Bill

[sirs]

But I do appreciate the effort in the more mature response efforts.  Thank you.  I will attempt to respond in kind

[Plane]

Preventing the bad guys from getting on campus is preferable to having lots of guys with guns cruising around.

You are free to think this , but I am puzzled as to why you should. What is or could be done to keep bad guys from having access to Campus?

There is a reason why soldiers are not allowed to wear sidearms at the Pentagon and other military bases.

Yes , someone wants vunerability because they fear ordinary people more than they fear terrorists. When a terrorist actually shows up he shoots up a lot of people with impunity, but this is far preferred to trusting the ordinary guy , even soldiers , with guns.

[BSB]

Ding ding ding, wrong again poster Sirs. Ft Hood's size was not one of the reasons the shooting was as deadly as it was.  It occurred near the hub of the base, ruling your latest theory null and void.


BSB 

[BSB]

"Yes , someone wants vunerability because they fear ordinary people more than they fear terrorists. When a terrorist actually shows up he shoots up a lot of people with impunity, but this is far preferred to trusting the ordinary guy , even soldiers , with guns."


Would you elaberate on this?  "someone wants vunerability", what does that mean?


BSB

[sirs]

Ding ding ding, wrong again poster Sirs. Ft Hood's size was not one of the reasons the shooting was as deadly as it was.  It occurred near the hub of the base, ruling your latest theory null and void.

And yet, the massacre DID occur, with folks ON BASE.  Too bad some of the other military weren't allowed to carry.  Could have stopped so many of the murdered from ever happening

Welp, we learn from our mistakes

[Plane]

"Yes , someone wants vunerability because they fear ordinary people more than they fear terrorists. When a terrorist actually shows up he shoots up a lot of people with impunity, but this is far preferred to trusting the ordinary guy , even soldiers , with guns."


Would you elaberate on this?  "someone wants vunerability", what does that mean?


BSB

There are one in a thousand who want to be a murderer, fewer than one in a million want to be a mass murderer.
So we are busy disarming the thousand, with measures that will not disarm the one.

These are not measures that stand any chance of preventing mass killing, nor even make them particularly difficult.

These are measures that increase the vunerability and dependance of the common man.

[sirs]

"Yes , someone wants vunerability because they fear ordinary people more than they fear terrorists. When a terrorist actually shows up he shoots up a lot of people with impunity, but this is far preferred to trusting the ordinary guy , even soldiers , with guns."

Would you elaberate on this?  "someone wants vunerability", what does that mean?

BSB

There are one in a thousand who want to be a murderer, fewer than one in a million want to be a mass murderer.
So we are busy disarming the thousand, with measures that will not disarm the one.

These are not measures that stand any chance of preventing mass killing, nor even make them particularly difficult.

These are measures that increase the vunerability and dependance of the common man.

And Plane hits another outa the park.   

[Plane]

And Plane hits another outa the park.   

Thank you.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I observe that countries that have low gun ownership rates, as well as countries that have prudent gun restrictions, like Switzerland, have many, many fewer mass gun massacres. In fact, I do not think there has ever been such a massacre in either Japan or Switzerland.

The idea that everyone should have a gun so they can overthrow the government is just bogus. It could never happen. The US government could easily end any insurrection with drones, sleep gas, heat rays, sonic devices and probably other devices.

[sirs]

The idea that everyone should have a gun so they can overthrow the government is just bogus.

A) not should, but could, as in can, as in the freedom to.  You, like B, keep getting freedom confused with some sort of mandate
B) Then by all means, get a Constitutional Convention up and running, and amend it.  The mechanisms were put in place precisely to deal with what YOU think is bogus or obsolete.

Good luck with that

[Xavier_Onassis]

Again. the argument that the US Army could be overthrown by the puny weapons that are permitted is just bogus.

[sirs]

Again, good luck in amending the Constitution. 

But notice how much more puny folks like yourself are trying to make us and the weapons we're "permitted" to bear.  Kinda like a self fulfilling prophecy

It's alot like what the left has done in CA, regarding the Death Penalty.  The argument for removing it is that its "too costly" to the state.  Well, guess who made it that way?  And before anyone like Xo tries to mutate that clear statement into some advocacy that 2 hours after the trial we shoot the newly convicted, automatic appeals SHOULD be in order for all death penalty convictions.  They shouldn't however be dragged out for 20+years.  6-7 tops, but I'd advocate that it should be more like 4-5

But the rhetoric that we need to abolish because it costs too much is precisely as a result of folks who've always wanted to abolish it, so they kept putting up more and more legal hurdles, and dragging the process (& COST) over years

[Plane]

Again. the argument that the US Army could be overthrown by the puny weapons that are permitted is just bogus.

Then we should permit better wepons .

When the constitution was written the people had more firepower than the government did, and the writers of the constitution and the Federalist papers made it clear that this was a desireable condition.

I consider it a desireable condition myself , but I can't afford an A-10.

Odviously the guns that really should be banned are the US Armed forces guns.

The Pentagon should not be allowed any wepons more potent than the public can have, or afford.

This would fit right in with the sequester.

[sirs]

Again. the argument that the US Army could be overthrown by the puny weapons that are permitted is just bogus.

Odviously the guns that really should be banned are the US Armed forces guns.

The Pentagon should not be allowed any wepons more potent than the public can have, or afford.

This would fit right in with the sequester.

I think Plane's on to something, here