...a couple staffers had been armed?

Tags: control, gun, guns, killings, mass

Views: 8410

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

Would the Connecticut elementary school toll have been smaller if...

a couple staffers had been armed?

Your thread start looks a lot like you did, Unseen.  If that wasn't your intent, I think you might have posted a few more lines in the start, to clarify.

Ok so for guns like that regulate the clips.

The NRA press conference today was a quite perplexing to a non-gun owner, but aluminum baseball bat wielder such as myself.

It is amazing to me that people don't stop for a second and think that what they are advocating for is a police state. We agree to armed policemen in schools where the mass killings are, then we agree to armed policemen in the malls where the mass shootings are, then we agree to the armed policemen in the movie theaters where the mass killings are.

Is this the America we envision? Is this the armed tyranny that we want? Isn't this the 'Don't Tread on Me' version of America that the right to keep and bear arms was trying to avoid? Instead we are more rapidly arming the police state? So now citizens will need to ramp up their guns more to arm themselves for an even more obvious (to some anyway) presence of armed police state than I could imagined before.

That's quite a twisted path for someone to take to align themsleves with a sales lobbying group whose primary purpose is to sell as much of its product to the public as it possibly can.

What is your definition of "police state"? I always thought it was one where the powers that be kept themselves in control through jackbooted police knocking heads or dragging people to oblivion while the rest of the world slept, secret police, and constant surveilance. 

Apparently, for you, a police presence designed to protect rather than to oppress is a police state. 


I was role-playing a bit. We have a population of gun advocates that have armed themselves against the possibility of a tyrannical government imposing their will on them.

We have a population of gun advocates that think the purpose of FEMA is to establish concentration camps to inter problematic patriots, under the guise of a positive public program.

It seems logically incongruent to me that rather than even think about starting at square one in the discussion of control the preferred position is to place more armed police in a federal program, not local, not state regulated and not school district employed or organized, to promote safety, which could just as easily within that mindset to be considered to be under the guise of a positive public program.

I'm pretty sure the guns are just a deadly and the federal policemen just as easily mobilized with or without the jackboots.

Federally FUNDED program. (Never happen anyway in the current budget climate.)

We're pretty resilient to this sort of thing.

I heard two statistics today. Gun ownership has been rising steeply in the last few years. Then, separately, crime has been going down the last five years.


I think one of the Harry Potter movies was released then as well.

Probably mostly with weapons bought in the rush to buy guns after the shooting.

Bloody hell, Blaine, that's an alarming set of information!  Good trawl!

Would the Connecticut elementary school toll have been smaller if a couple staffers had been armed?

I don't think so! It's complicated!

I think you'll have to do better than that if you actually have a point to make.



Services we love!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

© 2015   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service