danger/evil better than most people.
You cannot compromise with Democrats.
 

The vast majority of kids who grow up in Hawaii don’t care about politics. We never discussed politics at the dinner table. I remember maybe one conversation in my childhood I asked what the difference between democrats and republicans were and my mom told me “democrats were for the people and republicans were for businesses”. I grew up a democrat socialist until I had my first kid and when that happened I could no longer believe in the fantasies that ideology promised. Hopefully my kids will grow up as conservative as me.

Tired of having the same stupid conversation over and over again?

Ask yourself what we are not allowed to talk about.



https://americasfreedomfighters.com/every-mass-shooting-in-the-last-20-years-has-one-thing-in-common-and-its-not-just-weapons-3/

They left out Columbine, Madison Stone Douglas, and Vegas.

You obviously haven't tried your method with many on the far Left.

Talking to them about guns and the 2A rights of Americans is like trying to explain anything to you.  You deal in absolutes:  Not necessarily, not all, not everyone, not the entire party, etc, etc.  Those are straw arguments that nobody here posted.  What we are saying is the overwhelming majority adhere to our opinions of their beliefs and behaviors.  You like to ague, so you focus on the one-offs and minorities that, if their minds were to change, solves nothing. 

The majority still remains unconvinced.

You claim I am the one who deals in absolutes yet you are the one who is saying they can't be reasoned with.... Oh the irony!

It is important to recognize that they are not a monolithic group. If you treat them as all the same, all just gun grabbers then any interaction is already painted negatively, starting with negative assumptions. None of that leads to open minds.

I have talked with people on the left on this issue and discussions with people on other topics who are on the opposite ends. That's why I know what doesn't work. Your attitude creates a self fulfilling prophecy.

Tired of having the same stupid conversation over and over again?

Ask yourself what we are not allowed to talk about.



https://americasfreedomfighters.com/every-mass-shooting-in-the-last-20-years-has-one-thing-in-common-and-its-not-just-weapons-3/

I think one of the issues there is that causation is difficult to prove. Are psychotropic drugs causing these problems or are they just being used to treat people who have these problems already?

How are we not allowed to talk about it though?

Yes, you are literally giving it to them by accepting a compromise on your rights. I’m 31 years old I’ve only been politically active for about 4 years, I was given this shitty ship because of people like you who were willing to compromise my rights away.

Strawman alert! I never said ALL wanted to take our guns. The percentage of the left that wants to take guns is irrelevant because the vast majority of them want guns banned. Your full of shit if you think that’s just a “myth”. The house Democrat official Twitter account just tweeted out that they think all semiautomatic rifles should be banned. How long until they classify glocks or semiautomatic handguns as “weapons of war that should also be banned” which by the way are responsible for wayyyyy more deaths than ALL rifles combined. Myth my ass. Then when a shooter uses a revolver with a ten round cylinder with speed loaders and kills a bunch of people they’ll come after that too. So we went from a “reasonable” ban on automatics to only being able to own single shot rifles and pistols. I’m not demonizing anyone I’m simply putting the pieces of their arguments together to form a clearer picture of what’s in store for the future of gun rights.

Show me where in my response did I say that because they are mentally deranged they are irrational? I never said that. You said they are making rational decisions and I agreed with you which is why I don’t think they’ll run into an area with CC personnel. Having CC personnel prohibits them from planning an attack. I’ve already explained that armed guards are a bad idea because they can plan around the guard or just kill him first.

All amendments “ended a practice” and they all “enshrined” a right. That didn’t even make sense. Try and actually read the 15th amendment no where does it specify any of the examples you gave. The 4th amendment doesn’t say a warrant is needed to search. If it did you’d have a point, but it doesn’t so you don’t. The wording unreasonable obviously gives the government some wiggle room as the term reasonable could be subjective I assume, but it’s atleast in the wording.

No actually I don’t need to defend any of your silly examples. Kids are under the age of consent and mentally incapable people should be locked up. None of those are gun issues. Any free man should have full rights restored regardless of record.

You don't have to say ALL, the problem is when somebody makes a general statement describing a wide swath of the population. You inherently end up making inaccurate statements about a lot of people.  Yes some people on the left see gun control as an incremental step towards eliminating all guns but there are many many people on the left who still favor private firearm ownership. If you make a blanket statement then you end up insulting all those people who only want some moderate step and not complete bans.

Having concealed carry personnel is not going to stop these active shooters. At most it just makes planning a little more difficult.

No the 4th amendment does not specifically say a warrant has to be issued but the process it describes is that of a warrant.

Calling my examples silly looks like just an excuse to not have to answer something with an uncomfortable conclusion. You are right that those examples weren't specifically gun issues, those examples were presented to you to illustrate how all rights have some limits. We limit certain rights to people based on age, mental capacity, and incarceration status.

US Constitution makes no mention of age of any kind that I can find (with regard to rights) yet we say that people under 18 can be denied certain rights. It also makes no mention of mental capacity. Either rights have limits or they don't, you can't have it both ways.

Why are you focused on mass shootings?  Because the narrative is being dictated by the anti-gun groups and the media.

.0024% == Percentage of gun deaths in a year from mass shootings compared to all gun deaths.

Again, you are focused on the minority and looking for a solution while ignoring the carnage of all other gun-related deaths.

Ask yourself why that's not a logical approach to saving lives.

That's whataboutism.
Gang violence, domestic violence, and active shooter violence are all separate topics, each with their own unique situations and approaches required to address them. Acting as if school shootings are not a problem because they only represent a small fraction of the gun homicides every year is extremely cold-hearted position to take. One can discuss active shooters independent of other types of shootings. Even if we had solved gang violence this would still be a problem facing our society and that's enough to talk about it

1) The common thing the left have is they want to take some of the 2a right away for now (assault rifles, standard cap mags, bump stocks, P80's, etc...). If this was done, then the next logical step is handguns because that accounts for way more annual deaths than "assault rifles".  If you cannot see their plan, this is why I'm telling it to you. If you think they aren't that powerful either, just remember we are always an active shooting away from more laws because anti 2a people use emotion and not facts to get stuff passed. Refer to yesterdays house vote in DC and NY's soft armor ban (they used the NY market shooting as the main reason)

2) My reply was to yours that stated "Armed teachers would have some advantage in not being marked targets but they would still be prime targets" (assuming they are open carrying). "Any rational shooter would first target the guards, then any adults, and then the children. " This next statement implies there is no benefit/win. Which is why I brought up guarding the buildings with armored vehicles like banks in Cuba does. Then you may bring up what if RPG types are used against said armored vehicles. So circular thought.

3) It is not a generic statement. Look at all the federal laws that passed in the past 30 years or the ones they have tried to pass.  Lets also use what is usually the most pro 2A state when brought up into conversation (Texas). Certain cities have no guns allowed signs that have the weight of the law behind them. So if you do not leave your gun in the car, you can be arrested. Compare this to Nevada that their gun free zones have no weight of the law behind them.  And can you honestly say that any of the 50 states passed/tried zero new anti gun laws in the past 30 years?  So it isn't a generic statement.

1 way we tried to reduce active shootings is with gun free signs. Apparently this doesn't work well enough because they still happen and at large scales of deaths until a good guy (civilian included) with a gun shows up.  And the media uses these events to get feelings involved so law makers pass more gun laws.  And since we cannot take 100% of guns away, lets try something that we haven't tried before. Reduce the gun laws. Specifically, let people who are allowed to own guns carry where ever they want.  Then if this doesn't show signs of reducing the damage done by active shooters, we can think of something else to do. 

When Florida became a shall issue CCW state, they wanted to keep a 10 year study on how it affects crime rates.  Every year crime dropped and kept dropping. So much that they called the study off after 7 years or so.

" I think red flag type laws, if crafted properly, maybe the solution because it does not restrict gun rights on a mass scale but instead on individual instances".  Do you not know how red flag law currently works?  LMK and I can explain how it is on an individual instance.

" If not that then we better have some other good ideas because right now it looks like we're sitting here stubbornly with our thumbs up our butts providing Band-Aid solutions". I mentioned my good idea, but the left will never allow it.

1) For some yes, every gun control idea is a step towards a logical end of zero firearms. But for others this is not the case. I've known many people who could be characterized as on the left and want some gun control but who do not want anything near complete bans.

2) I see what you are getting at but that is not where I was going. What I meant was that if I was going to shoot up a classroom I would always target the teacher before I targeted any students. Security first then any adult staff then children would be the most logical attack hierarchy.

3) gun laws very widely from state to state so it's hard to make any blanket statements about gun laws, that's what I was getting at. Here in Hawaii we definitely have enough of our gun rights restricted where is Texas has it much less restricted. So in other words your statement could be both true or false depending on the jurisdiction in question.

Red flags are just an idea for a legal framework. Again it depends on the jurisdiction, with each one implementing the idea a little differently. Hear the specifics matter and whether it would be effective and whether it be constitutional in terms of protecting the rights of the accused. Again you can't make a blanket statement about red flag laws.

Again like I said I do support training teachers and allowing them to carry if they want to Cary firearms.

Still trying to dance around it I see

Not dancing around anything, your statement is wrong.

There are ways of preventing people from doing bad things. Laws for starters, if theft were no longer illegal do you really think nothing would change? Look up what is happening in San Francisco when these guys won't get punished for shoplifting.

But since that's probably not what you were getting at let's set that aside. There are still ways of preventing people from doing bad things they're just more complicated than a law saying don't do that. Specifically programs and social support structures and mental health aide that can address the problems these people have before it gets to the extent where they decide to kill a bunch of strangers. Would be active shooters have been prevented before so you can't claim nothing would ever stop them.

It doesn’t matter how smart you are unless you stop and think.

#thomassowell

Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk