33
   

The Gun Fight in Washington. Your opinons?

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Jun, 2013 05:55 pm
@BillRM,
Does it matter? It's from "gun violence."
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Jun, 2013 09:47 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
Does it matter? It's from "gun violence."


So call gun violence is somehow difference from all other types of violence number one? and number two not all violence gun or otherwise is bad as in when a woman defend herself and her child from a human predator or when a police officer defend the public peace and order from these human predators.

Following new story is of good so call gun violence indeed but I am sure you would have prefer her and her baby to be killed instead.........

Quote:


http://abcnews.go.com/US/okla-woman-shoots-kills-intruder911-operators-shoot/story?id=15285605#.UbviUue-okw

A young Oklahoma mother shot and killed an intruder to protect her 3-month-old baby on New Year's Eve, less than a week after the baby's father died of cancer.

Sarah McKinley says that a week earlier a man named Justin Martin dropped by on the day of her husband's funeral, claiming that he was a neighbor who wanted to say hello. The 18-year-old Oklahoma City area woman did not let him into her home that day.

On New Year's Eve Martin returned with another man, Dustin Stewart, and this time was armed with a 12-inch hunting knife. The two soon began trying to break into McKinley's home.

As one of the men was going from door to door outside her home trying to gain entry, McKinley called 911 and grabbed her 12-gauge shotgun.

McKinley told ABC News Oklahoma City affiliate KOCO that she quickly got her 12 gauge, went into her bedroom and got a pistol, put the bottle in the baby's mouth and called 911.

Teen Mom Shoots, Kills Intruder Watch Video

Woman Kills Intruder Breaking Into Her Home Watch Video

Teen Mom Kills Home Intruder Watch Video
"I've got two guns in my hand -- is it okay to shoot him if he comes in this door?" the young mother asked the 911 dispatcher. "I'm here by myself with my infant baby, can I please get a dispatcher out here immediately?"

The 911 dispatcher confirmed with McKinley that the doors to her home were locked as she asked again if it was okay to shoot the intruder if he were to come through her door.

"I can't tell you that you can do that but you do what you have to do to protect your baby," the dispatcher told her. McKinley was on the phone with 911 for a total of 21 minutes.

When Martin kicked in the door and came after her with the knife, the teen mom shot and killed the 24-year-old. Police are calling the shooting justified.

"You're allowed to shoot an unauthorized person that is in your home. The law provides you the remedy, and sanctions the use of deadly force," Det. Dan Huff of the Blanchard police said.

Stewart soon turned himself in to police.

McKinley said that she was at home alone with her newborn that night because her husband just died of cancer on Christmas Day.

"I wouldn't have done it, but it was my son," McKinley told ABC News Oklahoma City affiliate KOCO. "It's not an easy decision to make, but it was either going to be him or my son. And it wasn't going to be my son. There's nothing more dangerous than a woman with a child."

More From ABC News
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Jun, 2013 10:18 pm
@BillRM,
Your imagination is only exceeded by your ignorance.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Jun, 2013 10:27 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
Your imagination is only exceeded by your ignorance.


LOL in what why my friend that you would prefer the lady and her infant be killed then that she was able to defend herself and her infant with firearms?

Oh if she had been killed by the men with knives it would not had been gun violence so shame on her to turn to gun violence........ Laughing
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Jun, 2013 10:46 pm
@BillRM,
How many times have that happened? Please provide a reliable source for any information that supports your claim?

That's over and beyond the times a child killed their own siblings, their family member, or themselves with a gun.

I believe these questions posed to you are too spacial for you to comprehend.

0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Reply Sat 15 Jun, 2013 04:24 am
@oralloy,
parados wrote:
Now tell us again why you need guns.

oralloy wrote:
Did you confuse America for Europe?

"Need" is for serfs. Free Americans get to have guns just because they choose to have guns.

It doesn't matter whether anyone thinks they need guns or not, or even whether they do need them or not.

If a free American chooses to have guns, that is their right as a free American, and that is the end of the matter.
YES; well said.
The Founders simply put that matter beyond
the reach
of any jurisdiction of government.





David
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Reply Sat 15 Jun, 2013 04:29 am
@parados,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:
The CRIMINALS r the politicians
who have raped the Bill of Rights.





David
parados wrote:
Why didn't you stop the rape with your gun David?
Are you admitting guns don't stop crimes?
Some crimes can be stopped with the use of guns.
Not all crimes can be stopped by use of guns.
U knew that.
parados wrote:
I see... So guns don't stop political crimes. OK...

Now tell us again why you need guns.
Personal defense; its a Bill of RIGHTS, not a bill of needs.

As ice is constituted of water,
so liberty is constituted of the incapacities of government.





David
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  0  
Reply Sat 15 Jun, 2013 06:44 am
@OmSigDAVID,
You're forgetting that Oralboy is quite stupid and contradicts himself all the time. On this thread he calls us serfs because we don't want the free for all of unrestricted gun control. On the thread about the murder of Lee Rigby, he talks about how the UK is a democracy and makes it's own decisions. He can't see the contradiction, although it's glaringly obvious to everyone else.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Jun, 2013 06:52 am
@oralloy,
Quote:
If a free American chooses to have guns, that is their right as a free American, and that is the end of the matter.


So what are background checks for? Which the NRA support.

You're confusing free with approved of by folks like us.
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Reply Sat 15 Jun, 2013 07:28 am
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:
You're forgetting that Oralboy is quite stupid and contradicts himself all the time.
I have found him to be above average intelligent.
I am not aware of contradiction.



izzythepush wrote:
On this thread he calls us serfs because
we don't want the free for all of unrestricted gun control.
For MOST of its history, until around 1920,
England had freedom of self defense; (Tony Martin 'd have had no trouble).
Was England in a state of chaotic "free for all" during those years ??

It was taken for granted that a gentleman armed himself b4 venturing out in public.
Note Arthur Conan Doyle 's representation of the 1800s. Yes?






izzythepush wrote:
On the thread about the murder of Lee Rigby,
I don't recognize that thread.




izzythepush wrote:
he talks about how the UK is a democracy and makes it's own decisions.
He can't see the contradiction, although it's glaringly obvious to everyone else.
I dunno. I 'll let him speak for himself.





David
OmSigDAVID
 
  3  
Reply Sat 15 Jun, 2013 07:36 am
@spendius,
Quote:
If a free American chooses to have guns, that is their right as a free American, and that is the end of the matter.
spendius wrote:
So what are background checks for?
Thay r for unConstitutional discrimination against exercise of the
right to bear arms in self defense, in violation of the "EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS",
which is required by the Supreme Law of the Land.




spendius wrote:
Which the NRA support.
I don't know what the NRA supports.
It has weak, timid leadership in Wayne LaPierre; he 's like a Neville Chamberlain.


spendius wrote:
You're confusing free with approved of by folks like us.
What u approve of is devoid of consequence
in America.

Free means the ABSENCE of government jurisdiction,
like it cannot make u go to Church if u don't wanna go.





David
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Jun, 2013 08:12 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
spendius wrote:

You're confusing free with approved of by folks like us.

What u approve of is devoid of consequence
in America.


I suppose I ought to have said-- You're confusing "free" with "approved of by folks like us" The "folks like us" meaning the folks who supervise the background checks.

I apologise for confusing you. Why you might think that I meant what I approve of is a mystery to me. And why you might think that what I approve of is of consequence in America is an even bigger mystery. I wouldn't even be allowed to say what I approve of here never mind in the land of the insistent free.

Is declaring oneself free something like having one's hair styled? I wouldn't know as I wouldn't dream of thinking myself free. It's a form of insanity imo.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Jun, 2013 09:18 am
@OmSigDAVID,
The reason you find oralboy intelligent is based on your own ignorance. LOL

Two of a kind....both pretty dumb!
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Jun, 2013 11:52 am
@spendius,
spendius wrote:
So what are background checks for? Which the NRA support.

In theory they are to block felons, who have lost their rights.

It is clear now though that the true purpose is to violate the rights of free Americans.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sat 15 Jun, 2013 11:55 am
cicerone imposter wrote:
Your imagination is only exceeded by your ignorance.
izzythepush wrote:
You're forgetting that Oralboy is quite stupid and contradicts himself all the time.

What is it with these retards anyway?

CI is one of the two stupidest people on A2K. And while izzythepush isn't quite that stupid, he's still dumber than a fencepost.

I realize that with stupidity so severe there is a significant lack of creativity, but I'd think these two 'tards could manage something other than simply describing themselves and then screaming "he's like that" at the top of their lungs.
izzythepush
 
  0  
Reply Sat 15 Jun, 2013 11:59 am
@cicerone imposter,
One of the consequences of taking a literalist approach to language is that you lose all appreciation of irony or nuance. I don't think that David realises that his affectation, is Oralboy's neurological condition.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Jun, 2013 12:04 pm
@oralloy,
If I'm the stupidest poster on a2k, you can surely cut and paste from any of my posts to prove your point. I have over 80,000 posts on a2k. Find one.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Reply Sat 15 Jun, 2013 08:25 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
spendius wrote:

You're confusing free with approved of by folks like us.

DAVID wrote:
What u approve of is devoid of consequence
in America.
spendius wrote:
I suppose I ought to have said-- You're confusing "free" with "approved of by folks like us"
The "folks like us" meaning the folks who supervise the background checks.
U are a supervisor of background checks, Spendius ?
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Jul, 2013 09:59 am
Schools Seeking to Arm Employees Hit Hurdle on Insurance

Quote:
As more schools consider arming their employees, some districts are encountering a daunting economic hurdle: insurance carriers threatening to raise their premiums or revoke coverage entirely.

During legislative sessions this year, seven states enacted laws permitting teachers or administrators to carry guns in schools. Three of the measures — in Kansas, South Dakota and Tennessee — took effect last week.

But already, EMC Insurance Companies, the liability insurance provider for about 90 percent of Kansas school districts, has sent a letter to its agents saying that schools permitting employees to carry concealed handguns would be declined coverage.

“We are making this underwriting decision simply to protect the financial security of our company,” the letter said.

In northeast Indiana, Douglas A. Harp, the sheriff of Noble County, offered to deputize teachers to carry handguns in their classrooms less than a week after 26 children and educators were killed in a school shooting in Newtown, Conn. A community member donated $27,000 in firearms to the effort. School officials from three districts seemed ready to sign off. But the plan fell apart after an insurer refused to provide workers’ compensation to schools with gun-carrying staff members.

The Oregon School Boards Association, which manages liability coverage for all but a handful of the state’s school districts, recently announced a new pricing structure that would make districts pay an extra $2,500 annual premium for every staff member carrying a weapon on the job.

Scott Whitman, an administrator at the Jackson County school district in southern Oregon, where a committee is looking at arming school staff members next year, said costs would be a factor in the decision. With 10 buildings, the expense of arming and training more than one staff member at each school would easily exceed $50,000 a year.

“Pretty much every last bit of our money is budgeted,” he said, adding, “To me, that could be quite an impediment to putting this forward.”

Increasing the number of firearms in classrooms across the country has been the cornerstone of the National Rifle Association’s response to the Newtown massacre and the legislative fights over proposed gun laws that followed it. In April, the gun-rights group released a report that called for armed police officers, security guards or staff members in every American school.

More than 30 state legislatures introduced bills that permit staff members to carry guns in public or private schools this year, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Supporters say training teachers to carry guns would better protect students and, if anything, should put insurance companies more at ease. But worries remain about who could be sued if a gun-related accident occurred on school property, giving way to business realities for some insurance providers, which include both commercial carriers and nonprofit cooperatives.

“Some are saying this is so high risk we’re not going to touch it,” said Kenneth S. Trump, the president of National School Safety and Security Services, which discourages districts from implementing concealed carry policies. “Others may say this is so high risk that you’re going to pay through the nose.”


more at the source

0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Jul, 2013 01:16 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
U are a supervisor of background checks, Spendius ?


I know the type.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 4.17 seconds on 08/20/2019 at 04:53:15