(02-05-2016 12:20 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-04-2016 07:51 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(02-04-2016 05:20 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I think it's fair to say that someone who wanted to purchase a gun without raising any red flags and didn't want to risk buying one on the black market would consider going to a gun show. Why then would anyone resist mandatory background checks at gun shows?

You do realize you are describing a situation where the number of people that purchase firearms to commit crimes is infinitesimal. However, you are placing an enormous burden on a number of people that are law abiding citizens exercising their CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

You make an excellent point. I do not want that. I honestly respect people's right to own a weapon. However, I also understand that if you have a couple hundred bucks to buy a gun, $25 isn't actually an enormous burden is it? I'm sure there is a way that the government could waive that fee or somehow reimburse someone for going through the trouble.

Or since it would have an minuscule effect on they could just leave it as is.

(02-05-2016 12:24 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 12:20 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-04-2016 07:51 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(02-04-2016 05:20 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I think it's fair to say that someone who wanted to purchase a gun without raising any red flags and didn't want to risk buying one on the black market would consider going to a gun show. Why then would anyone resist mandatory background checks at gun shows?

You do realize you are describing a situation where the number of people that purchase firearms to commit crimes is infinitesimal. However, you are placing an enormous burden on a number of people that are law abiding citizens exercising their CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

You make an excellent point. I do not want that. I honestly respect people's right to own a weapon. However, I also understand that if you have a couple hundred bucks to buy a gun, $25 isn't actually an enormous burden is it? I'm sure there is a way that the government could waive that fee or somehow reimburse someone for going through the trouble.

Or since it would have an minuscule effect on they could just leave it as is.

Perhaps. But by the same token, couldn't it be said that school shootings are extremely minuscule and therefore there is no need to arm teachers?

In both cases, there is the very slim possibility that doing one or the other or both could prevent someone from killing innocent children and therefore should be considered as an option. Wouldn't you agree?

(02-05-2016 12:53 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 12:24 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 12:20 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-04-2016 07:51 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(02-04-2016 05:20 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I think it's fair to say that someone who wanted to purchase a gun without raising any red flags and didn't want to risk buying one on the black market would consider going to a gun show. Why then would anyone resist mandatory background checks at gun shows?

You do realize you are describing a situation where the number of people that purchase firearms to commit crimes is infinitesimal. However, you are placing an enormous burden on a number of people that are law abiding citizens exercising their CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

You make an excellent point. I do not want that. I honestly respect people's right to own a weapon. However, I also understand that if you have a couple hundred bucks to buy a gun, $25 isn't actually an enormous burden is it? I'm sure there is a way that the government could waive that fee or somehow reimburse someone for going through the trouble.

Or since it would have an minuscule effect on they could just leave it as is.

Perhaps. But by the same token, couldn't it be said that school shootings are extremely minuscule and therefore there is no need to arm teachers?

In both cases, there is the very slim possibility that doing one or the other or both could prevent someone from killing innocent children and therefore should be considered as an option. Wouldn't you agree?

Arming teachers doesn't put an undue burden, financially or otherwise, on anyone's Constitutional rights.

(02-05-2016 01:17 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 12:53 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 12:24 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 12:20 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-04-2016 07:51 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  You do realize you are describing a situation where the number of people that purchase firearms to commit crimes is infinitesimal. However, you are placing an enormous burden on a number of people that are law abiding citizens exercising their CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

You make an excellent point. I do not want that. I honestly respect people's right to own a weapon. However, I also understand that if you have a couple hundred bucks to buy a gun, $25 isn't actually an enormous burden is it? I'm sure there is a way that the government could waive that fee or somehow reimburse someone for going through the trouble.

Or since it would have an minuscule effect on they could just leave it as is.

Perhaps. But by the same token, couldn't it be said that school shootings are extremely minuscule and therefore there is no need to arm teachers?

In both cases, there is the very slim possibility that doing one or the other or both could prevent someone from killing innocent children and therefore should be considered as an option. Wouldn't you agree?

Arming teachers doesn't put an undue burden, financially or otherwise, on anyone's Constitutional rights.

It does the moment that a child is accidently shot by a teacher.

(02-07-2016 11:29 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 01:17 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 12:53 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 12:24 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 12:20 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  You make an excellent point. I do not want that. I honestly respect people's right to own a weapon. However, I also understand that if you have a couple hundred bucks to buy a gun, $25 isn't actually an enormous burden is it? I'm sure there is a way that the government could waive that fee or somehow reimburse someone for going through the trouble.

Or since it would have an minuscule effect on they could just leave it as is.

Perhaps. But by the same token, couldn't it be said that school shootings are extremely minuscule and therefore there is no need to arm teachers?

In both cases, there is the very slim possibility that doing one or the other or both could prevent someone from killing innocent children and therefore should be considered as an option. Wouldn't you agree?

Arming teachers doesn't put an undue burden, financially or otherwise, on anyone's Constitutional rights.

It does the moment that a child is accidently shot by a teacher.

If that happens then there are laws to handle it.

But I'm willing to bet a child is more likely to be molested by their teacher than shot by one.

(02-07-2016 11:32 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-07-2016 11:29 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 01:17 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 12:53 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 12:24 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Or since it would have an minuscule effect on they could just leave it as is.

Perhaps. But by the same token, couldn't it be said that school shootings are extremely minuscule and therefore there is no need to arm teachers?

In both cases, there is the very slim possibility that doing one or the other or both could prevent someone from killing innocent children and therefore should be considered as an option. Wouldn't you agree?

Arming teachers doesn't put an undue burden, financially or otherwise, on anyone's Constitutional rights.

It does the moment that a child is accidently shot by a teacher.

If that happens then there are laws to handle it.

But I'm willing to bet a child is more likely to be molested by their teacher than shot by one.

Then perhaps we should arm the children.

(02-07-2016 11:35 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Then perhaps we should arm the children.

Vocational education for the child's career

(02-07-2016 11:35 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-07-2016 11:32 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-07-2016 11:29 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 01:17 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 12:53 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Perhaps. But by the same token, couldn't it be said that school shootings are extremely minuscule and therefore there is no need to arm teachers?

In both cases, there is the very slim possibility that doing one or the other or both could prevent someone from killing innocent children and therefore should be considered as an option. Wouldn't you agree?

Arming teachers doesn't put an undue burden, financially or otherwise, on anyone's Constitutional rights.

It does the moment that a child is accidently shot by a teacher.

If that happens then there are laws to handle it.

But I'm willing to bet a child is more likely to be molested by their teacher than shot by one.

Then perhaps we should arm the children.

If the educational system doesn't find a way to do a far better job of keeping perverts out of the classroom then we might have to do just that.

We took are guns to school back in the day.

(02-07-2016 11:58 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-07-2016 11:35 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-07-2016 11:32 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-07-2016 11:29 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 01:17 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Arming teachers doesn't put an undue burden, financially or otherwise, on anyone's Constitutional rights.

It does the moment that a child is accidently shot by a teacher.

If that happens then there are laws to handle it.

But I'm willing to bet a child is more likely to be molested by their teacher than shot by one.

Then perhaps we should arm the children.

If the educational system doesn't find a way to do a far better job of keeping perverts out of the classroom then we might have to do just that.

I agree.

(02-07-2016 12:00 PM)Paul M Wrote:  We took are guns to school back in the day.

We did too.

Wasn't a big deal to get up at dawn, go to one of the local pond and bust some wood ducks at daylight, then go to school. Clean the ducks on the tailgate and throw them in the cooler. Shotguns in the truck, coach would let us shower and change in the PE locker room. When school let out go back to the locker room change back in to you hunting clothes and go shoot more woodies that afternoon.

Or load all your gear up the night before and leave from school to go get in the deer stand. Most falls my deer rifle and shotgun were behind my truck seat all the time.

Seemed gun racks were standard equipment back then.