Quote:
Originally Posted by dropnosky
cowardly, but I guess that goes well with doing nothing. You don't treat other people with respect when talking to them, don't expect respect back, seems you shouldn't have so much trouble understanding that. You seem like a smart guy, and on other subjects we have agreed many times, but even a smart guy could do well to learn some manners. Why not try?
CT does have some of the toughest gun laws in the country, id be happy if they are tougher.
I quoted the first section sure, the rest was more obnoxious attacking and doing nothing.
I have read their ideas, and no, I don't think a police state is a good idea, sorry. Other of their points I agree with.
|
Apparently, you confuse me with your mother. She'll be all kind and nice and warm to you at all times, even when you're wrong.
I call you on your BS and you don't like it. I understand that, but don't confuse my attack on your fallacies with being obnoxious.
So, you'd be happy if the CT gun laws were tougher. Now, exactly how tough to they need to be before an individual such as Lanza is prevented from getting his hands on an illegal gun or a rifle or a shotgun? I'm assuming you will not attempt to ban rifles and shotguns, correct? If you can satisfactorily answer this one point, I'll have a bit more respect for you...........
I never suggested doing "nothing". Again, another failure to read on your part. I stand by the position that attempting to tighten existing gun laws will have absolutely no effect on the random violence perpetrated against an assembled group of sitting ducks.
They didn't suggest a "police state". They suggested that four or five teachers could be trained to use a firearm and said firearms could be at a readily available locked point in the school. This would take the folks in the school out of the "sitting duck" category. If publicized, it would also cause the DB a bit of pause before he tried to attack such a facility.