COLUMBINE STUDENT'S FATHER 12 YEARS LATER !!

[btcherm]

COLUMBINE STUDENT'S FATHER 12 YEARS LATER !

Hey guys lets just take two steps back,I don't want this to become a p*ssing match,
I just think we need to get more involved,and be more concerned about what's going on around us
and help one another .( their is just to much violence ),the world need more love and kindness.:doorag:ray:

 

[Bob Denman]

Gordy,
If you're putting folks with guns into schools; I'm pretty sure that it would have to be a legitimate LEO, and not a volunteer with a sidearm...
I'm pretty sure that if you or I carried steel on any school; we'd be cuffed and stuffed! :shocked:

 

[Gordy]

Gordy,
If you're putting folks with guns into schools; I'm pretty sure that it would have to be a legitimate LEO, and not a volunteer with a sidearm...
I'm pretty sure that if you or I carried steel on any school; we'd be cuffed and stuffed! :shocked:

Im sure that anyone doingn this would have to be deputised.Just anyone could not be turned loose in a school with a weapon

 

[Bob Denman]

:agree: But none of us know how law enforcement offiicials would feel about deputizing us mere civilians..

 

[wyliec]

What about some type of security door for each class room, similar to what they have on planes? And, maybe intermittent police patrols throughout the day.

 

[Bob Denman]

At some point you'll end up with the students feeling like prisoners, and most of them don't want to be there anyway... :shocked:
This idiot forced his way into that school; it's impossible to stop a truly determined miscreant. :gaah:

 

[ARtraveler]

opcorn:opcorn:opcorn:

A genuine hot button issue. No matter where the conversation goes, someone is going to get offended.

The bottom line for me is: guns do not kill people. The idiot pulling the trigger does the killing. No matter what laws or legislation is put upon the public, it is still not going to prevent incidents from happening. The crazies and the outlaws will still have access to guns. If restrictive legislation comes upon us (confiscate all guns), then the only people who will have them are the bad ones. That would surely change the way we live here.

Asbestos suit: ON

 

[Bob Denman]

I think that all of the asbestos britches can be left in the closets; no need to flame folks when we're actually all on the same side anyway! :thumbup:
"AK", you're 100% correct; the :cus: would still get their firearms, or they'd resort to something else that is equally deadly...:shocked:
It's really not about firearms; it's a societal issue that needs to be addressed from many different angles: parenting, education, the courts, the laws, and several more that I'm just forgetting right now...

 

[pro10is]

... If restrictive legislation comes upon us (confiscate all guns), then the only people who will have them are the bad ones...

This is an age old, worn out argument. No one but the truly paranoid believes that the 2nd Amendment is ever going to be repealed and that it is even remotely possible to confiscate the millions of guns already in existence in the US. The sole purpose of this and other irrational arguments like it is to evoke emotion rather than sense. Right now we need to think clearly, not emotionally. It's clear that we need to come together to find a way to make gun ownership safer, especially for our children. We've done this with many other dangerous things, why not guns? It's not going to be easy but it can be done if all sides compromise and work together for the benefit of us all.

 

[ARtraveler]

My suits on :roflblack:.

I do believe we should listen carefully to what the President is saying, and eventually Congress--because it is from there that things may happen that we don't want to happen.

I respectfully disagree with your opinion, but will not challenge it, because we still have freedom of speech.

 

[Bob Denman]

Right now we need to think clearly, not emotionally. It's clear that we need to come together to find a way to make gun ownership safer, especially for our children.

:agree::agree::agree: :agree::agree: :2thumbs: :clap: :firstplace:
May I mention actually getting parents to start parenting again??

 

[pro10is]

...I respectfully disagree with your opinion, but will not challenge it, because we still have freedom of speech.

And I respectfully agree with your right to disagree. See, we can agree on something, so there's hope for all of us yet! :clap:

 

[grumpybob]

This is an e-mail I received today. have fun thinking it out.

Interesting slant on things
AMERICA 'S HUNTERS ---
Pretty Amazing!

The world 's largest army... America 's hunters! I had never thought about this...

A blogger added up the deer license sales in just a handful of states and arrived at a striking conclusion:

There were over 600,000 hunters
this season in the state of Wisconsin ..
Allow me to restate that number:
600,000

Over the last several months,
Wisconsin 's hunters became the eighth largest army in
the world.

More men under arms than in Iran .

More than France and Germany combined.

These men deployed to
the woods of a single American state, Wisconsin , to hunt with
firearms, and no one was killed.

That number pales in comparison to the 750,000 who hunted the woods of Pennsylvania and
Michigan 's 700,000 hunters,
all of whom have now returned home safely.
Toss in a quarter million hunters
in West Virginia and it literally establishes the fact that the
hunters of those four states alone
would comprise the largest army in the world.
And then add in the total number of hunters in the other 46 states.
It 's millions more.

The point?

America will forever be safe
from foreign invasion with that kind of home-grown firepower.Hunting...
it 's not just a way to fill the freezer. It 's a matter of national
security.

********************

*******************
That 's why all enemies,
foreign and domestic,
want to see us
disarmed.

Food for thought,
when next we consider gun control.

Overall it 's true,
so if we disregard some assumptions that hunters
don 't possess the same skills as soldiers, the question
would still remain...
What army of 2 million would want to face 30, 40, 50 million armed citizens???

(IF YOU AGREE, AS I DO, PASS IT ON, I FEEL GOOD THAT I HAVE AN ARMY OF MILLIONS WHO WOULD PROTECT OUR LAND AND I SURE DON 'T WANT THE GOVERNMENT TAKING CONTROL OF THE POSSESSION OF FIREARMS)

​

 

[ARtraveler]

pro10is: :agree::clap::2thumbs:

 

[pro10is]

Oh, sorry grumpybob, I thought we were talking about reasonable measures to protect our children from being massacred. I didn't realize there was a foreign threat that our armed services, the best in the world, couldn't handle on their own.

And our government can't even agree on how to resolve the fiscal cliff much less pose a domestic threat to our 236 years of freedom.

 

[grumpybob]

Oh,
And our government can't even agree on how to resolve the fiscal cliff much less pose a domestic threat to our 236 years of freedom.

Maybe that is the point. Anyway I didn't write it, or say it meant anything to me. Just fuel for thought.

 

[Bob Denman]

Oh, sorry grumpybob, I thought we were talking about reasonable measures to protect our children from being massacred. I didn't realize there was a foreign threat that our armed services, the best in the world, couldn't handle on their own.

Actually he has brought forth a VERY interesting point; Our forefathers actually kind of figured things out pretty darn right! :thumbup: They had a great series of checks and balances built into the government so as to prevent a despotic leader from proclaiming themself to be an emporer/king/grand poobah/whatever...
But the FINAL, last line of defense for any attack; both from outside or from within our borders, was going to be the armed citizenry.
Then the politicians started mucking things about and made a mess of it! :gaah: (But that's an argument for another time and place)

 

[btcherm]

I think that all of the asbestos britches can be left in the closets; no need to flame folks when we're actually all on the same side anyway! :thumbup:
"AK", you're 100% correct; the :cus: would still get their firearms, or they'd resort to something else that is equally deadly...:shocked:
It's really not about firearms; it's a societal issue that needs to be addressed from many different angles: parenting, education, the courts, the laws, and several more that I'm just forgetting right now...

Bob I agree with you 100 %:doorag:

 

[wyliec]

It's really not about firearms; it's a societal issue that needs to be addressed from many different angles: parenting, education, the courts, the laws, and several more that I'm just forgetting right now...

Bob,

I agree; but, in this last school shooting (as far as I know) there was some scientific testing that was going to be done on the shooter's genes and I've read/heard nothing more. So, at this point (at least for me) it's kind of hard to say it was a parenting issue or educational issue or whatever. I'm not even sure I'd call it a medical issue even though he did have one.

Bob, if there is more that I've missed about the shooter's messed up/screwed up reason, P.M. me so that I can find it.

Bob,

I just found something. I'm going to P.M. you. I don't want to keep this going here.

 

[Bob Denman]

...And when you purchase any firearm; form 4473 specdifically asks about your mental condition... :gaah:
The kid was a screwed-up mess from the start... whatever issues he may or may not have had; they certainly weren't helped by living with someone who was actively planning for the end of society and allowed him to play video games in the basement rather than actually try and be a parent to him...