I Am A Teacher And I Need No Gun, I Want Stronger Gun Control !

[grean]

Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

Firstly, I humbly apologize for snagging onto a single snippet of your tale. They won't get the guns, so just move on to the real present danger. You have to do a little role playing to understand this. Think of yourself as a parent with a middle school or high school student in the near future.

WTF do you think is going to happen to them in the near future if they happen to make an off-color comment and the entire full weight of all the government bureaucracies come crashing down on them, first in the darkness - while they analyze every facet of their lives and yours. That would be both physically and electronically? I'm not talking about a cursory scan. I'm talking about a deep anal probe of every second of theirs and yours existence.

Think hard on it. You will be essentially butt raped with a metal corn cob. Think not? Then you probably didn't pay attention to the aftermath of Columbine. A principle or other school official can begin the anal probe with a single phone call. Most likely, you won't even know it started. And you likely will not be able to stop it.

That is the natural outcome of this event. If you happen to be keeping count, that would be crushing the 1st and 4th amendments, likely a couple others. Been there. Done that.

That did not go unnoticed.

Free Speech and Due Process, and our right to privacy (yes, there is such thing)are mixed right in to this problem. 2A I'd just the tip. Everyone asked why some 39 interactions left the police with no recourse. While President Trump may be okay with taking the guns and then going to court, we know that's not how it works. And it shouldn't.

Hate speech is free speech until you direct it towards some one in front of you who would be enticed by it. Our right to free speech cannot cause an immediate dangerous situation. Yelling fire in a theatre is a no no.

A threat as SCOTUS interprets 1A, now,must be immediate to lose protection. They may revisit this but I doubt much will change.

We need to secure our schools. However, how much of kids privacy being violated will be tolerated in preventing weapons from being brought in.

There's really a lot to talk about. There will have to be a national discussion about that.

[TheDaliLama]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

I'v always consider myself to be a Democrat, since John Connally was one, and I never thought there was anything wrong with "Pussy Grabbing" as long as it's done in a gentle and tender manner with lots of moist, warm tongue applied to stimulate the participant.

It's refreshing to have someone in the White House who likes pussy and also has enough class to "like it" outside of the People's House, as well as know how to like it instead of sticking cigars in them.

Of course, if I guy were married to HillariousNoMore ... perhaps a cigar is the option with her!

I still can’t believe Bill encouraged youths to use tobacco.

[grean]

So StandinStraight,

Trump thinks now guns should just be removed and worry about due process later.


A lot of times, by the time you go to court, it takes so long to go to court to get the due process procedures,” Trump said. “Take the guns first, go through due process second.”

You agree?

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by TheDaliLama

I still can’t believe Bill encouraged youths to use tobacco.

Since he was born and raised without knowing his father perhaps it was his way of suggesting birth control by example!

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

Originally Posted by grean

That did not go unnoticed.

Hate speech is free speech until you direct it towards some one in front of you who would be enticed by it. Our right to free speech cannot cause an immediate dangerous situation. Yelling fire in a theatre is a no no.

I'm not talking about something that would even remotely qualify as hate speech being the instigator, just something off-color, ill-advised, stupid comment -out of context and generally harmless that might offend someone or allow someone to get someone else in trouble over, thinking it would be funny to report them.

I've always felt there should be a counter-suit law, along the lines of: What ever penalty someone could incurr as the result of the crime you are accusing them, should be laid upon the accuser if it turns out to be a false repor. Lena Dungheapham comes to mind with her false rape alligation. She should have served the time for filing a false claim. Of the Duke Lacross accuser.

[Rey Lengua]

Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

Firstly, I humbly apologize for snagging onto a single snippet of your tale. They won't get the guns, so just move on to the real present danger. You have to do a little role playing to understand this. Think of yourself as a parent with a middle school or high school student in the near future.

WTF do you think is going to happen to them in the near future if they happen to make an off-color comment and the entire full weight of all the government bureaucracies come crashing down on them, first in the darkness - while they analyze every facet of their lives and yours. That would be both physically and electronically? I'm not talking about a cursory scan. I'm talking about a deep anal probe of every second of theirs and yours existence.

Think hard on it. You will be essentially butt raped with a metal corn cob. Think not? Then you probably didn't pay attention to the aftermath of Columbine. A principle or other school official can begin the anal probe with a single phone call. Most likely, you won't even know it started. And you likely will not be able to stop it.

That is the natural outcome of this event. If you happen to be keeping count, that would be crushing the 1st and 4th amendments, likely a couple others. Been there. Done that.

The Lying liberals are all for " deep anal probes ". Especially the ones that post here known as assup ( Or Mr. DOTY 5 TIMES ! ) and the rest of HIS reach-around crew of Gloryhole operators !

[Rey Lengua]

Originally Posted by TheDaliLama

I still can’t believe Bill encouraged youths to use tobacco.

And Slick Willy's first Surgeon General encouraged masturbation ! That must have been difficult for the lying liberal EUNUCHS that roboticly obey every utterance from a Clinton or their " staff " and crooked friends !

[garhkal]

Originally Posted by grean

That did not go unnoticed.

Free Speech and Due Process, and our right to privacy (yes, there is such thing)are mixed right in to this problem. 2A I'd just the tip. Everyone asked why some 39 interactions left the police with no recourse. While President Trump may be okay with taking the guns and then going to court, we know that's not how it works. And it shouldn't.

Especially when we've already seen people wrongfully arrested, had their stuff seized, but still years after they are cleared, they STILL are fighting to get their property back..

[rexdutchman]

Crushing the Bill of Rights 3 amendments at a time... Yes that's troubling at best ( I just think what would happen if 1AD free speech was attacked the same way)

[grean]

Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

I'm not talking about something that would even remotely qualify as hate speech being the instigator, just something off-color, ill-advised, stupid comment -out of context and generally harmless that might offend someone or allow someone to get someone else in trouble over, thinking it would be funny to report them.

I've always felt there should be a counter-suit law, along the lines of: What ever penalty someone could incurr as the result of the crime you are accusing them, should be laid upon the accuser if it turns out to be a false repor. Lena Dungheapham comes to mind with her false rape alligation. She should have served the time for filing a false claim. Of the Duke Lacross accuser.

My point was that the 1st protects even hate speech and that violence has to be all but imminent before a threat is not protected. A very high bar has been placed on what isn't protected. Off color or Ill advised remarks alone won't be an issue. People can call and say "Timmy posted such and such on fb" and the police probably would look and then dismiss it from their minds because there is nothing in most cases that can or even should be done.

Hindsight 20/20, right?

That ,perhaps, may be why a few of those interactions did not result in police action.

[themystic]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

I'v always consider myself to be a Democrat, since John Connally was one, and I never thought there was anything wrong with "Pussy Grabbing" as long as it's done in a gentle and tender manner with lots of moist, warm tongue applied to stimulate the participant.

It's refreshing to have someone in the White House who likes pussy and also has enough class to "like it" outside of the People's House, as well as know how to like it instead of sticking cigars in them.

Of course, if I guy were married to HillariousNoMore ... perhaps a cigar is the option with her!

Lex you do have some redeeming qualities. You're not a Trump lover, you're a Hillary hater. Lots of you on here like that

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by themystic

Lex you do have some redeeming qualities. You're not a Trump lover, you're a Hillary hater. Lots of you on here like that

You keep getting "it" wrong. I do see at least one flaw in your comments (whether it's "thinking" or not is questionable). For you, it seems, life is emotional: "hate" vs. "love"!

Not everyone shares your view of the world.

And that's a good thing! If you love cow patties, that's fine! I don't!

[sjohnlewis]

Originally Posted by StandinStraight

i Am in the middle of a political science lecture and suddenly the classroom door burst open and a maniac is spraying the class with the bullets of a AR15. Even if I was armed, by the time I could react, the damage to human life would be catastrophic because of the speed of the rapid fire of a killing machine. The initial reaction of anyone facing that type of fire power would be to run or hide knowing your hand gun would be no match for the AR15.

Eliminating these types of weapons from society should be the common sense first step toward making America safe again. Anyone who claims this in someway would be a attack on the second amendment is a fool. No American needs a gun that is designed to fight wars and cause mass casualties. No American should have to worry about ever facing the fire of such a weapon. I will keep teaching, no gun for me, hopefully after the mid terms when democrats control the house and senate we can move toward eliminating the AR15 and weapons like it forever.

Wow, so stupid. Your statements make no sense at all.

For example:
"your hand gun would be no match for the AR15."

The AR 15 is a very light rifle and fires a .223 weighing about 55 grains. It is much lighter than many hand guns. The military version was made to wound a person rather than kill them, because it takes 2 to 3 more people to care for a wounder person than a dead person. I really don't like the AR15 platform because it is my opinion it just looks stupid, and it is tow light to do the job. As a semiautomatic, it can shoot a lot of light weight bullets but I do not think of it as an accurate weapon. A lot of the guys in the military that used that version of the thing really didn't know how to shoot anyway: so, spraying a of bullets around with a lot of noise didn't solve anything. I would much rather carry a weapon that has the ability to give me one kill for one shot: that way, one doesn't need a lot of bullets.

Most pistol ammo is heaver than the .223; about 115 grains for a 9 mm, more than twice as heavy as the .223.

When I must carry for the company, I carry a 9 mm Beretta for security with two backup clips. That is 51 bullets for a highly accurate weapon.

Without getting involved with a full discussion of all of the differences of bullets and individual guns: let's just state that you are a fool that is full of shit - and stupid. You are talking out of your ass with a lot of emotion and no facts.

[Rey Lengua]

Originally Posted by sjohnlewis

Wow, so stupid. Your statements make no sense at all.

For example:
"your hand gun would be no match for the AR15."

The AR 15 is a very light rifle and fires a .223 weighing about 55 grains. It is much lighter than many hand guns. The military version was made to wound a person rather than kill them, because it takes 2 to 3 more people to care for a wounder person than a dead person. I really don't like the AR15 platform because it is my opinion it just looks stupid, and it is tow light to do the job. As a semiautomatic, it can shoot a lot of light weight bullets but I do not think of it as an accurate weapon. A lot of the guys in the military that used that version of the thing really didn't know how to shoot anyway: so, spraying a of bullets around with a lot of noise didn't solve anything. I would much rather carry a weapon that has the ability to give me one kill for one shot: that way, one doesn't need a lot of bullets.

Most pistol ammo is heaver than the .223; about 115 grains for a 9 mm, more than twice as heavy as the .223.

When I must carry for the company, I carry a 9 mm Beretta for security with two backup clips. That is 51 bullets for a highly accurate weapon.

Without getting involved with a full discussion of all of the differences of bullets and individual guns: let's just state that you are a fool that is full of shit - and stupid. You are talking out of your ass with a lot of emotion and no facts.

By looking at his signature line, you can see that ALL he does is talk out of his WIDE ASS !

[garhkal]

Originally Posted by rexdutchman

Crushing the Bill of Rights 3 amendments at a time... Yes that's troubling at best ( I just think what would happen if 1AD free speech was attacked the same way)

Listen to how ranty the media got, about "suppression of a free media" when trump talked about not letting in certain media groups?

Add to that, how many stories have we seen over the past 3+ years, where this or that school/town prevented a CONSERVATIVE speaker from speaking (even to the point of rioting and threatening violence), but i never remember hearing about anything from 'right winngers' denying a leftist the right to speak..