More than 450 people in Florida ordered to give up guns under new law (9/11, crimes)

[Huckleberry3911948]

At last a gun free zone
You have made a lot of predators happy

[swilliamsny]

Is anyone else concerned that the judges have approved EVERY file that's been brought to them?! Sounds a lot like rubber-stamping to me. Of course, there's no way to prove it, but really, over 400 cases, you'd think that at least one or two would have been tossed out.

[NY_refugee87]

Originally Posted by Mircea

Copperud is wrong.



The 2nd Amendment is no different.

[Copperud:] (4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated.

Cooperud is wrong, because there's a presumption that a person owning a fire-arm is rational, free of mental defect, who will do good for Society, or at the very least, not cause harm to Society, and which does not obligate a gun-owner to defend the US, or his State or his property or even his own life, and who will not engage in criminal actions or cause harm to Society.

Most of you seem to forget that many of the Framers of the Constitution were lawyers, and those who were not were often trained in the basics of the legal system, and that they were advised by lawyers. They were all well educated and very well read, especially in Greek philosophy and Greek plays.

Laws of the day -- and even now -- are predicated on the assumption that people act rationally, and that a person's actions are based on choices resulting from reason.

It isn't necessary to preface anything and everything in legal documents with that principle, because it's the basis of law itself.

How is Copperud wrong?

CDC FBI 2 entities tasked with the research of crime and death/violence, have published information following the research that as firearms became more common in private hands crime has gone down.
Okay. There's the whole correlation is not causation argument...

However, when it was published in 2013 at the order of the CDC conducted by the National Academies Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council stating
"Defensive use of a firearm occur in frequency of 500,000 to 3,000,000 instances in comparison to 300,000 violent offenses committed with a firearm for year 2008."

Now. What does the FBI UCR data show for year 2008? 9,484
And for 2016? 11,004 firearm related homicides.

Since NICS has been implemented there has been 291,745,698 background checks performed.
This is not an accurate indication of exactly how many firearms there are in private hands. I can assure you, since I was a kid, all I have ever heard about is 300 million firearms in this nation.

Assuming 300 million firearms were in the nation in private hands, when I was 11/12 years old when NICS was implemented... that's 500 million if only every background check passed and only 1 firearm was transferred on a 4473. You can transfer up to 5 firearms on a 4473. There are states where a Concealed carry permit does not warrant a background check for purchasing a firearm. That also does not take into consideration fabricating your own firearms at home either.
Realistically that's like 800 million to a billion.

You would think... if mentally deranged and murderers have proliferated, murder and homicide via firearm would be in the 6 figure range to correspond your implications that Copperud was wrong. For the numbers being so low in comparison to the population of a nation of 320 million...

2016 numbers being 11,004 total homicides committed with a firearm...
Population say 320 million for simplicity sake...
That's 0.0034% of the population rounded for simplicity, succumbing to homicide via a firearm by either a loon or criminal.

Population of the US in 2016 according to the census Bureau says
323,127,513. It still remains at 0.0034%

So where is Copperud wrong? Logic would imply the numbers of homicides nation wide would be higher. It is a scientific statistic minority of the population, not majority of the population, implying the majority of the population are not committing crimes or are mentally ill, but a very small number that engages in criminal enterprise, and is mentally ill committing atrocities.

I would argue the majority of society/population is rational, free of mental defect, who will do good for Society, or at the very least, not cause harm to Society, and most certainly would assemble to defend the nation if called upon/need be.

I'm interested in how you arrived to that conclusion that Copperud is wrong. Wrong because of the fact homicides with a firearm did exist? Contradicting Copperud on a technicality for if even so much as 1 criminal homicide with a firearm exists, Copperud was completely wrong?

[Roboteer]

No one has ever claimed that allowing everyone who wants to, to own and carry a gun, will result in a perfect society with 100% safety.

Such a society would simply be safer than any other, such as when govt has the power to disarm its citizens and/or decide who can carry a gun and who can't.

Mostly because that power has historically been one of the most-abused in human history, and has promoted more murders (including mass murders, holocausts, and mass starvations of citizens) than any other power of government.

And those who think that "Oh, but OUR government would never abuse its power like that!!!" ...are kidding themselves.

That's why the 2nd amendment was written the way it was: with NO exceptions. Because a few whackos with guns would do far less damage than a government with the power to disarm everybody it wants to.

[NY_refugee87]

Originally Posted by Roboteer

No one has ever claimed that allowing everyone who wants to, to own and carry a gun, will result in a perfect society with 100% safety.

Such a society would simply be safer than any other, such as when govt has the power to disarm its citizens and/or decide who can carry a gun and who can't.

Mostly because that power has historically been one of the most-abused in human history, and has promoted more murders (including mass murders, holocausts, and mass starvations of citizens) than any other power of government.

And those who think that "Oh, but OUR government would never abuse its power like that!!!" ...are kidding themselves.

That's why the 2nd amendment was written the way it was: with NO exceptions. Because a few whackos with guns would do far less damage than a government with the power to disarm everybody it wants to.

You are right.
Waco was about a suspicion of possible full auto machine guns being on the property.
Ruby Ridge was over a shot gun with a barrel cut down below 18 inches in length.

[rstevens62]

Originally Posted by NY_refugee87

You are right.
Waco was about a suspicion of possible full auto machine guns being on the property.
Ruby Ridge was over a shot gun with a barrel cut down below 18 inches in length.

LOL, they were so worried about full autos in Waco, but then this same Govt turns around and supplies the mexican drug cartels with full auto Ak47s in operation Fast and Furious...?

I wouldnt be surprised if some 3 letter agency supplied the Waco compound with some full autos, JUST so they can justify what they did in response.

Its kind of the same tactic with the war on drugs, they enable to cartels, they ensure all drugs are as illegal as possible, make sure they have little to no competition, and then turn around and use all that to justify the war itself! LOL

This govt really needs to be removed from power completely, not just electing a different president and swapping out politicians for other politicians, the WHOLE thing needs to come down and start over from scratch, that would really be the most patriotic thing for the country at this point.

[NY_refugee87]

Originally Posted by rstevens62

LOL, they were so worried about full autos in Waco, but then this same Govt turns around and supplies the mexican drug cartels with full auto Ak47s in operation Fast and Furious...?

I wouldnt be surprised if some 3 letter agency supplied the Waco compound with some full autos, JUST so they can justify what they did in response.

Its kind of the same tactic with the war on drugs, they enable to cartels, they ensure all drugs are as illegal as possible, make sure they have little to no competition, and then turn around and use all that to justify the war itself! LOL

This govt really needs to be removed from power completely, not just electing a different president and swapping out politicians for other politicians, the WHOLE thing needs to come down and start over from scratch, that would really be the most patriotic thing for the country at this point.

I don't disagree.
However, with Trump rolling back regulations with his, for every 1 new regulation, 2 are rolled back... it's a start.

Isn't it strange, how people have gone from being self sufficient and independent to reliant and dependent upon government?
Make a boogey man. Tell the people, this is something to fear. Get the media to spin it up as something scary. Convince the people they have something to fear with inflammatory reporting. Legitimize fear. Pander to the group that has been herded into fear. Gain their votes. Enact a law that does nothing but criminalize what they fear, or don't understand.
Then when that law fails. Expand on it. Oh protect us big brother! It's getting scarier!

Years ago, the boogey man was marijuana. At least most folks today are waking up and saying "Your scare tactics and nonsense aren't working on us anymore, with that issue."

But wait, it gets better...
Because emotions are involved... and the left are beyond hypocritical.

You take a legitimate issue they should be concerned with. Something that really kills the population off. You tell them a certain behavior or lifestyle is legitimately risky or detrimental for their own good. They will fight you to the death to defend that behavior or lifestyle.

Take promiscuity for an example.
You logically explain the risks, the diseases, the effects of a single parent household, the degradation of morals and values associated with promiscuity.
They'll fight and argue to the death to ensure degenerate behaviors go on. Why? Because abortion is accessible, a single parent household does not need to be.
You shouldn't sl*t shame! That's mean!
There's condoms and expensive medications to treat diseases. Thats why we need free health insurance! To have free access to medications, free birth control, and free condoms.
Know what's free? Doesn't cost a thing? Works?
Not diddling everyone with a pulse. Having control over a carnal craving.
REEEEEEEE! NO! YOU CAN'T TELL A PERSON TO NOT ENGAGE IN RISKY BEHAVIOR! THAT'S DENYING THEIR RIGHTS!

Really. Yet. You'll sit there with a straight face and recite all the reasons why the right to keep and bear arms is risky and should be modified to your liking... interesting.

Take obesity for an example.
You logically explain the risks, the diseases, the effects of a sedentary lifestyle, the degradation of morals and values with having to accept/normalize being overweight.
They'll fight and argue to the death to ensure degenerate lifestyles and behaviors go on. Why?
Because free health insurance would ensure everyone sees a doctor so they can be told their diet is bunk, their habits are unhealthy.
You shouldn't fat shame! That's mean! Big is beautiful! People can't help their genes!
There's doctors that can help plan diets, perform surgery to correct it! We can tax food and beverages to dissuade people from buying it!
Know what's free? Doesn't cost a thing? Proven to work?
Not eating everything in sight. Not guzzling soda like it's water. Going for walks/jogs. Having control over hunger urges.
REEEEEEEE! NO! YOU CAN'T TELL A PERSON TO NOT EAT WHATEVER THEY WANT OR TO BE MORE ACTIVE! YOU'RE NOT A DOCTOR! YOU'RE JUSTIFYING PICKING ON PEOPLE BECAUSE OF THEIR MISFORTUNE! PLUS THINK OF THE TAX REVENUE ON FAST FOOD AND JUNK FOOD!

Really. Yet. You'll sit there with a straight face and recite all of the reasons why the right to keep and bear arms is detrimental to ones health and should be modified to your liking. Interesting.

I can go on with examples. But this will be the last one.

Take the opioid problem for an example.
You logically explain the risks associated with opioid pain inhibitors, the effects of abuse, the fact that it doesn't stay solely with pain medications, it expands to intravenous drug use, due to tolerance building. You talk of the degradation of morals and values in favor of coddling this mythical belief that addiction is a disease.
They'll fight and argue to the death to ensure degenerate life threatening behaviors and lifestyles continue.
Why?
Because. Free health insurance would make sure people aren't doping up. Those that are, would be able to get free treatment for their addiction!
How dare you say addiction is not a disease! How dare you judge others! How dare you stigmatize addiction!
You know what's free? Doesn't cost a thing? Proven to work?
NEVER STICKING A NEEDLE IN YOUR ARM! Instead of taking pain killers, take the pain. Suck it up. 2 herniated discs in my back, a screwed up ACL in my right knee, a torn rotator cuff, all before age 25 and the pain I deal with daily would turn you snowflake pricks into a bedridden cry baby looking for disability benefits. There's times it hurts to breath feels like someone went across my back with a baseball bat, but I suck it up and keep on going, having to torque head bolts and pinion flange nuts to a torque value your PZEV econo box can't even produce my shoulder feels like a bomb went off inside of it. Still doesn't stop me. Just like tolerance to a drug raises, so does ones threshold for pain. But since you namby pamby loons disagree, and feel, not think, nobody should be slightly discomforted so mask the pain with opioids.
Then when they become dependent upon the drug to just survive due to tolerance to the drug building up, and their prescriptions are maxed out, leave them to the street doctors to hop them up with heroin and fentanyl so they can really mask the pain. Right up until cardiac arrest.
Or encourage a frivolous careless lifestyle. Remove the punishments that curb the incentive to seek out drug abuse. Because punishing behavior/curbing behavior is evil, it creates a stigma. People won't die anymore because when they call 911 we can just send neutered police out to administer narcan to prevent just 1 death.
Why make an arrest at a trap house with junkies passed out with needles in their arm? It just adds to the stigma of addiction...

Yet... you can pander to those that abuse drugs. You can rationalize a behavior. You can make the illogical-logical, and tie emotions to it. To justify it continuing. To effectively turn a blind eye to it in the name of free medicine, to justify a social engineering project based on the feels. They aren't concerned with life, they'd be right by my side in condemning poor behaviors and lifestyles. Mocking them. Discouraging them.
Nope. That crosses some sort of line. It hurts the feeble feels.

Yet... despite the fact (the infallible to them) CDC releases reports showing opioid drug abuse kills DOUBLE what firearm related homicides, suicides, and accidents combined, they still sit there with a straight face and want to modify the right to keep and bear arms as according to them. Because guns are dangerous. Think of the children! Who could say no to that emotionally based/driven argument?

You see... every other societal woe, they have an excuse for bad behavior. You can't judge others. You can't persuade people to ignore urges. You can't lead by example because you do not have either an accredited degree in one of their social studies programs, or aren't a doctor/health professional. Or you are written off as anecdotal. So your argument your point of view doesn't matter any more. They'll justify every means to discredit the validity of your views.

I guess their label for me since they love labeling people by race religion gender etc, would be "The Disgruntled Millennial"
I didn't fall for their BS from middle school on.
That would be the dumbing down and conditioning/indoctrinating of my generation to feel and not think. To be accepting of lower standards, non existent morals, ditch personal responsibility, forget about being independent and successful when it can be given to you by the government. It's free and feels good!

Makes sense why they would hate firearms if you think about it.
Those degenerates absolutely hate firearms. Why? Because they come with personal responsibility. And they hate personal responsibility to the point they want individuals to join their cause in expanding government over reach in the feeble name of security and government protection.

Nah. I live in reality. I used to live in NY. Liberals and Rinos have done a great job wrecking that state. I've seen what their ideology brings and I want no part of it.
Tolerance? Acceptance? Non judgemental? Know what that translates to?
Excuses for pizz poor choices, pizz poor behavior, excuses to throw personal responsibility and independence along the wayside in favor of a government controlled utopia that defies the natural condition of humanity. Where everything and everyone has an excuse for their actions and failures. And can justify it too...

Don't sit there with a straight face and tell me you're honestly concerned about firearm related deaths while you do nothing, nor show the same tenacity to those issues, the many other issues that extinguishes life double, triple, what firearms do annually combined with homicide suicide and accidents.

Don't sit there with a straight face and tell me you're doing this and thinking of the children. You'd have never signed the 94 gun free school bill into law. You'd allow school faculty members their right to keep and bear arms on premises to serve in defense of themselves and in the behalf of the children you like to prop up on a pedestal and wave in my face. The gig is up. I was a school kid. I went through a lock down drill. They don't work! Can not sit there with a straight face and tell me you're concerned about school shooters when a teacher herds us onto the floor face down with a wood and glass windowed door to be the only thing that deters a deranged killer. Especially when your politicians and elected officials implement something like the Promise Program that turns a blind eye to legitimate criminal acts and behaviors to enable these tragedies on the basis of.... well it's hard to get into college or serve in the military with an arrest record.

Yeah. So is buying firearms Einstein.

The laws work when enforced, not circumvented by your feeble good feels programs. Blood isn't on my hands. You own gun free school act. You own Promise Program. 2 major contributors to the deranged descending upon schools.
Because they choose to ignore behaviors and personal acountability/responsibility...

Liberals and their Rino cohorts choose to focus on implements. Not actions nor behaviors. Because that would go against the grain of the feels. That would imply genuine concern and a focus on an individuals behavior and acknowledge people are responsible for their actions motives and intentions. But ignore those though. They wouldn't exist if firearms didn't exist, right?

[wutitiz]

Originally Posted by NY_refugee87

You are right.
Waco was about a suspicion of possible full auto machine guns being on the property.
Ruby Ridge was over a shot gun with a barrel cut down below 18 inches in length.

Yes, one-quarter inch below, IIRC.

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by NY_refugee87

How is Copperud wrong?

Because he doesn't understand the basis of law.

Originally Posted by NY_refugee87

CDC FBI 2

...snip...

to a billion.

That's totally irrelevant and non-responsive.

Originally Posted by NY_refugee87

You would think... if mentally deranged and murderers have proliferated,...

I never stated, implied or suggested that mentally deranged murderers have proliferated.

Originally Posted by NY_refugee87

So where is Copperud wrong?

I explained that quite clearly. Copperud does not understand the basis of law. He simply has knowledge of English Grammar & Composition, and his claim is based on the grammatical construction of the text, which I did not dispute.

Originally Posted by NY_refugee87

Logic would imply the numbers of homicides nation wide would be higher.

That's not even relevant to the argument.

Originally Posted by NY_refugee87

I'm interested in how you arrived to that conclusion that Copperud is wrong.

As I explained in the previous post, he's wrong, because he does not understand the basis of law.

Law is predicated on certain presumptions, which have been a part of legal jurisprudence for many, many centuries, so much so, that these presumptions are entrenched in law and need not be stated each and every time a statute is constructed by a Convention, a Congress, a State legislature, or a county or municipality, because they are understood.

[Jo48]

Originally Posted by NY_refugee87

I don't disagree.
However, with Trump rolling back regulations with his, for every 1 new regulation, 2 are rolled back... it's a start.

Isn't it strange, how people have gone from being self sufficient and independent to reliant and dependent upon government?
Make a boogey man. Tell the people, this is something to fear. Get the media to spin it up as something scary. Convince the people they have something to fear with inflammatory reporting. Legitimize fear. Pander to the group that has been herded into fear. Gain their votes. Enact a law that does nothing but criminalize what they fear, or don't understand.
Then when that law fails. Expand on it. Oh protect us big brother! It's getting scarier!

Years ago, the boogey man was marijuana. At least most folks today are waking up and saying "Your scare tactics and nonsense aren't working on us anymore, with that issue."

But wait, it gets better...
Because emotions are involved... and the left are beyond hypocritical.

You take a legitimate issue they should be concerned with. Something that really kills the population off. You tell them a certain behavior or lifestyle is legitimately risky or detrimental for their own good. They will fight you to the death to defend that behavior or lifestyle.

Take promiscuity for an example.
You logically explain the risks, the diseases, the effects of a single parent household, the degradation of morals and values associated with promiscuity.
They'll fight and argue to the death to ensure degenerate behaviors go on. Why? Because abortion is accessible, a single parent household does not need to be.
You shouldn't sl*t shame! That's mean!
There's condoms and expensive medications to treat diseases. Thats why we need free health insurance! To have free access to medications, free birth control, and free condoms.
Know what's free? Doesn't cost a thing? Works?
Not diddling everyone with a pulse. Having control over a carnal craving.
REEEEEEEE! NO! YOU CAN'T TELL A PERSON TO NOT ENGAGE IN RISKY BEHAVIOR! THAT'S DENYING THEIR RIGHTS!

Really. Yet. You'll sit there with a straight face and recite all the reasons why the right to keep and bear arms is risky and should be modified to your liking... interesting.

Take obesity for an example.
You logically explain the risks, the diseases, the effects of a sedentary lifestyle, the degradation of morals and values with having to accept/normalize being overweight.
They'll fight and argue to the death to ensure degenerate lifestyles and behaviors go on. Why?
Because free health insurance would ensure everyone sees a doctor so they can be told their diet is bunk, their habits are unhealthy.
You shouldn't fat shame! That's mean! Big is beautiful! People can't help their genes!
There's doctors that can help plan diets, perform surgery to correct it! We can tax food and beverages to dissuade people from buying it!
Know what's free? Doesn't cost a thing? Proven to work?
Not eating everything in sight. Not guzzling soda like it's water. Going for walks/jogs. Having control over hunger urges.
REEEEEEEE! NO! YOU CAN'T TELL A PERSON TO NOT EAT WHATEVER THEY WANT OR TO BE MORE ACTIVE! YOU'RE NOT A DOCTOR! YOU'RE JUSTIFYING PICKING ON PEOPLE BECAUSE OF THEIR MISFORTUNE! PLUS THINK OF THE TAX REVENUE ON FAST FOOD AND JUNK FOOD!

Really. Yet. You'll sit there with a straight face and recite all of the reasons why the right to keep and bear arms is detrimental to ones health and should be modified to your liking. Interesting.

I can go on with examples. But this will be the last one.

Take the opioid problem for an example.
You logically explain the risks associated with opioid pain inhibitors, the effects of abuse, the fact that it doesn't stay solely with pain medications, it expands to intravenous drug use, due to tolerance building. You talk of the degradation of morals and values in favor of coddling this mythical belief that addiction is a disease.
They'll fight and argue to the death to ensure degenerate life threatening behaviors and lifestyles continue.
Why?
Because. Free health insurance would make sure people aren't doping up. Those that are, would be able to get free treatment for their addiction!
How dare you say addiction is not a disease! How dare you judge others! How dare you stigmatize addiction!
You know what's free? Doesn't cost a thing? Proven to work?
NEVER STICKING A NEEDLE IN YOUR ARM! Instead of taking pain killers, take the pain. Suck it up. 2 herniated discs in my back, a screwed up ACL in my right knee, a torn rotator cuff, all before age 25 and the pain I deal with daily would turn you snowflake pricks into a bedridden cry baby looking for disability benefits. There's times it hurts to breath feels like someone went across my back with a baseball bat, but I suck it up and keep on going, having to torque head bolts and pinion flange nuts to a torque value your PZEV econo box can't even produce my shoulder feels like a bomb went off inside of it. Still doesn't stop me. Just like tolerance to a drug raises, so does ones threshold for pain. But since you namby pamby loons disagree, and feel, not think, nobody should be slightly discomforted so mask the pain with opioids.
Then when they become dependent upon the drug to just survive due to tolerance to the drug building up, and their prescriptions are maxed out, leave them to the street doctors to hop them up with heroin and fentanyl so they can really mask the pain. Right up until cardiac arrest.
Or encourage a frivolous careless lifestyle. Remove the punishments that curb the incentive to seek out drug abuse. Because punishing behavior/curbing behavior is evil, it creates a stigma. People won't die anymore because when they call 911 we can just send neutered police out to administer narcan to prevent just 1 death.
Why make an arrest at a trap house with junkies passed out with needles in their arm? It just adds to the stigma of addiction...

Yet... you can pander to those that abuse drugs. You can rationalize a behavior. You can make the illogical-logical, and tie emotions to it. To justify it continuing. To effectively turn a blind eye to it in the name of free medicine, to justify a social engineering project based on the feels. They aren't concerned with life, they'd be right by my side in condemning poor behaviors and lifestyles. Mocking them. Discouraging them.
Nope. That crosses some sort of line. It hurts the feeble feels.

Yet... despite the fact (the infallible to them) CDC releases reports showing opioid drug abuse kills DOUBLE what firearm related homicides, suicides, and accidents combined, they still sit there with a straight face and want to modify the right to keep and bear arms as according to them. Because guns are dangerous. Think of the children! Who could say no to that emotionally based/driven argument?

You see... every other societal woe, they have an excuse for bad behavior. You can't judge others. You can't persuade people to ignore urges. You can't lead by example because you do not have either an accredited degree in one of their social studies programs, or aren't a doctor/health professional. Or you are written off as anecdotal. So your argument your point of view doesn't matter any more. They'll justify every means to discredit the validity of your views.

I guess their label for me since they love labeling people by race religion gender etc, would be "The Disgruntled Millennial"
I didn't fall for their BS from middle school on.
That would be the dumbing down and conditioning/indoctrinating of my generation to feel and not think. To be accepting of lower standards, non existent morals, ditch personal responsibility, forget about being independent and successful when it can be given to you by the government. It's free and feels good!

Makes sense why they would hate firearms if you think about it.
Those degenerates absolutely hate firearms. Why? Because they come with personal responsibility. And they hate personal responsibility to the point they want individuals to join their cause in expanding government over reach in the feeble name of security and government protection.

Nah. I live in reality. I used to live in NY. Liberals and Rinos have done a great job wrecking that state. I've seen what their ideology brings and I want no part of it.
Tolerance? Acceptance? Non judgemental? Know what that translates to?
Excuses for pizz poor choices, pizz poor behavior, excuses to throw personal responsibility and independence along the wayside in favor of a government controlled utopia that defies the natural condition of humanity. Where everything and everyone has an excuse for their actions and failures. And can justify it too...

Don't sit there with a straight face and tell me you're honestly concerned about firearm related deaths while you do nothing, nor show the same tenacity to those issues, the many other issues that extinguishes life double, triple, what firearms do annually combined with homicide suicide and accidents.

Don't sit there with a straight face and tell me you're doing this and thinking of the children. You'd have never signed the 94 gun free school bill into law. You'd allow school faculty members their right to keep and bear arms on premises to serve in defense of themselves and in the behalf of the children you like to prop up on a pedestal and wave in my face. The gig is up. I was a school kid. I went through a lock down drill. They don't work! Can not sit there with a straight face and tell me you're concerned about school shooters when a teacher herds us onto the floor face down with a wood and glass windowed door to be the only thing that deters a deranged killer. Especially when your politicians and elected officials implement something like the Promise Program that turns a blind eye to legitimate criminal acts and behaviors to enable these tragedies on the basis of.... well it's hard to get into college or serve in the military with an arrest record.

Yeah. So is buying firearms Einstein.

The laws work when enforced, not circumvented by your feeble good feels programs. Blood isn't on my hands. You own gun free school act. You own Promise Program. 2 major contributors to the deranged descending upon schools.
Because they choose to ignore behaviors and personal acountability/responsibility...

Liberals and their Rino cohorts choose to focus on implements. Not actions nor behaviors. Because that would go against the grain of the feels. That would imply genuine concern and a focus on an individuals behavior and acknowledge people are responsible for their actions motives and intentions. But ignore those though. They wouldn't exist if firearms didn't exist, right?

Wow. We are bitter. Your experiences in school? Nothing. When I was in school in NYC, we hide under our desks when the Cuban Missiles were pointed at us. Oh, armed teachers would have solved that. People outside of cities built underground shelters in their backyard. We were told to run down into the subways for protection. Did that work on 9/11? Armed society would protect you????? Gimme a break. Your experiences were nothing.

Worked for years in NY (suburbs) Public Schools, but never had a real lock down. We had terrorist drills (not armed intruder) after 9/11. Closed all the windows and the kids were directed into the gym and cafeteria. Know what the school was worried about? Bombs and chemical attacks. Arming teachers to protect against that?

I also worked for years in Florida schools also You live there now, don't you? Transplant as they say there. Florida we had two real lock downs at two different schools in the space of two years. Armed criminals escaping the scene of their crimes. Hid eight three and four year olds in the classroom toilet for 45 minutes while the other eight sat up against a wall. Once those kids started hearing all the police sirens they went into a panic. Do you know what it's like to hold a disabled 4 year old on your lap while sitting on a toilet bowl for 45 minutes with him screaming Mommy, Mommy, Mommy. Oh, but if the school wasn't a Gun Free Zone with staff being armed those criminals would never have ran on to campus to flee the police????? Hey, if both of us in that classroom had been armed, one of us could have sat with gun on the desk with kids in their seats, while the other chased down the criminal and shot him?

Second lock down was also a criminal fleeing police. Newer modern school. We had metal shutters on windows. Hurricanes, not for shootings. The classrooms had pods between each. No windows to outside. No doorways to the hallways. Concrete walls all around. Again, protection against weather. We put the kids in that pod for the lock down. Unless a shooter had been in that school before, they would not know or see those pods. Class I worked in were with pre-teen emotionally disturbed boys who had criminal records. Where they scared? lol They were very excited about somebody with a gun on campus. I am sure they would have been equally excited knowing Teachers had their own guns. Now what do you think they would want to do? Use your imagination.

All I will say in addition is that people with anger issues should not own guns.