Halt the Massacre of Innocent Children by Ending Prohibition on Self-Defense in Schools

At the end of the day, you still eat bugs and cook your food on a Coleman outdoor stove. You're a fucking Timothy McVeigh kinda lunatic, and you need help.

Did you wear the uniform, Münchausenman, so that my voice could be silenced? Did you wear the uniform to quell all disagreement with the President? Is that why you wore the uniform, Münchausenman? Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I wore it to defend the Constitution and my country from enemies both foreign and domestic.

You posted a list and claim your positions are those which only a true lover of the Constitution, liberty, and freedom can have.

I called you out for your claim and said what I thought of it. I have an as great if not greater love for everything my country stands for than you.

I qualified that statement by mentioning my service as a form of proof to back up what I say. You lack any proof that I am aware of.

Can you remind me? I've forgotten why you avoided service.
To avoid being part of a police state? Some other platitude?

I should have added that to have that love questioned by someone who enjoys the benefits but avoids service to our country is truly ironic.

No more ironic that no one tried to silence you. No one said or inferred you couldn't disagree with the President. Just like you can continue to tell people what they are really thinking or feeling when in reality you don't have a fucking clue.

No, you would silence us. Further proof you have your own constitution, one that only you can see.

Now add another worthless post on your way to 16000. Make it as profound as the rest.

The stupidity of the post is a given.

...the asswhipping LL didn't give me over the NDAA, wherein I proved his analysis was inadequate. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

cog, I didn't call it an "asswhipping," someone else did .... but ....

Is that why you started a new thread on the topic ..

..... to avoid the reality?

The "problem" with so many of your "chicken little" posts (and threads) is that they are based on journalistic-op-ed articles of someone's interpretation of the language of the Court's opinion using a "headline" mentality .... when there is a "strong" likelihood that a higher Court will toss the offensive language that brings on the claims that the "sky is falling."

As a lawyer (someone posted you are) you have probably heard the statement that "bad facts make bad law." Unfortunately, so many "laws" and "decisions" follow too closely to emotionally charged events and the knee-jerk reactions result in "bad laws."

At the same time some of the "knee-jerk" interpretations of "laws" and "decisions" result in some bad journalism, which results in some erroneous reporting and repeats of the "erroneous reporting" .....

the continuum of changing story in the current event tragedy demonstrates how a clamour for "breaking news" and "scoops" resulted in not only an innocent person being accused of a horrendus crime (or crimes), but the wrong location and numbers of deaths from the horrendus crimes.

I posted myself repeating some apparently wrong information that was being published in the media.

Reading the substance of the Court's opinions and the statutes with the links to associated statutes is helpful in arriving at a learned and well reasoned conclusion regarding the meaning and focus of proposed legislation and passsed legislation. When one adds to that process the time-honored principles of legislative interpretation exercised by Courts frequently, a more accurate result is reached, although probably less inciteful and "newsy"!

Millions of gun owners DID NOT shoot up a school, or anyone else. There is no need to infringe on their rights because of one person, who by all accounts, should have been in a mental hospital. In fact, his mother should have been there with him.

This makes sense to me:

Responsible gun owners can and do prevent mass shootings from occurring and escalating.

>A 1997 high school shooting in Pearl, Miss., was halted by the school's vice principal after he retrieved the Colt .45 he kept in his truck.

>A 1998 middle school shooting ended when a man living next door heard gunfire and apprehended the shooter with his shotgun.

>A 2002 terrorist attack at an Israeli school was quickly stopped by an armed teacher and a school guard.

>A 2002 law school shooting in Grundy, Va., came to an abrupt conclusion when students carrying firearms confronted the shooter.

>A 2007 mall shooting in Ogden, Utah, ended when an armed off-duty police officer intervened.

>A 2009 workplace shooting in Houston, Texas, was halted by two coworkers who carried concealed handguns.

>A 2012 church shooting in Aurora, Colo., was stopped by a member of the congregation carrying a gun.

>At the recent mall shooting in Portland, Ore., the gunman took his own life minutes after being confronted by a shopper carrying a concealed weapon.

The rest of the article is here:

http://www.lp.org/news/press-release...elf-defense-in Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

cog you make absolutely no sense.

all those shootings wouldn't have happened in the first place with proper gun control.

As a cause of death, school shootings are statistically almost non-existent. Lightning strikes kill more people, by two orders of magnitude. But if we think that school shootings demand effective action, as President Obama said in a televised address tonight, then the obvious course is to post an armed guard at every school. The problem with this approach is its expense; the same amount of money spent in many other ways could no doubt save more lives. But if we decide the expense is worthwhile, there are creative ways to raise the money. We could impose a tax on Hollywood–so many million dollars for every movie in which more than one person dies violently. Same for video games. And we could tax media outlets: any media outlet that has publicized mass shootings in the past pays one percent of its gross revenue to contribute to the cost of armed guards at schools.




School shootings are an eminently solvable problem. All we need is political will–not to ban “assault weapons,” which would do no good at all, but rather, to find creative funding mechanisms to pay the cost of adequate security. If school shootings are a problem that must be solved, it is time for Hollywood, video game makers, CNN and the New York Times to pay their fair share.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive...een-dismal.php

Clackamas Mall shooter killed himself after seeing gun carrier aiming at him

Posted by The Right Scoop on December 17th, 2012 in Politics
Nick Meli never shot his gun out of fear of hitting a bystander, but apparently seeing him with his gun was enough for the shooter at Clackamas Mall earlier this month to turn the gun on himself and commit suicide.

http://www.therightscoop.com/clackam...aiming-at-him/

Right To Carry Works.