Guns And The Laws That Govern Them

To be honest I asked Rex about sensible gun laws, you happened to join in.

You are using a bullshit argument. No one gives their child a gun and says go shoot someone. The VAST MAJORITY of gun owners are not the irresponsible people you would like them to be. You are placing your own value judgments on guns that do not fit the average gun owner.

How long until the 1st Amendment becomes a privilege and not a right, how long before the 4th Amendment becomes a privilege instead of a right?

Only when you answered for Rex, then I asked you.

That is David, and not the majority of gun owners. In fact I would wager that a majority of gun owners see no issue with kids not being able to purchase or carry weapons. On the other hand, I see no issues with teaching children how to shoot guns as long as there is an adult around to supervise. Federally you have to be 18 to purchase a long gun, and 21 to purchase a handgun, and I don't see anyone trying to change those laws. Most gun owners are happy with the current laws and wish to see the current laws enforced, instead of new pointless laws which serve no purpose other then to make the anti-gunners feel better about themselves.

If guns were more of a "privilege" than a "right",
people might treat them with more reverence.

Why is it only a "privilege" to drive a motor vehicle and children are prohibited
from driving a motor vehicle but instead parents give children guns
as if it is a "right" of theirs to go out and kill people.

as if it is a "right" of theirs to go out and kill people.

You can't drive a car but you can go shoot up your school if you want...

Isn't there a prioritizing error of the value judgment of things here?

Frank Apisa wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Baldimo wrote:

For the most part Frank I don't see an issue with our current gun laws.
Others have called for the controls Frank not me, so I'm not going to
create restrictions where I don't see a problem. Once again, what is a sensible restriction?

Frank Apisa wrote:

I do not think people with obvious severe mental problems
should be allowed to own and carry guns.

How r u going to PREVENT them from doing what u don t want????
Will u do it as successfully as u have prevented them from getting marijuana or heroin ?
Will u do it as successfully as u stopped them from having access to as much alcohol
as thay wanted, including bathtub gin??
Do u believe that kids are virgins qua beer, because it is un-lawful???
Were YOU ?

Frank Apisa wrote:

I do not think minors...particularly very young minors... should be allowed to carry guns.

When I was that age, I 'd not have allowed
that decision -- that of my ability to defend my life -- to rest
in the hands of any other person.
If my guns had been stolen, I 'd surely re-arm as fast as I possibly coud.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Restricting those people from owning and carrying guns
are, in my opinion, sensible.

Y shud thay put up with that, Frank??
Just take their chances and "cast your fate to the winds."
No one in his right mind woud do that.

IF Frank saw 7 year old Noah Yates snatching up a gun from anywhere
while Andrea was dragging him to the lethal bathtub, Frank woud have stolen it
from him, right Frank???? because he is too young??????? [glub, glub, gurgle, gurgle!]

Frank really hates the idea of "equal protection of the laws"
if a young person is involved!!

David

Easy David...you are going to blow a gasket.

Baldimo asked me for some sensible restrictions...and I gave him some.

If you don't agree with them...fine.

If you think they will be difficult to implement and enforce...fine.

I think they are sensible restrictions...and I recognize
that they will be difficult to implement and enforce. But I do consider them sensible restrictions.

I posted to expose the flaws in your reasoning.
I saw that u did not challenge my observations qua "equal protection of the laws."
The kid has 1OO% as much right to defend his life and property
as any banker or any police officer. Agreeed ????????
David

Right!

I did not challenge your notion that elementary school kids
should be allowed to carry guns to school.

There is a bridge too far...even for me.

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Baldimo wrote:

For the most part Frank I don't see an issue with our current gun laws.
Others have called for the controls Frank not me, so I'm not going to
create restrictions where I don't see a problem. Once again, what is a sensible restriction?

Frank Apisa wrote:

I do not think people with obvious severe mental problems
should be allowed to own and carry guns.

How r u going to PREVENT them from doing what u don t want????
Will u do it as successfully as u have prevented them from getting marijuana or heroin ?
Will u do it as successfully as u stopped them from having access to as much alcohol
as thay wanted, including bathtub gin??
Do u believe that kids are virgins qua beer, because it is un-lawful???
Were YOU ?

Frank Apisa wrote:

I do not think minors...particularly very young minors... should be allowed to carry guns.

When I was that age, I 'd not have allowed
that decision -- that of my ability to defend my life -- to rest
in the hands of any other person.
If my guns had been stolen, I 'd surely re-arm as fast as I possibly coud.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Restricting those people from owning and carrying guns
are, in my opinion, sensible.

Y shud thay put up with that, Frank??
Just take their chances and "cast your fate to the winds."
No one in his right mind woud do that.

IF Frank saw 7 year old Noah Yates snatching up a gun from anywhere
while Andrea was dragging him to the lethal bathtub, Frank woud have stolen it
from him, right Frank???? because he is too young??????? [glub, glub, gurgle, gurgle!]

Frank really hates the idea of "equal protection of the laws"
if a young person is involved!!

David

Easy David...you are going to blow a gasket.

Baldimo asked me for some sensible restrictions...and I gave him some.

If you don't agree with them...fine.

If you think they will be difficult to implement and enforce...fine.

I think they are sensible restrictions...and I recognize
that they will be difficult to implement and enforce. But I do consider them sensible restrictions.

I posted to expose the flaws in your reasoning.
I saw that u did not challenge my observations qua "equal protection of the laws."
The kid has 1OO% as much right to defend his life and property
as any banker or any police officer. Agreeed ????????
David

Frank Apisa wrote:

Right!

I did not challenge your notion that elementary school kids
should be allowed to carry guns to school.

There is a bridge too far...even for me.

In their state of statutory helplessness,
thay might not live to reach the other end of the bridge.

I invite u to consider & discuss your implied defined limit:
members of the human race share an EQUAL RIGHT to defend
their individual existence (True or False??),
but people below voting age are not members of the human race
because thay are so stupid that thay shud be left (like Noah Yates)
to take their chances in defenselessness and screw-them,
if thay get killed because thay obayed gun control laws.

Comment?? Tell us of the morality of self defense?
of equality?? Tell us that it is MORE important
that citizens have equal seating on public buses (Rosa Parks case)
than it is to defend their lives from violence??

According to DAVID, it is bad enuf
that children are screwn out of their natural right to vote;
thay shud not also be screwn out of their natural right to fight back.
David

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Baldimo wrote:

For the most part Frank I don't see an issue with our current gun laws.
Others have called for the controls Frank not me, so I'm not going to
create restrictions where I don't see a problem. Once again, what is a sensible restriction?

Frank Apisa wrote:

I do not think people with obvious severe mental problems
should be allowed to own and carry guns.

How r u going to PREVENT them from doing what u don t want????
Will u do it as successfully as u have prevented them from getting marijuana or heroin ?
Will u do it as successfully as u stopped them from having access to as much alcohol
as thay wanted, including bathtub gin??
Do u believe that kids are virgins qua beer, because it is un-lawful???
Were YOU ?

Frank Apisa wrote:

I do not think minors...particularly very young minors... should be allowed to carry guns.

When I was that age, I 'd not have allowed
that decision -- that of my ability to defend my life -- to rest
in the hands of any other person.
If my guns had been stolen, I 'd surely re-arm as fast as I possibly coud.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Restricting those people from owning and carrying guns
are, in my opinion, sensible.

Y shud thay put up with that, Frank??
Just take their chances and "cast your fate to the winds."
No one in his right mind woud do that.

IF Frank saw 7 year old Noah Yates snatching up a gun from anywhere
while Andrea was dragging him to the lethal bathtub, Frank woud have stolen it
from him, right Frank???? because he is too young??????? [glub, glub, gurgle, gurgle!]

Frank really hates the idea of "equal protection of the laws"
if a young person is involved!!

David

Easy David...you are going to blow a gasket.

Baldimo asked me for some sensible restrictions...and I gave him some.

If you don't agree with them...fine.

If you think they will be difficult to implement and enforce...fine.

I think they are sensible restrictions...and I recognize
that they will be difficult to implement and enforce. But I do consider them sensible restrictions.

I posted to expose the flaws in your reasoning.
I saw that u did not challenge my observations qua "equal protection of the laws."
The kid has 1OO% as much right to defend his life and property
as any banker or any police officer. Agreeed ????????
David

Frank Apisa wrote:

Right!

I did not challenge your notion that elementary school kids
should be allowed to carry guns to school.

There is a bridge too far...even for me.

In their state of statutory helplessness,
thay might not live to reach the other end of the bridge.

I invite u to consider & discuss your implied defined limit:
members of the human race share an EQUAL RIGHT to defend
their individual existence (True or False??),
but people below voting age are not members of the human race
because thay are so stupid that thay shud be left (like Noah Yates)
to take their chances in defenselessness and screw-them,
if thay get killed because thay obayed gun control laws.

Comment?? Tell us of the morality of self defense?
of equality?? Tell us that it is MORE important
that citizens have equal seating on public buses (Rosa Parks case)
than it is to defend their lives from violence??

According to DAVID, it is bad enuf
that children are screwn out of their natural right to vote;
thay shud not also be screwn out of their natural right to fight back.
David

I'm going to decline to discuss some of the things that you have raised here, David, because I think the idea of allowing children in grammar school to carry weapons into school...no matter how well trained...to be one of the most absurd suggestions I have ever heard made by anyone... at any time...anywhere.

OmSigDAVID wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Baldimo wrote:

For the most part Frank I don't see an issue with our current gun laws.
Others have called for the controls Frank not me, so I'm not going to
create restrictions where I don't see a problem. Once again, what is a sensible restriction?

Frank Apisa wrote:

I do not think people with obvious severe mental problems
should be allowed to own and carry guns.

How r u going to PREVENT them from doing what u don t want????
Will u do it as successfully as u have prevented them from getting marijuana or heroin ?
Will u do it as successfully as u stopped them from having access to as much alcohol
as thay wanted, including bathtub gin??
Do u believe that kids are virgins qua beer, because it is un-lawful???
Were YOU ?

Frank Apisa wrote:

I do not think minors...particularly very young minors... should be allowed to carry guns.

When I was that age, I 'd not have allowed
that decision -- that of my ability to defend my life -- to rest
in the hands of any other person.
If my guns had been stolen, I 'd surely re-arm as fast as I possibly coud.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Restricting those people from owning and carrying guns
are, in my opinion, sensible.

Y shud thay put up with that, Frank??
Just take their chances and "cast your fate to the winds."
No one in his right mind woud do that.

IF Frank saw 7 year old Noah Yates snatching up a gun from anywhere
while Andrea was dragging him to the lethal bathtub, Frank woud have stolen it
from him, right Frank???? because he is too young??????? [glub, glub, gurgle, gurgle!]

Frank really hates the idea of "equal protection of the laws"
if a young person is involved!!

David

Easy David...you are going to blow a gasket.

Baldimo asked me for some sensible restrictions...and I gave him some.

If you don't agree with them...fine.

If you think they will be difficult to implement and enforce...fine.

I think they are sensible restrictions...and I recognize
that they will be difficult to implement and enforce. But I do consider them sensible restrictions.

I posted to expose the flaws in your reasoning.
I saw that u did not challenge my observations qua "equal protection of the laws."
The kid has 1OO% as much right to defend his life and property
as any banker or any police officer. Agreeed ????????
David

Frank Apisa wrote:

Right!

I did not challenge your notion that elementary school kids
should be allowed to carry guns to school.

There is a bridge too far...even for me.

In their state of statutory helplessness,
thay might not live to reach the other end of the bridge.

I invite u to consider & discuss your implied defined limit:
members of the human race share an EQUAL RIGHT to defend
their individual existence (True or False??),
but people below voting age are not members of the human race
because thay are so stupid that thay shud be left (like Noah Yates)
to take their chances in defenselessness and screw-them,
if thay get killed because thay obayed gun control laws.

Comment?? Tell us of the morality of self defense?
of equality?? Tell us that it is MORE important
that citizens have equal seating on public buses (Rosa Parks case)
than it is to defend their lives from violence??

According to DAVID, it is bad enuf
that children are screwn out of their natural right to vote;
thay shud not also be screwn out of their natural right to fight back.
David

Frank Apisa wrote:

I'm going to decline to discuss some of the things that you have raised here, David, because I think the idea of allowing children in grammar school to carry weapons into school...no matter how well trained...to be one of the most absurd suggestions I have ever heard made by anyone... at any time...anywhere.

OK, so your justification of the abuse
of the juvenile victims is simply to insult the victims.

By your exhibited choices, u define yourself qua what is going on
in your mind. It is an issue of life and death. My memory returns
to the unfortunate Noah Yates who fully complied with ALL gun control laws.
The penalty for obaying gun control laws is death,
in the discretion of a violent predator, be he man or beast.
I root for the underdog.


I advocate for the victims; u are on the other side, morally complicit.
You are guilty of naked prejudice
against the young in a matter of life & death.

I remember an ABC World News TV report when Peter Jennings
hosted the newscast; 1990s, probably. It concerned the school
where the students were required by their school rules to bring guns
to class, in one of the Northwestern States. There had been some
juvenile casualties from predatory fauna, on the way to school.
The powers-that-be decided that handguns were not of sufficient power
to adequately defend the kids on their way to school.
Thay were required to bring shoulder-mounted weapons,
probably rifles. Thay had an interview with a group of those students,
aged 8 to 12, as I remember looking wholesome, cheerful, blond kids.
Said interview revealed that each day thay arrived in school,
put their coats on the coatrack, their hats on the hatrack
and their guns on the gunrack. At the end of the day,
thay took their stuff and went home, with no trouble.

Frank tacitly implies that, because of their ages and presumed stupidity,
kids are a bunch homicidal maniacs, and un-worthy of self defense.
I can think of no worse insult than saying or implying
that someone is so stupid that he is un-worthy of defending his own life.

I have spent years in the presence of well armed kids, with NO trouble.
Contrast that with the 71 year old police captain (retired)
who murdered a citizen in a movie theater because he texted.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-texting-shooting-florida-theater-20140114,0,917340.story#axzz2qUixOIiR

Then Frank runs away, pretending to be right. Sad.
I guess that 's because Frank finds it IMPOSSIBLE
to rationally justify his anti-youth emotions in this life or death issue.

Presumably, Frank woud feel differently if predatory violence
had hit closer to home, against some young person who enjoys Frank's favor,
if that victim had successfully defended his life, tho by un-lawful means.

It 'd be better sportsmanship in debate to admit to being incorrect.
David

because I think the idea of allowing children in grammar school to carry weapons into school...no matter how well trained...to be one of the most absurd suggestions I have ever heard made by anyone... at any time...anywhere.

OmSigDAVID wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Baldimo wrote:

For the most part Frank I don't see an issue with our current gun laws.
Others have called for the controls Frank not me, so I'm not going to
create restrictions where I don't see a problem. Once again, what is a sensible restriction?

Frank Apisa wrote:

I do not think people with obvious severe mental problems
should be allowed to own and carry guns.

How r u going to PREVENT them from doing what u don t want????
Will u do it as successfully as u have prevented them from getting marijuana or heroin ?
Will u do it as successfully as u stopped them from having access to as much alcohol
as thay wanted, including bathtub gin??
Do u believe that kids are virgins qua beer, because it is un-lawful???
Were YOU ?

Frank Apisa wrote:

I do not think minors...particularly very young minors... should be allowed to carry guns.

When I was that age, I 'd not have allowed
that decision -- that of my ability to defend my life -- to rest
in the hands of any other person.
If my guns had been stolen, I 'd surely re-arm as fast as I possibly coud.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Restricting those people from owning and carrying guns
are, in my opinion, sensible.

Y shud thay put up with that, Frank??
Just take their chances and "cast your fate to the winds."
No one in his right mind woud do that.

IF Frank saw 7 year old Noah Yates snatching up a gun from anywhere
while Andrea was dragging him to the lethal bathtub, Frank woud have stolen it
from him, right Frank???? because he is too young??????? [glub, glub, gurgle, gurgle!]

Frank really hates the idea of "equal protection of the laws"
if a young person is involved!!

David

Easy David...you are going to blow a gasket.

Baldimo asked me for some sensible restrictions...and I gave him some.

If you don't agree with them...fine.

If you think they will be difficult to implement and enforce...fine.

I think they are sensible restrictions...and I recognize
that they will be difficult to implement and enforce. But I do consider them sensible restrictions.

I posted to expose the flaws in your reasoning.
I saw that u did not challenge my observations qua "equal protection of the laws."
The kid has 1OO% as much right to defend his life and property
as any banker or any police officer. Agreeed ????????
David

Frank Apisa wrote:

Right!

I did not challenge your notion that elementary school kids
should be allowed to carry guns to school.

There is a bridge too far...even for me.

In their state of statutory helplessness,
thay might not live to reach the other end of the bridge.

I invite u to consider & discuss your implied defined limit:
members of the human race share an EQUAL RIGHT to defend
their individual existence (True or False??),
but people below voting age are not members of the human race
because thay are so stupid that thay shud be left (like Noah Yates)
to take their chances in defenselessness and screw-them,
if thay get killed because thay obayed gun control laws.

Comment?? Tell us of the morality of self defense?
of equality?? Tell us that it is MORE important
that citizens have equal seating on public buses (Rosa Parks case)
than it is to defend their lives from violence??

According to DAVID, it is bad enuf
that children are screwn out of their natural right to vote;
thay shud not also be screwn out of their natural right to fight back.
David

Frank Apisa wrote:

I'm going to decline to discuss some of the things that you have raised here, David, because I think the idea of allowing children in grammar school to carry weapons into school...no matter how well trained...to be one of the most absurd suggestions I have ever heard made by anyone... at any time...anywhere.

OK, so your justification of the abuse
of the juvenile victims is simply to insult the victims.

By your exhibited choices, u define yourself qua what is going on
in your mind. It is an issue of life and death. My memory returns
to the unfortunate Noah Yates who fully complied with ALL gun control laws.
The penalty for obaying gun control laws is death,
in the discretion of a violent predator, be he man or beast.
I root for the underdog.


I advocate for the victims; u are on the other side, morally complicit.
You are guilty of naked prejudice
against the young in a matter of life & death.

I remember an ABC World News TV report when Peter Jennings
hosted the newscast; 1990s, probably. It concerned the school
where the students were required by their school rules to bring guns
to class, in one of the Northwestern States. There had been some
juvenile casualties from predatory fauna, on the way to school.
The powers-that-be decided that handguns were not of sufficient power
to adequately defend the kids on their way to school.
Thay were required to bring shoulder-mounted weapons,
probably rifles. Thay had an interview with a group of those students,
aged 8 to 12, as I remember looking wholesome, cheerful, blond kids.
Said interview revealed that each day thay arrived in school,
put their coats on the coatrack, their hats on the hatrack
and their guns on the gunrack. At the end of the day,
thay took their stuff and went home, with no trouble.

Frank tacitly implies that, because of their ages and presumed stupidity,
kids are a bunch homicidal maniacs, and un-worthy of self defense.
I can think of no worse insult than saying or implying
that someone is so stupid that he is un-worthy of defending his own life.

I have spent years in the presence of well armed kids, with NO trouble.
Contrast that with the 71 year old police captain (retired)
who murdered a citizen in a movie theater because he texted.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-texting-shooting-florida-theater-20140114,0,917340.story#axzz2qUixOIiR

Then Frank runs away, pretending to be right. Sad.
I guess that 's because Frank finds it IMPOSSIBLE
to rationally justify his anti-youth emotions in this life or death issue.

Presumably, Frank woud feel differently if predatory violence
had hit closer to home, against some young person who enjoys Frank's favor,
if that victim had successfully defended his life, tho by un-lawful means.

It 'd be better sportsmanship in debate to admit to being incorrect.
David

I reiterate:

I'm going to decline to discuss some of the things that you have raised here, David, because I think the idea of allowing children in grammar school to carry weapons into school...no matter how well trained...to be one of the most absurd suggestions I have ever heard made by anyone... at any time...anywhere.

because I think the idea of allowing children in grammar school to carry weapons into school...no matter how well trained...to be one of the most absurd suggestions I have ever heard made by anyone... at any time...anywhere.

What's absurd is having 300 millions of guns in circulation.

OmSigDAVID wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Baldimo wrote:

For the most part Frank I don't see an issue with our current gun laws.
Others have called for the controls Frank not me, so I'm not going to
create restrictions where I don't see a problem. Once again, what is a sensible restriction?

Frank Apisa wrote:

I do not think people with obvious severe mental problems
should be allowed to own and carry guns.

How r u going to PREVENT them from doing what u don t want????
Will u do it as successfully as u have prevented them from getting marijuana or heroin ?
Will u do it as successfully as u stopped them from having access to as much alcohol
as thay wanted, including bathtub gin??
Do u believe that kids are virgins qua beer, because it is un-lawful???
Were YOU ?

Frank Apisa wrote:

I do not think minors...particularly very young minors... should be allowed to carry guns.

When I was that age, I 'd not have allowed
that decision -- that of my ability to defend my life -- to rest
in the hands of any other person.
If my guns had been stolen, I 'd surely re-arm as fast as I possibly coud.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Restricting those people from owning and carrying guns
are, in my opinion, sensible.

Y shud thay put up with that, Frank??
Just take their chances and "cast your fate to the winds."
No one in his right mind woud do that.

IF Frank saw 7 year old Noah Yates snatching up a gun from anywhere
while Andrea was dragging him to the lethal bathtub, Frank woud have stolen it
from him, right Frank???? because he is too young??????? [glub, glub, gurgle, gurgle!]

Frank really hates the idea of "equal protection of the laws"
if a young person is involved!!

David

Easy David...you are going to blow a gasket.

Baldimo asked me for some sensible restrictions...and I gave him some.

If you don't agree with them...fine.

If you think they will be difficult to implement and enforce...fine.

I think they are sensible restrictions...and I recognize
that they will be difficult to implement and enforce. But I do consider them sensible restrictions.

I posted to expose the flaws in your reasoning.
I saw that u did not challenge my observations qua "equal protection of the laws."
The kid has 1OO% as much right to defend his life and property
as any banker or any police officer. Agreeed ????????
David

Frank Apisa wrote:

Right!

I did not challenge your notion that elementary school kids
should be allowed to carry guns to school.

There is a bridge too far...even for me.

In their state of statutory helplessness,
thay might not live to reach the other end of the bridge.

I invite u to consider & discuss your implied defined limit:
members of the human race share an EQUAL RIGHT to defend
their individual existence (True or False??),
but people below voting age are not members of the human race
because thay are so stupid that thay shud be left (like Noah Yates)
to take their chances in defenselessness and screw-them,
if thay get killed because thay obayed gun control laws.

Comment?? Tell us of the morality of self defense?
of equality?? Tell us that it is MORE important
that citizens have equal seating on public buses (Rosa Parks case)
than it is to defend their lives from violence??

According to DAVID, it is bad enuf
that children are screwn out of their natural right to vote;
thay shud not also be screwn out of their natural right to fight back.
David

Frank Apisa wrote:

I'm going to decline to discuss some of the things that you have raised here, David, because I think the idea of allowing children in grammar school to carry weapons into school...no matter how well trained...to be one of the most absurd suggestions I have ever heard made by anyone... at any time...anywhere.

OK, so your justification of the abuse
of the juvenile victims is simply to insult the victims.

By your exhibited choices, u define yourself qua what is going on
in your mind. It is an issue of life and death. My memory returns
to the unfortunate Noah Yates who fully complied with ALL gun control laws.
The penalty for obaying gun control laws is death,
in the discretion of a violent predator, be he man or beast.
I root for the underdog.


I advocate for the victims; u are on the other side, morally complicit.
You are guilty of naked prejudice
against the young in a matter of life & death.

I remember an ABC World News TV report when Peter Jennings
hosted the newscast; 1990s, probably. It concerned the school
where the students were required by their school rules to bring guns
to class, in one of the Northwestern States. There had been some
juvenile casualties from predatory fauna, on the way to school.
The powers-that-be decided that handguns were not of sufficient power
to adequately defend the kids on their way to school.
Thay were required to bring shoulder-mounted weapons,
probably rifles. Thay had an interview with a group of those students,
aged 8 to 12, as I remember looking wholesome, cheerful, blond kids.
Said interview revealed that each day thay arrived in school,
put their coats on the coatrack, their hats on the hatrack
and their guns on the gunrack. At the end of the day,
thay took their stuff and went home, with no trouble.

Frank tacitly implies that, because of their ages and presumed stupidity,
kids are a bunch homicidal maniacs, and un-worthy of self defense.
I can think of no worse insult than saying or implying
that someone is so stupid that he is un-worthy of defending his own life.

I have spent years in the presence of well armed kids, with NO trouble.
Contrast that with the 71 year old police captain (retired)
who murdered a citizen in a movie theater because he texted.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-texting-shooting-florida-theater-20140114,0,917340.story#axzz2qUixOIiR

Then Frank runs away, pretending to be right. Sad.
I guess that 's because Frank finds it IMPOSSIBLE
to rationally justify his anti-youth emotions in this life or death issue.

Presumably, Frank woud feel differently if predatory violence
had hit closer to home, against some young person who enjoys Frank's favor,
if that victim had successfully defended his life, tho by un-lawful means.

It 'd be better sportsmanship in debate to admit to being incorrect.
David

Frank Apisa wrote:

I reiterate:

I'm going to decline to discuss some of the things that you have raised here, David, because I think the idea of allowing children in grammar school to carry weapons into school...no matter how well trained...to be one of the most absurd suggestions I have ever heard made by anyone... at any time...anywhere.

Is the screaming supposed to make a point???
Have u decided that shrieking is proof of merit, Frank??

Your cloture saddens me.
Dispassionate debate can be fun.

I recognize your 13th Amendment right to refuse to participate,
but your choice is irrational.





I 'll just express these ideas (for now, anyway):
if a maybe 8 or 1O year old Frank Apisa 's life were threatened in
the streets by some dogs, or robbers; or if he were becoming the victim
of a sexual pervert, about to subject Frank to an un-speakable atrocity,
I 'd hope that the young Frank had immediate access to a defensive gun
in time to be able to CONTROL that emergency.
I 'd not want the predators to have the monopoly-of-power
that gun control grants to human or animal predators who ignore the law.

( I also suspect that at those ages, Frank was probably not steeped
in malice, evil or spite such as to murder folks if he got near a gun,
but admittedly, I don t know for sure. )
David

I 'm gonna continue to recognize your 13th Amendment right
to refuse to participate, but your choice is irrational.