dont count on it

It was a plain enough comment, no way you should get confused about it.

Errrr ....your post was quoted.:O: Its as simple as that.
Unlike you who is making a claim about something that I have never said and never would say.
So stop trying to squirm your way out of it, where have I ever said everyone should be disarmed or even made any suggestion remotely resembling such a stupid position?

That is called a concise answer, it says everything that needed to be said to bring a proper response from you, the fact that you failed to address the question is a failing on your part not mine.
The fact that I repeated it 3 times in one post about one ridiculous claim you had made should have given you pause for thought about the ridiculous thing you had written. Instead you chose to plod on regardless

The words were there , they were very simple, they were easy to understand, face it Steve you made a silly claim that has no basis in fact and has no relation whatsoever to anything I have ever written here on firearms legislation or any position I have ever taken in relation to that topic.


[QUOTE] have to go with Steve on that, Tribesman. Learn to use the damn quote button already, or at least the So writing "Steve" and quoting the words in relation to a post by Steve isn't enough for steve to know what he wrote and what it is in relation to?:03:

Good point, as if someone wrote "Your answer is to disarm everybody" then anyone reading it would assume that the person being addressed had suggested disarming everyone, I suppose a quote would fix that, but that would require a quote from Steve of what I had written not me quoting myself which is why I asked him for one to back up what he was quoted as posting.

Looks like you were right.

Don't quote me on that.
edit to add....oh sorry that quote wasn't a quote as quoted it was a quote from someone else that was quoted

Takeda - would you agree that mentally sound, adult Americans have a constitutional right to self defense of their lives?

It is known as the Law of Justification. In the Supreme Court rulings of District of Columbia v Heller and Macdonald v Chicago, the Court stressed that the right was also valued because the possession of firearms was thought to be essential for self-defense. As we put it, self-defense was 'the central component of the right itself.'”; The Constitution, they wrote, secured "the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense."

Now - if you agree that thus every mentally sound, adult American has that constitutional right - as the High Court states - then all 6 adults who perished - and all injured adults - were stripped of their constitutional right to defend themselves by the school system and/or the State and Federal governments that restricted their right to bear arms on school grounds.

I don't agree with arming every school teacher.
I do however thing that any school teacher who qualifies to hold one, which means undergoing the necessary training and paperwork, should have the RIGHT to choose to be armed if they wish.

-or to ask it another way-

Why does choosing to be a teacher require you to give up certain of your constitutional rights?

Sooner or later someone is going to sue the living daylights out of a school district because they lost a family member who normally would have carried - and died without the ability to defend themselves.

"Gun Free Zones" are a specific violation of the constitutional rights of the citizenry. There is no other way to see it.

I hate statements like that. They're just another way of screaming "NUH UH! I'm right and you're wrong!"

Jeffrey Toobin points out the problem with Columbia vs. Heller here: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blog...amendment.html

I'll put it this way. No one is disarming anyone. You can keep your guns. You can use them to defend your property and family from criminals and the big bad government, which are the reasons that you all say you want them. You just can't bring them onto school property. If you are a teacher and a gun owner, that is great. Just don't bring you gun to work. It's all common sense. No other way to see it.

I'm starting to think that this is less about keeping kids safe at school and more about advancing the cause of the NRA's view of gun ownership.

EDIT: Great article, mookie. The whole thing about evolving constitutional language is by no means only a liberal view. Conservatives also do it, and with great zeal if it suits their purpose. The efforts culminating with the Columbia v Heller decision were a textbook example of fostering judicial activism. So much for the strict constructionist dogma.

I wasn't confused about it. I wanted to double-check the context, to remind myself of why I said it. You need to stop making excuses and figure out first how to use this simple and helpful piece of equipment, and second to figure out how to actually discuss something rather than play games.

But there is no way to double check the context without a whole lot of work. It should be simple, but you make it complicated with your laziness/obtuseness/gameplaying.

And I would cheerfully explain and/or apologize, if I could just reread the whole thing and remind myself of why I said it.

I'm not squirming at all. As I said, I will gladly address it one way or the other as soon as I can reread the whole conversation.


You say I said that. Where did I say it? I haven't failed to address the question. You've failed to prove I even said it.

Not at all. From now on my policy is: No Linkee, No talkee.

I still haven't seen myself saying it. Anybody can make a quote box and "quote" anything they want. Proper use of the quote function helps everybody follow the conversation. Maybe that isn't what you want.

:har:

When in doubt, post a smug winkie smilie.

Well if your memory is that bad start on page 1.


You have said you are cursed with a good memory, doesn't the curse work very well when you make a mistake?


Thats where you fall flat as a statement like you made is very clear and leaves you no wriggle room, it can only mean what it says which leaves you trying to prove that I have ever made a silly claim like that which you specified.

Didn't you see that Mookie hates statements like this? :)

The thing is Takeda no gun control legislation will ever make our schools so safe that a gun free zone will prevent similar massacres. All laws do is affect those who would abide by them. Madmen and criminals will not abide by them, the latter by definition and the former by their insanity.

All you do by designating gun free zones is disarm anyone who might possibly stop the event. All you do by designating gun free zones is provide a criminal or a madman assurance that if he can get in there he owns everyone inside.

I can't understand how you could see that situation as preferable to a responsible and trained Principal, Teacher or Police Officer on the premises having access to a firearm.

You said:
And i'm starting to think that this is less about keeping kids safe at school and more about advancing the cause of some liberal social agenda. If I were Obama I'd be pushing for cops in schools and general security improvements like stouter doors and windows, security cameras and hallways and doors that can be locked down remotely, stuff like that.

Think of it this way, when money is moved we put it in an armored car and guard it with armed men. These days we even keep the places where it is stored on constant video surveillance. Aren't our children worth at least the same degree of security as we give our money?

Whatever happened to your curse of a good memory, does it magicly uncurse you and make you forgetful when you make a claim that is completely wrong?

You mean read what you wrote? No need for that, I quoted you, context doesn't come into it as the statement you made was definative and can only have meant one thing, so you are left with trying to show that your statement wasn't just complete bull which was based on nothing at all.
I am even being generous by giving you a wide scope to try and back up your claim.

Have you thought of starting on page 1?
That wouldn't work though as your attempted arguement came from your imagination so god knows where you would have to look to try and justify it with some factual context.

start on page 1, its as good a place as any if you want the whole conversation. If you like you can stop on page 2 and try to gather your thoughts.

Its proved and you are quoted, live with the fact.

The only for reason for someone to make up a "quote" would be if they was a silly liar, a very very silly liar indeed as it is very easy to prove that the "quote" wasn't a quote.
So since you said I wanted to disarm everyone
"Your answer is to disarm everybody" you are unable to quote me and since that time when you have been pushed to back up your statement you have refused to do so.
So does that prove you made up a position to attribute to me, it sort of looks like it.
An easy enough error to make, though the refusal to face up to it does suggest perhaps something else

I don't like them either. So, I echoed the phrase back to Haplo.

Once again, once the shooter is in the classroom, it is already too late. If he knows you are armed, he takes you out first, then shoots the children. However, this is only a tiny part of the problem. 99.999999...etc percent of teachers will never encounter this problem. However, dealing with parents and students is incredibly difficult under normal circumstances given the amout of leverage the teacher is percieved to have. Parents and community members are constantly attacking teachers over matters of authority. How much more complicated does the job become when the teacher carries the ultimate leverage; a firearm? It's a complication that needed nor warranted other than to advance the cause.

I am advancing nothing. I think that the laws are fine the way that are. It's you, and others like you, who are pushing to change the laws so that you can have your guns on you at all times and in all places. I think that common sense dictates that this just can't work in reality.

Most schools already have doors and cameras, etc. And having armed security in schools is a fine idea; one that I think should and will be implemented in the very near future. But we are talking about arming teachers, which I, for the reasons I have mentioned throughout this thread, think is a very bad idea. Fortunately, it seems that this will not be implemented, at least in any wide or far-reaching scale, as no union is going to want to deal with the liability of having an armed teacher on the job. And while I do think that teachers unions have contributed to the problems of American education, I agree with them in that stance. Armed teachers are lawsuits waiting to happen.

Those armed men are professionals; many are former law enforcement. The high school that I worked in had similar, albeit unarmed, ex law enforcement as security. I would have no problems seeing them armed.

Oh dear:doh:
I wonder who is permitted to carry guns in gun free zones or is it really the mythical world of August where a gun free zone means no guns no way no where no never at all:rotfl2:
Amazing stuff gun free zones ain't they.
no guns , well apart from any that are in this list of stuff and any that are in that list of stuff oh and any that are with this set of terms and any that are under that set of circumstances...and thats just schools that are gun free zones, there is a whole lot of other conditions allowing guns in other gun free zones.

Does that mean the whole gun free zones mean only nutcases can have guns as no on else is allowed is complete bull just like the gun laws mean only criminals have guns nonsense the NRA parrots repeat?
Certainly seem like it.

Should I quote the legislation in case anyone thinks exemptions are not part of 922 and were foolishly made up to pretend I had a point:rotfl2:

That's precisely what I refuse to do, and what I said in the first place. It's your job to give an actual reference. It's very simple, yet you can't seem to do it.

Oh no. I call it a curse because I remember stupid things I did fifty years ago.

Not in the least. I'll be glad to discuss what I said, make my excuses or apologize. I'm just tired of you not being able to figure out how the quote button works. Quote the post, with link, and we'll have that discussion. I don't doubt that you're right. You usually are. I'm just tired of your games.

You're repeating yourself. And you're starting to use troll phrases again. Mocking rather than discussing.

But you haven't show where I said it at all. We have only your word for that. It's your responsibility to post a real link in the first place. You never do that. Ever.

No, you're playing another game.

You're repeating yourself again. So I'll explain again. It's your job to use the button that provides a link, but you constantly refuse to do that, making following your arguments extremely difficult. If you hadn't used my name in your reply, no one would have known you were talking to me at all. You do that all the time, and unless the post you refer to was very recent, I have no clue who you're quoting. Stop playing games, and I'll gladly answer your challenge.

Now you're playing games again. I've explained that I will justify my claim, or deny it, or apologize, when you can cite exactly where I said it, with the proper link. It's that simple.

[quote]the only for reason for someone to make up a "quote" would be if they was a silly liar, a very very silly liar indeed as it is very easy to prove that the "quote" wasn't a quote.

I did quote you, using the quote button. I've told you I will address all of that, and gladly, when you start quoting people properly. The choice is yours.

I didn't make up anything. I could easily have been mistaken, but I can't judge that because I'm not going to go back and read every single post just to find out where I said it, and see what I was replying too. You could make that easy by doing what every single other person on this forum does, but you refuse to do that.

I'll gladly answer that challenge, but I refuse to play your games anymore.