25 Jun 2013, 9:36 am
25 Jun 2013, 11:46 am
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,528
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
25 Jun 2013, 12:36 pm
25 Jun 2013, 1:01 pm
Ancalagon wrote:
ilkhanid wrote:
conjuring up this fantasy of Obama and the UN coming in black helicopters to grab all the guns, it-in their mind-justifies their "not an inch",not one concession, stance.
You don't need fantasies about black helicopters to come to the conclusion that some people want to get rid of all guns and would use any excuse they could find to do so.
Quote:
People who refuse all compromise usually lose in the end,no matter how long it takes.
I don't believe that's the case. I can think of several issues where one side or the other refused to compromise and won out in the end.
Those black helicopters exist,we saw one here.But I don't think anything about it,the military uses this area as a playground.Usually just C-130's and jets,and those weird surveillance planes with the disc on them,and lots and lots of helicopters.Of all sizes and shapes.I'm not paranoid about it,they are just doing maneuvers.I'm constantly amazed at them flying those big C -130's down below me in the valley,usually they are in threes.Free air show
25 Jun 2013, 1:36 pm
25 Jun 2013, 2:45 pm
LennytheWicked wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Driving is a privilege, gun ownership is a right.
There’s a difference between the two.
There’s a difference between the two.
Lovely.
Thank you.
Quote:
Since you so obviously believe that they are incomparable,
You made the comparison. In fact, it’s usually the anti’s, like yourself, that come up with that lame guns and cars licensing argument.
Quote:
stop using that analogy.
Or what?
Kraichgauer wrote:
Thelibrarian wrote:
Had this unfortunate student been run over by a car instead, would the left be calling for banning automobiles at schools?
Guns are unfortunately necessary because people don't always behave themselves, which is something aspies of all people should be acutely aware of. Pretending that all people are good won't make it so.
Guns are unfortunately necessary because people don't always behave themselves, which is something aspies of all people should be acutely aware of. Pretending that all people are good won't make it so.
It's easy to say that - till it's your child who's been shot. I don't want to risk that ever happening to my daughter.
Ah, yes, throw in the old “my kid” assault when all else fails in hopes that your opponent will be cowed. That aside, it appears that you think it would be better to be run over than shot.
neilson_wheels
Veteran
Joined: 11 Mar 2013
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,404
Location: London, Capital of the Un-United Kingdom
25 Jun 2013, 2:52 pm
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,528
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
25 Jun 2013, 4:17 pm
Raptor wrote:
LennytheWicked wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Driving is a privilege, gun ownership is a right.
There’s a difference between the two.
There’s a difference between the two.
Lovely.
Thank you.
Quote:
Since you so obviously believe that they are incomparable,
You made the comparison. In fact, it’s usually the anti’s, like yourself, that come up with that lame guns and cars licensing argument.
Quote:
stop using that analogy.
Or what?
Kraichgauer wrote:
Thelibrarian wrote:
Had this unfortunate student been run over by a car instead, would the left be calling for banning automobiles at schools?
Guns are unfortunately necessary because people don't always behave themselves, which is something aspies of all people should be acutely aware of. Pretending that all people are good won't make it so.
Guns are unfortunately necessary because people don't always behave themselves, which is something aspies of all people should be acutely aware of. Pretending that all people are good won't make it so.
It's easy to say that - till it's your child who's been shot. I don't want to risk that ever happening to my daughter.
Ah, yes, throw in the old “my kid” assault when all else fails in hopes that your opponent will be cowed. That aside, it appears that you think it would be better to be run over than shot.
Who says I was trying to cow anyone? I was simply mentioning a fact that I don't want my daughter shot.
And to make a choice between death of a child between being shot or run over is jackassery.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
25 Jun 2013, 4:28 pm
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
LennytheWicked wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Driving is a privilege, gun ownership is a right.
There’s a difference between the two.
There’s a difference between the two.
Lovely.
Thank you.
Quote:
Since you so obviously believe that they are incomparable,
You made the comparison. In fact, it’s usually the anti’s, like yourself, that come up with that lame guns and cars licensing argument.
Quote:
stop using that analogy.
Or what?
Kraichgauer wrote:
Thelibrarian wrote:
Had this unfortunate student been run over by a car instead, would the left be calling for banning automobiles at schools?
Guns are unfortunately necessary because people don't always behave themselves, which is something aspies of all people should be acutely aware of. Pretending that all people are good won't make it so.
Guns are unfortunately necessary because people don't always behave themselves, which is something aspies of all people should be acutely aware of. Pretending that all people are good won't make it so.
It's easy to say that - till it's your child who's been shot. I don't want to risk that ever happening to my daughter.
Ah, yes, throw in the old “my kid” assault when all else fails in hopes that your opponent will be cowed. That aside, it appears that you think it would be better to be run over than shot.
Who says I was trying to cow anyone? I was simply mentioning a fact that I don't want my daughter shot.
And to make a choice between death of a child between being shot or run over is jackassery.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
It's jack-assery to continually and blindly stick to the protectionist party line on this gun topic.
No one wants their kid or anyone else's to be shot but to hold shootings up as if that's the leading cause of death is weak and re-enforces the charge about blindly sticking to the party line.
We've been over all of this before.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,528
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
25 Jun 2013, 4:34 pm
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
LennytheWicked wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Driving is a privilege, gun ownership is a right.
There’s a difference between the two.
There’s a difference between the two.
Lovely.
Thank you.
Quote:
Since you so obviously believe that they are incomparable,
You made the comparison. In fact, it’s usually the anti’s, like yourself, that come up with that lame guns and cars licensing argument.
Quote:
stop using that analogy.
Or what?
Kraichgauer wrote:
Thelibrarian wrote:
Had this unfortunate student been run over by a car instead, would the left be calling for banning automobiles at schools?
Guns are unfortunately necessary because people don't always behave themselves, which is something aspies of all people should be acutely aware of. Pretending that all people are good won't make it so.
Guns are unfortunately necessary because people don't always behave themselves, which is something aspies of all people should be acutely aware of. Pretending that all people are good won't make it so.
It's easy to say that - till it's your child who's been shot. I don't want to risk that ever happening to my daughter.
Ah, yes, throw in the old “my kid” assault when all else fails in hopes that your opponent will be cowed. That aside, it appears that you think it would be better to be run over than shot.
Who says I was trying to cow anyone? I was simply mentioning a fact that I don't want my daughter shot.
And to make a choice between death of a child between being shot or run over is jackassery.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
It's jack-assery to continually and blindly stick to the protectionist party line on this gun topic.
No one wants their kid or anyone else's to be shot but to hold shootings up as if that's the leading cause of death is weak and re-enforces the charge about blindly sticking to the party line.
We've been over all of this before.
When have I stated that in this thread? I only said I don't want my daughter shot.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
25 Jun 2013, 5:19 pm
/\ This is not the only thread where you've taken the anti-gun stance.
Thelibrarian wrote:
Had this unfortunate student been run over by a car instead, would the left be calling for banning automobiles at schools?
Guns are unfortunately necessary because people don't always behave themselves, which is something aspies of all people should be acutely aware of. Pretending that all people are good won't make it so.
Guns are unfortunately necessary because people don't always behave themselves, which is something aspies of all people should be acutely aware of. Pretending that all people are good won't make it so.
Why would you feel the need to toss in the comment about not wanting your daughter to get shot if not to make a show of taking the party's stance? By that direct response to TheLibrarian's post you imply that being run over is a more acceptable causation of injury and that firearms for self-defense is an invalid rationale for having them.
This brings us to the topic of this thread; it is about a school security guard who accidentally shot a student. Back in last December and January's flurry of gunz-r-bad threads in the wake of Sandy Hook, Wasn’t it you that said you'd prefer security guards over regular school employees being armed? And that we could raise taxes (big surprise there
) to pay for the added cost of security guards if need be?
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt218667.html
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,528
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
25 Jun 2013, 5:48 pm
Raptor wrote:
/\ This is not the only thread where you've taken the anti-gun stance.
Why would you feel the need to toss in the comment about not wanting your daughter to get shot if not to make a show of taking the party's stance? By that direct response to TheLibrarian's post you imply that being run over is a more acceptable causation of injury and that firearms for self-defense is an invalid rationale for having them.
This brings us to the topic of this thread; it is about a school security guard who accidentally shot a student. Back in last December and January's flurry of gunz-r-bad threads in the wake of Sandy Hook, Wasn’t it you that said you'd prefer security guards over regular school employees being armed? And that we could raise taxes (big surprise there ) to pay for the added cost of security guards if need be?
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt218667.html
Thelibrarian wrote:
Had this unfortunate student been run over by a car instead, would the left be calling for banning automobiles at schools?
Guns are unfortunately necessary because people don't always behave themselves, which is something aspies of all people should be acutely aware of. Pretending that all people are good won't make it so.
Guns are unfortunately necessary because people don't always behave themselves, which is something aspies of all people should be acutely aware of. Pretending that all people are good won't make it so.
Why would you feel the need to toss in the comment about not wanting your daughter to get shot if not to make a show of taking the party's stance? By that direct response to TheLibrarian's post you imply that being run over is a more acceptable causation of injury and that firearms for self-defense is an invalid rationale for having them.
This brings us to the topic of this thread; it is about a school security guard who accidentally shot a student. Back in last December and January's flurry of gunz-r-bad threads in the wake of Sandy Hook, Wasn’t it you that said you'd prefer security guards over regular school employees being armed? And that we could raise taxes (big surprise there
) to pay for the added cost of security guards if need be?http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt218667.html
I commented because I don't want some yahoo with a gun shooting my child. Simple as that. And a choice between being shot or run over is no choice at all.
And yes, yes, I did write that there should be armed guards present in schools. Now that reality has hit me full in the face with the sub-cretin Alpaio sending convicted pedophiles, alcoholics, and other human flotsam to Arizona schools with gun in hand to serve as guards, I've come to have second thoughts, to say the least. And no, the fact that they're trained by that has-been Steven Segal doesn't make the situation any better.
This post has nothing to do with me being anti-gun. Far from it - it's about succumbing to hysteria by hiring unqualified persons with guns to provide "safety" to our children.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
25 Jun 2013, 6:16 pm
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
/\ This is not the only thread where you've taken the anti-gun stance.
Why would you feel the need to toss in the comment about not wanting your daughter to get shot if not to make a show of taking the party's stance? By that direct response to TheLibrarian's post you imply that being run over is a more acceptable causation of injury and that firearms for self-defense is an invalid rationale for having them.
This brings us to the topic of this thread; it is about a school security guard who accidentally shot a student. Back in last December and January's flurry of gunz-r-bad threads in the wake of Sandy Hook, Wasn’t it you that said you'd prefer security guards over regular school employees being armed? And that we could raise taxes (big surprise there ) to pay for the added cost of security guards if need be?
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt218667.html
Thelibrarian wrote:
Had this unfortunate student been run over by a car instead, would the left be calling for banning automobiles at schools?
Guns are unfortunately necessary because people don't always behave themselves, which is something aspies of all people should be acutely aware of. Pretending that all people are good won't make it so.
Guns are unfortunately necessary because people don't always behave themselves, which is something aspies of all people should be acutely aware of. Pretending that all people are good won't make it so.
Why would you feel the need to toss in the comment about not wanting your daughter to get shot if not to make a show of taking the party's stance? By that direct response to TheLibrarian's post you imply that being run over is a more acceptable causation of injury and that firearms for self-defense is an invalid rationale for having them.
This brings us to the topic of this thread; it is about a school security guard who accidentally shot a student. Back in last December and January's flurry of gunz-r-bad threads in the wake of Sandy Hook, Wasn’t it you that said you'd prefer security guards over regular school employees being armed? And that we could raise taxes (big surprise there
) to pay for the added cost of security guards if need be?http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt218667.html
I commented because I don't want some yahoo with a gun shooting my child. Simple as that. And a choice between being shot or run over is no choice at all.
And yes, yes, I did write that there should be armed guards present in schools. Now that reality has hit me full in the face with the sub-cretin Alpaio sending convicted pedophiles, alcoholics, and other human flotsam to Arizona schools with gun in hand to serve as guards, I've come to have second thoughts, to say the least. And no, the fact that they're trained by that has-been Steven Segal doesn't make the situation any better.
This post has nothing to do with me being anti-gun. Far from it - it's about succumbing to hysteria by hiring unqualified persons with guns to provide "safety" to our children.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Quote:
I commented because I don't want some yahoo with a gun shooting my child.
Do you know anyone that DOES want their kids to be shot???
Quote:
Simple as that. And a choice between being shot or run over is no choice at all.
Cars aren't seen as icky like guns. The mere sight of a gun can terrify the weak minded, I've seen it myself. I could go on and on about this.
Quote:
And yes, yes, I did write that there should be armed guards present in schools. Now that reality has hit me full in the face with the sub-cretin Alpaio sending convicted pedophiles, alcoholics, and other human flotsam to Arizona schools with gun in hand to serve as guards, I've come to have second thoughts, to say the least.
For now.....
Quote:
And no, the fact that they're trained by that has-been Steven Segal doesn't make the situation any better.
I didnt know Seagal had a part in this, not that it should matter.
Quote:
This post has nothing to do with me being anti-gun. Far from it - it's about succumbing to hysteria by hiring unqualified persons with guns to provide "safety" to our children.
Uh huh, you sure seem to find yourself in these gunz-r-bad threads an awful lot and it sure aint never on the pro-gun side.
25 Jun 2013, 7:09 pm
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,528
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
25 Jun 2013, 7:16 pm
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
/\ This is not the only thread where you've taken the anti-gun stance.
Why would you feel the need to toss in the comment about not wanting your daughter to get shot if not to make a show of taking the party's stance? By that direct response to TheLibrarian's post you imply that being run over is a more acceptable causation of injury and that firearms for self-defense is an invalid rationale for having them.
This brings us to the topic of this thread; it is about a school security guard who accidentally shot a student. Back in last December and January's flurry of gunz-r-bad threads in the wake of Sandy Hook, Wasn’t it you that said you'd prefer security guards over regular school employees being armed? And that we could raise taxes (big surprise there ) to pay for the added cost of security guards if need be?
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt218667.html
Thelibrarian wrote:
Had this unfortunate student been run over by a car instead, would the left be calling for banning automobiles at schools?
Guns are unfortunately necessary because people don't always behave themselves, which is something aspies of all people should be acutely aware of. Pretending that all people are good won't make it so.
Guns are unfortunately necessary because people don't always behave themselves, which is something aspies of all people should be acutely aware of. Pretending that all people are good won't make it so.
Why would you feel the need to toss in the comment about not wanting your daughter to get shot if not to make a show of taking the party's stance? By that direct response to TheLibrarian's post you imply that being run over is a more acceptable causation of injury and that firearms for self-defense is an invalid rationale for having them.
This brings us to the topic of this thread; it is about a school security guard who accidentally shot a student. Back in last December and January's flurry of gunz-r-bad threads in the wake of Sandy Hook, Wasn’t it you that said you'd prefer security guards over regular school employees being armed? And that we could raise taxes (big surprise there
) to pay for the added cost of security guards if need be?http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt218667.html
I commented because I don't want some yahoo with a gun shooting my child. Simple as that. And a choice between being shot or run over is no choice at all.
And yes, yes, I did write that there should be armed guards present in schools. Now that reality has hit me full in the face with the sub-cretin Alpaio sending convicted pedophiles, alcoholics, and other human flotsam to Arizona schools with gun in hand to serve as guards, I've come to have second thoughts, to say the least. And no, the fact that they're trained by that has-been Steven Segal doesn't make the situation any better.
This post has nothing to do with me being anti-gun. Far from it - it's about succumbing to hysteria by hiring unqualified persons with guns to provide "safety" to our children.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Quote:
I commented because I don't want some yahoo with a gun shooting my child.
Do you know anyone that DOES want their kids to be shot???
Quote:
Simple as that. And a choice between being shot or run over is no choice at all.
Cars aren't seen as icky like guns. The mere sight of a gun can terrify the weak minded, I've seen it myself. I could go on and on about this.
Quote:
And yes, yes, I did write that there should be armed guards present in schools. Now that reality has hit me full in the face with the sub-cretin Alpaio sending convicted pedophiles, alcoholics, and other human flotsam to Arizona schools with gun in hand to serve as guards, I've come to have second thoughts, to say the least.
For now.....
Quote:
And no, the fact that they're trained by that has-been Steven Segal doesn't make the situation any better.
I didnt know Seagal had a part in this, not that it should matter.
Quote:
This post has nothing to do with me being anti-gun. Far from it - it's about succumbing to hysteria by hiring unqualified persons with guns to provide "safety" to our children.
Uh huh, you sure seem to find yourself in these gunz-r-bad threads an awful lot and it sure aint never on the pro-gun side.
Guns aren't bad in themselves. The misuse of guns is. That's one reason why I chime in on such threads. Nuff said. This is just going to turn into a gun debate merry-go-round.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
25 Jun 2013, 7:32 pm
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| School b+ student |
15 Nov 2024, 9:32 am |
| Going Back to School |
28 Oct 2024, 3:56 pm |
| I pretty much failed school |
05 Dec 2024, 9:40 am |
| Did anyone attend a montessori, steiner or other alt school? |
26 Sep 2024, 3:57 pm |
