Isn’t there a disconnect with this line of thought ?

To protect people , the real solution is too arm people more (nra+ Republican) .
So at the nra convention , a room full of people with guns should be the most secure room in the world right ?
And yet during trump speech at this convention no guns are allowed in the room?

How strange …..
How can trump be more secure in a room with no guns in that instance?

So, you agree with me that the person Marksman was describing doesn't exist? If such a person does exist, please let me know so I can repudiate that guy publicly. Thanks.

I suspect what I'm about to say will go way over your head, but for everyone else reading this:

1. I have several times in this very thread agreed with those calling for more gun regulations.

2. I have been completely consistent here: Just as I oppose a woman having a "right" to kill her unborn baby, I oppose the "right" of anyone to kill babies.


Montrealcorp: Maybe if you carefully read maybe a dozen times what I just wrote,
perhaps my point will sink in at some point. Or not.

Either way, be safe and stay well!

yes but Cruz seems to be speaking of getting rid of these other 'doors' that can be locked from the inside to keep people out and to only have the one door by which people can come and go.

He seems to be against other 'lockable doors' so I am not sure a fire door would pass. He might say fine as I guess there is less chance it would be used and left unlocked but so far he seems to just want less doors, period.

Only arm the teachers who aren't deranged sex perverts. (If there are any.)

I assume that Mr. Trump's body guards are armed. Plus any other security details that are there. I assume that it was only attendees who couldn't bring weapons.

uh, trumps "body gaurds" are referred to as The United States Secret Service and i'mmmm pretty sure they get a say in who can and cannot have a gun around a sitting or former president. no matter how much of an ******* he is.

it's a stupid narrative.

In 2016, the NRA spent $54.4 million backing Trump and other key Republicans. You need to look at all the spending and where it is going.

Who said otherwise? As is, federal law prohibits a felon from owning a firearm; it prohibits anyone under the age of 18 from purchasing a long gun, and the list goes on. Most all people, even staunch 2A's, support this.

As I said earlier, I think all private sales (individuals, gun shows) should federally be required to be facilitated through a FFL (all FFL's are required by federal law to call in a background check at the time of the sale), so not sure why your soapbox is pointed in my direction.


If you want to lie about the scenario and then say that you disagree with the premise, then I can't stop you from doing that.

Well said.

Unfortunately we'd probably need to add a zero to that percentage to near a zero failure rate. Same goes with eliminating unjustified/unnecessary police shootings. As far as remedies though it's probably one of the few that could get cross aisle support.

While I wouldn't call it courage per se, I do think a lot of parents would reacted and went in where the police refused to.

Which then begs the question that since the Supreme Court ruled that police have no obligation to risk their lives to save others and can literally instead choose to 'Contain' rather than confront, should the citizens who also have a right of self defense, should they have a right to defend their family members and not stand down.

Put more bluntly, police can say 'too risky to go in, we choose to contain instead' and that is fine and legal by the SC.

Do parents then have to stand down because police tell them it is too dangerous for them to enter? Or can they accept that danger and enter regardless?

I suspect in the next shooting like this, if the police are refusing to go in, then parents will not be so patient and will try to push past. Might even fight cops. It will be interesting times.

There is a rather mean meme circling around which shows police as Aggressive, assertive and ready for action and to kill when confronting an unarmed POC they say makes them feel unsafe, while at the same time shows a SWAT team hesitant, cowering and afraid to take any risk when confronting a kid school shooter.

The point was , more gun do not mean more security ...
And obv. The secret service ( a perks every former president owns afterwards) knows that less gun in a room means a more secured room.

So the concept of arming more and more people to protect themselves makes no sense .

Why some countries have less drama with cops incidents killing citizens then the US.
Because to begin with , people arenT allowed to be arm to the teeth with mass murdering weapon ( ie: firing 50 bullets a minute ?) .
And because of this , u have to arms corps even more , increasing the likelihood of incidents of wrongdoing intervention because the possible threat is bigger due to the proliferation of weapons .

Danger increases as the numbers of weapons increases .

That is true.

But the logic on the right is the more good guys with guns the better, to stop any bad guy with a gun.

They also do not believe in just assuming people are bad, thus why they fight against back ground checks etc. Everyone should be assumed good and allowed to get their guns.

lastly they would fight against anyone over riding their constitutional and State right to carry their legal gun, when they are in fact a good, legal gun owner.

So the NRA on behalf of its members should tell Trump and Co to either accept the good members as they arrive, legal guns and all or to find another venue. That is if they were at all consistent.



While Trumps SS detail can state a preference for security reasons they can neither force the venue nor Trump to comply. Just as POTUS often walk up to and into crowds when the SS recommend against it.

So long as they are in the womb

(People kill people.)

What do we think were accomplishing here?

The only clear solution then is a clockwork orange type interview for teachers.

Can riddle a guy full of bullets for reaching into his pockets but not encounter a real live threat killing kids. The obv constant with the two is fear. Good to know the most armed are also the most terrified, which actually makes sense.

Maybe musk will pitch a robot school guard at every building. It's bound to kill a few kids now and then but murders will be down. It ofc won't ever come to market but we need heros.

The story about the mother who drove to the scene, was detained and released then jumped a fence and retrieved her children is very telling

is that story true though?

They have said and retracted so many things already and i have not seen that story posted but have seen it referenced many times.

I am not arguing for anything. I am stating a fact. Police are trained to rush in in a school shooter situation, with anything they have. They’re even trained to bypass the wounded to immediately engage the shooter. This is not my opinion.

Anyone who votes GOP because they're against abortion and against reasonable gun control would fit into his category. It must be a full 20% of regular GOP voters. I know a few, you know a few.....don't be so coy.

So do you think parents should:

1) be allowed to go in and stop the shooter?
2) be allowed to go in and retrieve their kid?
3) not be allowed to go in under any and all circumstances?

I'm thinking of a color.

What is it ?

Careful now, don't lie.

Only if the school is located in an affluent area.

Interesting thesis.* Looking forward to seeing your evidence for this claim.

*Actually, I believe your thesis is unremittingly stupid, but I'm open to seeing your evidence.

I told you the color I picked.

Months later you said I picked a different color.