Show of Hands

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.

Republicans...

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

Then whose side are you on???

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.

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

THANK YOU!!!

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.

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

How about better parenting?

.....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???

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".....

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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!

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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).

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.