Show of HandsShow of Hands

Show Of Hands December 22nd, 2012 12:00am

Better way to prevent school shootings: more strict gun control laws, or an armed security guard in every school?

1 Liked

Comments: Add Comment

EarlyBird Portland
12/30/12 3:38 pm

Not true! The presidents kids will be a target for as long as he's the president. All former presidents children had heavy guards too.

Rocker saved by grace
12/29/12 5:31 pm

One security guard per school is a bad idea. The teachers should be armed.

Threeper301 Gilbert, AZ
12/29/12 3:35 pm

Then whose side are you on???

Reply
alexpara
12/28/12 4:59 pm

Neither. Just take away gun free zones so average people can take their unconcealed weapon in case of a shooting.

The NRA is retarded, and so are gun control advocates.

Threeper301 Gilbert, AZ
12/28/12 11:49 am

.....or for that matter, the blatant ARROGANCE???

aaf0724
12/28/12 11:25 am

The criminals will always get their hands on guns, all they have to do is ask the president for some, does Fast and Furious ring a bell!!! Oh wait that is suppose to be a cover up.

Reply
Threeper301 Gilbert, AZ
12/28/12 8:46 am

Unfortunately, you can't force someone to give a sh!t about their kids.

Reply
ronzovball Orlando, FL
12/28/12 8:27 am

How about better parenting?

Reply
Threeper301 Gilbert, AZ
12/28/12 1:15 am

.....so, just because he's president, his family deserves personal protection, but an average citizen doesn't??? Don't you people see the blatant HYPOCRISY of this whole debate???

Reply
Threeper301 Gilbert, AZ
12/28/12 1:12 am

No one's asking for a "police state". Consider this fact: the school that the Obama's send their kids to daily has 11 ARMED GUARDS constantly patrolling the grounds, but think that putting armed guards at YOUR kids' schools is "too drastic".....

Reply
sassyirishgurrl Minnesota
12/27/12 2:43 pm

parenting classes for most morons that are raising kids today should be mandatory !

Reply
destonizzr
12/27/12 12:10 pm

Having a police state is not the answer either. Read 1984!

Reply
pinkyusuck The Carribean. I wish.
12/27/12 7:49 am

Also, the Founding Fathers wrote that the militia was comprised of the "whole body" of the populace armed with firearms "of the sort in common usage." They meant for the average American to be armed with military grade weapons, as a defense against crime, foreign aggression or domestic tyranny.

Reply
pinkyusuck The Carribean. I wish.
12/27/12 7:38 am

A "well-regulated militia" is the phrase. And in that time, regulated simply meant trained and disciplined, not 'governed by bureaucracy'.

pinkyusuck The Carribean. I wish.
12/27/12 7:35 am

And if you're referring to the infamously ill-conceived 'Assault Weapons Ban', Columbine (and a few other mass murders, I believe) happened while the AWB was in effect. The choice of weapon makes no difference in capability or intent. Criminals who can't get guns simply use another method to murder.

Reply
pinkyusuck The Carribean. I wish.
12/27/12 7:31 am

What is an 'assault weapon'? It's an ambiguous buzz phrase, often used by the left in an attempt to generate feelings of fear in the general public, with regards to perfectly legal and safe firearms.

Reply
pinkyusuck The Carribean. I wish.
12/27/12 6:44 am

And just what do think is 'wrong' with the interpretation of the Second Amendment? The Founding Fathers explained that the militia is composed of the "whole body" of the citizenry, properly armed with a firearm "of the sort in common usage." Their words are the only correct way to interpret it.

pinkyusuck The Carribean. I wish.
12/27/12 6:41 am

Wrong Googleplex. Sweden is one of the few European countries where you can own most any type of rifle you want to, albeit with restrictions.

Reply
Poc1976 Indiana
12/27/12 12:46 am

I think YOU need to reread the 2A. The word People is there for a reason. Also, anyone of age and able is part of the militia.

Reply
Threeper301 Gilbert, AZ
12/26/12 11:11 pm

No, YOU, and everyone else who thinks like you, are the problem.

Reply
Googleplex Pennsylvania
12/26/12 10:01 pm

Herm he actually did not kill them check your facts guns are the problem

Reply
palindrome California
12/26/12 8:37 pm

Lol "it doesn't change the fact that they were right"


.... And yet, they didn't give you the right to subvert or overthrow the government they set up, did they? Sure didn't mention that in the Constitution.

robbydawg
12/26/12 11:43 am

better school systems better mental Health systems and leave the Amendments alone we have fought for these rights from the beginning and we will not be punished because of sick people falling through the cracks!

Reply
MarkIII
12/26/12 11:04 am

How many of those kids died though none.....u dumb son of a bitch if that kid would of had a knife at sandy everyone would have probably lived as well and the guy would of been a lot easier to take down,guns help crazy people get crazier automatic and semi auto weapons should have more restrictions

Reply
time
12/26/12 2:07 am

Like drugs, it is important to take Away the need for violence, hate, and fear. In the words of John Lennon. All we are asking is Give love a chance.

Herm31812 Pennsylvania
12/25/12 11:25 pm

Look at china, sone guy ran into a school and stabbed over 20 kids. Killed em! Guns are not the problems, Idiots, people need help are the problems. Hell, you think making a law will stop a criminal? If they want to kill Someone they will. And they will not follow rules. They will always get guns.

Reply
Googleplex Pennsylvania
12/25/12 10:21 pm

What we need to do is fix the interpretation of the 2nd amendment and get rid of all guns that's what happened in Sweden and they never have any murders and we have 100000 a year

Reply
Googleplex Pennsylvania
12/25/12 10:18 pm

The armed guards theory is illogical if you did it with a guard in every classroom which is really the only way for the guards to have a chance it would probably cost around 1.2 trillion when no other modernized nation needs it and we certainty don't need it

Reply
Googleplex Pennsylvania
12/25/12 10:12 pm

If you actually read the full 2nd amendment all it stated was you could own a gun if you are part of a "well armed militia" not the NRA way that thinks every person can have as many guns and bullets as he or she pleases

Reply
Googleplex Pennsylvania
12/25/12 10:08 pm

There was an armed guard at Columbine didn't do a thing assault weapons trump hand guns

Reply
pinkyusuck The Carribean. I wish.
12/25/12 7:51 pm

Taking away the means of defense leaves the weakest defenseless. The weak and defenseless are usually the first to suffer in a crisis. Firearms put everyone on a more even footing defensively by negating natural inequalities (5'0" female vs. 6'4" male for instance).

pinkyusuck The Carribean. I wish.
12/25/12 7:43 pm

Read up on Operation Fast and Furious, then come crying to me about the accessibility of guns to Mexican cartels.

pinkyusuck The Carribean. I wish.
12/25/12 7:39 pm

Yes well, palindrome, the Founders were considered criminals too. Some of them were caught and hung. It doesn't change the fact that they were right. I have no desire to operate outside of the law insofar as the law is Constitutional. Read up on some of Thomas Jefferson's thoughts on tyranny.

Threeper301 Gilbert, AZ
12/25/12 7:16 pm

Exactly! It seems everyone, including the government, missed the fact that the Aurora, Colorado shooter purposely chose to shoot up the theater that had the "Gun-Free Zone" sign posted. It was the ONLY ONE near his house that did.

Reply
palindrome California
12/25/12 5:30 pm

or any other organ of our state through your own self-deputized sense of authority.

If you want to defy the law of this country, as established by the legislature, ratified by our president and deemed constitutional by our Supreme Court: you are a criminal.

palindrome California
12/25/12 5:28 pm

all the rights and protections afforded to our law abiding citizens of this country. And if you dare challenge the US government, then you will be treated as an enemy. It's really that simple.
We have a code of laws. Checks and balances. The 2nd does not mean YOU can take the place of the SCOTUS

palindrome California
12/25/12 5:26 pm

people to undermine our legitimate and lawful US government. The 2nd amendment doesn't mean "play by your own rules". So long as the three balances of power agree the action is permissible, then you MUST adhere. You are not your own sovereign. If you wish to leave our society, so be it. But you lose

palindrome California
12/25/12 5:23 pm

Well, I'm sorry. But you seem intent on fulfilling some desire to operate outside of the jurisdiction of the US Constitution, or at the very least, on the very fringes of it. You most likely have a corrupted view of the law of this land. But be assured, the 2nd has NEVER been understood to allow the

pinkyusuck The Carribean. I wish.
12/25/12 5:23 pm

She probably meant to defend herself against some idiot evil maniac.

pinkyusuck The Carribean. I wish.
12/25/12 5:19 pm

I'm willing to put up with having to be on the lookout against maniacs if it means that the average woman is able to better protect herself from rape, and the average parent is able to safeguard the lives of their children.

pinkyusuck The Carribean. I wish.
12/25/12 5:17 pm

Obama has kept the firearms and ammunition industry going strong in spite of an overall economic slump. Inadvertently, but nonetheless.

pinkyusuck The Carribean. I wish.
12/25/12 5:15 pm

If it's required by the same administration intent on disarming me, I don't trust it to be objective.

pinkyusuck The Carribean. I wish.
12/25/12 5:13 pm

It's not that we're scared to discuss it. It's that we've studied history, and we know that serious oppression always takes root most deeply after the citizenry has been disarmed. Just ask Hitler, Stalin or Mao. They all used it extensively in their mass murder campaigns.

palindrome California
12/25/12 5:13 pm

Psych test usually makes sure... You know, you aren't hearing voices or are suffering from some form of dementia etc

pinkyusuck The Carribean. I wish.
12/25/12 5:11 pm

Well, we try to get more police into high crime areas. Oh, and what do police use to enforce the law? That's right, guns.
It seems that more guns in responsible hands do decrease crime. And I, and several hundreds of millions of my fellow Americans have the capacity to exercise said responsibility.

pinkyusuck The Carribean. I wish.
12/25/12 5:08 pm

Psych tests? And who gets to decide what's passing on that? Would I be barred from purchasing firearms if I said that I wanted them to keep my government in check? How about to shoot an intruder before he can harm my family? It's far too subjective. It would end up being a de facto ban for most.

pinkyusuck The Carribean. I wish.
12/25/12 5:05 pm

But then again, the media these days seems to operate under the mantra 'Never let facts get in the way of a good headline.' Dumb shits.

Reply
pinkyusuck The Carribean. I wish.
12/25/12 5:03 pm

How about we apply that same standard to the media idiots who keep referring to semi-automatic intermediate-power rifles as 'high-powered machine guns?' A 12 gauge is far more powerful, and the average hunting rifle has far greater range than the average modern sporting rifle.

Reply