Ontopic The Shooting Thread

Strings said:
Because Mrs Crabtree, 2 years till retirement, is the perfect person to train to defend against an active shooter.
Click to expand...
If she wants to, she should be able to.

Again, the answer is less guns, but good luck with that. Short of that, if Mrs Crabtree wants to be properly trained to defend against an active shooter, why not let her? She almost literally couldn't do worse than the Uvalde police department.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: ZRH
fly said:
If she wants to, she should be able to.

Again, the answer is less guns, but good luck with that. Short of that, if Mrs Crabtree wants to be properly trained to defend against an active shooter, why not let her? She almost literally couldn't do worse than the Uvalde police department.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. If she wants to. I'm sure some schools will have plenty of volunteers and some won't have any. You like Stats, think of the numbers of schools and teachers in the US.
It's not a very practical solution.
 
This whole thing is so carefully crafted on the news. It's an agenda and I don't like it. 'Shall not be infringed' isn't included in any other amendment, most of them are 'without the consent of congress.' 1A and 2A are the only non negotiables.

and yes these are edge cases. Have you ever heard of confirmation bias? If something is blasted at you every single day nonstop you start to believe it's more common than it is but we don't report traffic deaths. I've been to hundreds of street fights, domestics, etc. The world is a violent place and I do not trust the police. I've worked for them. They DO NOT CARE. Just about any first responder who isn't burned out is probably too gung ho. Ill take care of my own safety and it is my RIGHT to do it in the most effective way possible.

You want the people who you shouldnt trust to have a monopoly on force? The government should fear the people. You want to exclusively arm the one thing you complain about being armed all the time? That's some next level cognitive dissonance.
 
Last edited:
  • Gravy
Reactions: fly
ZRH said:
This whole thing is so carefully crafted on the news. It's an agenda and I don't like it. 'Shall not be infringed' isn't included in any other amendment, most of them are 'without the consent of congress.' 1A and 2A are the only non negotiables.

and yes these are edge cases. Have you ever heard of confirmation bias? If something is blasted at you every single day nonstop you start to believe it's more common than it is but we don't report traffic deaths. I've been to hundreds of street fights, domestics, etc. The world is a violent place and I do not trust the police. I've worked for them. They DO NOT CARE. Just about any first responder who isn't burned out is probably too gung ho. Ill take care of my own safety and it is my RIGHT to do it in the most effective way possible.

You want the people who you shouldnt trust to have a monopoly on force? The government should fear the people. You want to exclusively arm the one thing you complain about being armed all the time? That's some next level cognitive dissonance.
Click to expand...
frjllt4.png
 
  • Gravy
Reactions: Mr. Argumentor
Getting time at the range has been tricky lately. Lots of people sharpening up.
This seems to happen around here whenever talk of gun control starts up.
 
Strings said:
Getting time at the range has been tricky lately. Lots of people sharpening up.
This seems to happen around here whenever talk of gun control starts up.
Click to expand...
Yeah, nothing is in stock either. I WAS going to get a M9A1 and they sold out. Also gun store which was already only open 3 days a week is PACKED.
 
ZRH said:
Yeah, nothing is in stock either. I WAS going to get a M9A1 and they sold out. Also gun store which was already only open 3 days a week is PACKED.
Click to expand...
Same here on open hours and places being packed. And some places don't appreciate browsing. They want you in and out. But I guess it's not like a music store and guitar shopping :lol:
 
ZRH said:
This whole thing is so carefully crafted on the news. It's an agenda and I don't like it. 'Shall not be infringed' isn't included in any other amendment, most of them are 'without the consent of congress.' 1A and 2A are the only non negotiables.

and yes these are edge cases. Have you ever heard of confirmation bias? If something is blasted at you every single day nonstop you start to believe it's more common than it is but we don't report traffic deaths. I've been to hundreds of street fights, domestics, etc. The world is a violent place and I do not trust the police. I've worked for them. They DO NOT CARE. Just about any first responder who isn't burned out is probably too gung ho. Ill take care of my own safety and it is my RIGHT to do it in the most effective way possible.

You want the people who you shouldnt trust to have a monopoly on force? The government should fear the people. You want to exclusively arm the one thing you complain about being armed all the time? That's some next level cognitive dissonance.
Click to expand...
I have literally no clue why you keep quoting the second amendment. There is nothing in it that is relevant to today's laws. Legal cases over the past 60-80 years have completely rewritten it.

Next you're gonna be telling me that we have the right to life, liberty, and happiness.
 
Mr. Argumentor said:
I have literally no clue why you keep quoting the second amendment. There is nothing in it that is relevant to today's laws. Legal cases over the past 60-80 years have completely rewritten it.

Next you're gonna be telling me that we have the right to life, liberty, and happiness.
Click to expand...
Actually that case about DC gun laws in 2010 reversed the past 80 years of case law. It affirmed that it is a right for individuals to possess firearms. Can't recall the name if it. Maybe US v Heller? Anyway the Supreme Court basically said there is no military component to the 2A and upheld that it is an individual right. Which was always a contrived conclusion, they wanted to disarm minorities in the south in the 20s.

Last 20 years have basically reversed most of the Jim crow decisions from the early 20th century.

Not all mind the NFA is still in effect because 1) the Supreme Court never has the balls to take a case about it and 2) they would have to nullify the commerce clause (which would make weed legal) or incorporate the 2nd amendment.

But hey, it's not like I'm an instant expert like everyone else.
 
Last edited:
Mr. Argumentor said:
I have literally no clue why you keep quoting the second amendment. There is nothing in it that is relevant to today's laws. Legal cases over the past 60-80 years have completely rewritten it.

Next you're gonna be telling me that we have the right to life, liberty, and happiness.
Click to expand...
Isn't there some decision from like 100 years ago that's basically "someone could carry a firearm every day of their life and never have borne arms"? Like "bearing arms" = participating in armed conflict?
 
Hoff Kinkmeister said:
Isn't there some decision from like 100 years ago that's basically "someone could carry a firearm every day of their life and never have borne arms"? Like "bearing arms" = participating in armed conflict?
Click to expand...
Yes. Something like that. It's not valid case law anymore. It was you had to be part of an organized militia to be bearing arms.
 
Strings said:
Absolutely. If she wants to. I'm sure some schools will have plenty of volunteers and some won't have any. You like Stats, think of the numbers of schools and teachers in the US.
It's not a very practical solution.
Click to expand...
I promise I'm intentionally being obtuse here, but what isn't practical?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back