<p>This is how gun free zones work:</p>
<p>[Gun</a> Free Zones - 1/2 Hour News Hour - YouTube](<a href=“Gun Free Zones - 1/2 Hour News Hour - YouTube”>Gun Free Zones - 1/2 Hour News Hour - YouTube)</p>
<p>“Bypassing congress to force feed unconstitutional laws IS unconstitutional.”</p>
<p>The President can order rules for departments within the Executive Branch, and enforcement of existing federal laws, as passed by Congress, period.</p>
<p>"Executive Orders (EOs) are legally binding orders given by the President, acting as the head of the Executive Branch, to Federal Administrative Agencies. Executive Orders are generally used to direct federal agencies and officials in their execution of congressionally established laws or policies. However, in many instances they have been used to guide agencies in directions contrary to congressional intent.</p>
<p>The President’s source of authority to issue Executive Orders can be found in the Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution which grants to the President the “executive Power.” Section 3 of Article II further directs the President to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” To implement or execute the laws of the land, Presidents give direction and guidance to Executive Branch agencies and departments, often in the form of Executive Orders." </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.thisnation.com/question/040.html[/url]”>http://www.thisnation.com/question/040.html</a></p>
<p><a href=“3”>quote</a> When armed “good guys” are present, mass murders aren’t stopped by them.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That’s a complete lie, the recent incident at the theater where an off duty cop shot a man who was going to kill people in a theater, prevented a mass shooting.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That doesn’t address anything I said or what obama is proposing.</p>
<p>… and if you don’t already know, bl4ke360 is a ■■■■■.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In case you didn’t already know, I reported you for spreading a false claim about me as well as attempting to derail the thread. You’d better hope you’re not the reason this thread gets closed.</p>
<p>^ … threats, threats, threats. I’m not surprised.</p>
<p>its time to close this thread, anyway, nothing interesting has been said on here since this idiot showed up and made it an attack ad and not a conversation. Yawn.</p>
<p>I second poetgrl’s suggestion.</p>
<p>Right, better give up early since you know you’ve already lost, rather than humiliate yourself even further. It must be hard to deal with denial.</p>
<p>As OP, I too am pleasantly surprised that the Thread is still open.</p>
<p>poetgrl–</p>
<p>Take a look at these stats and analysis. It indicates that income level is more indicative of gun violence than unemployment rates. It also breaks it down by city and metro and the top 10 cities have a city (core) rate that is over 2 times the metro rate of that city.</p>
<p>[The</a> Geography of U.S. Gun Violence - Neighborhoods - The Atlantic Cities](<a href=“http://www.theatlanticcities.com/neighborhoods/2012/12/geography-us-gun-violence/4171/]The”>http://www.theatlanticcities.com/neighborhoods/2012/12/geography-us-gun-violence/4171/)</p>
<p>If I was in a room with a parent who had lost a young child to a school shooter in a school without armed staff individuals and they asked “did you vote against having armed staff individuals in the school?” I would want to be able to say “No, I voted for that.” </p>
<p>I would not want to justify having less possible protection that might have saved that child on the assertion “well, you see, you are not looking at the big picture–that protection would have been a stop-gap measure and would impede addressing what is the real cause --guns.” I would not want to trade my “view” of the “real” problem for the possibility that the armed staff individual could have saved that parent’s child.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, it’s not a lie.
There were “good guys with guns” at:
- Columbine High School
- Virginia Tech
- Fort Hood
- the Aurora CO movie theater </p>
<p>The first 3 were armed guards or otherwise-trained professionals who were duly authorized to carry guns and use them for public safety purposes. In the Aurora movie theater, these were private citizen “good guys” with guns.</p>
<p>Let’s face it. The “I, as a private citizen, should carry a gun in public so I can ward off the bad guy who tries to rob the cashier, rob me, or shoot up the Walmart” is the province of people who want to try to prove their toughness. It’s particular to certain parts of the country and certain socioeconomic classes. It’s a mindset that they think is impressive, but in more sophisticated parts of the country no one is impressed by. I’m sorry the cowboy era is dead and we’re no longer settling the Wild Wild West, but that is what it is.</p>
<p>“In Richmond, reform was about taking steps to reduce the unusually high gun-carry rate among our citizens. Too many folks were carrying guns as if they were a casual accessory. And when trouble arose, guns would too often be used as the solution. The most successful step we took was implelenting Project Exile, a cooperative program that involved federal prosecution and tougher penalties for gun crimes that state courts had previously treated more leniently. The program helped drive down Richmond’s homicide rate by nearly 60% within a few years and was celebrated by groups on both sides of the debate.” </p>
<p>In the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings “We also changed standards for mental-health treatment and increased funding for community services while improving campus security and efforts to assist college students suffering from mental stress.”</p>
<p>“I was disappointed to see the Virginia legislature balk, largely under pressure from the NRA, at efforts to close the gun-show loophole that allows anyone - felons, potential terrorists, domestic abusers - to buy weapons without any background check. That loophole still exists.”</p>
<p>“The gun owners I know also understand that citizens don’t need combat weapons or supersized magazines to hunt or to provide for self defense. Although gun manufacturers and the groups that do their bidding have proven adept at whipping up fear to raise profits and increase membership dues, the vast majority of the public - including gun owners - sees past their self interested rhetoric and understands that the Second Amendment can coexist with reasonable rules about gun use.”</p>
<p>“Common Ground on Guns” Tim Kaine in The Washington Post January 15, 2013</p>
<p>Tim Kaine is the former governor of Virginia. He is presently a senator.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sounds like establishment scum to me, going by the quotes you provided for us.</p>
<p>I don’t think anyone has suggested that the events at Sandy Hook could have been completely prevented. However, certain restrictions might have reduced the harm. </p>
<p>I suspect I fit in the middle ground of this debate along with the majority of Americans. I don’t think we need to ban all guns, but I do think we need to consider some strategic restrictions. Banning assault weapons as defined is meaningless because the manufacturers do the same thing as the hackers who try to compromise our internet security - they look at the restrictions and find ways around them. Instead of defining assault weapons based on their looks, they should be defined based on what they do and how they operate. And they should be severely restricted, rather than banned. </p>
<p>First, we have the argument about fully-automatic vs. semi automatic. OK, a semi-automatic requires the trigger to be pulled for each shot. Great, but they still allow you to get off 80 shots in a single minute. Is that really necessary? Even an armed guard in the school, as suggested by the NRA, wouldn’t hate prevented what happened, unless he happened to be in the right spot when he arrived. If he had not had a semi-automatic weapon, the staff near the entrance who tried to stop him might have been successful, and none of those children would have died. If he had gotten past them, the need to reload might have slowed him down, and saved some of the children.</p>
<p>We need to bring the conversation to the center - we’ve all heard enough from people on both fringes. It’s time to hold a conversation and pass meaningful restrictions that don’t overly restrict gun ownership, but do place reasonable limits.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, it’s the province of people who value their lives, and the lives of others. That’s why they’re prepared for an attacker and you aren’t.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Is it necessary for you to have a car that goes 150 mph?</p>
<p>Directly referring to your last paragraph Pizza Girl. I agree with your last paragraph one hundred percent, and every single person I know that has gone through the training and paperwork to get a concealed carry permit in Nevada, would agree with your paragraph one hundred percent. That state of mind is arrogant, and egotistical. In concealed carry training they tell people that if you have a gun on you, and someone robs you for your wallet, that you should give them your wallet and walk away. These people want protection when there is no other option, and no safe way out.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course. That’s just common sense regardless of whether you have a gun on you or not. You don’t pull the bubba-I’m-my-own-sheriff. It’s not worth it, unless you’re an off duty policeman or otherwise highly trained and know what you’re doing. You break into my house? The china and silver are that-a-way, just leave us alone.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then why does the school that Obama’s daughters attend have 11 armed guards and they are in the process of hiring a twelfth? Maybe someone ought to alert them that this isnt working…
[Obama</a> daughters attend school with 11 armed guards](<a href=“http://now.msn.com/obama-daughters-attend-school-with-11-armed-guards]Obama”>http://now.msn.com/obama-daughters-attend-school-with-11-armed-guards)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, he could have done the same thing with the Glock hand gun he also had on him.
If he is changing clips rapidly, which he was ( [Sandy</a> Hook school shooting: Did Adam Lanza target teacher Lauren Rousseau | Mail Online](<a href=“Sandy Hook school shooting: Did Adam Lanza target teacher Lauren Rousseau | Daily Mail Online”>Sandy Hook school shooting: Did Adam Lanza target teacher Lauren Rousseau | Daily Mail Online)) then none of this is a limiting quality. In fact he could have done 20 rpm with the revolver he had. Seeing as the school procedure was “lock down” I dont think rate of fire had anything to do with the outcome.</p>