Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
well we wouldn't need armed guards if there weren't all these guns in circulation. So to be pay for services like that it should be based on taxation of gun owners.
Guns will always be in circulation just like drugs. I for one won't give mine up, and I will continue to buy and sell no matter what the laws are. Some people will abide by the law but many won't. In effect you have made criminals out of what were law abiding citizens.
Anyways, there is no such thing as a gun free zone. That's just paper. Someone will get a gun and do his damage and you'll just have to wait that 10 or so minutes for the police to get there. Among many other repercussions
That's just it. It's impossible to predict when any one person is suddenly going to snap. Putting more guns into the hands of more people is just going to increase the likelihood that when someone does snap they have access to a gun.
Police already have guns strapped to em.
Obama and his knee jerk reaction to this incident has put a lot more guns in play. You see why knee jerk reactions aren't such a good idea in this situation?
I'm not saying they could. We are talking about schools though and how to make them safer. Having an armed officer and having the public know that they are there could cause some nut job to go find an easier target of opportunity in some other gun free zone. Or they could at least put up a fight against a nutjob who does show up. Nothing is perfect.
As long as the salary of the armed guard is based on taxation of gun owners. Gun owners are the ones who put all these guns into circulation---so they should be paying to guard the rest of us from them.
As long as the salary of the armed guard is based on taxation of gun owners. Gun owners are the ones who put all these guns into circulation---so they should be paying to guard the rest of us from them.
Should we put a tax on the head of every autistic kid
As long as the salary of the armed guard is based on taxation of gun owners. Gun owners are the ones who put all these guns into circulation---so they should be paying to guard the rest of us from them.
Well then only folks who have a drivers license should have to pay for roads. On and on we could go.
Roads are an essential part of our infrastructure. Gun owning is not essential.
Yes but cars kill more people than guns. So if you want to drive your death machine on the road then you pay for it.
Or require folks to get a drinking license and if they drink they have to pay the salary of the cops who pull over drunk drivers. So you can get folks with a drivers license who drink to pay for the roads and the cops. See how that works.
Roads are an essential part of our infrastructure. Gun owning is not essential.
Gun owning facilitates self defense which is a man, natural born right. It's like saying freedom of speech is not essential, let's do away with it. It hurst some people's feelings.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
