Libs hate facts, truth, and history. It gets in the way of their agenda.

The second Amendment does not grant us the people any Rights. The second Amendment, and the whole Bill of Rights for that matter, only addresses and declares certain Rights belonging to the people, but does not create any for them.

Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, the most influential legal commentator in early America, in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, said, concerning the second Amendment,

“The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time ofanding armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facilee means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them
And yet, thought this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How is it practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights.”

Amen preach on brother

Where are the stats on people killed by cars driven by drunk drivers and reckless drivers?

Or, like my ex-mother-in-law's brother who was brutally beaten to death. The murderer was a career felon with a long rap sheet and out on parole. He knocked Gibbons down and repeatedly smashed his head against a parking curb, crushing his skull in. He was unrecognizable after the murder....When he went to court, here is his answer to why he did it...."I did it because he was white and he was there."

Speaking of race...don't take this the wrong way, I'm not asking this or expressing this thought from a racist point of view (well, at least not entirely), merely stating (my assumption of) the facts.

Looking at that graph, it is clear that handguns are the main type of gun used in murders and other types of violent crimes, which I'm sure surprises no one here, and shouldn't surprise anyone anywhere. No, they shouldn't be banned or restricted either. It is handguns that are most often used in gang/drug related/inner city violence and murders, which are mainly committed by minorities, specifically blacks.

I wonder what the murder statistics would look like if we took out crimes committed by that group. I've searched for that information, but I couldn't find exactly what I was looking for. Like most topics regarding race, there are not a lot of good studies, because (theoretically) if the facts were there in black and white, they couldn't be ignored and the real problems would have to be addressed (although in today's world, they would just be ignored by the powers that be).

That frustrates me-not just about this issue, but about a lot of things that are going on in politics today. Everything-frome taxes, the debt/deficit, immigration, health care, and gun control-is addressed not based on facts, but on the goals of the progressive agenda. In medicine, we practice what is referred to as "fact-based medicine"' meaning that the drugs and procedures we use and do not use are based on research-do these drugs/procedures really do what we think they do? Do they yield the best possible outcome with the least possible risk? Are they safe? Are there better alternatives? Point being, there are many examples in medicine where things that are/were done that seem to make logical sense and to be safe and effective, were found to not be once that were examined more closely.

Why not use this approach in politics? We should. It seems like it's so simple.
Gun control is a great example. It's been done before. It's being done in certain states and cities now. There are statistics and studies out there. Just like the above graph. Proves the point. If they wanted to combat the problem, they'd approach it logically. First, identify the problem. Next, identify the causes. Establish reasonable goals. Devise practical strategies to reach them. This clearly is not what they plan to do. Obama has said as much. Paraphrasing-this isn't going to be some long, drawn out commission...I want bills before congress in one month. That timeframe in and of itself, precludes any meaningful examination of the problem and possible ways to make things better...but then again, that's not their goal, rather their goal is advancing the relentless progressive agenda of tyranny.

.

Docott -

If America could drop the murder rate of Black Americans to equal that of their percantage of the population (Thus they are 12.5% of the pop, and would do 12.5% of the murders), you would see a reduction of 38% of murders.

In 2010, there were 12,996 murders in the US. Blacks committed 6400 of them. By dropping their murder rate to equal that of whites, we would have 4938 less murders, dropping our total yearly murder number to 8058.

You will never hear a peep of those statistics from liberals though.

Wayne LaPierre, the NRA spokesman knocked it out of the part in his speech today.

When the Huffington Post goes after you, you know you did something good.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/2 ... 46382.html

Libs are pooping in their pants when Lapierre stated that we need to Arm folks in schools. Notice the libs ignore that we did the same thing with Air Marshals after 9-11, and no more planes have been taken over.

Notice in all of this, not one person in the MSM has gone back and talked about Obama appointing Kevin Jennings as his pick for "Safe School Czar" four years ago. Jennings has no record of keeping schools safe, his claim to fame was teaching homosexuality to elementary children, and he also bragged about knowing a minor that was having gay sex with a grown man, and never reporting it.

Why not a peep over that one?

I want to find a copy of it

Wow, Let me see a lib, step up and debate this speech without lying.

http://o.canada.com/2012/12/21/full-tex ... -massacre/

"But do know this President zeroed out school emergency planning grants in last year’s budget, and scrapped “Secure Our Schools” policing grants in next year’s budget."

Wow. Shit like this should make his sorry ass just as guilty of the murders.

He's talking about a training program not that the nra will personally supply armed officers to every school. He's saying they will offer a training program to any schools that wish to participate. READ, YOU FUCKING MORON!

Dguidry,,,"it sounds great, but its all posturing"????? So thats the liberal viewpoint???? Thats it???? What your plan,,,is it to get rid of guns? Do you think that will help?

Never mind it can be implemented a hell of a lot faster than more useless restrictions.

Any gun owner who is not a member of the NRA, should be ashamed of himself.

Come on Chauvin-don't you know posturing is only allowed for liberals? Kind of like lying, I guess.

Let's see...what has worked?...I know!..."Assault weapons" ban!...Just like the one that prevented that mass shooting in Connecticut!...That's the ticket!...Just think of how many future shootings will be avoided when we make that law nation-wide!

So, progressives are pushing a ban that was already in place in the state where the massacre occurred as a solution for preventing future mass murders?!?! No matter which side of the gun control debate you're on, even if you beleive that "assault weapons" should be banned, you've got to admit that exploiting a tragedy to push a policy that didn't work in the very event you're exploiting seems rediculous.

They should push for more "gun-free zones". That worked well, too. Hell, make the entire country "gun-free zone". Poof-no more gun crime.

when hit with a real and viable solution, libs crap their pants and run away crying.

After 9-11, we put Air Marshals on flights, and the hijacking stopped.

You have to remember, libs do not want less violence, less murder (the refuse to speak about the black on black crime).

They want your gun, and they will lie, cheat, and steal to get it.

-Dean Guidry - so you are telling me that folks already working at the school can not have a follow on duty of being the armed watch? How about hiring a disabled vet? How about arming the vice principle? There are all manner of solutions.

The NRA just pulled down the curtain, and showed libs to be the liars we all know them to be. They do not want a solution, they only want my guns.

some schools already do finance it.

Believe me though, there are more than enough liberal crap programs that could be cut to afford keeping our kids safe.

the bank has an armed guard, the mall does, they are at football games, armed guards secure the president, they secure famous athletes, they secure the hollywood elite.....

We can afford to have them guard our children against terrorists.

Hell, I'd pay for my own training and volunteer a half day a few times a month (I do have to work;) and I don't even have children! (nor a military/law enforcement background, so I probably wouldn't qualify, but you get the point).

I think having armed law enforcement people in schools would be good for reasons other than the one we're discussing. Now, you'd have to have somewhat "cool" leo's, or at least some that understood and liked kids, but...
Imagine the benefit that having people like that in your school if you were a disadvantaged youth, where you would see them every day, get to know them, see that they weren't the bad guys, see thyat they cared, see that you could trust them. That's a big part of the black crime problem-distrust, for right or wrong. The leo's would also get to know the kids in their precincts really well. They would know what was going on, they would get a sense of impending problems-perhaps in time to intervene. This way, when the leo and the kid met on the street, even years later, there would be a relationship that would serve both well.

Islamic terrorists were targeting schools in Israel. Israel armed teachers, and it stopped.

A former TEAM guy and one of my best friends taught me this phrase...

"If you plan for a fair fight, your tactics SUCK!!"

What our pansy assed government has done is create these gun free zones thinking that criminals will actually follow these rules when they did not previously. Thereby making it a fair fight of two unarmed sides.

Our pansy assed government refuses to acknowledge is that it makes it easier for criminals. Thank the Lord, that Wayne said that on the news conference.

Why is it, that the only group that actually wants to reduce the crime and make our country safer is the same group that our pansy assed government and media wants to vilify?

The pansy assed, ignorant, lying, two faced politicians want to purposely let crime get worsen so they can push their antigun agenda on the subjects (most would say citizens, but they treat us as subjects.)

it all comes down to the liberals wanting total control

In reality, the federal gov should butt out completely, and keep their nose out of it (along with getting completely out of our public schools).

Let the states and local communities fix these problems, like the founding fathers intended.

Hillary and the village of idiots only make things worse.

Obama has never uttered a speech with as much truth, common sense, and power that Wayne LaPierre gave today. The liberal press will mock him, democrat politicians will despise him, but real Americans know his words to be true.

If you supported Obama, then you are supporting the desecration of our second amendment rights. You knew it going into the election, and now we can all see the emperor has no clothes

I was 100% correct. The liberal, pro-communist media (mouthpiece for Obamaism) is mocking the head of the NRA.

They (the left) hate our constitution, they hate the 2nd Amendment, they hate Bible truth, and it just pours from their mouths.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/2 ... 52203.html

the nra comment about an armed guard at all schools is whack!!!! Do away with gun free zones and allow those people with ccl do what they need to . if a teacher has a ccl she should be able to carry and do it without anyone knowing she is carrying.......If people know she is carrying, then a gunman could target him or her first......make it annonymous and add a scenerio to the ccl class dealing with a gunman at a workplace....that way everyone is trained to deal with it and can watch for crossfire problems etc......

I think he hit the nail on the head. The politicians will not be able to handle the truth. They continue to seem to know what is best for the public and exclude themselves from their decisions.

Im not sure about making schools more like prisons.....its conditioning kids to accept an authoritarian state of living. My kids school has changed up their security and i think it is knee jerk. The class rooms are locked at the bell and not unlocked untill the next change of classes and some other changes and restrictions. I really dont agree with giving up freedoms and increasing "security" like this in the name of "safety". When we give up our freedom to defend ourselves, things like sandy hook happen. I think the most effective and efficiant way to deal with school security is to allow those employees that have passed the background check and profeciancy test carry if they choose. This would allow for the fastest reaction and response time and I know that one or more of the employees would try and stop or slow down a shooter until the "first" responders got their.

When Obama's kids go to school, people with guns protect them, but your kids do not deserve the same protection

Well, if there is that little threat to my kids, then there is no reason to ban "assault" weapons. So the threat level to the average child at school is high enough to pointlessly restrict my freedoms and millions of other responsible gun owners', but not so great as to require, or even allow, trained personel-be they guards or teachers-to have guns on campus? Hmmm...you can't have it both ways.

Next year, after the ban on "assault" weapons and "high-capacity magazines" is in effect, and a lunatic kills children with a revolver, a rifle or pistol with a 10 or less capacity magazine, or a shotgun, then what?
I agree-the answer is to eliminate "gun-free zones" and allow cc by those who want to do so. It's free, and when you think about it, why, especially in light of recent events, how can we, in good conscience, deny teachers the right to defend themselves?!? Additionally, I assume that "gun-free zones" were established with the intent of making schools, etc. safer, because, of course if guns aren't allowed, there won't be any there. Looks like only the good guys followed the law-just like only the good guys will follow the next round of freedom-limiting gun laws, and we and our children will all be alittle less safe and a little less free.

So Guidry does agree that our children are not as important