On 1/1/13 12:59 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 1/1/2013 12:32 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 11:37:17 -0500, JustWait
wrote:

On 12/31/2012 11:12 AM, JustWait wrote:


Quite frankly I think the training should be based on the training a
rookie Police Officer comes in with... This might mean a couple years of
night school, but if you are going to have armed anybody in the schools
I think they need all the tools of conflict resolution, physical
ability, tactical awareness, etc that a fully trained Police Officer
has.


Why do we think there is something wonderful about the training cops
have?

Because a lot of their training is directed at exactly the type of
incursion we are talking about here...

Remember last summer the cops in New York shot 11 innocent bystanders,
taking down one suspect. They weren't even rookies.


It called "the fog of war"... it was terrible, but it happened. Hey, I
hear a plane crashed once, maybe we just shouldn't fly either...

Do you think a bunch of untrained civilians would do any better? In
fact, can you give me one identifiable group that you think would be
better suited for such duty?


I think it would be better if we kept armed people of every kind away
from our public schools.

I'd rather we spend that sort of money, or a good portion of it on:

1. Licensing gun owners and guns, and that includes all current gun
owners and their firearms. Licensing to include a mandatory safety
course and demonstration of knowledge at a licensed firing range.

2. No private sales of firearms without a legal paper trail.

3. Drastically increased funding for community mental health screening
and services.

4. Outlawing of firearms that can accommodate more than 10 rounds in a
magazine, and required turning in or permanent modification of existing
firearms.

5. Educational programs in the public schools that teach children how to
resolve conflict without "going Scotty."

In article ,
says...

On Tuesday, January 1, 2013 12:07:51 PM UTC-5, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,

says...



On Tuesday, January 1, 2013 10:27:26 AM UTC-5, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,



says...







On Monday, December 31, 2012 3:43:40 PM UTC-5, Boating All Out wrote:







The pot smokers are all wired to vote.







No, they are "wired" to eat cheetos and watch cartoons. They'd forget to vote.







Proof your ramblings are those of an idiot.







Proof that you are narrow minded.



Have some personal experience with that, eh?



I sure do,

So you're a pot-head? Figures.

You stupid fool!!!! Can you not comprehend and follow a thread??? I
said, "Proof that you are narrow minded". To which you asked "Have some
personal experience with that, eh?"....... And I said "sure do........"
and of course to try to make your stupid point, you failed to post the
rest of my answer. How Harryesque of you.

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 11:37:17 -0500, JustWait
wrote:

On 12/31/2012 11:12 AM, JustWait wrote:


Quite frankly I think the training should be based on the training a
rookie Police Officer comes in with... This might mean a couple years of
night school, but if you are going to have armed anybody in the schools
I think they need all the tools of conflict resolution, physical
ability, tactical awareness, etc that a fully trained Police Officer has.


Why do we think there is something wonderful about the training cops
have?
Remember last summer the cops in New York shot 11 innocent bystanders,
taking down one suspect. They weren't even rookies.

Exactly. But Scotty and the far right wingers are hell bent on arming
elementary schools.

In article , says...

On 1/1/2013 12:32 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 11:37:17 -0500, JustWait
wrote:

On 12/31/2012 11:12 AM, JustWait wrote:


Quite frankly I think the training should be based on the training a
rookie Police Officer comes in with... This might mean a couple years of
night school, but if you are going to have armed anybody in the schools
I think they need all the tools of conflict resolution, physical
ability, tactical awareness, etc that a fully trained Police Officer has.


Why do we think there is something wonderful about the training cops
have?

Because a lot of their training is directed at exactly the type of
incursion we are talking about here...

Bull****.

Remember last summer the cops in New York shot 11 innocent bystanders,
taking down one suspect. They weren't even rookies.


It called "the fog of war"... it was terrible, but it happened. Hey, I
hear a plane crashed once, maybe we just shouldn't fly either...

"it happened".... Will you say the same thing when I bunch of elementary
school kids are caught in the crossfire because some NRA zealot goes
nuts when someone brings a squirt gun to school?

Do you think a bunch of untrained civilians would do any better? In
fact, can you give me one identifiable group that you think would be
better suited for such duty?

No, and I don't think our grade schools are the place for guns.

iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

On Monday, December 31, 2012 4:22:26 PM UTC-4, Califbill wrote:
wrote:

On Monday, December 31, 2012 8:58:58 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,



says...







Looks like things are getting crazier by the minute down there...



http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourcommunity...-shooting.html







What is YOUR solution?



Disarm the population...with an exception for shotguns and legitimate hunting rifles.



The founders did not include gun rights because of hunting. They wanted

the leaders to have a fear of the populace. The problem we have, and

seeing a few mass murders in Canada also, the problem includes canada, is

that we have both a general breakdown in society and a mental health system

that is mostly nonexistent and overly constrained by law.

All the more reason to limit ownership of firearms.

Cars kill people, we need to limit cars, especially those evil SUVs.

Do you really, I mean really fall for that ignorant rhetoric?? Every
time I hear a far right wing NRA whack job spew that **** I always
think, I wonder if that individual is really that stupid....

Read the paper or listen to the reporters. Is always an SUV killing or
causing the accident. Not the fact the driver was an idiot, or drunk, or
even the fact the other car caused the accident. If an SUV was involved,
is always identified.

iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

On 12/31/12 5:24 PM, thumper wrote:
On 12/31/2012 1:23 PM, Califbill wrote:

See what the control advocates in Canada have accomplished. You can have
you petty dictator run roughshod all he wants.

If they tried that here you'd shoot him?



Bilious Bill thinks the army of NRA members, once it emerges from its
beer-induced stupor in the woods deer hunting expedition, will be able
to stage a successful insurrection against the forces of the United
States. More likely, they'll shoot each other.

Why does Harry Reid carry a concealed handgun?

Cite?

Same as Feinstien's bodyguard carrying a submachine gun.

iBoaterer wrote:
In article 1268645888378694356.654977bmckeenospam-
, says...

ESAD wrote:
On 12/31/12 5:24 PM, thumper wrote:
On 12/31/2012 1:23 PM, Califbill wrote:

See what the control advocates in Canada have accomplished. You can have
you petty dictator run roughshod all he wants.

If they tried that here you'd shoot him?



Bilious Bill thinks the army of NRA members, once it emerges from its
beer-induced stupor in the woods deer hunting expedition, will be able to
stage a successful insurrection against the forces of the United States.
More likely, they'll shoot each other.

Actually only takes one shooter to really change history. WW1 started with
one shooter. Biggest change in US history was probably Sirhan Sirhan. He
gave us Nixon, Carter, Reagan.

Sirhan had the ability to read and act into the future, altering what
happens? How?

You have no analytic ability. Bobbie Kennedy would have been President,
and that would have changed the following Presidents, and those three made
some of the biggest changes in the country. Not all for the good.

iBoaterer wrote:
In article 1805701577378681744.653332bmckeenospam-
, says...

wrote:
On Monday, December 31, 2012 4:22:26 PM UTC-4, Califbill wrote:
wrote:

On Monday, December 31, 2012 8:58:58 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,



says...







Looks like things are getting crazier by the minute down there...



http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourcommunity...-shooting.html







What is YOUR solution?



Disarm the population...with an exception for shotguns and legitimate hunting rifles.



The founders did not include gun rights because of hunting. They wanted

the leaders to have a fear of the populace. The problem we have, and

seeing a few mass murders in Canada also, the problem includes canada, is

that we have both a general breakdown in society and a mental health system

that is mostly nonexistent and overly constrained by law.

All the more reason to limit ownership of firearms.

See what the control advocates in Canada have accomplished. You can have
you petty dictator run roughshod all he wants.

Here's how you do it:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexin...12/gun-control




And, to be crude, having few guns does mean that few people get shot. In
2008-2009, there were 39 fatal injuries from crimes involving firearms
in England and Wales, with a population about one sixth the size of
America?s. In America, there were 12,000 gun-related homicides in 2008.

The murder rate in England is about one third the US. Guns are very
tightly controlled, so the weapon of choice is different. Robbery and
assault are at a higher rate than the US. Remove the drug war shootings,
and our rate would plummet. New York has always had a higher murder rate,
and had control a decade earlier than England. We are also a country that
was settled by people with a more aggressive tendency.

ESAD wrote:
On 12/31/12 7:56 PM, Califbill wrote:
ESAD wrote:
On 12/31/12 5:24 PM, thumper wrote:
On 12/31/2012 1:23 PM, Califbill wrote:

See what the control advocates in Canada have accomplished. You can have
you petty dictator run roughshod all he wants.

If they tried that here you'd shoot him?



Bilious Bill thinks the army of NRA members, once it emerges from its
beer-induced stupor in the woods deer hunting expedition, will be able to
stage a successful insurrection against the forces of the United States.
More likely, they'll shoot each other.

Actually only takes one shooter to really change history. WW1 started with
one shooter. Biggest change in US history was probably Sirhan Sirhan. He
gave us Nixon, Carter, Reagan.


Your boy Crazy Zell is past his prime.

Another stupid, nothing post from you.

In article 707354998378760787.458258bmckeenospam-
, says...

iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

On Monday, December 31, 2012 4:22:26 PM UTC-4, Califbill wrote:
wrote:

On Monday, December 31, 2012 8:58:58 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,



says...







Looks like things are getting crazier by the minute down there...



http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourcommunity...-shooting.html







What is YOUR solution?



Disarm the population...with an exception for shotguns and legitimate hunting rifles.



The founders did not include gun rights because of hunting. They wanted

the leaders to have a fear of the populace. The problem we have, and

seeing a few mass murders in Canada also, the problem includes canada, is

that we have both a general breakdown in society and a mental health system

that is mostly nonexistent and overly constrained by law.

All the more reason to limit ownership of firearms.

Cars kill people, we need to limit cars, especially those evil SUVs.

Do you really, I mean really fall for that ignorant rhetoric?? Every
time I hear a far right wing NRA whack job spew that **** I always
think, I wonder if that individual is really that stupid....

Read the paper or listen to the reporters. Is always an SUV killing or
causing the accident. Not the fact the driver was an idiot, or drunk, or
even the fact the other car caused the accident. If an SUV was involved,
is always identified.

Okay, let me try to put in so that even you can understand it. What is
the purpose and intent in owning an SUV? Is it to kill something or
someone? Now ask the same question about someone owning a gun. Do people
own guns to get from point A to point B? Do people own assault weapons
to carry groceries or take the kids to baseball practice? Now doesn't
that above bull**** sound silly?