Teachers & Guns? Seriously?

Eagle Eye said:
Hey sport you tried to connect teachers with guns to Dirty Harry not me. Sorry I made you look like a fool but think next time before spouting off. :bang:
Click to expand...

Man, you are either delusional, have a serious reading comprehension, a flat out liar or just plain stupid because as the chronology of the posts shows, I was RESPONDING, not declaring. If you can prove otherwise, please do.
 
Eagle Eye said:
Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
So teachers who have been screaming for years regarding being under funded are now being told that there is plenty of money to pay for jackasses like you to get trained like a cop to CCW in the classroom in case of a mass shooter. Yeah, that makes sense.
Click to expand...


Can you be any more moronic? What is this Bullshit "jackasses like you to get trained like a cop"? Try thinking instead of emotionally reacting fuck head. I asked you a simple question but you evidently are too stupid to figure out the answer. :fu:
Click to expand...

Your blowing smoke, son...the chronology of the posts is your undoing, as I am responding to the idiocy you are putting forth...be it a question or a declarative statement. Bottom line: YOU can't or won't acknowledge of the statement I previously made for the basic logic it contains. But bluster on, McDuff.
 
Eagle Eye said:
Where are your ideas jerk off??????????
Click to expand...

On other threads, but I'll repeat it here for you:

1) Bring back the Assault Weapons Ban....if they don't have the weapons of choice for mass shootings, then that makes it that much harder for (and maybe discourage) the perpetrators.
2) Licenses and register ALL weapons like we do automobiles. This means you have to pass physical and written tests before you get that weapon, and EVERY law enforcement agency will have that record in case of theft of or crime committed with that weapon.

Not perfect solutions, but great reducers for gun crimes.

(and please refrain from telling the readers what you are doing....no one is interested in your personal sexual pleasuring.)
 
Taichiliberal said:
Man, you are either delusional, have a serious reading comprehension, a flat out liar or just plain stupid because as the chronology of the posts shows, I was RESPONDING, not declaring. If you can prove otherwise, please do.
Click to expand...

Sorry you lying cock sucker this is what you said:


Taichiliberal*

Shaken, not stirred!

Join Date

*Originally Posted by*Eagle Eye*

QUOTE [Are you suggesting teachers are too stupid to be responsible with a firearm?QUOTE]

Trained, seasoned cops and military personnel make fatal mistakes.....a bunch of teachers with delusions of*Dirty*Harry shootouts is a disaster waiting to happen.
___________________________________________________________
Now you limp wrist fuck head you want to deny that you compared armed teachers to Dirty Harry.
 
Eagle Eye said:
Sorry you lying cock sucker this is what you said:


Taichiliberal*

Shaken, not stirred!

Join Date

*Originally Posted by*Eagle Eye*

QUOTE [Are you suggesting teachers are too stupid to be responsible with a firearm?QUOTE]

Trained, seasoned cops and military personnel make fatal mistakes.....a bunch of teachers with delusions of*Dirty*Harry shootouts is a disaster waiting to happen.
___________________________________________________________
Now you limp wrist fuck head you want to deny that you compared armed teachers to Dirty Harry.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes: Okay, let me dumb it down for you: first, you don't have the courage or intellectual honesty to provide a simple links so the reader can see the entire exchange....that would put things into perspective.

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...hers-amp-Guns-Seriously&p=2234102#post2234102

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...hers-amp-Guns-Seriously&p=2236479#post2236479



Second, A "Dirty Harry shootout" is where the hero NEVER misses his mark even in a open street situation with the perps driving full speed or running away. It's not the Dirty Harry persona, but the shootout scenario that I'm pointing to....it was the most memorable reference that immediately came to mind. Of course, one can list many movies since where various police, private eyes and soldiers perform the same feats, but I trust and hope you get the idea.

Now that is cleared up, care to explain to the readers why the OP is so beyond your capability to understand, let alone answer? I'll wait.
 
Last edited:
Taichiliberal said:
:rolleyes: Okay, let me dumb it down for you: first, you don't have the courage or intellectual honesty to provide a simple link so the reader can see the entire exchange....that would put things into perspective.

Second, A "Dirty Harry shootout" is where the hero NEVER misses his mark even in a open street situation with the perps driving full speed or running away. It's not the Dirty Harry persona, but the shootout scenario that I'm pointing to....it was the most memorable reference that immediately came to mind. Of course, one can list many movies since where various police, private eyes and soldiers perform the same feats, but I trust and hope you get the idea.

Now that is cleared up, care to explain to the readers why the OP is so beyond your capability to understand, let alone answer? I'll wait.
Click to expand...

Love to see you squirm and try to weasel out of admitting you are FOS and you DID try to link armed teachers to a Dirty Harry shoot out.BTW I quoted you so I gave you the link. Fucking fool.
 
Eagle Eye said:
Love to see you squirm and try to weasel out of admitting you are FOS and you DID try to link armed teachers to a Dirty Harry shoot out.BTW I quoted you so I gave you the link. Fucking fool.
Click to expand...

And as the reader can plainly see the typical intellectually impotent and dishonest response from a NRA flunkie. They just grab onto a talking point or their version of reality and parrot it insipidly. Fortunately, the chronology of the posts will always be their undoing. I'm done with this simpleton.
 
Jarod said:
That guy is such a fucking idiot, he will say anything the NRA tells him to say. Just five or six years ago the Dude supported a ban on assault rifle’s.
Click to expand...

Five or six years ago Obama's ATF allowed bump stocks to be legally sold against the direct recommendations of the NRA....

and nothing Trump said is wrong....its obvious that we can't rely on law enforcement to protect each and every school....the FLA. fuckups makes that abundantly clear.....
 
NOVA said:
Five or six years ago Obama's ATF allowed bump stocks to be legally sold against the direct recommendations of the NRA....

and nothing Trump said is wrong....its obvious that we can't rely on law enforcement to protect each and every school....the FLA. fuckups makes that abundantly clear.....
Click to expand...

Additional regulation? How about banning. Automatic weapons are banned. A device to make a semi into a full, is cheating. It should be banned. Such simple and clean logic that eludes rightys.
 
Nordberg said:
Additional regulation? How about banning. Automatic weapons are banned. A device to make a semi into a full, is cheating. It should be banned. Such simple and clean logic that eludes rightys.
Click to expand...

If you had even a few brain cells you'd know that the NRA can't ban anything....they don't make laws...
Even Obama isn't supposed to make law....but he should have, at the very least, listened to the NRA at the time and propose some regulation about the bump stock....
he was the big man in town....
 
NOVA said:
Five or six years ago Obama's ATF allowed bump stocks to be legally sold against the direct recommendations of the NRA....

and nothing Trump said is wrong....its obvious that we can't rely on law enforcement to protect each and every school....the FLA. fuckups makes that abundantly clear.....
Click to expand...

A fine point clarification....something dullards like Nova only acknowledge when they think it is in their favor. As they say, the devil is in the details:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ciation/nra-claim-obama-approved-bump-stocks/
 
Taichiliberal said:
A fine point clarification....something dullards like Nova only acknowledge when they think it is in their favor. As they say, the devil is in the details:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ciation/nra-claim-obama-approved-bump-stocks/
Click to expand...

So you're 'clarifying' that I'm right ?.....thanks, but it wasn't really necessary....

I said,
Obama should have, at the very least, listened to the NRA at the time and propose some regulation about the bump stock....
fact is, Obama didn't try to do a damn thing.....

Our ruling

The NRA said, "The Obama administration approved the sale of bump fire stocks on at least two occasions."


We rate this statement Mostly True.


The NRA statement isn't mine, its theirs....
 
"Trained, seasoned cops and military personnel make fatal mistakes.....a bunch of teachers with delusions of*Dirty*Harry shootouts is a disaster waiting to happen." EE #364
Click to expand...
Very sloppy!

I'll parse it for you.
"Trained, seasoned cops and military personnel make fatal mistakes..." EE #364
Click to expand...
That's because they're humans.

BUT !!

They're no more or less human than school cadre.
"...a bunch of teachers with delusions of*Dirty*Harry shootouts is a disaster waiting to happen." EE #364
Click to expand...
a) The disaster is already here.
And while the misfortune you present can't be ruled out; might it not be better to lose one, and save 1,000?

b) Do you have valid statistical verification that the proportion of "a bunch of teachers with delusions of*Dirty*Harry" is higher in academe than in law enforcement?

Candidly, I suspect those that harbor "delusions of*Dirty*Harry" would be more likely to be in law enforcement than in the teaching profession.

c) Do you have valid statistical verification that school employees would be less suited to responding to such emergency than those you've already admitted:
"Trained, seasoned cops and military personnel make fatal mistakes..." EE #364
Click to expand...
d) School employees are quite likely to know their charges (children) by name. They'll probably know personal details about them.
This kind of familiarity tends to bring out protective parental instincts latent in most humans.

Thus, your agenda seems to be thoughtless bias.
We might excuse your flawed thought process if you'd arrived at a valid conclusion.

BUT !!

You haven't.
We don't.
"Spring forward."
 
"The term "gun free zone" doesn't mean police can't carry guns." Sa #375
Click to expand...
That may depend on the zone, and the qualification of the police.

Firearms are commonly excluded from U.S. law courts, unless the firearm is unloaded, and submitted as evidence at trial.

BUT !!

Court bailiffs are commonly armed.
 
sear said:
That may depend on the zone, and the qualification of the police.

Firearms are commonly excluded from U.S. law courts, unless the firearm is unloaded, and submitted as evidence at trial.

BUT !!

Court bailiffs are commonly armed.
Click to expand...

Gun free zone is generally understood to mean normal civilians are not allowed to conceal and carry in those areas. Law enforcement personnel executing their duties are still allowed to carry.

Also, it is common courtesy to retain a person's username so they are notified when you quote them.
 
sear said:
Very sloppy!

I'll parse it for you.

That's because they're humans.

BUT !!

They're no more or less human than school cadre.

a) The disaster is already here.
And while the misfortune you present can't be ruled out; might it not be better to lose one, and save 1,000?

b) Do you have valid statistical verification that the proportion of "a bunch of teachers with delusions of*Dirty*Harry" is higher in academe than in law enforcement?

Candidly, I suspect those that harbor "delusions of*Dirty*Harry" would be more likely to be in law enforcement than in the teaching profession.

c) Do you have valid statistical verification that school employees would be less suited to responding to such emergency than those you've already admitted:

d) School employees are quite likely to know their charges (children) by name. They'll probably know personal details about them.
This kind of familiarity tends to bring out protective parental instincts latent in most humans.

Thus, your agenda seems to be thoughtless bias.
We might excuse your flawed thought process if you'd arrived at a valid conclusion.

BUT !!

You haven't.
We don't.
"Spring forward."
Click to expand...

Oh lord, another right wing gunner with delusions of cleverness. Let me divorce him of that fantasy:

1 - All you're doing is saying that since there is no statistical evidence against teachers with guns having accidents or incidents, then there should be no argument against such. Well, here's something for you to contemplate:
http://www.wrightslaw.com/blog/when-teachers-bully/
http://www.11alive.com/video/news/crime/multiple-teachers-accused-of-assaulting-students/85-2607081

Or you can just google "teachers physically assaulting students" and take it from there.....then add guns to the mix. See the potential for worse case scenarios?

2. You repeatedly put in your opinion, supposition and conjecture as fact....I put forth potentials based on current available information. Now you repeat my point that cops make mistakes, then you point out that cops with shoot out fantasies are most likely to exist....but then you go into denial that such a thing can't happen with teachers. Well, I for one am not willing to gamble just because you have some type of conflation regarding gun rights and this absurd answer to mass shootings.
 
"Gun free zone is generally understood to mean normal civilians are not allowed to conceal and carry in those areas. Law enforcement personnel executing their duties are still allowed to carry." Sa #378
Click to expand...
Obviously.
BUT !!
What if instead of an FBI agent on official business it's a "townie", a local policeman with only a high school education?

I get it. If he's in uniform, and stopping in his patrol car to deliver some confidential mail to be sent across the State, that's fine.

BUT !!

What if it's the same townie, but he's out of uniform, arrived in his POV, and is mailing a birthday card to his Mom?
It's Sorites paradox. Where do you draw the line?
"you're ... saying that since there is no statistical evidence against teachers with guns having accidents or incidents, then there should be no argument" Tl
Click to expand...
- piffle -
The churn of confusion I so persuasively refuted was:
"Trained, seasoned cops and military personnel make fatal mistakes.....a bunch of teachers with delusions of*Dirty*Harry shootouts is a disaster waiting to happen." EE #364
Click to expand...
YOU would need an overwhelming bias of prejudice to not instantly recognize the prejudice in the quote.

I wasn't asserting a point of view.
By question was constructive & literal. Is there any valid statistical evidence to support that position?
I read lots of statistics in the news. I've never read anything that supports that.
" You repeatedly put in your opinion, supposition and conjecture as fact..." Sa
Click to expand...
EXCELLENT!!

If so, then you should be able to quote ONE example.

Please do.

But until you do, I will consider your false allegation retracted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top