another school shooting in U.S. of A. :(

The purpose of having the 2nd Amendment is to stop the USA government from walking all over you, and taking away your rights. Wacky Wayne now points the finger to everything except for guns in a shooting spree, and proposes that American schools each have an armed guard, most likely paid by the government, on the premises?

Well, that worked beautifully with the TSA after September 11th. I feel like my rights are never violated when I go to an airport, and an armed guard sticks his hand near my testicles whilst searching for a bomb. I feel so much safer now that I can't criticize a security agent because I'll be kept waiting until my flight leaves, so I'll inevitably get stranded. I cannot wait for the same measures to be applied at my local elementary school, so kids can get searched and frisked just in case they're stashing something other than cookies in the lunch box.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave B

I've just read the transcript of Wayne LaPierre's speech, although "rant" might be a more appropriate word. Good lord, if he's the most articulate thinker the NRA can put forward to advance their argument they're in more trouble than I thought. I'm actually glad he's spoken out, the more airtime he gets hopefully the more people will see his organisation for what it is: a bunch of Neanderthals with no clue whatsoever.

---

In Europe, yes — even the most rabid conservatives would surely find his comments appalling. But where it matters? I doubt it. The fact that people here (well, one person) whose views I've sometimes found reasonably sensible seem detached from reality (or, beyond that, terms I'd rather not use) on the subject of guns suggests not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gloomyDAY

The purpose of having the 2nd Amendment is to stop the USA government from walking all over you, and taking away your rights. Wacky Wayne now points the finger to everything except for guns in a shooting spree, and proposes that American schools each have an armed guard, most likely paid by the government, on the premises?

Well, that worked beautifully with the TSA after September 11th. I feel like my rights are never violated when I go to an airport, and an armed guard sticks his hand near my testicles whilst searching for a bomb. I feel so much safer now that I can't criticize a security agent because I'll be kept waiting until my flight leaves, so I'll inevitably get stranded. I cannot wait for the same measures to be applied at my local elementary school, so kids can get searched and frisked just in case they're stashing something other than cookies in the lunch box.

---

Exactly. Yet somehow none of these intrusions into basic liberties matters. Strange, that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

I am not dismissing your view. You think guns are dangerous, and you are scared of them. So I don't think you should have one. Simple, you live your life, I'll live mine. But for some reason you insist on forcing your morality upon me.

---

All I am doing is offering an opinion. In what position am I to force anything on you?

If there is a tone of superiority emanating from my comments on this subject, I'm glad. I'd take the views of any European, even those whose views on many other subjects I find abhorrent, over those of a gun-loving American any day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

Now you go tell the hundreds of thousands of people (maybe millions) that have protected themselves or their loved ones from a madman by using a firearm, that you have done, and will continue to do everything in your power to ensure that the next time they are threatened by a murderous lunatic that they are completely defenseless.

---

I'd be happy to do that in Europe, the population of which, for some reason, is not as gripped by the fear of armed intruders as are your countrymen. Maybe you might like to consider why this is, and why doing so in America might elicit a different response?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

And you lecture me on seeing nuance? Laughable.

Do you have your speech ready to explain why you want to disarm those that have saved themselves yet?

---

Again, you fail to answer my original question. Please do so, otherwise I might begin to suspect you don't have a response to it. Would you be happier seeing another tragedy like that in Newtown than stricter restrictions on gun ownership? This ought to be a straight 'yes or no' answer. And, with respect, it is your views and those of many of your countrymen who are open to question here, not mine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

That might apply to weak people.

---

Well, there you have it in a nutshell. They may not think of themselves as weak, but those who require protection, or feel they require protection, ought always to ask why this is. A bit of self-awareness might not go amiss.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Well, there you have it in a nutshell. They may not think of themselves as weak, but those who require protection, or feel they require protection, ought always to ask why this is. A bit of self-awareness might not go amiss.

---

There are plenty of people who feel they need protection, this is probably the case a lil' bit everywhere, however feeling strong just because of owning a gun points towards serious issues, IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

There are plenty of people who feel they need protection, this is probably the case a lil' bit everywhere, however feeling strong just because of owning a gun points towards serious issues, IMO.

---

Yes, I agree. I should have been more specific — of course there are many in need of genuine protection, whether physical or psychological. Certainly, a gun ought never to be the answer.

It is rather ironic though today that at the NEA press conference security was extrely tight to make sure none of the press were carrying. So guns banned from a conference about not banning guns...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TyPat107

It is rather ironic though today that at the NEA press conference security was extrely tight to make sure none of the press were carrying. So guns banned from a conference about not banning guns...

---

I gather also that, in the same sentence at the press conference, it was said that the NRA was starting a debate and that no questions would be taken.

Just so some of the more judgmental on this panel can put their sweeping generalizations of Americans in the proper context, the support for stricter gun laws is increasing. More than 1-in-3 Americans supported stricter gun laws before the recent shootings. Now, the ratio is getting close to, or more than, 1-in-2, depending on the poll.