It happened again :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dythbringer

I understand that and what you just posted furthers my points. If the collective willpower isn't there to change the 2nd amendment, nothing will ever change. But I don't think that having armed teachers is the solution to this problem. The real solution is to change the notion the US public has the wording of right to bear arms automatically is synonymous with a firearm and while everyone has a right to defend themselves, not everyone has the privilege to do it with a firearm because of the real danger of misuse by individuals who shouldn't have access to them.

---

What would you define as "arms"? Would I have the right to carry a spear or a sword, but not to have/carry a firearm? Even if the criminials have guns, you think people should maybe only have baseball bats.

In your last post you said that criminials don't need guns, because they could carry a knife for "defence". CONVICTED Criminials don't have the right to carry "ANYTHING". I have more rights in the US then a convicted criminal.

I am typing this post as I sit at a terminal in Newport, MN, and watch the armed Muslim guards with your "Assult" rifles, walk around the grounds of the mosque across the street.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BIG MAC

Joe Pa, you are off the list to have to guard the schools against a shooter, Cadet ''''Donny Bone Spurs'''' said in a Speech Yesterday he will be running into buildings without a Gun to take these Bad Guys out. So all is Safe.

I'm not sure who they pay to go along after Donny Bone Spurs and clean up the he spews but hope he is paid good Money, because it's a 24/7 Job.

---

http://www.commonsenseevaluation.com....376uHw6z.dpbs
Attachment 36762.........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snowwalker

What would you define as "arms"? Would I have the right to carry a spear or a sword, but not to have/carry a firearm? Even if the criminials have guns, you think people should maybe only have baseball bats.

In your last post you said that criminials don't need guns, because they could carry a knife for "defence". CONVICTED Criminials don't have the right to carry "ANYTHING". I have more rights in the US then a convicted criminal.

I am typing this post as I sit at a terminal in Newport, MN, and watch the armed Muslim guards with your "Assult" rifles, walk around the grounds of the mosque across the street.

---

I define arms as a weapon (everything from a hammer to a firearm). The 2nd amendment states arms. It doesn't state firearms or guns despite the fact it was written when firearms were used by the populace. Yes, you have the right to arm yourself but not necessarily automatically with a firearm. Nothing in the 2nd amendment says that you do. I never said anything about law abiding citizens not have access to firearms. I think people should come to the realization that firearms in the improper hands are the problem here but no one wants to deal with that issue.

In my post I never refer to criminals. I use JoePa's terminology of bad guys. I inferred from his terminology a bad guy is a person who shouldn't have access to firearms because they are not a criminal until they point a firearm at a person and pull the trigger. There are plenty of people out there who would fall into this category but under the current US system, they still are allowed to have access to firearms.

Furthermore, you imply I stand with the militant left on their version of gun control based on your statement that those guards are carrying my "assult" rifles. Your statement is extremely disingenuous. I have stated many times on this forum that the AR-15 is not an assault rifle. I have stated that I think a person in Canada should be able to hunt with restricted firearms. I have also stated that a firearm should be classified by how it operates; not by how it looks.

Once again people have been killed by a person who was able to legally acquire firearms the way the US law is currently written. How many more times does this have to happen before people begin to understand that?

There is a balance. Canada has shown that. Is it perfect? No, I think it could be better. However, it works.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dythbringer

In my post I never refer to criminals. I use JoePa's terminology of bad guys. I inferred from his terminology a bad guy is a person who shouldn't have access to firearms because they are not a criminal until they point a firearm at a person and pull the trigger. There are plenty of people out there who would fall into this category but under the current US system, they still are allowed to have access to firearms.

---

So a person does not become a criminal till they shoot someone with a firearm. They can rob, loot, beat, stab, rape as long as they don't use a firearm and they would NOT be a criminal? As I said a convicted criminal can not carry anything. You get in a argument with your wife and you can lose your right to bear arms.
The local Sheriff and the FBI had many many complants and reports of the latest guy making threats and doing things that should have red flagged him at least. Yet no one did anything. There is evidence coming out that there was an Obama government policy to give local schools districts more money if they decreased the number of charges layed against students. If the proper charges had been layed against this guy, he would have never been able to buy guns.

Think about it
https://pin.it/36dtymwkzrhwpi

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snowwalker

So a person does not become a criminal till they shoot someone with a firearm. They can rob, loot, beat, stab, rape as long as they don't use a firearm and they would NOT be a criminal? As I said a convicted criminal can not carry anything. You get in a argument with your wife and you can lose your right to bear arms.
The local Sheriff and the FBI had many many complants and reports of the latest guy making threats and doing things that should have red flagged him at least. Yet no one did anything. There is evidence coming out that there was an Obama government policy to give local schools districts more money if they decreased the number of charges layed against students. If the proper charges had been layed against this guy, he would have never been able to buy guns.

---

Reread my post again. Specifically where I said I inferred from JoePa what a bad guy is. I never said a person only becomes a criminal when they shoot someone with a firearm. Quit putting words into my mouth.

Ture, the FBI and Sheriff had many complaints about this guy. True, they didn't do anything about it. Had they done so, we wouldn't be having the conversation about this. But there was a failure by the authorities and Cruz was able to legally purchase a firearm despite needing no proof that he wasn't a danger to the public, of sound mind, and could prove he how to operate a firearm safely.

The US public accepts highly regulates items which, in the wrong hands, represent a real danger to the public such as explosives but they spew their collective speens when you speak about regulating firearms despite the fact a firearm in the wrong hands is a danger to the public.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dythbringer

Reread my post again. Specifically where I said I inferred from JoePa what a bad guy is. I never said a person only becomes a criminal when they shoot someone with a firearm. Quit putting words into my mouth.

---

I am not putting words in your mouth, but your saying/typing basicly what I asked you about.

Snowwalker, what about the Shooter in Las Vegas, from what I have read and seen there is not one shred of evidence that this guy has any previous criminal related charges. So he isn't a bad Guy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snowwalker

So a person does not become a criminal till they shoot someone with a firearm. They can rob, loot, beat, stab, rape as long as they don't use a firearm and they would NOT be a criminal? As I said a convicted criminal can not carry anything. You get in a argument with your wife and you can lose your right to bear arms.
The local Sheriff and the FBI had many many complants and reports of the latest guy making threats and doing things that should have red flagged him at least. Yet no one did anything. There is evidence coming out that there was an Obama government policy to give local schools districts more money if they decreased the number of charges layed against students. If the proper charges had been layed against this guy, he would have never been able to buy guns.

---

Apparently,in American law,even when the Police and FBI knew that Cruz was nuts,there's still no mechanism in place where they can arbitrarily seize his firearm(s) without due process of law. A criminal must commit a crime before Police can lay charges or take away someone's lawfully held private property. It's called "freedom" guaranteed by The Second Amendment. The US Supreme Court has ruled on many occassions on that part of the Constitution,so,it's pretty much carved in stone. America is literally caught between a rock and a hard place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BIG MAC

Snowwalker, what about the Shooter in Las Vegas, from what I have read and seen there is not one shred of evidence that this guy has any previous criminal related charges. So he isn't a bad Guy.

---

Well that is the problem. No he "WAS NOT" a bad guy till after the shooting, at which time he was just a dead guy.

Every other shooter they have had, has had a history of problems with police, mental health issues, or red flags that should have been but were never put in to the records. With nothing in the records, there was nothing to show up in the back ground checks. The school district where the last shooting happened, was in a FEDERAL program that gave the district extra money for not laying charges. The fewer students that got charged for assults/threats the more money the school got.

They sold the lives of 17 people for a few extra federal dollars.