". . . if I'd been there, with a gun, I'd have shot the ******* without hesitation or warning. Therein lies the problem; who's to be trusted with a gun under extreme provocation...."

 

There's a problem with that scenario though. A teacher (armed, as many appear to want) hearing shots and people yelling and screaming, comes out of a classroom, sees you holding a gun and assumes in all the confusion that you're the bad guy, and shoots you. If he misses, do you shoot back at him to save your own life, or try to explain to him (above all the noise) what is going on?

 

Imagine a similarly confused situation in (say) a shopping mall, with many people in the vicinity with concealed-carry weapons, and you could have a mother of a gun battle between innocent, well-meaning people while the original bad guy makes an escape amid all the confusion.

 

Does this seem unlikely?

 

Actually, it happens quite a bit with police officers responding to a call with an un-uniformed police officer (sometimes identified as a man with a gun) or if an off duty cop is holding someone at gun point waiting for on duty cops. Training and common sense says for the un-uniformed officer to immediately identify and cast away their weapon/unarm as to eliminate any threat. At that point, the teacher would be legally unjustified to use deadly force. You can "what if" all day really, but in the end all you can do is train properly. Even in our free time we are told to run scenarios in our head to prepare how we'd respond.

 

Will there be mistakes? Sure. But conversely, will there still be shootings with those restrictions? Better believe it.

 

Those folks make my blood boil with all their anti-gay propaganda and displays of sheer disrespect to everyone at some of the most sensitive times. :mad: Lock 'em up and throw away the key's I say. It's a wonder they haven't been the target of an assassination attempt yet...

 

Regards,

Ró.

 

Ró,

 

To make it worse they were actually brought before the Supreme Court by a father of a deceased soldier who's funeral they picketed. He was devastated by their disregard and offensive nature. The justices sided with Westboro despite their emotions telling them otherwise. That's actually how this church makes all their money, since they don't take donations.

 

http://www.time.com/...2056613,00.html

 

The leader and I believe some of the family are licensed lawyers that love to flex their legal muscle. They try to invoke violent reactions to their protests, with someone standing by specifically to video tape encounters, to gain money. Their last legal win was somewhere around $20,000 for someone trying to protect a funeral interfering with their protest.

The justices sided with Westboro despite their emotions telling them otherwise.

What??? On what possible ground could they side with them??? I mean surely they were the one's breaking the law, are there not laws against inciting violence, public disruption, public disorder, hate crimes etc?

You can't ignore the first Amendnent just because it makes you mad, sad, sick at your stomach or angry. You don't get to allow your emotions to decide on limiting rights specifically spelled out under our constitution. You limit their right to do the bike things they do you limit others rights to counter them. This applies to all our rights. No one has the right to never be offended. They're disgusting, but they don't get to dictate my rights under the First. Just like crazed gun men shouldn't dictate my Second.

You can't ignore the first Amendnent just because it makes you mad, sad, sick at your stomach or angry. You don't get to allow your emotions to decide on limiting rights specifically spelled out under our constitution. You limit their right to do the bike things they do you limit others rights to counter them. This applies to all our rights. No one has the right to never be offended. They're disgusting, but they don't get to dictate my rights under the First. Just like crazed gun men shouldn't dictate my Second.

I'm not saying that they can't hold their opinions, much as those particular opinions makes me sick and my stomach churn, I was simply saying that you can voice your opinions with much more tact than they do, they deliberately inflict hurt and pain on others with their speech, they incite violent. Surely that's a crime. Rights and responsibilities go hand in hand, hold any opinions you want, tell people about them if you want, but don't shove them in peoples faces who clearly don't want to listen at times when they're in mourning, don't deliberately set out to cause a disturbance in doing so. Surely those others have a right to mourn and a right to peace and that wasn't being respected.

 

In the same way you have a right to a gun, that doesn't mean you have the right to go around threatening innocent people with it.

 

Regards,

Ró.

Yeah I guess total freedom of speech has both good and bad sides then, at least in this country they would have been fined/jailed a long time ago using our laws against promoting hate towards group of people, but of course then those very same laws can be sometimes used to limit also healthy discussion and criticism which has already happened with some people who have criticized immigration using some harsh words...

 

But yeah whatever, in the end I'm glad this country has laws to prevent total scum like that from causing pain and misery to other people, even if it means certain amount of political correctness when expressing other opinions too.

You can't chill speech based on emotions, or hurting feelings. No they're breaking no crimes. And as disgusting as they are I'm glad there's no laws against it. You can't let politicians dictate speech. Of course speech has consequences such as being shunned, or a biker suddenly introducing his fist to ones face. I can't stand them but defend their right to be complete idiots because the alternative is worse.

The NRA is having its news conference, and I guess you can call the strategy "provocative" I ended up grimacing. I suspect strongly the average person is not going to respond at all the way they expect, and its a shame, because if ever there was a moment for all of us to finally work together, this is it.

 

No what they said was spot on. And the NRA and GOA membership has grown faster than ever. Quite a few people agree. They can't be ignored if certain politicians want to keep their job. Freedom of speech and freedom to have different beliefs. Wonderful thing.

The NRA is having its news conference, and I guess you can call the strategy "provocative" I ended up grimacing. I suspect strongly the average person is not going to respond at all the way they expect, and its a shame, because if ever there was a moment for all of us to finally work together, this is it.

 

Actually gun sales and ammo sales ALWAYS spike after events like this for multiple reasons. Most prices are up from 2-10x right now...

The NRA is having its news conference, and I guess you can call the strategy "provocative" I ended up grimacing. I suspect strongly the average person is not going to respond at all the way they expect, and its a shame, because if ever there was a moment for all of us to finally work together, this is it.

 

I'm a little confused... Did anyone air this? I can only find bits and pieces. All the media is covering when I looked is those protesters who rudely blocked him from camera sight.

I'm a little confused... Did anyone air this?

 

FOX, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC...

Ok, glad to hear it. Thanks Rob. I just missed it then.

 

 

Actually gun sales and ammo sales ALWAYS spike after events like this for multiple reasons. Most prices are up from 2-10x right now...

 

I meant how your average American is going to respond. I've seen the "They are going to take away xyz" and the panic buying response before. (the last time was over lightbulbs!) I am also certain that the message will resonate loudly with some.

 

I just don't think that particular "some" represents a numerical majority of Americans. Most people (like me) usually couldn't care less what gun enthusiasts and the NRA are up to, and that apathy has given people who do have strong feelings about it (gun advocates) backed up by the big money of the gun industry, leeway to pretty much own the issue.

 

I am not so sure though that average people with their attention focused by tragedies like we just had will be eager to buy into the certainties of that community. Those viewpoints don't seem to be the norm in the rest of the developed world, and its an open question if they are even the norm here anymore. The demographics are changing and so are the politics. The only certainty is change.

Certainty only resides in people's minds. There is nothing certain about any of this.

I'm not sure that's a very healthy idea to be giving children bullet proof vests

 

With respect Ró... it is a backpack that was being discussed... not body armor (vests). Sales of "bulletproof" backpacks have jumped.

 

And as far as "bulletproof"... a misnomer. Unless you start getting into "hard plate" armor. So unless these backpacks have the ability to insert a (e.g. ceramic) plate - rifle calibers will not be stopped.

 

 

Ok, glad to hear it. Thanks Rob. I just missed it then.

 

Welcome Chase.

 

Btw... Wayne La Pierre did the presentation... and made quite of bit of sense.

 

I have no idea how someone could "grimace" at what he said... unless when you first learn of a game (like me) called "Kindergarten Killers"... where you go about trying to kill kids! That it has been out for 10 years! Now how sick is that! That did shock me (and just about nothing does these days)... and breaks my heart at the same time such stuff is actually created.