Yet Another Gun Outrage in USA

[Prakhonchai Nick]

]Hey Nick congratulations on your PR status.

Thanks Ahab, but the are some 22 years late!   

[Ahab]

Better late than never.

[rufusredtail]

A few have said that they will not go into malls and shopping centres because they are gun free zones, well if it dosent infringe on your RIGHTS change the law , all forests you can have guns, every where else is a GUN FREE ZONE, WE ARE BANGING OUR HEADS AGAINST A BRICK WALL TRYING TO CONVINCE THOSE IN AMERICA, that less guns are LESS DEATHS .

[CO-CO]

A few have said that they will not go into malls and shopping centres because they are gun free zones, well if it dosent infringe on your RIGHTS change the law , all forests you can have guns, every where else is a GUN FREE ZONE, WE ARE BANGING OUR HEADS AGAINST A BRICK WALL TRYING TO CONVINCE THOSE IN AMERICA, that less guns are LESS DEATHS .

Unfortunately, some seem to genuinely believethat more guns = less deaths.

That, to me, is a major issue for America to deal with.

[urleft]

There is talk on putting armed guards, or even arming teachers. 

Several years ago I was trying to move to Florida, there was a High School Position available for Mathmatics.  Under the soldiers to teachers plan I applied as I have a BS in Math.  I was denied because I did not have a teaching certificate and there was no waiver process for experience/time served in the Military.  I provided formal instruction to Soldiers for over 20 years, but because I did have official "teachers certificate" I was unqualifed. 

But on the other side of the coin, who would want a "scary" "sad" individual like me to instruct their children and would ready to protect them if needed.   


BTW, the Libs such as Bloonberg want to keep schoold defenseless, here is his plan:
 
 
 
 

[toffo]

If your gun laws where better your schools would be safer.. I dont understand how you can be so blind to the fact.. I give up anyways its like talking to fergie

[CO-CO]

If your gun laws where better your schools would be safer.. I dont understand how you can be so blind to the fact.. I give up anyways its like talking to fergie

wasn't aware that you knew the Black Eyed Peas, Toffo :-)

[toffo]

 

[RonTexas]

There is talk on putting armed guards, or even arming teachers. 

Several years ago I was trying to move to Florida, there was a High School Position available for Mathmatics.  Under the soldiers to teachers plan I applied as I have a BS in Math.  I was denied because I did not have a teaching certificate and there was no waiver process for experience/time served in the Military.  I provided formal instruction to Soldiers for over 20 years, but because I did have official "teachers certificate" I was unqualifed. 

But on the other side of the coin, who would want a "scary" "sad" individual like me to instruct their children and would ready to protect them if needed.   Well said my American brother in arms. Do I see anyone else standing up to defend the children and the innocent and put their lives at risk for the privilege to do so and right  to do the natural thing.  Were have all the men with balls went? RonTexas said that.


BTW, the Libs such as Bloonberg want to keep schoold defenseless, here is his plan:

[nookiebear]

Certainly got some mileage out of thsi one!!!!!How long before the next outrage,,,,,,,,,,

[urleft]

deleted, posted wrong
 

[urleft]

If your gun laws where better your schools would be safer.. I dont understand how you can be so blind to the fact.. I give up anyways its like talking to fergie

You are I are actually agreeing, I voted to change the gun laws in America, I want them to be better. 

We disagree over what is better.  I think better would be letting law abiding citizens have the ability to protect themselves, you want more of their rights restricted or removed making them more of a victim.   

An Armed Person is a Citizen; An Unarmed Person is a Subject


By Michael McCullough on January 29, 2007 6:40 PM | No Comments | No TrackBacks
 

Contrary to the belief of many of our fellow citizens, the purpose of the United States Constitution is not to grant us rights. Our rights, given to us by our Creator, are inalienable. The purpose of the Constitution is to limit the powers of the federal government. Look at the language of the Bill of Rights. It is chock full of “shall not” and “shall make no;” all of which refer to the United States government.

Our explicit rights, that is, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are contingent wholly upon our implicit right: the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The intent of the Second Amendment is to preserve and guarantee, not grant, a pre-existing right; again, the right of the people to keep and bear arms......

http://www.mcculloughsite.net/stingray/2007/01/29/an-armed-person-is-a-citizen-an-unarmed-perso.php

[Prakhonchai Nick]

The 2nd amendment was adopted more than 200 years ago  -  December 15, 1791 to be precise.

Surely it is now time to reconsider what your ancestors thought was correect at the time.

[sao baht]

The 2nd amendment was adopted more than 200 years ago  -  December 15, 1791 to be precise.

Surely it is now time to reconsider what your ancestors thought was correect at the time.

An interesting article here.....  The Second Amendment: Wrong Centerpiece for the Gun Debate

[nookiebear]

FFS ,some people ,ONE in particular, must be as thick as bricks!