Gun owners: time to go on the offensive!

C

cpileri

New member
Time to change tactics from a fighting retreat to attack.
Let's take the MN reservation shooting and turn it to OUR agenda!

"Pro-Freedom Groups point to lack of ability to defend themselves as contributor in deaths from school shooting"...

Heartless? Not considerate of the bereaved? TOUGH. The anti-s don't have anything in mind but their agenda and that's the battlefield we need to fight them on! So let's have JPFO and Alan Gottlieb and GOA and the NRA (yeah right) come out with a statement like the one above.

What we're doing isn't working so its time to change tactics!

C-
 
Unless you are suggesting

that STUDENTS be armed in school, your premise fails. They are, after all, the primary targets AND the first to encounter these homicidal freaks.

If that IS what you are suggesting, something else has failed. Severely and egregiously.
 
Because anyone unde 21 is not allowed to own a handgun, and anyone under 18 has to have parental/gaurdenship presence to handle a handgun, arming the students would be hard to get across. SO... issue 18.5" pump shotguns to certain students, based on testing and other criteria (grades, stability, maturity, etc.) That might slow down some of these nuts.

Pops
 
I think that he's talking about arming the teachers and the administrative staff.

Yet, I've met many a smart young people out there that I would feel better if they were watching my six. Some as young as 13. All there mentally and most were wordsmiths that could tell a bully to f'off and the bully would take it as a compliment :).

Wayne
 
Adults, not kids

I didn't specify in my proposed quote because adding that to the headline of a newsstory would make the already too long quote even longer.
The body of the story would of course explain the details.

My point is, we have been fighting- and LOSING, frankly- the gentleman's war against the anti-gun/anti-freedom crowd since 1934. If a long, drawn out LOSS is ok with you, then my idea is not for you. But to WIN; that is, repeal the laws restricting (dare i say, infringing?) our freedoms, i am coming to the opinion that we need to begin to think about more aggressive, active tactics.

We need to be the first to throw a response to world and local events! HCI is already posting their swill about the MN shootings. We need our side not to simply REACT to what HCI or DiFi says, but to proclaim from on high our OWN response! Copy the enemy's successful model and self righteously put forth the idea that lack of freedom to defend yourself left those people easy targets and say it like you mean it! Say it as if there's no way in the world anyone could disagree.
No apologies, no compromise!

In this game a compromise is a LOSS.

That's my idea, more or less. I hope our leadership and political voice catches on.

C-

P.S. Honestly, Number 6, i don't know where I confused you.
 
Last edited:
The solution is simple. Restrict all entries to one point. Harden the outer deenses and install wrong way tire deflators. A mini police station for the School Resource Officer. Begin to harden the campus with small slits for windows. Escorts of 2:1 for visitors. Centrally located video and other security measures command post. A external vehicle patrolling the campus. Canine patrol for locker and bookbag sniffing. The problem is, do we want a SUPERMAX high school??
 
To expand on the post:

When our country was founded, we didn't have gun control laws (like we have now, I know that some towns had a leave your guns at the sheriffs office deal) until around 1934. We've been going down the road of more and more gun controls laws and quite frankly, they aren't working.

So why not go down the other road? If you're not getting anywhere on the road that you are on, do you keep on going? Or do you turn around and see if the opposite direction will get you to where you need to be?

I could never quite grasp this concept, that if it's not working then keep on going down the same road and hope that you will get to where you wish to be. I've driven this United States of America three times and when I find myself not getting to where I should be, I turn around or take different routes until I find and get where I want to be.

The anti's yell and scream about blood in the streets, but according to them right now, there is already blood in the streets and gun control has been going on for many, many decades. This, to a normal, mentally sane, person would show that it's just not working.

So turn around, if there is already blood in the streets then the flow won't stop if we try something new, like freedom. But why are they so afraid to try all aspects and "roads" and then see what works and what doesn't? We already know that gun control doesn't work, so therefore, maybe everyone with guns will work.

It's really time to put out all this PC'ness and get back to living our lives free of fear. We shouldn't fear the DA's, or the judges, or the person walking down the street that turns out to be arrested 26 times and then ends up attacking and killing a little girl. With the right tools, and the right attitudes, we should be able to go about our business knowing that we have all the tools, and the law, necessary to pursuit our Life and Liberty.

And forth and foremost, we owe it to those that can't protect themselves, our children and others, to take the responsibility to do so. I would rather see the news headline that the shooter was taken down before any more carnage could happen. The person that took him/her down, a citizen that carried a gun because in America, this is a Right.

For those that think that gun bans are the right thing to do and to ensure that our children and older people are helpless, then please move to England or anyother of the countries that disarm their people. Just please have enough money so you can pay for "protection".

Wayne
 
The Brady Campaign and VPC seem to both be blaming "the easy availability of assault weapons".

Given the circumstances, it might be reasonable to pursue the issue that they really don't even trust cops with guns. (The LEO Grandfather was the first victim. His gun, belt, vest and police car were used in the shooting.)

I will assume that VPC doesn't wish to "disarm" our brothers in blue; but they'd obviously be more comfortable if Cops were forced to surrender those weapons for "safe-keeping" when going off duty. After all, LEO's tend to have the most "dangerous" "assault weapons".

I'd love to have Morris Dees in a 1 on 1 public debate and ask him if he feels this shooting could have been avoided by additional Gun Control. He looses hands down, no matter which position he takes.

BTW, Morris.....the Grandfather and Companion were murdered with an evil 22 rimfire. Bring it on.
Rich
 
yeah

Thanks, Rich Lucibella; that's yet another way to turn it around on them. Hitting thee law enforcement angle and the disarmed easy target angle is perhaps in bad taste, not to everyone's liking (mine either) but in the long run much more lasting harm will be done if we lose the 2A altogether!
C-
 
any attempt at blaming guns is nothing more than covering the symptoms and not addressing the root of the problem:

what compelled this kid to kill?
 
We should ban all guns like Washington D.C. has. That way it all the killings will stop like they have in D.C..... (I know its been said before)

Speaking of gun control how is it know one, either pro or anti gun, has said what I find to be the obvious. If ALL guns were banned in this country like England has done and ALL guns were taken away from criminals then we all should see what happens next. (and it is happenning now) Just like drugs have been smuggled into this country guns will be too. The criminals will be the only ones to have the guns and will shoot, rob and kill the law abiding citizens (I know...it's been said). If an administrator had a gun or one teacher in Columbine or Minnesota then the kids might have been saved from massacre. The democrats (I'm a dem too but please don't stereotype me or hold it against me) and anti gun republicans (a minority I know) don't realize that until we have an utopian (in their eyes) anti gun society, never have to face war again, never have to defend our country form invasion again (sometime in the next 100 years it could happen), and close our borders to even the minutest amount of smuggling, then we need our guns.

I honestly think that we should bring up the fact that guns are smuggled into this country now and will only get worse if they ban our guns. The illegal gun market will grow because the same happened with alchohol and drugs and you know the criminals will want fully auto and grenade launchers.

(sorry for being too long and wordy but I really think we should bring this up)
 
USP: For those that think that gun bans are the right thing to do and to ensure that our children and older people are helpless, then please move to England or anyother of the countries that disarm their people. Just please have enough money so you can pay for "protection".

WELL SAID

AMEN
 
I would have to disagree with the idea of "arming teachers" etc. I view this the same way as commercial pilots; simply remove all legal obstacles to them bearing arms.
 
The elegant solution:

"I would have to disagree with the idea of "arming teachers" etc. I view this the same way as commercial pilots; simply remove all legal obstacles to them bearing arms."

There you go - NO new laws; no new class of super-citizens possessing rights the great unwashed are denied. And an effective deterrent to school slaughters (not to mention teachers being safer staying after class or going through the parking lot).
 
Not saying arm all teachers just a qualified teacher or administrator (which may be just a CCW permit?). I don't want our kids to be threatened by an authority figure because the person is strapping, but I do want there to be a gun and someone to use it to stop a massacre. It will also prevent a few of these incidents if the dellusioned kid thought that there was someone to stop him before he killed even one person (at the school). The security guard at school on the metal detector wasn't even armed for crying out loud. There would be less need for administartors or teachers to carry if there was a cop in school fulltime (like most of my state) but most school districts can't afford that. In some districts in the U.S. the cops are 30 minutes away from the school.
 
I'd say that teachers lawfully eligdable to carry should be able to do so on the job at thier discretion. However, I think more importantly security guards that already in place at many schools need to armed and trained. The school in question had such a guard... he was not armed and he was among the list of fatalities. Had he been armed this psycho kid might have been stopped before he got access to the other children.
 
Now that I remember something, the guard alone being armed may not have been enough. In Washington D.C. in the capitol building a guy approached the metal detector and then pulled his gun and shot the two armed officers before they could respond. He went on a short rampage in the U.S. capitol trying to kill senators. :(
He's facing capital charges for the capitol killings in our nation's capital. ;)
 
I mentioned to my wife this morning that the school had metal detectors and an armed guard at the door where this little *%$#@ entered the school.

"How did he get in, then?" she asked.

"Simple. He shot the guard and walked right in." I replied.

"So how do you defend against someone who does something like this?" she asked.

"More guns in more responsible hands." I said. "Arm the principal and most teachers too."

She didn't like the idea, but didn't have any alternatives of her own either.
 
I'd say that teachers lawfully eligdable to carry should be able to do so on the job at thier discretion. However, I think more importantly security guards that already in place at many schools need to armed and trained. The school in question had such a guard... he was not armed and he was among the list of fatalities. Had he been armed this psycho kid might have been stopped before he got access to the other children.
Click to expand...

Armed or not, he was the kid's first target. One of the main values of CCW for the rest of the populace (in this case, the students) is that bad guys don't know who is carrying and so they don't know who to specifically target.
 
BluesMan,

She didn't like the idea, but didn't have any alternatives of her own either.
Click to expand...

This is just it, the people that don't want guns (owned and operated by the adults) in schools have no solutions to the problem with the exception of more gun laws. You know, just one more gun law and that'll fix it :rolleyes: .

And I will give cmj a hand because he did try to come up with a solution but the school shooting in WI proved that those solutions didn't work. The guard that was the first killed wasn't armed and even if he were, got ambushed but just the hearing of the initial shot would have gotten those with guns ready for protection of their charges (students).

Why not try it the other way (more guns in responsible hands) and see if that works instead of passing "just one more gun law, yup, that'll do it" BS.

Wayne
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top