In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Teachers carrying in the class
chaoslodge
Member Posts: 790 ✭✭✭✭
http://thestory.org/
Dick Gordon is interviewing this guy who has come to the reluctant conclusion that as a professor the only way to stop this crap in schools is for teachers to carry in the class room. He is a prof himself.
Dick Gordon is interviewing this guy who has come to the reluctant conclusion that as a professor the only way to stop this crap in schools is for teachers to carry in the class room. He is a prof himself.
Comments
http://thestory.org/
Dick Gordon is interviewing this guy who has come to the reluctant conclusion that as a professor the only way to stop this crap in schools is for teachers to carry in the class room. He is a prof himself.
As everyone knows, an armed society is a polite society. If it were up to me, every aircraft passenger, etc. would be issued a 3" blade and a taser as they entered the aircraft, a courtroom or any other venue where space is limited and a projectile weapon might do more damage than good.
The Iraqis and Afghanis are heavily armed. How polite are they?
The Japanese are rarely armed. How polite are they?
I believe you may be confusing "subjection to a government that does not allow its citizens to be armed" with "politeness". The two are totally different. Now, let me give you an example:
England. Disarmed its citizens, and its crime rate is at an all time high.
Rebuttal?
An armed society that follows the rule of law, is a polite society.
But when the leaders no longer follow the rule of law, the armed society can eliminate them and start over, politely.
But when the leaders no longer follow the rule of law, the armed society can eliminate them and start over, politely.
Well said, and I believe I have read words similar to this somewhere before. Hmmmmmm, now where did i read that; it was in,mmmm, Oh, I remember now. It is in the Declaration of Independence, and I quote:
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
But wait, there's more:
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our People, and eat out their substance.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution (the U.N.?), and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us,
Like class-warfare, keeping racism alive and kicking, etc. You know, the whole "divide and conquer" tactic
I know this is in reference to King George, but it is hauntingly familiar, and bears striking resemblance to another time in our country. It is almost as if our founders were looking into a crystal ball.
originally posted by jpwolf:
But when the leaders no longer follow the rule of law, the armed society can eliminate them and start over, politely.
Well said, and I believe I have read words strikingly similar to this somewhere before. Hmmmmmm, now where did i read that; it was in,mmmm, Oh, I remember now. It is in the Declaration of Independence, and I quote:
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
The only document in this country that supersedes the Constitution.
I believe you may be confusing "subjection to a government that does not allow its citizens to be armed" with "politeness". The two are totally different. Now, let me give you an example:
England. Disarmed its citizens, and its crime rate is at an all time high.
Rebuttal?
Rebuttal? Okay. Japan has a long history of civilization and politeness. It has a long, but less long history of limiting armed civilians. Politeness in their society has existed without being armed. You can walk down the Ginza, day or night, and you will be both safe and treated politely.
You said: As everyone knows, an armed society is a polite society
Iraqis are heavily armed. They are hardly polite. Would you care to walk through Sadar City at night?
Afghanis are heavily armed too. Would you dare walk through downtown
Kabul at any time of day?
The citizens of The Sudan are heavily armed. Would you expect to be politely treated there?
The citizens of Denmark ar less likely to be armed. Would you be more politely treated there?
You said: As everyone knows, an armed society is a polite society.
I find Paris safe and polite, anywhere at all times, day or night. It's citizens are rarely armed.
By your theory : As everyone knows, an armed society is a polite society,They should be impolite.
But let's look at the USA.
East St. Louis is possibly the most heavily armed city in the USA. Polite? Hardly.
San Francisco is lightly armed. Your chances of being attacked/injured/killed there? Less than EStLou. By far.
You said: As everyone knows, an armed society is a polite society
Okay, where's your proof of that? What countries or cities can you name which are heavily armed and "polite", and what countries can you name which are lightly armed, and are less "polite"?
Facts, please, no slogans.
East St. Louis is possibly the most heavily armed city in the USA. Polite? Hardly.
"Armed" is a two-way street. Who are "the most heavily armed" individuals you are referring to? Criminals. Yeah, that's what I thought. The defense rests.
Okay, you admit you NO, NONE, ZERO facts to back up your sloganeering.
Back to your comic books.
wsfiredude -
Okay, you admit you NO, NONE, ZERO facts to back up your sloganeering.
Back to your comic books.
OK. Listen close retard, and I will try to explain it to you. Common sense (have any of that?) will tell you that in a society where the majority of the populace is armed, the criminal element will be less active due to the fact they may suffer instant consequences for their actions at the hands of an armed citizen. Hence, a "polite" society. Is that clear enough for you? I have tried to keep it as simple and unambiguous as possible, so that you will grasp the concept.
Nope, not clear at all. What you say is assumption; illogical assumption at that. What you say is nonsense, and contrary to fact. In other words, BS.
How about you provide facts to back up your claim.
As everyone knows, an armed society is a polite society
Name some heavily armed and polite societies, and some lightly armed and impolite societies. Just a few, say a half dozen of each.
Got facts, or are you just another factless, ignorant, simpleton sloganeer?
Name some heavily armed and polite societies, and some lightly armed and impolite societies. Just a few, say a half dozen of each.
Got facts, or are you just another factless, ignorant, simpleton sloganeer?
The New American magazine reminds us that March 25th marked the 16th anniversary of Kennesaw, Georgia's ordinance requiring heads of households (with certain exceptions) to keep at least one firearm in their homes.
The city's population grew from around 5,000 in 1980 to 13,000 by 1996 (latest available estimate). Yet there have been only three murders: two with knives (1984 and 1987) and one with a firearm (1997). After the law went into effect in 1982, crime against persons plummeted 74 percent compared to 1981, and fell another 45 percent in 1983 compared to 1982.
And it has stayed impressively low. In addition to nearly non-existent homicide (murders have averaged a mere 0.19 per year), the annual number of armed robberies, residential burglaries, commercial burglaries, and rapes have averaged, respectively, 1.69, 31.63, 19.75, and 2.00 through 1998.
Triple, there is a prime example. However, I suspect you will refute that in the hopes of prolonging this debate. I have explained it to you in simple terms, and all you can do is call me the master sloganier of sloganeering. WTH ever. Look, retard, I wasn't going to use it, but I have been left with no choice. Trying to convince you that armed societies have less crime, and the fact that you just do not get it, reminds me of one of my favorite movie lines (The Waterboy / Sandler):
"What are you, st-st-st-st-stupid????!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Name calling [V] will get it locked, in this forum.