Nra calls for armed police officer in every school

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
oldcatholicguy said:
And no where has anyone argued for the non-regulation of all firearms. In fact you’re the only poster I’ve seen who even brings the concept of no regulation of firearms into the discussion.

That being said, you still haven’t addressed my point concerning who is presenting a biased view in regards to what the CCC states concerning self defense.
Click to expand...
Again, yea, right. The threads on this subject are full of posts rejecting any type controls.

No need, we’ve said it all before. I know your stand, and you know mine.
 
oldcatholicguy said:
“…forgive us our trespasses…” has nothing to do with the use of violence in regards to self defense and everything to do with the use of violence in regards to vengeance. In fact, if it did than your argument for the use of violence and firearms by the “authority” would be invalid.
Click to expand...
It’s a ‘frame of mind.’ Some call it the ‘culture of death,’ and blame it as the root cause of the shootings. It’s being desensitized by video games, movies, crime in the world today, and a society that believes one must live by the gun, in my opinion.

That culture of death changes His teaching, again in my opinion, that makes preparing for self defense necessary.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Again, yea, right. The threads on this subject are full of posts rejecting any type controls.

No need, we’ve said it all before. I know your stand, and you know mine.
Click to expand...
Actually, they aren’t. I know this because I presented a list of possible, and in my view reasonable, controls on firearms in response to one of your posts and I know you know this because you responded to my post agreeing with my list. What these threads are full of are posts that disagree with your suggestions not because the posters want unregulated firearm ownership, but because your suggestions either violate the law or are ineffective (such as your punitive and unenforceable gun safe stance which is,as another poster pointed out, already in effect in Chicago and has had little to no impact on gun violence there).
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
It’s a ‘frame of mind.’ Some call it the ‘culture of death,’ and blame it as the root cause of the shootings. It’s being desensitized by video games, movies, crime in the world today, and a society that believes one must live by the gun, in my opinion.

That culture of death changes His teaching, again in my opinion, that makes preparing for self defense necessary.
Click to expand...
Does not address my point.
 
oldcatholicguy said:
Actually, they aren’t. I know this because I presented a list of possible, and in my view reasonable, controls on firearms in response to one of your posts and I know you know this because you responded to my post agreeing with my list. What these threads are full of are posts that disagree with your suggestions not because the posters want unregulated firearm ownership, but because your suggestions either violate the law or are ineffective (such as your punitive and unenforceable gun safe stance which is,as another poster pointed out, already in effect in Chicago and has had little to no impact on gun violence there).
Click to expand...
I am going to concede the last word to you.

Before hand, I did agree with your list and found your constructive contribution unique, and somewhat refreshing; however, you are not the only poster on these threads and you can see there are posters who reject any controls. I remember there were two in your list that were similar to some of my suggestions. That’s what makes a constructive discussion.

Now, I see we’ve gone back to anything I say is wrong, and spins of what I say are added. That’s why I don’t want to continue our discussion, it’s circular and doesn’t end.

By the way, the sky is blue.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
I am going to concede the last word to you.

Before hand, I did agree with your list and found your constructive contribution unique, and somewhat refreshing; however, you are not the only poster on these threads and you can see there are posters who reject any controls. I remember there were two in your list that were similar to some of my suggestions. That’s what makes a constructive discussion.

Now, I see we’ve gone back to anything I say is wrong, and spins of what I say are added. That’s why I don’t want to continue our discussion, it’s circular and doesn’t end.

By the way, the sky is blue.
Click to expand...
Please post your supporting evidence for the bold. Like you I’ve pretty much read every post in the firearms related threads, but unlike you I haven’t run across anyone calling for a rejection of any controls (such as unregulated ownership of automatic weapons or non-small arms munitions or weapon systems). There are posters who have complained about the ineffective and illogical gun control measures we have now, there are posters who have argued that gun control measures will not have a large impact on reducing gun violence due to guns not being the source of the violence, and there are posters who call for less regulation; but I haven’t seen one poster call for a rejection of any controls on firearm ownership.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
My vehicles have never killed anyone, and no one has died at my house, should I be forced to buy insurance?
Click to expand...
You’re not.
What are swimming pools and bath tubs designed for, and what are guns designed for? How many mass murderers are committing mass homicides with swimming pools and bath tubs?
Click to expand...
Guns are designed to mechano-chemically project a bullet at a high rate of speed; what of it?

As for mass murders, via water, more than guns given the penchant for mentally ill parents to drive minivans full of their kids into lakes which happens alot more frequently than these shootings.

Again, how will you regulate waters capacity to drown the CHILDREN?!?
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Yea, right. I can, and have said, put the lives of society above my right to be armed, at all times. I view any reasonable controls to be minor inconveniences, and would be more than willing to accept any that might spare one life, even.
Click to expand...
Then follow all of the self-imposed restrictions you wish to place on yourself.

Don’t throw my freedoms away because you do not value yours.
 
Geist said:
You’re not.

Guns are designed to mechano-chemically project a bullet at a high rate of speed; what of it?

As for mass murders, via water, more than guns given the penchant for mentally ill parents to drive minivans full of their kids into lakes which happens alot more frequently than these shootings.

Again, how will you regulate waters capacity to drown the CHILDREN?!?
Click to expand...
No matter how you want to soften it, guns are designed to kill.

The water argument seems to be an attempt to cloud the issue. How many mass murderers have mass drowned children? There are a lot of things that can kill, but guns were designed specifically for that purpose and seems to be the preferable weapon of choice for the recent mass shootings.
 
Geist said:
Did you tell all the homeless people this? They’d probably like to know.
Click to expand...
Then according to your argument, they have a right to bear arms. Should we provide them one right away?:rolleyes:
 
Geist said:
Then follow all of the self-imposed restrictions you wish to place on yourself.

Don’t throw my freedoms away because you do not value yours.
Click to expand...
Brother, or sister,

No offense, but your arguments lack any constructive qualities, and to be frank are silly in some respects.

I know where you stand, and you know where I stand, on the issue. Let’s leave it at that and we don’t need to discuss it further.
 
MODERATOR NOTICE

Please charitably discuss the issues and not each other
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
No matter how you want to soften it, guns are designed to kill.
Click to expand...
Some are, some aren’t

For example, I’ve supervised the range at our local gun club. A number of the youth shooting team show up to practice.

I noticed a ‘bumper sticker’ type thing on the case of a rifle belonging to a teen girl. The rifle was Anschutz 1903

The sticker said “Precision Paper Punching Equipment” :), which is exactly what that gun is designed to be.
 
Brendan said:
Some are, some aren’t

For example, I’ve supervised the range at our local gun club. A number of the youth shooting team show up to practice.

I noticed a ‘bumper sticker’ type thing on the case of a rifle belonging to a teen girl. The rifle was Anschutz 1903

The sticker said “Precision Paper Punching Equipment” :), which is exactly what that gun is designed to be.
Click to expand...
Agreed. If my son’s Savage Mark II is designed to kill it’s a lousy design.
 
Guns are designed to hit targets. If guns were designed to kill, then every gun in existence would have eventually killed something.
 
Guns were invented, and designed, to kill. Some are more efficient than others, but guns are designed to kill.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Guns were invented, and designed, to kill. Some are more efficient than others, but guns are designed to kill.
Click to expand...
So what? A gun can do absolutely nothing without a finger pulling the trigger. IN effect, a gun is an inanimate object that extends the intent of the user.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top