On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 23:38:04 -0700, Ashton Crusher
wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 15:57:29 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 14:17:51 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 06:59:26 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Dec 23, 9:47 am, Doug wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 05:55:19 -0800 (PST), "





wrote:
On Dec 22, 11:39 pm, Doug wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 21:14:25 -0600, " Attila Iskander"

wrote:

"Tony Hwang" wrote in message
...

Hmmm,
Are you going to arm your self with assault rifle and 200 rounds
magazine
or drum?

"Assault rifles" are and have been strickly controlled since 1934
(They are machine guns don't ya know...)
You have to jump through all kinds of hoops with the Feds and local
police
and pay a $200 tax before you can get one.
If one the other hand you are babbling your ignorance about "assault
weapons" then you are talking about CERTAIN SEMI-automatic (single
shot to
single trigger pull) rifles that have certain cosmetic features like
a
bayonet lug that magically turn them into "assault weapons" while
changing
NOTHING about how they operate, or anything else about their
performance.

Owning a 200 round magazine or drum is really a novelty item that
you would
only use for fun but not for serious shooting
They have a NASTY habit of jamming at the worst moments.
Smart shooters stick with what the firearm was designed to use
normally

You know wackos will come there with such a weapon with mass
killing power
in short time.

And ???
What ??

All I need is just one shot to stop them
And then what ?

I am not against owning fire arm, first step should be banning the
ownership of assault type automatic weapons and high capacity
magazines/clips.

LOL
Are you really this ****ing stupid ?
IN the same sentence you declare, you're OK with owning firearms but
let's
just ban firearms

And owning a gun is one thing using it properly and well is
another,
how many owners are like that?

Just about most who own them
The seem to be much better qualified to using their guns properly
than car
drivers with all the training and licensing they go through...
Let's see
Gun owners with about 330,000,000 guns, have about 600 deadly
accidents a
year, about a thousand injuries, and property damage that is so low
as to be
negligible.
Car owners with about 300,000,000 cars have over 43,000 deaths,
injuries in
the millions and property damage in the Billions

Maybe you should worry more about car owners.

Are always ready for surprise attack? If teachers are armed can
they
concentrate on teaching or be on the look oiut for the sudden
danger?

If you carry, you don't become a defact security guard
It's much closer to carrying an umbrella in case it rains.

IMO, the more gun, the more possibility of trouble. No thanks
no gun for me or my family.

Apparently stupidity is a requirement for hoplophobia.
I feel sorry for your defenseless family.

Hopefully your defective genes will stop with you and yours.

You bypass all the checks and balances if you buy privately and 40%
of
all gun purchases are done this way.

If I understood the NRA, I agree only partially with them. I like the
idea of armed guards (professionals) in schools but not armed
teachers. But armed guards in schools will not solve the overall
problem of mass killings because the criminals will just move from
schools to churches, malls, stadiums, train stations, etc... or other
places with less resistance.

I too was in favor of no semi automatic weapons in civilian hands but
I now I prefer to say it differently now.....I don't want civilians
to
have guns as good or better than the military or police use, unless
they already own them. In other words, I don't want military or
police to be out gunned by civilians. If they satisfy this, civilians
can get whatever guns they want.

Do you realize that we did ban "assault weapons" and high
capacity magazines for a decade, starting in 1994. Study after
study done by various organizations, including the CDC, which
clearly has no pro-gun agenda, concluded it made no difference
in crime rates, murder rates, etc.

Oh by the way, that's not what the CDC said. If you go to their
website...http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm
they say ....
"Evidence was INSUFFICIENT to determine the effectiveness of any of
these laws for the following reasons." They explain this as
depending on which study you go by, some say it went higher and other
studies say it went lower.

Therefore, since it's inconclusive, I'd say to do it because taking no
action is NOT the solution.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Let's apply that logic. We have a new experimental drug for
cancer. Many studies have been done. Some show the drug
increased the 5 year survival rate. An equal number say the
drug decreased the 5 year survival rate. So, the FDA should
approve the drug, put it on the market, because, as you say
"taking no action is not the solution".

You really are quite the village idiot.


No you are. Guns are not drugs.

Really ?
At least you figured that much out
So let's try it again

STUDIES show that gun-control has NO EFFECT because the results are
INCONCLUSIVE

No not ineffective, just INCONCLUSIVE. See my earlier reference to
the CDC.


Jesus, Inconclusive means it's possible the gun ban MAKE THINGS
WORSE. So in the absence of ANY evidence the gun ban had benefits you
want to keep rolling the dice when the result could just as easily be
MORE deaths plus the side effect of ****ing on the second amendment.


Geeze.... look up what "inconclusive" means.

On Dec 24, 3:43*pm, wrote:
On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 06:51:19 -0500, Kurt Ullman
wrote:









In article ,
wrote:

Not really if the schedules are well managed.

$100-$200K per school times how many schools in the US?

That is awful expensive for an armed guard.

You're going to need at least two (vacations, sick time, etc.) and
figure an employee costs about 2x direct compensation, particularly a
school employee.

FWIW, you would not need two per school. One full time and one rover
for every X number of schools to cover the above.

You assume one is sufficient. *...and if he's shot? *There are dozens
of teachers every school.

AIUI, there was a guard for the CT school but he wasn't on campus at
the time.

I wouldn't argue too much. *Give them all the training they want and
all the free range time they can use. Easy.
*Which is another incidental expense that would have to be figured into
the costs.

Police ranges can be reused or expanded. *Sure it's an expense. Arming
teachers isn't, unless you demand more training than they would
normally have for CC.

Look s like all your fire fighters would need to armed too under your
theories.

On Dec 24, 4:35*pm, wrote:
On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 00:05:05 -0800 (PST), harry

wrote:
After Newtown, another 20 kids were killed in cars by the following
Tuesday but I don't see anyone banning cars. It didn't even make the
news

You don't see because you are stupid.

The ones killed in cars was by accident.
Newtown was deliberate.

Are the kids any less dead?

And which is the most culpable?

On Dec 24, 5:43*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
harry wrote:
On Dec 23, 4:47 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Doug wrote:

Further, I learned that some other countries have very tight gun
control and the mass killings are few or none but if that means to
remove guns from owners, I do not support that.

You mean like Mexico?

Laxity of gun control has little to do with mayhem caused by
firearms. For every country with lax gun control and many deaths, I
can respond with a country with lax control and few deaths.
Likewise, the reverse.

Well go ahead then.
How about...Japan?

Jamaica?

I suppose as a third world country it could be paralleled with the
USA.
The problems it has are the same as Mexico.
Proximity to the USA.
But if you want to compare
http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/...d-States/Crime

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 20:38:00 -0500, wrote:

Can't you register your hands as deadly weapons? And buy insurance on
them?


Most lawyers would advise that a legal holder of a gun would be in
less trouble for shooting someone than a guy who beat someone to
death.

Yep. One shot kill shows no premeditation to murder.(IMO)

If I shoot him once and he came back alive, I'd shoot again. Much
easier than a fist fight -- even sitting on the couch.

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 20:16:50 -0600, Doug
wrote:

Then you have NO CLUE as to the intent of the 2nd Amendment
The 2nd Amendment is ALL ABOUT citizens having the same arms as the police
and military


I disagree. I just researched the 2nd Amendment and no where does it
come close to saying this. It does NOT say you have the right to bear
ANY arms. You have the right to bear ARMS.

You *certainly* didn't research it very deeply (did you even read it).
It's all over the founder's writings. You can start he

http://www.minnesotamajority.org/Our...2/Default.aspx



I read your link. My research is still valid.

Hey Doug! What does the LAW say?!

It just tickles me that your research only lasted one day.

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 21:30:32 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 20:26:44 -0500, z wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 16:43:52 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 19:17:08 -0500, z wrote:

I think teachers should just teach.

That's a unique idea. Maybe they should try it.


School board members should be taught that Texas has a border with
Mexico.

I think armed guards (professionals) will be better at protecting the students.

Possible but an incredibly expensive solution.

Not really if the schedules are well managed.

$100-$200K per school times how many schools in the US?

That is awful expensive for an armed guard.
Cops start in the mid 30s around here and the average is more like 50.
Even with insurance FICA and benefits it is not 100.
You also only have a 180 day year to cover.
We already have cops in middle schools and high schools.


Schedules are easy. I've made many rosters; quarterly, for 24/7/365
positions. I forget the formulas off my head and would need to find
it.

I'm not saying that armed teachers can't protect students but I see potential
problems with this idea.

What problems? Teachers are citizens, too.

... and have a right to carry

Exactly the point. It costs nothing to allow them to do what they
have the right to do without doing anything.

I think it might work for the few teachers who do have a CCW but I
would still want them to have a lot more training.
I hear about how disruptive "active shooter drills" would be for the
students but I was under my desk in atom bomb drills when I was in
school We turned out OK.
Having well thought out procedures, good communication and an armed
response might make these places a hard enough target, at least in
perception, that they are not that attractive for a shooter.

Government has already paid good money to have armed patrols in
schools. The NRA brings up the subject, people get hysterical.

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 20:38:20 -0600, Doug
wrote:

In worst case scenario, better to replace a dead
guard than a dead teacher.

Go screw yourself, Doug. Where did you get the power to decide who
lives and dies?

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 22:15:12 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

The dumbass came to when I was about to drag what I thought
was a dead body out to my van for disposal and I made him crawl
down the hall, out the front door and into the middle of the street
then I went back inside and shut the door.

The Immaculate Concussion?

I used to do sidewalk miracles, myself.

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 11:43:25 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 23:38:04 -0700, Ashton Crusher
wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 15:57:29 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 14:17:51 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:

snip

STUDIES show that gun-control has NO EFFECT because the results are
INCONCLUSIVE

No not ineffective, just INCONCLUSIVE. See my earlier reference to
the CDC.


Jesus, Inconclusive means it's possible the gun ban MAKE THINGS
WORSE. So in the absence of ANY evidence the gun ban had benefits you
want to keep rolling the dice when the result could just as easily be
MORE deaths plus the side effect of ****ing on the second amendment.


Geeze.... look up what "inconclusive" means.

Oh, good grief. You really are illiterate. It means that you cannot
draw any conclusions (Duh!). The results may be positive, neutral, or
negative but you can't come to any conclusions. However, the outcome
*MIGHT BE* harmful.

AC is perfectly correct. You're wrong (nothing new). QED.

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 00:07:05 -0500, wrote:

We are still waiting to see how that works out for George Zimmerman in
the state that invented SYG. and circumstances that look like a slam
dunk self defense case.

The folks that made the review of SYG ruled to not change the law.

His whole case is like a monkey ****ing a football.

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 11:06:45 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

On Dec 24, 3:43*pm, wrote:
On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 06:51:19 -0500, Kurt Ullman
wrote:









In article ,
wrote:

Not really if the schedules are well managed.

$100-$200K per school times how many schools in the US?

That is awful expensive for an armed guard.

You're going to need at least two (vacations, sick time, etc.) and
figure an employee costs about 2x direct compensation, particularly a
school employee.

FWIW, you would not need two per school. One full time and one rover
for every X number of schools to cover the above.

You assume one is sufficient. *...and if he's shot? *There are dozens
of teachers every school.

AIUI, there was a guard for the CT school but he wasn't on campus at
the time.

I wouldn't argue too much. *Give them all the training they want and
all the free range time they can use. Easy.
*Which is another incidental expense that would have to be figured into
the costs.

Police ranges can be reused or expanded. *Sure it's an expense. Arming
teachers isn't, unless you demand more training than they would
normally have for CC.

Look s like all your fire fighters would need to armed too under your
theories.

Why? There are police available at every fire. A gun is just another
*thing* to carry.

You really should think before you post. Oops. Nevermind, you can't.

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 13:31:25 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 20:38:20 -0600, Doug
wrote:

In worst case scenario, better to replace a dead
guard than a dead teacher.

"I'll take my marbles and go home! Harumpf!"

What a petulant little child.

Go screw yourself, Doug. Where did you get the power to decide who
lives and dies?

All lefties believe they have that power.

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 23:37:10 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
.. .



I think teachers should just teach. I think armed guards
(professionals) will be better at protecting the students. I'm not
saying that armed teachers can't protect students but I see potential
problems with this idea.

Go ahead and list them

Touche'

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 10:43:48 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 00:02:22 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 01:24:20 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

Doug wrote in
m:

I think teachers should just teach. I think armed guards
(professionals) will be better at protecting the students. I'm not
saying that armed teachers can't protect students but I see potential
problems with this idea.

And you *don't* see *actual* problems with the status quo?

Why does anyone think that laws declaring schools to be "gun free zones"
will magically
prevent criminals from bringing guns into schools? If someone is willing
to violate the law
prohibiting murder, why doesn anyone think he would *obey* a law that
prohibits him from
bringing a gun into a school?

Please note my careful choice of verbs in the preceding paragraph. Laws
*prohibit* bad
behavior. They do NOT *prevent* it.


That's why I think armed guards should be used vs. status quo.

Too bad your arguments for that (in other post) don't hold much water


We'll see.

We'll see what, exactly? That post made less sense than most of your
others.

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 10:57:58 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 23:37:10 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
. ..



I think teachers should just teach. I think armed guards
(professionals) will be better at protecting the students. I'm not
saying that armed teachers can't protect students but I see potential
problems with this idea.

Go ahead and list them


If you can't figure out what they are, I give up.


You've never stated them. Go ahead. We all waiting.

I honestly thought it was intuitive.

You haven't honestly had a thought in your life.

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 11:02:17 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 17:26:17 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 14:14:28 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
m...
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 05:55:19 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:


Do you realize that we did ban "assault weapons" and high
capacity magazines for a decade, starting in 1994. Study after
study done by various organizations, including the CDC, which
clearly has no pro-gun agenda, concluded it made no difference
in crime rates, murder rates, etc.


Oh by the way, that's not what the CDC said. If you go to their
website...http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm
they say ....
"Evidence was INSUFFICIENT to determine the effectiveness of any of
these laws for the following reasons." They explain this as
depending on which study you go by, some say it went higher and other
studies say it went lower.


DOH !
1) The CDC has a history of being pro gun-control
2) The CC has had it's knuckles rapped by Congress because they got caught
at it
3) They studied more than 30 years of studies, and all they could come up
with is that ?

HELLO ?

How long do you want to study something before you go..
Hmmm
No evidence to support this theory after 30 years of studies
Maybe it's time to come up with a different theory
This is not "global warming" with a planet that operates by millenia
This is simple social issues that operate a MUCH, MUCH SHORTER scale
Try 5-10 years to have meaninfull data

Therefore, since it's inconclusive, I'd say to do it because taking no
action is NOT the solution.

Fine
But since it's INCONCLUSIVE after 30 years, then intelligent people are
NOT
going to go back and do the same old, same old that has proven
inconclusive
after all this time
SMART people are going to try something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.

How about trying to do what the Israeli did to protect their schools after
the palestinian terrorists decided to target their schools
They have nearly 40 years of NO MORE attacks on schools, while we with our
"Gun Free Zones" have 30+ years of school attacks being repeated over and
over...

HELLO ??




I have no problem with trying DIFFERENT so we may agree on that point
but I bet we'll disagree after that.

Then we can only hope that you do continue your "research" on not only the
2nd Amendment, but other subjects as well, so that you can come back and
argue more out of knowledge than ignorance.


I think you guys are really scared of research.

Good God, you're funny. You clearly have done none, yet claim
everyone else, including SCotUS is wrong. Your ignorance is simply
unbelievable.

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 13:02:11 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 20:16:50 -0600, Doug
wrote:

Then you have NO CLUE as to the intent of the 2nd Amendment
The 2nd Amendment is ALL ABOUT citizens having the same arms as the police
and military


I disagree. I just researched the 2nd Amendment and no where does it
come close to saying this. It does NOT say you have the right to bear
ANY arms. You have the right to bear ARMS.

You *certainly* didn't research it very deeply (did you even read it).
It's all over the founder's writings. You can start he

http://www.minnesotamajority.org/Our...2/Default.aspx



I read your link. My research is still valid.

Hey Doug! What does the LAW say?!

It just tickles me that your research only lasted one day.

One day? He obviously hasn't done any, outside his belly button. When
shown the error of his ways, he can only say that his "research"
trumps mere facts.

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 22:59:30 -0600, Doug
wrote:

And you have the brains of a 1st grader.

.... that is afforded the same rights under the 2nd Amendment

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 13:04:10 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 11:00:31 -0500, z wrote:

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 07:42:40 -0600, The Daring Dufas


I haven't owned a gun in years, I wish I hadn't sold my Browning
Hi-Power. I'm in the market for a good 380 pistol now, double tap
to the mouth will stop anything. ^_^

At the last gun show I went to, I bought a Walther PPK (S&W made).
It's a nice pocket gun.

.380 used to be the go to caliber for pocket guns but Kimber has a
real nice 9mm now that is the size of most .380s
It s a bit spendy tho.

Somewhere I saw a reference to a PPK, or something very similar, in
9mm but I can't find it on their site.

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 11:09:43 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

On Dec 24, 4:35*pm, wrote:
On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 00:05:05 -0800 (PST), harry

wrote:
After Newtown, another 20 kids were killed in cars by the following
Tuesday but I don't see anyone banning cars. It didn't even make the
news

You don't see because you are stupid.

The ones killed in cars was by accident.
Newtown was deliberate.

Are the kids any less dead?

And which is the most culpable?

Obviously you think the kids murdered are more "culpable". You are
one sick puppy, harry.

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 23:52:28 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:

What problems? Teachers are citizens, too.

... and have a right to carry

NOT when their employers, the school boards make a rule that they can NOT
carry.

Simple. The state can pass a preemption law, NOT grandfather any
local, city or county to have gun laws. Only the state legislature can
make the laws.

That will get around the school boards. There!

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 23:38:42 -0700, Ashton Crusher
wrote:

I'm beginning to think he's a highly placed official in the War on
Drugs.

What ever happened to the War on Poverty?

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 02:43:03 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

Are British schoolchildren pumped full of Ritalin to control their
behavior or have the more Conservative humans kept control of the
government run schools? O_o

TDD

I don't see the connection.


That's the whole point my friend, you don't see. I do feel sorry for
you. O_o

TDD

Gold Star Award!

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 06:55:44 -0500, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

(Never have had any kind of answer of why the 2nd has to be limited in
such a manner but the 1st (for example) doesn't.


Politics

Democrats started gun control.

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 14:37:28 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 23:38:42 -0700, Ashton Crusher
wrote:

I'm beginning to think he's a highly placed official in the War on
Drugs.

What ever happened to the War on Poverty?

We were on the verge of winning it until Congress intervened. See a
link?

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 14:50:42 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 06:55:44 -0500, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

(Never have had any kind of answer of why the 2nd has to be limited in
such a manner but the 1st (for example) doesn't.


Politics

Democrats started gun control.

The first is next.

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 14:03:34 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 00:07:05 -0500, wrote:

We are still waiting to see how that works out for George Zimmerman in
the state that invented SYG. and circumstances that look like a slam
dunk self defense case.

The folks that made the review of SYG ruled to not change the law.

His whole case is like a monkey ****ing a football.

That's ridiculous!

On 12/24/12 5:08 PM, z wrote:
On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 14:50:42 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 06:55:44 -0500, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

(Never have had any kind of answer of why the 2nd has to be limited in
such a manner but the 1st (for example) doesn't.


Politics

Democrats started gun control.

The first is next.


Isn't the First Amendment getting hammered in our institutions of
"higher learning"?

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 13:04:10 -0500, wrote:

.380 used to be the go to caliber for pocket guns but Kimber has a
real nice 9mm now that is the size of most .380s
It s a bit spendy tho.

A .380 in the pocket is better than a .380 in the truck.

On 12/24/2012 4:39 PM, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 02:43:03 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

Are British schoolchildren pumped full of Ritalin to control their
behavior or have the more Conservative humans kept control of the
government run schools? O_o

TDD

I don't see the connection.


That's the whole point my friend, you don't see. I do feel sorry for
you. O_o

TDD

Gold Star Award!


It's been more than 40 years since I was a college student tutoring
children with learning problems in my mother's psychometric clinic.
My specialty was hyperactive kids whom I could reach, understand and
communicate with for the simple reason that I was the same way at their
age. This was long before little boys were pumped full of drugs because
they behaved like little boys. The P.L.L.C.F. who infest the government
run educational system are so lazy as to want an easy way to cope with
little savages which is what little boys actually are. The easy way out
is to drug them out of their minds to suppress their true nature. WTF
do those people think is going to happen when all that wild energy is
pent up for at least 12 years? The idiot educators suppress it with
drugs instead of teaching the child to cope with it and find an outlet
for it that's nondestructive. The goofy education professionals want to
turn little boys into little girls so they're easier to control so it's
no surprise to me that the zombified little boys wind up crazier than a
Tasmanian Devil on angel dust when they reach adulthood. I've seen the
pattern, I've watched it happen over my lifetime and it's getting worse.
I feel so sorry for the little kids trapped in government schools these
days. O_o

TDD

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 17:15:24 -0600, Dean Hoffman
" wrote:

On 12/24/12 5:08 PM, z wrote:
On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 14:50:42 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 06:55:44 -0500, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

(Never have had any kind of answer of why the 2nd has to be limited in
such a manner but the 1st (for example) doesn't.


Politics

Democrats started gun control.

The first is next.


Isn't the First Amendment getting hammered in our institutions of
"higher learning"?

Certainly. The noise has also started in the FCC and Congress.
Remember the furor over the video that "caused" Benghazi? It won't be
long.

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 17:03:14 -0500, z wrote:

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 11:43:25 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 23:38:04 -0700, Ashton Crusher
wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 15:57:29 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 14:17:51 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:

snip

STUDIES show that gun-control has NO EFFECT because the results are
INCONCLUSIVE

No not ineffective, just INCONCLUSIVE. See my earlier reference to
the CDC.


Jesus, Inconclusive means it's possible the gun ban MAKE THINGS
WORSE. So in the absence of ANY evidence the gun ban had benefits you
want to keep rolling the dice when the result could just as easily be
MORE deaths plus the side effect of ****ing on the second amendment.


Geeze.... look up what "inconclusive" means.

Oh, good grief. You really are illiterate. It means that you cannot
draw any conclusions (Duh!). The results may be positive, neutral, or
negative but you can't come to any conclusions. However, the outcome
*MIGHT BE* harmful.

AC is perfectly correct. You're wrong (nothing new). QED.

Are you that illiterate. Get another dictionary so even you can
understand it !!

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 13:31:25 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 20:38:20 -0600, Doug
wrote:

In worst case scenario, better to replace a dead
guard than a dead teacher.

Go screw yourself, Doug. Where did you get the power to decide who
lives and dies?

I don't. It's called their job, idiot.

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 17:08:24 -0500, z wrote:

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 10:43:48 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 00:02:22 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 01:24:20 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

Doug wrote in
om:

I think teachers should just teach. I think armed guards
(professionals) will be better at protecting the students. I'm not
saying that armed teachers can't protect students but I see potential
problems with this idea.

And you *don't* see *actual* problems with the status quo?

Why does anyone think that laws declaring schools to be "gun free zones"
will magically
prevent criminals from bringing guns into schools? If someone is willing
to violate the law
prohibiting murder, why doesn anyone think he would *obey* a law that
prohibits him from
bringing a gun into a school?

Please note my careful choice of verbs in the preceding paragraph. Laws
*prohibit* bad
behavior. They do NOT *prevent* it.


That's why I think armed guards should be used vs. status quo.

Too bad your arguments for that (in other post) don't hold much water


We'll see.

We'll see what, exactly? That post made less sense than most of your
others.

Yeah okay...

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 17:09:04 -0500, z wrote:

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 10:57:58 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 23:37:10 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
...



I think teachers should just teach. I think armed guards
(professionals) will be better at protecting the students. I'm not
saying that armed teachers can't protect students but I see potential
problems with this idea.

Go ahead and list them


If you can't figure out what they are, I give up.


You've never stated them. Go ahead. We all waiting.

I honestly thought it was intuitive.

You haven't honestly had a thought in your life.


Whatever....

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 17:40:30 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 17:03:14 -0500, z wrote:

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 11:43:25 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 23:38:04 -0700, Ashton Crusher
wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 15:57:29 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 14:17:51 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:

snip

STUDIES show that gun-control has NO EFFECT because the results are
INCONCLUSIVE

No not ineffective, just INCONCLUSIVE. See my earlier reference to
the CDC.


Jesus, Inconclusive means it's possible the gun ban MAKE THINGS
WORSE. So in the absence of ANY evidence the gun ban had benefits you
want to keep rolling the dice when the result could just as easily be
MORE deaths plus the side effect of ****ing on the second amendment.


Geeze.... look up what "inconclusive" means.

Oh, good grief. You really are illiterate. It means that you cannot
draw any conclusions (Duh!). The results may be positive, neutral, or
negative but you can't come to any conclusions. However, the outcome
*MIGHT BE* harmful.

AC is perfectly correct. You're wrong (nothing new). QED.

Are you that illiterate.

IKWYABWAI is not a rational argument, not that it surprises anyone
here.

Get another dictionary so even you can understand it !!

You *are* an idiot. A stubborn one but an idiot, nonetheless.

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 17:42:26 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 13:31:25 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 20:38:20 -0600, Doug
wrote:

In worst case scenario, better to replace a dead
guard than a dead teacher.

Go screw yourself, Doug. Where did you get the power to decide who
lives and dies?

I don't. It's called their job, idiot.

Oh, wait a minute! You think it's the teacher's job to protect their
charges, yet you refuse to give them the tools to do "their job"? You
*want* more murdered! It all makes sense, now. What a moron.

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 17:11:14 -0500, z wrote:

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 11:02:17 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 17:26:17 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 14:14:28 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
om...
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 05:55:19 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:


Do you realize that we did ban "assault weapons" and high
capacity magazines for a decade, starting in 1994. Study after
study done by various organizations, including the CDC, which
clearly has no pro-gun agenda, concluded it made no difference
in crime rates, murder rates, etc.


Oh by the way, that's not what the CDC said. If you go to their
website...http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm
they say ....
"Evidence was INSUFFICIENT to determine the effectiveness of any of
these laws for the following reasons." They explain this as
depending on which study you go by, some say it went higher and other
studies say it went lower.


DOH !
1) The CDC has a history of being pro gun-control
2) The CC has had it's knuckles rapped by Congress because they got caught
at it
3) They studied more than 30 years of studies, and all they could come up
with is that ?

HELLO ?

How long do you want to study something before you go..
Hmmm
No evidence to support this theory after 30 years of studies
Maybe it's time to come up with a different theory
This is not "global warming" with a planet that operates by millenia
This is simple social issues that operate a MUCH, MUCH SHORTER scale
Try 5-10 years to have meaninfull data

Therefore, since it's inconclusive, I'd say to do it because taking no
action is NOT the solution.

Fine
But since it's INCONCLUSIVE after 30 years, then intelligent people are
NOT
going to go back and do the same old, same old that has proven
inconclusive
after all this time
SMART people are going to try something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.

How about trying to do what the Israeli did to protect their schools after
the palestinian terrorists decided to target their schools
They have nearly 40 years of NO MORE attacks on schools, while we with our
"Gun Free Zones" have 30+ years of school attacks being repeated over and
over...

HELLO ??




I have no problem with trying DIFFERENT so we may agree on that point
but I bet we'll disagree after that.

Then we can only hope that you do continue your "research" on not only the
2nd Amendment, but other subjects as well, so that you can come back and
argue more out of knowledge than ignorance.


I think you guys are really scared of research.

Good God, you're funny. You clearly have done none, yet claim
everyone else, including SCotUS is wrong. Your ignorance is simply
unbelievable.


Study the CDC site. Maybe you'll learn something for a change.

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 13:02:11 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 20:16:50 -0600, Doug
wrote:

Then you have NO CLUE as to the intent of the 2nd Amendment
The 2nd Amendment is ALL ABOUT citizens having the same arms as the police
and military


I disagree. I just researched the 2nd Amendment and no where does it
come close to saying this. It does NOT say you have the right to bear
ANY arms. You have the right to bear ARMS.

You *certainly* didn't research it very deeply (did you even read it).
It's all over the founder's writings. You can start he

http://www.minnesotamajority.org/Our...2/Default.aspx



I read your link. My research is still valid.

Hey Doug! What does the LAW say?!

It just tickles me that your research only lasted one day.


Yeah it's because I can read and learn fast.