Utah Sheriffs: "Won't take our guns without a fight"

[_lostindc]

bcspace

That was not beastie's argument, at first. She argues that security was there and so it did not matter if even there is trained armed personel. The premise is flawed because:

1) I never proposed that there be armed guards anywhere. I merely propose that law abiding citizens have the right to choose when and where they will be armed.
2) Security was not on the scene in each of those events, the one Columbine security guard being at lunch, etc.
3) Her solution erroneously assumes (even if the original erroneous assumption is correct) that no armed person or persons could have stopped these events and doesn't take into account the NUMEROUS and almost infinite (by comparison) events in which guns have saved lives, protected property, prevented rape, etc.

I hope you don't play with matches. With this many strawmen, you'd be in imminent danger.

I merely stated that Columbine and VA Tech did, indeed, have armed guards. That did not stop the massacre. You'd have to have multiple armed guards to try and stop such a massacre, as I clearly stated. You'd have to have an armed guard in every hallway, at every exit, because, otherwise, they won't happen to be in the right place at the right time.

So your solution is to arm all teachers. That is the proposition to which I object. Armed guards have training which enable them to react more appropriately in confusing and dangerous situations. Armed citizens do not. We'd end up with multiple people shooting. Moreover, there is no way for an armed teacher to mutually have the gun ready in an instant and keep that gun out of the hands of students.

Moreover, teachers are not perfect and sometimes have their own problems and over-reactions. It's funny how conservatives normally disdain public school teachers as incompetents, and yet now people like you want to put guns in all their hands. Put armed teachers in all classrooms, and sooner or later one of them will pull out that gun and use it in an unwarranted situation, like to break up a fight.

The Fort Hood shootings had armed military police throughout the area but that did not stop the shooter.

[_Darth J]

Spell it out for me, bc. What is beastie's false premise?

That there was actual security at the Columbine and VA Tech events which might have prevented them but did not.

Why is the LDS Church opposed to people bringing guns to church? http://www.deseretnews.com/article/5900 ... tml?pg=all

[_Darth J]

The Fort Hood shootings had armed military police throughout the area but that did not stop the shooter.

An armed civilian police officer stopped the shooter. By shooting him. With bullets. From her gun. http://www.stripes.com/news/civilian-po ... an-1.96218

[_Darth J]

no shock, if any state is going to be strange it is Utah. This is another reason why I am so happy not to be living in Utah.

I guess you missed Seth Payne's link that this is happening in Oregon, too.

Oregon too:
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013 ... n-vp-biden

In fact, it is so not at all just Utah: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/sta ... d=18243043

by the way, it would take the military less than a full day to shut down the state of utah even if every citizen were armed with automatic weapons. I am sure a collection of helamans sheriff warriors would really have the military frightened.

And how would they go about this, lostindc?

[_Some Schmo]

Obama coming to get your guns is a new religious myth just like the return of Jesus. Every religious nut is out there repeating this BS. Armageddon is Armageddon, any which way you slice it. The right-wing reminds me of my daughter, jumping at imaginary shadows. They just don't feel right without some predicted impending doom. I wish they'd just have their inevitable heart attack and get it over with.

I used to think people got emotional over the religious convictions of god, but those are nothing compared to their conviction over guns. If it's a choice between god and guns, guns win.

Here's a solution to the gun issue: if you want to own a gun, you have to be shot by the model you wish to own first so you know the power you're wielding. If you survive, you get a gun.

Problem solved.

[_Darth J]

Obama coming to get your guns is a new religious myth just like the return of Jesus. Every religious nut is out there repeating this BS. Armageddon is Armageddon, any which way you slice it. The right-wing reminds me of my daughter, jumping at imaginary shadows. They just don't feel right without some predicted impending doom. I wish they'd just have their inevitable heart attack and get it over with.

I used to think people got emotional over the religious convictions of god, but those are nothing compared to their conviction over guns. If it's a choice between god and guns, guns win.

That's true. The emotion is on both sides, though.

Here's a solution to the gun issue: if you want to own a gun, you have to be shot by the model you wish to own first so you know the power you're wielding. If you survive, you get a gun.

Problem solved.

That is a great solution. I have another one. If you believe that violent criminals should be put in prison, you should have to spend a few months in prison so you know the power society is wielding. If you experience that, then you can start talking about the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments.

[_Equality]

Have no fear. Even top Senate Dem Mitch McConnell is pro Second Amendment; on the surface anyway lest Kentuckians see him for what he truly is.

Um, Mitch McConnell is the Senate Minority leader, which makes him the top Senate Republican, not Democrat. D'oh!

In 2012, "the NRA donated $19,000 to Sen. Mitch McConnell, Senate minority leader, the largest donation to any member of Congress." http://insiderlouisville.com/news/2012/12/21/nytimes-maps-nra-political-contributions-including-19000-to-sen-mitch-mcconnell-most-to-any-member-of-congress/

McConnell has an "A" grade from the NRA. So, where do you get the "on the surface" nonsense? Is the NRA too dumb to know that McConnell is only pro-gun "on the surface"? http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/Mitch_McConnell_Gun_Control.htm

[_Darth J]

Have no fear. Even top Senate Dem Mitch McConnell is pro Second Amendment; on the surface anyway lest Kentuckians see him for what he truly is.

Um, Mitch McConnell is the Senate Minority leader, which makes him the top Senate Republican, not Democrat. D'oh!

In 2012, "the NRA donated $19,000 to Sen. Mitch McConnell, Senate minority leader, the largest donation to any member of Congress." http://insiderlouisville.com/news/2012/12/21/nytimes-maps-nra-political-contributions-including-19000-to-sen-mitch-mcconnell-most-to-any-member-of-congress/

McConnell has an "A" grade from the NRA. So, where do you get the "on the surface" nonsense? Is the NRA too dumb to know that McConnell is only pro-gun "on the surface"? http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/Mitch_McConnell_Gun_Control.htm

Obama is just a communist on the surface, you know.

[_Some Schmo]

If you believe that violent criminals should be put in prison, you should have to spend a few months in prison so you know the power society is wielding. If you experience that, then you can start talking about the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments.

*shrug*

Sounds fair.

[_keithb]

Against single targets or small groups? Sure. Against an entire hostile population, not so much.

As I recall, the turning point in Iraq came when the U.S. troops began to negotiate with the disparate Sunni militias. Before that, they tried to kill their way out of the situation, and it didn't work so well. Iraq only had about 25 million people. A hostile civilian population of over 300 million, well armed, would be much, much harder to control -- impossible in any practical sense without committing massive war crimes.

So, the populace as a whole would be a counter-balance to a tyrannical government.

As for whether the government could ever become tyrannical ... these things have been known to happen. We are very privileged to have a relatively well functioning democracy. I think that the U.S. government is one of most well functioning governments to ever exist. But, time changes a lot of things. There is very little question that the founders of the U.S. government meant the Second Amendment to be a counterbalance to a tyrannical government. There are numerous quotes to this effect. Also, considering the catastrophic damage done since 9-11 to the Fourth Amendment protections, the real possibility of a systematic erosion of personal liberty is troubling, at least to me.

As for banning assault weapons, it's just another feel good piece of legislation that will not noticeably impact gun violence, either to increase it or decrease it. I don't understand why we need to pass another piece of feel good legislation that doesn't address the problem for which it was originally written. However, even if another assault weapons ban does get passed (it won't though), I will survive either way. I don't even own a gun.

You have no idea how quickly shutting down utah interstates would end the militia. Frankly, you likely have no idea about armed conflict at all. Just stop, go enjoy a good lunch and believe that no one is going to infringe upon the rights you should have.

Lol. What, are you some senior military adviser in hiding? A former general? If not, I would guess that neither one of us have much idea about armed conflict as a practical matter. I am speculating that (based on what I've seen from other armed conflicts around the world) an armed civilian population would be difficult to control in a hypothetical tyrannical government situation in the U.S. . This is even assuming that the majority of the military stayed loyal to the president. But, whatever. I don't think we'll ever find out either way.

As for having my rights infringed ... do you realize that the NSA keeps a record of every phone call, email, text message, and internet post that is made in the country and has done for the last 10 years or more? This is according to the science television program Nova (among other sources). I am personally a bit disturbed by this, and I really don't understand why other people aren't.