Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
docyabut2

Ron Paul rips NRA plan for officers in every

72 posts in this topic

You really want someone at your child's school with an RPG?

Not me, the NRA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not me, the NRA.

Okay, you scared me there for a minute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Columbine had an armed security officer. How much good did it do them?

In the end it did them no good at all, but that does not mean that an armed officer at Sandy Hook would have met the same fate.

Columbine, as I remember, had multiple shooters, while the official story (?) at Sandy Hook claims only one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the end it did them no good at all, but that does not mean that an armed officer at Sandy Hook would have met the same fate.

Why is it that in this thread you accept that something that works may not work in all instances, but in the other thread, you argue that gun control is ineffective because it wouldnt have stopped a particular incident?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[/background][/size][/font][/color]

Why is it that in this thread you accept that something that works may not work in all instances, but in the other thread, you argue that gun control is ineffective because it wouldnt have stopped a particular incident?

Simply because given the record of gun control in this country, nobody has yet made a persuasive case that the next gun control law written will solve anything at all. That is, if all efforts at 'gun control' have mostly failed, how can it be that the one yet to be written will miraculously work as intended?

Regarding the Columbine incident there are many angles that are not addressed, cannot be addressed, by our conversation here.

I am NOT a member of the NRA for several reasons, but it seems that if all school resource officers were armed, there MIGHT be a chance of preventing something like Sandy Hook. I don't KNOW that it would, but it might. I do not feel strongly about this particular issue, but discuss only because everybody else is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Way to go to not read my post, at all. Oh wow, armed guards everywhere, you call that a plan? So arm every place where humans gather since you yourself said "you dont know who they are or when they will attack."? Your local coffee shop has a guy with a AK47?

Hit me back later when you have a plan that actually solves something.

I said police in the school would be a way to stop the killers.

You added every place under the sun, not me.

I already gave you a plan that solves something, i cant force you to actually comprehend it though.

A police officer with a gun is a bigger deterent to a killer than a sign that says "Gun Free Zone".

Now i ask, yet again...... What is your "better" plan?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our children do not need that kind of security. I mean, you know that right?

Why not?

Is my child any less important to me than his kids are to him?

Why cant his kids go to a school with a sign that simply lets would be killers know that Guns arent allowed in school?

Why should an elected official be deemed more important than those who elected him?

They serve us, or have you forgotten that? I know they have forgotten that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not me, the NRA.

NRA said armed, YOU decided it would be an RPG.

Twist things much?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heres a plan for those of you who are anti-gun and anti-2nd ammendment.

Stick your heads in the sand and sit quietly by until the next whacko decides to kill a bunch of kids and then jump up and scream loudly again for a couple of months while bashing ideas that are put forth and then stick your heads back in the sand.

None of you have a single idea that makes an ounce of sense and yet you belittle those who actually try to come up with a solution.

Lets ban 30 round clips, just ignore the fact that it takes less than 2 seconds to eject and reload another 10 round clip and resume shooting.

Ban Assault Rifles! because 2 handguns being fired couldnt possibly kill the same number of people either. right?

like it or not, the NRA is the only one to make a suggestion so far that makes any sense at all.

Its the same setup that seems to work pretty good for the Elite of this nation and their kids.

But not yours..... right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Columbine had an armed security officer. How much good did it do them?

Well there you have it!

Didnt work the one time so lets just scrap the whole idea.

Disregard the fact that Columbine was the first mass shooting like this and that the guard may not have been truly prepared that something like this could really happen.

Today we know better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the article: "The congressman [Ron Paul] is the first Republican in Congress to forcefully oppose the NRA's proposal."

Gotta love Ron Paul man, he's nobody's puppet.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the article: "The congressman [Ron Paul] is the first Republican in Congress to forcefully oppose the NRA's proposal."

Gotta love Ron Paul man, he's nobody's puppet.

Land of the free home of the brave.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not?

Is my child any less important to me than his kids are to him?

Why cant his kids go to a school with a sign that simply lets would be killers know that Guns arent allowed in school?

Why should an elected official be deemed more important than those who elected him?

They serve us, or have you forgotten that? I know they have forgotten that.

Hmm ... I was hoping that you actually knew why. I guess I was wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heres a plan for those of you who are anti-gun and anti-2nd ammendment.

Stick your heads in the sand and sit quietly by until the next whacko decides to kill a bunch of kids and then jump up and scream loudly again for a couple of months while bashing ideas that are put forth and then stick your heads back in the sand.

None of you have a single idea that makes an ounce of sense and yet you belittle those who actually try to come up with a solution.

Lets ban 30 round clips, just ignore the fact that it takes less than 2 seconds to eject and reload another 10 round clip and resume shooting.

Ban Assault Rifles! because 2 handguns being fired couldnt possibly kill the same number of people either. right?

like it or not, the NRA is the only one to make a suggestion so far that makes any sense at all.

Its the same setup that seems to work pretty good for the Elite of this nation and their kids.

But not yours..... right?

Now you are just doing the same thing you were accusing others of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well there you have it!

Didnt work the one time so lets just scrap the whole idea.

Disregard the fact that Columbine was the first mass shooting like this and that the guard may not have been truly prepared that something like this could really happen.

Today we know better.

Columbine was not the first mass shooting like this, but that is kind of irrelevant since I was not saying scrap the whole idea. I am just questioning how well it would work since it didn't work out at all in the past. I guess in your world where all of our kids are as high profile and in as much potential danger as the president's and only those who agree with your stance can jump to wild conclusions and have it be rational, not to mention mass school shooting only began in the 1990s one cannot ask legitimate questions without wanting to scrap an idea.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Columbine was not the first mass shooting like this, but that is kind of irrelevant since I was not saying scrap the whole idea. I am just questioning how well it would work since it didn't work out at all in the past. I guess in your world where all of our kids are as high profile and in as much potential danger as the president's and only those who agree with your stance can jump to wild conclusions and have it be rational, not to mention mass school shooting only began in the 1990s one cannot ask legitimate questions without wanting to scrap an idea.

How many times have the "Elites" childrens schools been targeted?

ZERO.

So, yes, i would say that puts the common persons children more at risk.

All i am asking for is the same sense of security sending my kids to school that the Elite peiople in this nation get.

Is that too much to ask for?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I said police in the school would be a way to stop the killers.

You added every place under the sun, not me.

I already gave you a plan that solves something, i cant force you to actually comprehend it though.

A police officer with a gun is a bigger deterent to a killer than a sign that says "Gun Free Zone".

Now i ask, yet again...... What is your "better" plan?

Try to think more than a week ahead. A shooting spree elsewhere will lead to armed guards there as well until they're everywhere.

Your plan is completely unsustainable and doesn't account for the future, at all. It literally makes us into Iraq with guns everywhere.

Now you are just doing the same thing you were accusing others of.

Not that anyone expected otherwise.

NRA said armed, YOU decided it would be an RPG.

Twist things much?

Hahaha, everyone knows the NRA would rather have RPS's in every school, every class than have their guns taken away.

Edited by Maizer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How did the TSA get brought into this when the NRA leadership simply suggested a Police officer with a weapon to patrol the school grounds?

I havent heard any other ideas from anyone else that would actually protect the students.

Unless you count the impossible to actually carry out plan of banning all weapons.

I have to agree with you on this.. I was about to ask - Who has a much easier and better plan on how you can protect the children and teachers of any school ? Has anyone else got a better and brighter idea? If anyone here does have a far better solution, then toss it out there... I haven't read anyone throwing out any better solutions

I am viewing this as a parent who has two children,. one at seven, and the other still a baby..I would not like to feel that by sending them to school they may not come back again..

Is there really a better solution? If so, please post it.. I like to hear from all angles

Edited by Beckys_Mom
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At issue here is whether the government should be able to force people to arm themselves, or disarm themselves, and as Ron Paul correctly established, it should be neither.

Whenever crimes are prevented, that doesn't make the news. It has to be sensational for that: sexy, controversial, twisted or huge. We only hear about these sensational mass-killings and living in our media-fed bubbles we think that is what reality is and what we really need to legislate around. I call BS. As if guns are only there to do harm. Nobody has ever done anything positive or life-saving with a gun. It's not who is behind the trigger, it's the trigger. George Carlin was right; I don't believe anything I hear in the population-dumbing-down media anymore because no matter how accurate its dribble may be in the details, it misses a mountain of truth in the process.

How about we start collecting data down at the bureau counting how much crime is prevented out there, God forbid, by guns? Oh, that would cost an arm and a leg too, but it would at least wake these understandably reactionary folks up to a more accurate picture of how to protect ourselves and our children.

Providing security is what security industry does. They have all kinds of expertise. For people who have no idea, try consulting with some experts; the professionals in their field. Every school in the country can be made safer and it's up to the school and the taxpayers who fund it, to determine what that balance between cost and security should be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have to agree with you on this.. I was about to ask - Who has a much easier and better plan on how you can protect the children and teachers of any school ? Has anyone else got a better and brighter idea? If anyone here does have a far better solution, then toss it out there... I haven't read anyone throwing out any better solutions

The quick answer is yes there are other options. The Long answer is no one wants to hear anything besides ban/2nd amendment. I figure change is difficult. But drastic change will be much more difficult.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our Constitution is under assault what I have to see as clueless socialists and I'm very sorry for having to say that, but I'm calling a duck a duck. People run to the federal government now to solve their every whiny problem and these people need to understand that this immoral charade of overspending cannot continue. They have no idea what bankruptcy is, and how painful it is, and how right it is for the irresponsible to pay for their own bad habits. I grew up in the most depressed city in America. I understand what bankruptcy is, and what happens when the bills come due; not this printed-over Bennie Madoff scheme that pretends we can generate debt for someone else's kids to pay for indefinitely, but the other kind. The biggest threat to our republic is within. I see that now more strongly than ever. This gimme-gimme generation of self-entitled adult-children who wants to spend vast amounts of money for whatever trivial pursuit they want to whine about (let's grow the GDP 0.1% faster!) needs to be brought down to earth.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our Constitution is under assault what I have to see as clueless socialists and I'm very sorry for having to say that, but I'm calling a duck a duck. People run to the federal government now to solve their every whiny problem and these people need to understand that this immoral charade of overspending cannot continue. They have no idea what bankruptcy is, and how painful it is, and how right it is for the irresponsible to pay for their own bad habits. I grew up in the most depressed city in America. I understand what bankruptcy is, and what happens when the bills come due; not this printed-over Bennie Madoff scheme that pretends we can generate debt for someone else's kids to pay for indefinitely, but the other kind. The biggest threat to our republic is within. I see that now more strongly than ever. This gimme-gimme generation of self-entitled adult-children who wants to spend vast amounts of money for whatever trivial pursuit they want to whine about (let's grow the GDP 0.1% faster!) needs to be brought down to earth.

Assuming the generic definition of 'clueless socialists', I'm not sure the Constitution is under attack from them, or from certain corporate and foreign interests.

But you're right, it's been under assault for quite a few years, and the Unpatriot Act set a new threshold for that attack. Then followed by Military Commissions Act, NDAA and a host of other legislative efforts and judicial neutrality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.