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.

Once again you mock rather than discuss. You're trolling again.

How can you follow back from a post without following the progress from the start?

You were quoted, it is your job to back up your claim or drop it.:03:

I call it a curse as at a very early age you learn that all politicians no matter which flavour they are do not do what they say they do.

I am just curious as to how you managed to attribute such a stupid idea on firearm regulation to me.
It echoes that run around with the brady bunch where you went on and on without realising you had somehow added a word which was never present in my arguement and as such were off on the wrong target entirely.

That is discussing , after all I do offer to quote the legislation which specificly allows guns in "gun free" zones and do give the end number if anyone wants to look up the relevant part of 18USC to check the facts

By not rereading the entire thread.

How do I know I was quoted? There's no link.

What does that have to do with anything? I explained why I consider my memory a curse, and you come up with nonsense about politicians? Please explain.

So am I, but it's not my job to go back through 10 pages just to find out. If you had used the forum properly in the first place we wouldn't be having this conversation, and you would already have your answer.

Old news. Stop playing games and start quoting properly, and you'll get everything you want from me.

No. As soon as you use a phrase like "the mythical world of August" you have stopped discussing and started trolling. I'll go around and around with you about other things, but I've warned you before about that particular game. The last time I said would be the last time. I'm only cutting you some slack now because of our current disagreement, and I don't want to seem petty or vindictive. But you have been warned.

Look at the words you just quoted, entire doesn't come into it

Trust me I am not a doctor.

10 pages? I thought I had already told you where to gather you thoughts on that particular post.

Can you deliver world peace? I would be interested if you can get that for me.

you may have noticed that I do not abide people who base their position on things that are not true, Skybird and August frequently do so so Augusts gun free gun free zones get dealt with in the same wayas skybirds non existant secret EU legislation. both are myths

Excuse me but I never said I am in favor of allowing ME to have guns at all the times and in all places, I said responsible and trained principals and teachers.

You talk about armed Professionals, well the faculty and staff that died at Newtown were Professionals too. Professionals forced by law not to possess the tools they needed to stop that killer.

Now if you're going to put American citizens in that situation then you should provide adequate security for them. This obviously was not done in Newtown. I don't blame anyone. I reserve that for the anti-gun culture which promotes such things as gun free zones (and not just the ones in schools) and I blame the media for constantly glorifying violence and narcissism as a way of life.

No, you dropped a hint. I told you I'm not playing your games anymore. I will answer your charge as soon as you do a proper quote.

Yet another game.

Can I quote you on that?

As long as you keep using that little button, feel free. :rock:

Well now that I have done a proper quote get on with it.
You did say you would answer:03:

Properly quote the quote in question. Sending me the answer doesn't count! :O: