Posted on Feb 21, 2018
Trump holds listening session with students on mass shootings
3.67K
57
29
7
7
0
Donald Trump
Gun Control
2nd Amendment
Posted 6 y ago
Responses: 5
11
11
0
The entire gun control movement is a joke. A gun is an inanimate object. The idea that by removing every firearm in the USA will suddenly drastically reduce or eliminate mass killings is delusional. All you have to do is look at other country's and see the folly in that.
The worse mass shooting in the USA was in Las Vegas. The year before, more people were killed in Paris by a truck. Every year, more mass killings occur with explosives, vehicles, etc than guns.
If you truly want to end or reduce these occurrences, you have to deal with the root causes and unfortunately, society is even more adverse to act on those.
The worse mass shooting in the USA was in Las Vegas. The year before, more people were killed in Paris by a truck. Every year, more mass killings occur with explosives, vehicles, etc than guns.
If you truly want to end or reduce these occurrences, you have to deal with the root causes and unfortunately, society is even more adverse to act on those.
(11)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
MAJ Bryan Zeski - Maj, your point of view is quite literally head in ass. This is NOT a gun issue. It is a people issue. If i want to kill a bunch of people I don't need a gun. I need a weapon. ANYTHING in my environment is a weapon, from the food I eat to the car I drive. What if instead of shooting these people, I just run over them in my truck? Should we then ban trucks that look scary?
The argument IS NOT about guns, it is about control. So far this year over 4500 children have died in drunk driving related incidents. I have not yet seen the national campaign by people like you, or the media, or the government to ban alcohol. Is ALREADY illegal to drink and drive, but people do it anyway. It is already ILLEGAL to take a gun into a school, but people do it anyway. Head in ass politics result in head in ass policy. The kind of policy that is a blanket punishment for all based on the actions of a few. You are a military officer. A leader I presume in every sense of the word. Do we embrace mass punishment in the military? How about your "all guns gone tomorrow"? Even the military? Oh, I see, an exception to the military. Of course an exception to the protect POTUS. Ah, the nasty world of exceptions. Which part of the 2A, the one you SWORE to uphold and defend, did you not understand? I like the part about "Shall NOT be infringed". Or are there exceptions to that as well.
Gun Control is not about guns, it is about Control. Too many people fail to read our history. Too many people think WWII could not happen again. We are the last bastion of freedom in the WORLD. If we are gone, where will people run to?
I am sorry, I reject your notion of gun control. It is foolish.
The argument IS NOT about guns, it is about control. So far this year over 4500 children have died in drunk driving related incidents. I have not yet seen the national campaign by people like you, or the media, or the government to ban alcohol. Is ALREADY illegal to drink and drive, but people do it anyway. It is already ILLEGAL to take a gun into a school, but people do it anyway. Head in ass politics result in head in ass policy. The kind of policy that is a blanket punishment for all based on the actions of a few. You are a military officer. A leader I presume in every sense of the word. Do we embrace mass punishment in the military? How about your "all guns gone tomorrow"? Even the military? Oh, I see, an exception to the military. Of course an exception to the protect POTUS. Ah, the nasty world of exceptions. Which part of the 2A, the one you SWORE to uphold and defend, did you not understand? I like the part about "Shall NOT be infringed". Or are there exceptions to that as well.
Gun Control is not about guns, it is about Control. Too many people fail to read our history. Too many people think WWII could not happen again. We are the last bastion of freedom in the WORLD. If we are gone, where will people run to?
I am sorry, I reject your notion of gun control. It is foolish.
(0)
(0)
MAJ Bryan Zeski
SSG (Join to see) - Now, we already have forms of gun control. I do think there are additional legislations that could make it better.
That being said, it sounds like you are saying it's not guns that are the problem, but people... and because it's America we're talking about - it's Americans that are the problem. And, because its not guns, it's Americans that are, apparently, much more willing and able to kill each other than other populations of similarly sized and advanced countries.
As for campaigns - you haven't seen any from me, for anything. Not for guns, not for cars, not for tax records, none of it.
I get what you're saying, but your "mass punishment" argument falls flat. You're an NCO - also a leader - and you're telling me you've never punished your squad or platoon for the wrong doings of one or two of them? You don't have barracks cleaning parties because you have one nasty Joe? You don't have recall formations on Saturdays because that one guy was drinking and driving? The military absolutely embraces the mass punishment concept.
Like I said, if we could eliminate ALL guns, magically, I'd absolutely support it. No exceptions. Make them all go away - all over the world.
Exceptions to policies - seems I have heard of those before. We already have exceptions to the Amendments. None are absolute. Not the 2nd (machine guns - for example), the 1st (fire in a crowded theater), or any of them. Does recognizing that there are exceptions and limitations mean I don't support the Constitution? Only as much as the Supreme Court doesn't support it - because they're the ones who upheld those exceptions. So, short version, yes, of course there are exceptions.
Thing is, you've rejected my version of "gun control" without even knowing what it is. You reject it because you reject any idea that there might be something rational between ALL THE GUNS FOR EVERYONE! and NO GUNS FOR ANYONE! You've already stopped analyzing and studying the situation and have firmly decided that there is no solution to the problem. You've given up.
That being said, it sounds like you are saying it's not guns that are the problem, but people... and because it's America we're talking about - it's Americans that are the problem. And, because its not guns, it's Americans that are, apparently, much more willing and able to kill each other than other populations of similarly sized and advanced countries.
As for campaigns - you haven't seen any from me, for anything. Not for guns, not for cars, not for tax records, none of it.
I get what you're saying, but your "mass punishment" argument falls flat. You're an NCO - also a leader - and you're telling me you've never punished your squad or platoon for the wrong doings of one or two of them? You don't have barracks cleaning parties because you have one nasty Joe? You don't have recall formations on Saturdays because that one guy was drinking and driving? The military absolutely embraces the mass punishment concept.
Like I said, if we could eliminate ALL guns, magically, I'd absolutely support it. No exceptions. Make them all go away - all over the world.
Exceptions to policies - seems I have heard of those before. We already have exceptions to the Amendments. None are absolute. Not the 2nd (machine guns - for example), the 1st (fire in a crowded theater), or any of them. Does recognizing that there are exceptions and limitations mean I don't support the Constitution? Only as much as the Supreme Court doesn't support it - because they're the ones who upheld those exceptions. So, short version, yes, of course there are exceptions.
Thing is, you've rejected my version of "gun control" without even knowing what it is. You reject it because you reject any idea that there might be something rational between ALL THE GUNS FOR EVERYONE! and NO GUNS FOR ANYONE! You've already stopped analyzing and studying the situation and have firmly decided that there is no solution to the problem. You've given up.
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
I have never used mass punishment. It is wrong and unethical. I am a leader, I don't need to use draconian tactics to get my soldiers to do what I want. I earn their respect, I get to know them, and as a result, I have no issues. This has been the norm for many years. You obviously know nothing of the NCO Corp. And if you say the military embraces Mass Punishment, what you are saying is the officer corp embraces mass punishment. My NCO's deal with the issue on the individual level.
As far as your no guns fantasy, this is a moot talking point because it is impossible theoretical situation that only happens in the movies and contributes NOTHING to the problem or potential solutions.
When you allow exceptions to a law, you then invite the type of problems we have today. Everyone then works to qualify for an exception, and then all of a sudden EVERYONE has an exception and the law is effectively repealed. Machine guns are allowed. I can own as many as I want. I just have to pay my taxes on them......
The Free speech issue of yelling fire in a crowded theater speaks to imminent and immediate consequences where lives would be endangered. I could yell fire in an empty theater with no consequences. The example you refer to is the immediate threat to a captive population. I like though how you moved to the 1st Amendment argument. But I will get you back on track to the Second Amendment. Me OWNING a gun presents no more danger to people than the United Stated Military possessing nuclear weapons. Were they built as an offensive weapon or a defensive weapon? They are a deterrent and an damn good one at that. Scale down to the level where we play. Did I buy a weapon to go kill people or for some other reason? I bought it for protection, not assault. Guns are like fences, they make great neighbors.
The problem liberals want to ignore is there will ALWAYS be bad people who will use any means necessary to kill people. The tool is not the issue, this is a people problem.
Remember Maj Hassan at Ft. Hood? ALL THE SIGNS were there and the military ignored them because it was not politically correct to question him. He brought a gun into a NO GUN ZONE and killed a lot of innocent soldiers preparing to deploy. Was this a Gun issue or a people issue?
As far as your no guns fantasy, this is a moot talking point because it is impossible theoretical situation that only happens in the movies and contributes NOTHING to the problem or potential solutions.
When you allow exceptions to a law, you then invite the type of problems we have today. Everyone then works to qualify for an exception, and then all of a sudden EVERYONE has an exception and the law is effectively repealed. Machine guns are allowed. I can own as many as I want. I just have to pay my taxes on them......
The Free speech issue of yelling fire in a crowded theater speaks to imminent and immediate consequences where lives would be endangered. I could yell fire in an empty theater with no consequences. The example you refer to is the immediate threat to a captive population. I like though how you moved to the 1st Amendment argument. But I will get you back on track to the Second Amendment. Me OWNING a gun presents no more danger to people than the United Stated Military possessing nuclear weapons. Were they built as an offensive weapon or a defensive weapon? They are a deterrent and an damn good one at that. Scale down to the level where we play. Did I buy a weapon to go kill people or for some other reason? I bought it for protection, not assault. Guns are like fences, they make great neighbors.
The problem liberals want to ignore is there will ALWAYS be bad people who will use any means necessary to kill people. The tool is not the issue, this is a people problem.
Remember Maj Hassan at Ft. Hood? ALL THE SIGNS were there and the military ignored them because it was not politically correct to question him. He brought a gun into a NO GUN ZONE and killed a lot of innocent soldiers preparing to deploy. Was this a Gun issue or a people issue?
(0)
(0)
(1)
(0)
8
8
0
I can't believe the social justice Warriors visiting president Trump are appalled at his idea of having trained armed faculty on campus. This is the real world, only dummies like California governor Jerry Brown and his legislature passed laws forbidding school districts from giving out gun permits to Any teacher. Criminals know that and so do the Looney ones! The only safe space is an armed protected space. All the Kumbaya and wishful thinking in the world isn't going to stop a 7.62, 5.56, 9 mm or double odd buck bullet!
(8)
(0)
MSG (Join to see)
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/can-miss-crabtree-pack-heat-these-18-states-allow-k-12-teachers-to-carry/article/2649321
Found this article. Not sure if approval can be daily basis.
Found this article. Not sure if approval can be daily basis.
Can Miss Crabtree pack heat? These 18 states allow K-12 teachers to carry.
After a monster killed 17 people in a Florida high school on Valentine’s Day though, calls for arming teachers have increased.
(3)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
Correction, I'm referring to the state of California. Prior to this law, this superintendent of schools could allow armed employees on campus who had valid concealed carry. As of January 1st, it is no longer valid. Open Season Governor Jerry Brown!
(1)
(0)
SSG Warren Swan
There are 18 states that already allow teachers to conceal carry. I actually like the idea of the rest allowing this to happen, but I'm sadden that our society has sunk to this not so new low of having to actually do this. Trump said the shootings last an average of three minutes. It takes LEO to get there an average of eight minutes where the shooting has already been done and over with. In this scenario, the "good guy/gal with a gun" applies to me. But there has to be limitations on this too. Who issues them, who is responsible for maintaining the qualification books, when do they qualify, are they taught first aid? The "Golden Hour" is just as important as slinging rounds at the bad guys, There needs to be a limit to the size of the weapon. If you think for one second that if this isn't legislated, you'll find some teacher with a Barrett, full auto GLOCK (folks do have licenses to have these weapons), an Abrams, or a 777 talking about how they would save lives with either one. Can't have that "grey area". Something like this should not be allowed to be legislated by the states since the laws we have now that are state laws are confusing, vague, and can send you to prison for being in the "right" while being in the "wrong". Make it a federal law where the states can define how to work within the framework of the federal guidelines, and not restrict them to the point where it becomes a non-starter. No child should expect going to school to be a true life or death experience. We've failed as a society if this is reasonable
Personally if I was a teacher, I'd have an A-10 flying CAP for eight hours or a Bradley in the parking lot.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/15/guns-in-schools-firearms-_n_2482168.html
Personally if I was a teacher, I'd have an A-10 flying CAP for eight hours or a Bradley in the parking lot.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/15/guns-in-schools-firearms-_n_2482168.html
18 States Already Allow Guns In Schools With Few Restrictions
In the weeks following the Sandy Hook massacre, a number of state lawmakers' proposals to fight school gun violence by arming teachers have been met with...
(2)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
Canadian Special Forces | WE WILL FIND A WAY
JTF2 and CSOR Canadian Special Forces Like and Subscribe our channel Music: Final Hour - Night Hounds GO CHECK OUT NINJAKIDCH FOR MORE SOF VIDEOS: https://ww...
You would have a Seal Team ready as well. Here is a Canadian Special Forces air assault in one of their training facilities.
https://youtu.be/rQygCRUM_0A
https://youtu.be/rQygCRUM_0A
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
Ask those that want to ban guns if they'd want to ban vehicles or knives if they were the leading cause of teen deaths, or mass killings in the U S.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google