Another shooting. Defending the indefensible.

[Mem]

The desire to kill your brother stands at the door, and its desire is for you, and you must rule over it.

 

[Gideon300]

Your country doesn't have a 2nd amendment to your constitution.

You have allowed your government to almost fully disarm it's citizenry. There are a myriad of reasons to own a firearm, but one that has been written about by our founding fathers is the need to thwart an oppressive government.
I think that was a primary reason why you allowed them to force almost 95% of your fellow citizens to be injected with a toxic, deadly agent.
Now your excess deaths are off the chart!

INCLUDING many "dead kids" because of the gov tyranny in forcing untested gene therapies into the little ones arms.

Your unfounded conspiracy claims are proven to be false. We do not have bodies lying in the street or children dropping like flies. No, we don't have a second amendment. We do not have a bill of rights. We do have the right to send our kids to school without them being dressed in Kevlar to protect them from psychos with guns.

Do you not know what the Bible says about obeying the authorities? That was written during the Roman occupation of Israel and most of the Middle East and much of Europe. You don't see the Christians of that era forming armies to defend against Roman oppression, even when Nero started murdering believers, feeding them to lions and burning them alive. Christians should be praying for their civil leaders, not assuming that they are the enemy. You do not need guns when God is your fortress and strength. And a gun won't help you when you are facing a Bradley or an Apache helicopter.

 

[cv5]

If you have read my previous posts you would know I don't advocate any restrictions on firearms. I actually have no problem with citizens owning tanks or drones. I'm saying that until we get past the issue of the the implement of death, the underlying mental health issues will never be addressed.

No red-blooded American should give up their constitutionally protected gun rights for another persons mental health, mental illness or any other medical problem.

BTW.......the so-called medical practice of psychiatry and psychiatrists are all an abysmal failure.
It's either a chemical or mechanical lobotomy take your choice. Slow insidious neuron death or rapid butchery......that's all they've got. It's amazing to me that people are not filing class-action lawsuits and criminal charges on a daily basis. The lies, fear force and fraud and abuses are epic.

The Harvard trained psychiatrist Peter Breggin has exposed the whole rotten affair.

 

[Gideon300]

Your outrage is well founded. Your solution is well intended. But it won't work. As has been previously noted, your solution doesn't address the real underlying cause. Guns aren't anymore responsible for shootings than tanks are for causing wars. I wonder, did anyone get murdered before guns were invented?
What occurred was a tragedy. But by choosing a solution that is sure to fail only insures more of the same.

Australia has a problem with knife crime. Yes, reducing the number of guns etc will not eliminate murders. However, it is much harder to kill 20 or 30 people with a knife than with an AR15. And you have to get close with a knife, giving more opportunity for security to intervene before the body count gets extreme. No murder is acceptable. However, all the hand wringing by politicians has achieved nothing but increasing flower sales and sending business to funeral homes.

 

[Cameron143]

Haha, I’ve actually thought about this scenario.
When I hit the lottery I wanna buy a tank or a fighter jet and park it in downtown Boston.
People would be outraged and complain but I would simply tell them: dear sir, the noise ordinance hours are from 7pm - 7am.
I turn my tank and jet on, from 7:01am - 6:59pm. Have a great day and call me for any questions.

I would have a very expensive team of lawyer trying to defend my gun fetish but the more I looked into this the more I found out that there were restrictions in place.
I wonder why? Maybe they were afraid of the weather you think?
Also do you think the restrictions in place are taking away our freedoms?
We should overthrow this tyrannical government, right?

Tanks would destroy the roads due to their weight and construction. Planes would present a myriad of possible hazards in urban spaces. That's one of the reasons military bases are in isolated areas and restricted. I'm not advocating their use where they would present dangers, only their ownership.

 

[Cameron143]

No red-blooded American should give up their constitutionally protected gun rights for another persons mental health, mental illness or any other medical problem.

BTW.......the so-called medical practice of psychiatry and psychiatrists are all an abysmal failure.
It's either a chemical or mechanical lobotomy take your choice. Slow insidious neuron death or rapid butchery......that's all they've got. It's amazing to me that people are not filing class-action lawsuits and criminal charges on a daily basis. The lies, fear force and fraud and abuses are epic.

The Harvard trained psychiatrist Peter Breggin has exposed the whole rotten affair.

Which part of not advocating any restrictions is difficult to understand?

 

[ButterflyJones]

https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/202...g-at-christian-elementary-school-in-nashville

Some still think it's wrong to control the number and type of guns that civilians can own. How many dead kids does it take for some common sense to prevail?

The problem is anti-gun proponents blame the wrong thing.

It isn't the weapon. It's the mind.

What rarely gets reported is when armed citizens stop a would be mass murderer.

In all cases where shooters open up on unarmed innocents, were there armed trained civilians present the outcome would very likely be less innocent victims, if any.

Guns are outlawed in Scotland.
It isn't a nonviolent country today. Rather the weapon of choice of those who intend harm are knives.

 

[Eli1]

Tanks would destroy the roads due to their weight and construction. Planes would present a myriad of possible hazards in urban spaces. That's one of the reasons military bases are in isolated areas and restricted. I'm not advocating their use where they would present dangers, only their ownership.

Sounds like you’re putting restrictions and my team of expensive lawyers would argue that the second amendment reins supreme and there’s nothing higher than it and the government is infringing on my right to drive my tank safely on the road.

 

[cv5]

Your unfounded conspiracy claims are proven to be false. We do not have bodies lying in the street or children dropping like flies. No, we don't have a second amendment. We do not have a bill of rights. We do have the right to send our kids to school without them being dressed in Kevlar to protect them from psychos with guns.

Do you not know what the Bible says about obeying the authorities? That was written during the Roman occupation of Israel and most of the Middle East and much of Europe. You don't see the Christians of that era forming armies to defend against Roman oppression, even when Nero started murdering believers, feeding them to lions and burning them alive. Christians should be praying for their civil leaders, not assuming that they are the enemy. You do not need guns when God is your fortress and strength. And a gun won't help you when you are facing a Bradley or an Apache helicopter.

Really? Alexandr Solzhenitsyn begs to differ. So do the millions of forceably unarmed Chinese dead during Mao's pogroms. And Stalin's. And Hitler's. They all did the gun grabbing routine before the mass murdering.

Perhaps a review of the Book of Esther be helpful as well. You know.....when the King allowed Israelites the right of self-defense?

 

[cv5]

Guns aren't anymore responsible for shootings than tanks are for causing wars.

Bravo for this clear minded statement of fact.

 

[Mem]

Look at the issue of mass poisonings that resulted in tamper resistant packaging. Food was not outlawed since it is clearly beneficial for survival.

 

[Cameron143]

Australia has a problem with knife crime. Yes, reducing the number of guns etc will not eliminate murders. However, it is much harder to kill 20 or 30 people with a knife than with an AR15. And you have to get close with a knife, giving more opportunity for security to intervene before the body count gets extreme. No murder is acceptable. However, all the hand wringing by politicians has achieved nothing but increasing flower sales and sending business to funeral homes.

I appreciate the response. Your solution only reduces the number of deaths, it doesn't solve the problem. It's like you are saying everything is ok if we can lessen the damage caused by the problem. That's not a solution. People will still be murdered.

 

[Gideon300]

Whoa! You give children Meth or some other drug that will make them psychotic and then you train them to be warped with video games and Libs of Tick Tok elementary school teachers having them salute the pride flag and soon you can get them to shoot up schools so that you can take away the guns of Americans making it very easy to roll into a country of 350 million? That is diabolical.

But who could be stupid enough to fall for that...Uhh, scratch that.

If you really think that armed civilians could do anything to defend against a modern army, you are deluded. The next generation of soldiers will be armed drones or robots. The weapons used against civilians will be fired from the air or 50 km away. You will hear but not see the shell or missile that flattens your home and maybe you with it. This is not 1789. We need God's protection and power, not the NRA.

 

[cv5]

Which part of not advocating any restrictions is difficult to understand?

It is certainly is not difficult for me. You are preaching to the choir.

 

[Eli1]

I appreciate the response. Your solution only reduces the number of deaths, it doesn't solve the problem. It's like you are saying everything is ok if we can lessen the damage caused by the problem. That's not a solution. People will still be murdered.

Yes, this is what my team of lawyers would argue so I can keep my tank.
Either create a perfect society with no murder OR I’m not giving up my tank !

 

[Gideon300]

I appreciate the response. Your solution only reduces the number of deaths, it doesn't solve the problem. It's like you are saying everything is ok if we can lessen the damage caused by the problem. That's not a solution. People will still be murdered.

No, it's not OK. But surely any life saved is worth it? Vehicles are required to have airbags, seat belts and are tested for how well occupants can survive a crash. Cars would be far cheaper if all those requirements were scrapped. Some people will die anyway. Is that a reason to ditch all safety requirements?

 

[Cameron143]

Sounds like you’re putting restrictions and my team of expensive lawyers would argue that the second amendment reins supreme and there’s nothing higher than it and the government is infringing on my right to drive my tank safely on the road.

I have no problems with any of it. Just don't park too close to a fire hydrant. And perhaps you need better lawyers.

 

[Mem]

If you really think that armed civilians could do anything to defend against a modern army, you are deluded. The next generation of soldiers will be armed drones or robots. The weapons used against civilians will be fired from the air or 50 km away. You will hear but not see the shell or missile that flattens your home and maybe you with it. This is not 1789. We need God's protection and power, not the NRA.

How should we outlaw Russia's missiles to deter them from invading a disarmed population?

 

[cv5]

Australia has a problem with knife crime. Yes, reducing the number of guns etc will not eliminate murders. However, it is much harder to kill 20 or 30 people with a knife than with an AR15. And you have to get close with a knife, giving more opportunity for security to intervene before the body count gets extreme. No murder is acceptable. However, all the hand wringing by politicians has achieved nothing but increasing flower sales and sending business to funeral homes.

Wow that's a lot of knife crimes. An urgent personal safety problem that can be rectified by arming yourself with a 10mm Glock with a high volume mag.

And people say guns don't solve problems.

 

[Cameron143]

No, it's not OK. But surely any life saved is worth it? Vehicles are required to have airbags, seat belts and are tested for how well occupants can survive a crash. Cars would be far cheaper if all those requirements were scrapped. Some people will die anyway. Is that a reason to ditch all safety requirements?

If you want to save lives, put law enforcement in the school. Allow trained teachers to concealed carry. Making schools or any place gun free makes it an easy target. Don't settle for a few. Protect them all.