NIU shooting, Gun free zones enables massacres

[yakyakyak69]

Our single worst threat to life and liberty is NOT criminals...

It's lawyers and Politicians!

[Schemefighter]

@yakyakyak69

Are not most lawyers and politicians criminals?

When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.

Thomas Jefferson.

[mattxr2i]

Common sense would say the best countermeasure against a bad guy with a gun is a GOOD guy with a gun. Be it an armed citizen or security/police forces. If there is a "gun free zone" it should be patrolled by armed security. point blank. Otherwise it cannot be a properly enforced zone.

[Inmango]

Gun-free zones are the highest-risk places on the planet. they are places that criminals TARGET and PREFER to go to. Note, the number 1 supporters of gun control are criminals who got shot while they were trying to rob someone.

That's odd. criminals supporting gun control... oh yeah, so they can take away your defenses, rape your daughter, take your money, kill you, and all that jazz without worry of dying. how nice of them to put their safety over law-abiding citizens. gun control is great....

[bjohnson81]

Ha this is great. It wasn't on Clinton News Network was it? Massacres such as this are happening almost monthly now, and in recent years, gun laws have only gotten more restrictive. We have had guns in this country for how many years, and these shootings are now commonplace? Seems like the answer would be to limit the guns of the law abiding citizens... Yeah great idea!

[pedertyve]

Wow! This must be one of the funniest clips on youtube!

What´s this guys name? Is this like a regular comedy show or just some sketch-like thing? I´m Swedish so I have very little information on US television. Someone please tell me...

[Schemefighter]

Pedertyve: His name is Glenn Beck, he is a political opinion talk show host that often uses comedy to deliver his point.

[RedPandaBoy]

I think this is a bigger issue than just pro gun and anti gun.. But should we agree that any school ground be weapon free? I mean, I don't want my kid having friends with knives.

[Schemefighter]

RedPandaBoy: Of course it's bigger than just pro-gun or anti constitutional gun rights. It's about the fascist liberal agenda and media that is destroying this country. People are godless, greedy, selfish and morally bankrupt. I think it's all related.

[Schemefighter]

RedPandaBoy: Part of the problem is that gun free zones like churches make excellent massacres zones for terrorist. Part of the problem is the media sensationalize these types of events and try to put the blame on the guns and laws, however I think the sensationalism and lack of morality is the cause. Terrorists are morally bankrupt and don't obey the law. Apparently you missed all the points of the video and my comments.

[Schemefighter]

RedPandaBoy: When I was in high school we used to meet in the parking lot with our guns to go shoot at the National Guard Armory as part of an NRA program as part of an afterschool program. When my father was in high school, he used to take his gun to school after hours where the NRA had a shooting range in the basement of the school as part of an afterschool program. Thanks to fascist liberals, it's probably even a crime to have a gun on school property.

[Schemefighter]

RedPandaBoy: In the old days school and church massacres were unheard of, thanks to morally bankrupt fascist liberals it is commonplace. The liberals tend to blame the gun and the law; that is part of the problem. We didn't have the problem when I was young. It wasn't till this "politically" correct generation that school and church shootings have become commonplace.

[Schemefighter]

RedPandaBoy: "I mean, I don't want my kid having friends with knives"

So you haven't taught your kid that knives are a responsibility and to treat them with respect and in a safe manner? You don't let your kid use a steak knife or a Swiss Army pocket knife? You never build a model airplane with your child and taught him how to use an X-Acto knife properly? You never taught your kid to whittle? I feel sorry for your child if you haven't.

[RedPandaBoy]

It's funny how you make assertions on my stance. The phrase "I don't want my kid having _friends_ with knives" Meaning, there are children I'm not responsible for that have contacts with my kid.

I'm not so sure about this fascist liberal agenda myth, but as for schools, most administrators would agree weapons shouldn't be held by students (or at least in an open area). But there should also be a functioning security.

[Schemefighter]

RedPandaBoy "but as for schools, most administrators would agree weapons shouldn't be held by students"

That's the same fascist liberal attitude, is why there are more frequent and intense massacres on school grounds. Before the Liberals started forcing their fascist agenda, the schools zones were safer. Since the fascist liberals have starting to repeal the constitutional right bear arms, the violence has gone up and ethics have gone down.

[RedPandaBoy]

For the school ....

It's called administrating. If a student does decide to go on a rampage in school. Who is participially responsible? The school does, regardless if they allow or prohibit firearm.

I think the heart of the question is, does an institution have the right to prohibit firearm on their own property outweighs the right for individual to bare. It seems an overall decision is needed.. But it seems people without guns outweigh those with them.

[Schemefighter]

RedPandaBoy: When they ban fire arms from school zones they are violating the student's constitutional rights to bear arms. Similarly with churches. They are also endangering the students, worshipers at school and in transit. When you ban fire arms you are making a massacre zone, because criminals don't obey the law. How many massacres have there been on firing ranges?

[RedPandaBoy]

again.. the heart of the question is the right of an institution and the right of an individual. If a church is a free zone, they have the right to refuse you, and if you don't like the church's law, you have the right to not go there.

I see you have this borderline bias about politics, where everyone is either liberal or conservative while still ignoring the majority of the population don't use guns.

[Schemefighter]

RedPandaBoy "If a church is a free zone, they have the right to refuse you, and if you don't like the church's law"

Your assumptions and ignorance is hilarious and astounds me. It's not a church law. It's a fascist liberal governmental law (you know Big Brother/bother).

[RedPandaBoy]

I think you missed the importance of what I said. What if there is a church that refuse to allow guns.. Do they have the right to refuse you?

For the church rule, as bothersome as it seems, what if there's a case where a church supports that stance.

[Schemefighter]

RedPandaBoy: In my state it is state law that you have to have expressed permission to carry a gun in church by the church. The church shooting that happened recently was stopped by a church member or worker that had permission and a concealed carry permit. I think it is reasonable and honorable to ask for permission. However I think it is unreasonable that it be default by law.

[Schemefighter]

RedPandaBoy: I think the victims and their families should sue the school for violating their constitutional rights and for failing to protect the students. I feel most public places that ban firearms from their premise should have a gun check zone where people with concealed carry permits can put their guns and a locked locker guarded by security personnel.

[Schemefighter]

RedPandaBoy: Otherwise they are violating the constitutional rights to bear arms, because it prevents people from exercising their right to bear arms in transit. I also feel that places that ban firearms should be required to have armed security and metal detectors and searches and that every individual should be screened. Otherwise calling them "gun free zones: is misnomenclature, they are more accurately described as massacres zones.

[Schemefighter]

RedPandaBoy: The fact is that most schools have a liberal agenda. Most of the teachers that are right wing keep their politics to themselves. Whereas left-wing teachers use the schools as a venue to promote their fascist liberal agenda. There are proportionally more liberals in the education field; because they can't hack the real world, because they are often too delusional and far out in a fantasy world to be productive in science or industry.

[RedPandaBoy]

How you grew up might have been fine, but you have to admit that there's less responsibility in our current culture. There are schools where ghetto style kids get a hold of fire arms without their parents knowledge causing problems.

Most stance are "if everyone were allow to bring their guns".. but the fact is, not everyone wants a gun. And even if the laws were removed, that wont change the fact the majority isn't interested.

[Schemefighter]

RedPandaBoy: There is less responsibility today because of liberal fascists. People are not taught to be moral, therefore they don't take responsibility for their own actions like people used to.

My father grew up in the ghetto of Detroit during Prohibition. While speakeasy's were dumping bathtub gin down the sewer during raids. My father held a paper route, bought a gun and shot it in the basement of the school as part of the Jr. NRA program. So don't try to use the ghetto excuse.

[RedPandaBoy]

I don't think you can blame "liberal fascism" on people being irresponsible, or any particular single element.

I don't think banning firearms is a good answer -- But having firearm in a school not under a control environment is just as bad. It's not the government's job to teach morals, it's people. And let's admit that people can pick them.

[Schemefighter]

RedPandaBoy: I think you contradicted yourself in several ways in your own statement. Your statement also had several dishonest fallacies. Liberal fascism is partly responsible for these massacres, because the fascist liberals have degraded our value system and morals. Giving all the "control" to the government is part of the problem. People need and have the constitutional right to be able to protect themselves.

[Schemefighter]

RedPandaBoy: "Control" is largely self control. Since fascist liberals have assaulted our morality, people are more selfish (sociopathic) and thoughtless. If a minor is going to carry a gun they should have to have a parent's permission and guidance, the control should come from the individual and the family. People that don't have the knowledge, skills, sanity or a decent moral value system shouldn't have fire arms (or other weapons).

[Schemefighter]

RedPandaBoy: Do you know the two largest modern massacres in the United States were not with fire arms? September 11 was with airplanes. The Cuban Julio González murdered 87 people with 1 gallon of gasoline at the Happy Land social club in the Bronx. It's also interesting to note that aliens committed the two largest massacres in modern US history. So should we make airplanes and gasoline illegal?

[Schemefighter]

RedPandaBoy: "It's not the government's job to teach morals"

That sounds like an atheistic and anarchists line. I disagree. I think the majority of the morals should be taught by the family and religions. However I think the schools should teach basic morals. I think the laws should be based on basic morals. I think schools should teach the golden rule, citizenship, history and some basic laws to set down some basic moral framework.

[RedPandaBoy]

So i contradict myself because it's really the liberal fascist fault, and you think schools should teach basic morals.

Though previously you already agreed there should be checks and security for free gun zones.

This is just going to be a disagreement with two sides showing their view on the topic.

[Schemefighter]

RedPandaBoy "Though previously you already agreed there should be checks and security for free gun zones."

You weren't accurate in your paraphrasing, it is deceptive.

For the most part I'm against gun free zones. However if they force gun free zones I think most of those gun free zones should be held accountable, they should have a gun check area (guarded locker storage), thorough searches and provide armed guards to guarantee safety. In other words they have to be liable for our safety.

[RedPandaBoy]

And that's different from "agreeing there should be checks and security for free gun zones" how..? Or to be more exact, how is that deceptive.. simply because you believe there should be checks, doesn't mean you support the idea.

[Schemefighter]

RedPandaBoy: I feel in public schools you should be allowed to carry guns if you have a permit or permission. As I said if they are going to force people not to carry firearms they should provide a gun check system so that individuals can exercise their rights until they get on the school's property then they should have a locker to check in the gun. The school should be responsible for the gun and the defenseless students.

[RedPandaBoy]

my question was.. how was what I said inaccurate and deceptive... Everything you said sums up to "there should be checks and security for free gun zones"

[Schemefighter]

RedPandaBoy: I've already explained it to you twice since you're too dishonest or too simpleminded to understand I will put it another way.

[RedPandaBoy]

The mentality of what you're saying is that with the gun rule, they take away your safety... but if there were no such rule...You should be safe with a gun.. and if there's a gun shooting, you can't blame the schools for that?

I think the point would be these places should be safe with or without the gun rule. I'm personally against having guns in class, but i honestly believe it's up to the school, the students, the teachers, and the parents. It can go either way.. as a group they decide.

[Schemefighter]

RedPandaBoy "but if there were no such rule"

You have never heard of the US Constitution right to bear arms?

I feel if they impede your constitutional right to bear arms that they should be legally (liability) and morally responsible for your protection.

[Schemefighter]

RedPandaBoy: If I was to ask you if you wanted to be hit in the face and you said no, and if I press the issue and asked if he would prefer to be hit in the face or in the leg and you responded in the leg. So if I went around and telling people that you wanted to be hit in the leg, wouldn't that be misrepresenting what you said because it's only telling part of the story?

[Schemefighter]

RedPandaBoy: The school should be responsible for the gun and the defenseless students. The school should be held responsible/liable for any rules like that that it makes. As it is now the schools was to make all the rules and except none of the responsibility. I feel if the schools make the rules it should be in such a way that it doesn't violate the student's ability to protect themselves too and fro the school. It also should except the liability while a gun is in the possession of the school

[RedPandaBoy]

I simply don't appreciate you asserting I'm dishonest. You already stated that "if" there were gun free zones.. they should be controlled and have checks.. So there's nothing 'different' in supporting checks and security for free zones. You're just not wild about there being gun free zone.

There's nothing dishonest about what I said, you just took a very simple phrase the wrong way.

[Schemefighter]

RedPandaBoy: But you are still being dishonest. You change the words around and you change the context so that it can have several different meanings, whereas the way I stated that it was very accurate and specific. When you reworded the phrase, you changed the meaning and away it would and can be interpreted. "If" is not saying it should be done. I don't know if you're deliberately being dishonest or if it's because of your lack of understanding or sanity.

[Schemefighter]

RedPandaBoy: I didn't take the phrase the wrong way, you were dishonest by changing the phrase in a way that changes the context. You were taking what I said the wrong way by retranslating reinterpreting it thereby misrepresenting what I said and meant.