Anonymous wrote:Because America is being held hostage to a vocal minority of gun nuts and donors. How about we take away people’s guns and if they’re upset, we can tweet them thoughts and prayers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because America is being held hostage to a vocal minority of gun nuts and donors. How about we take away people’s guns and if they’re upset, we can tweet them thoughts and prayers.

+1 million. Let this country become like Australia where guns are restricted to those with a legitimate need like hunters. And if the snowflake gun owners get upset. Well, too bad, becauss unlike the 17 teenagers this week, they’re still alive.

Do you think 2/3rds of the countries state legislatures would pass the legislation required to do that?

I don't think so.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because America is being held hostage to a vocal minority of gun nuts and donors. How about we take away people’s guns and if they’re upset, we can tweet them thoughts and prayers.

+1 million. Let this country become like Australia where guns are restricted to those with a legitimate need like hunters. And if the snowflake gun owners get upset. Well, too bad, becauss unlike the 17 teenagers this week, they’re still alive.

Anonymous wrote:Let me start out by saying I would have no problem banning AR-15s. Let me also say that I don't think it's the solution liberals think it is.

What I see here is similar to what I saw in the church shooting - that government failed to stop these individuals from getting a weapon in the first place. Cruz was known to both the school and to the FBI. He stated he wanted to shoot up a school. That clearly wasn't an alarm bell to FBI. See something, say something, failed.

We can argue gun control until we are blue in the face. What I'm after in this thread, is the where the security failures are at the LOCAL level and what can be done to prevent future attacks.

We saw with Lanza, he failed to legally procure a gun. He tried. The system worked. Instead he killed his mother, and took hers. She failed to see the danger. He then had to shoot off a lock (from what I understand) to gain entry to the school. There was no officer at the door to stop him - to even give him pause. By the time officers DID get there, children were massacred. Sitting ducks so to speak.

Cruz waltzed right into the school, despite what the school is calling 'tight security'. Unless the officer on premise was killed at the only point of entry (per the superintendent), we can assume the officer was not at that point of entry. The football coach who was deemed security, was left unarmed and protected kids with his own body, and subsequently his life.

I know of a lot of veterans who would like to volunteer their time to help guard those entries. I know of a lot of teachers who either are already trained - or would like to train - to carry concealed within the schools. Instead, there is shouting about disarming these law-abiding citizens. I maintain we just SAW what happened to a disarmed population (gun-free zone).

Please tell me logical reasons as to why we cannot, on a local level, move to protect our schools.

Anonymous wrote:Let me start out by saying I would have no problem banning AR-15s. Let me also say that I don't think it's the solution liberals think it is.

What I see here is similar to what I saw in the church shooting - that government failed to stop these individuals from getting a weapon in the first place. Cruz was known to both the school and to the FBI. He stated he wanted to shoot up a school. That clearly wasn't an alarm bell to FBI. See something, say something, failed.

We can argue gun control until we are blue in the face. What I'm after in this thread, is the where the security failures are at the LOCAL level and what can be done to prevent future attacks.

We saw with Lanza, he failed to legally procure a gun. He tried. The system worked. Instead he killed his mother, and took hers. She failed to see the danger. He then had to shoot off a lock (from what I understand) to gain entry to the school. There was no officer at the door to stop him - to even give him pause. By the time officers DID get there, children were massacred. Sitting ducks so to speak.

Cruz waltzed right into the school, despite what the school is calling 'tight security'. Unless the officer on premise was killed at the only point of entry (per the superintendent), we can assume the officer was not at that point of entry. The football coach who was deemed security, was left unarmed and protected kids with his own body, and subsequently his life.

I know of a lot of veterans who would like to volunteer their time to help guard those entries. I know of a lot of teachers who either are already trained - or would like to train - to carry concealed within the schools. Instead, there is shouting about disarming these law-abiding citizens. I maintain we just SAW what happened to a disarmed population (gun-free zone).

Please tell me logical reasons as to why we cannot, on a local level, move to protect our schools.

Anonymous wrote:Because America is being held hostage to a vocal minority of gun nuts and donors. How about we take away people’s guns and if they’re upset, we can tweet them thoughts and prayers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Military grade weapons, high capacity magazines and the easy availability of accessing firearms is the problem. Schools are often huge and if there were the money to have armed guards, you would basically have to have Secret Service-type protection for every child.

We also have had mass shootings at movie theaters and college campuses. High capacity clips are the one thing all these shootings had in common.

If you think you’re taking away high capacity clips think again. This is a mental health issue, and always has been, not a gun issue.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Military grade weapons, high capacity magazines and the easy availability of accessing firearms is the problem. Schools are often huge and if there were the money to have armed guards, you would basically have to have Secret Service-type protection for every child.

We also have had mass shootings at movie theaters and college campuses. High capacity clips are the one thing all these shootings had in common.

If you think you’re taking away high capacity clips think again. This is a mental health issue, and always has been, not a gun issue.

Anonymous wrote:Because America is being held hostage to a vocal minority of gun nuts and donors. How about we take away people’s guns and if they’re upset, we can tweet them thoughts and prayers.

Anonymous wrote:Military grade weapons, high capacity magazines and the easy availability of accessing firearms is the problem. Schools are often huge and if there were the money to have armed guards, you would basically have to have Secret Service-type protection for every child.

We also have had mass shootings at movie theaters and college campuses. High capacity clips are the one thing all these shootings had in common.

Anonymous wrote:This is just so terribly sad. This poor family has to deal with the loss of their daughter and the hate of some on the left.

As reporters from all over the country flock to small Florida town to cover the tragedy, we hear firsthand from parents who lost a child during the attack.
One of those parents was a man named Andrew Pollack, but liberals are treating the loss of his daughter much differently than they have others.
Pollack was photographed Wednesday looking for his daughter, Meadow Pollack. When reporter Alexandra Seltzer uploaded the photo to her Twitter on Thursday, she said Pollack learned his daughter was killed.
In response to Seltzer’s tweet about Pollack finding out his daughter had been murdered, sick liberals insulted the grieving father because he was wearing a shirt showing support for President Donald Trump.
Pollack was subjected to numerous vile responses saying he deserved to lose his daughter because he is a Trump supporter.
They ranged from, “I don’t feel sorry for him” to “f**k Trump” to “Maybe he should have thought twice before voting for Terrorist Trump.”

https://mediaequalizer.com/martin-walsh/2018/02/liberals-hurl-insults-at-father-of-florida-shooting-victim-for-his-shirt?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=socialnetwork

As reporters from all over the country flock to small Florida town to cover the tragedy, we hear firsthand from parents who lost a child during the attack.
One of those parents was a man named Andrew Pollack, but liberals are treating the loss of his daughter much differently than they have others.
Pollack was photographed Wednesday looking for his daughter, Meadow Pollack. When reporter Alexandra Seltzer uploaded the photo to her Twitter on Thursday, she said Pollack learned his daughter was killed.
In response to Seltzer’s tweet about Pollack finding out his daughter had been murdered, sick liberals insulted the grieving father because he was wearing a shirt showing support for President Donald Trump.
Pollack was subjected to numerous vile responses saying he deserved to lose his daughter because he is a Trump supporter.
They ranged from, “I don’t feel sorry for him” to “f**k Trump” to “Maybe he should have thought twice before voting for Terrorist Trump.”